D&D 5E (2014) player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[iserith]

So, at this point you’re giving up on making actual reasoned arguments and just saying “no, you’re wrong”?

There are no reasoned arguments against that section of the DMG. It very plainly states the matter of how a group handles "metagaming" is a table rule. Some folks seems to really, really want it to be something more than that. There's no good reason for that in my view. If your table rule works for you, great. You don't need the rules to endorse it.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is obviously about maintaining that 'real unknown' that we have talked about so much. Like whether to to hide from the other players that the rogue pocketed part of the loot if their characters didn't notice it and stuff like that.

In this context referring to an overly legalistic manner of reading the rules, possibly involving weaseling with the meaning of words such was done with 'think' and 'know'.

Think and know have very, very different meanings, and it has been clearly illustrated how a player and a character can think something they don’t know. Just because you refuse to accept that the DM can make changes to published material doesn’t mean the think/know distinction isn’t real.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3.5 DMG:

METAGAME THINKING
“I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,” a player says to the others, “because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters’ actions on logic that depends on the fact that they’re playing a game; they’re using metagame thinking. This behavior should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose the other side of the pit has a lever, for example, but it’s rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don’t let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. You have figured out the reason why the trap exists, and the PCs will need to do the same.

In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it.” In fact, this is wonderful—it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.​

4e DMG:

Metagame Thinking: Players get the best enjoyment when they preserve the willing suspension of disbelief. A roleplaying game’s premise is that it is an experience of fictional people in a fictional world.

Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It’s like a character in a movie knowing he’s in a movie and acting accordingly. “This
dragon must be a few levels higher than we are,” a player might say. “The DM wouldn’t throw such a tough monster at us!” Or you might hear, “The read-aloud text spent a lot of time on that door—let’s search it again!”

Discourage this by giving players a gentle verbal reminder: “But what do your characters think?” Or, you could curb metagame thinking by asking for Perception checks when there’s nothing to see or by setting up an encounter that is much higher level than the characters are. Just make sure to give them a way to avoid it or retreat.​

5e DMG:

METAGAME THINKING
Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like when a character in a movie knows it's a movie and acts accordingly. For example, a player might say, "The DM wouldn't throw such a powerful monster at us!" or you might hear, "The read-aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door - let's search it again!"

Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: "What do your characters think?" You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive.​

 

[iserith]

Following up on my last, I'll even throw a bone out there. Here's one of our group's table rules:

Keep Things Moving. We do this by saying "Yes, and..." to our fellow players. When a reasonable idea is proposed, we accept it ("Yes...") and add to it ("and..."). We don't shut down other people's ideas or try to tell other people how to play their characters unless they ask for help. It's discouraging to others and slows the game down.​

There's no support for this in the rules so far as I know. Watch me not tie myself and logic itself in knots trying to prove that there is. Watch me not lose sleep over it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But if I'm a player in your game I may soon realize that if I play my character instead of let you play it for me, I might get a lower DC on my ability check. That seems like an incentive for me to tell you to stop playing my character.

The player of course always has an opportunity to declare and describe their action in more detail. But if they don't that doesn't mean they would just miss certain things automatically. It makes perfect sense: if you examine a think closely, there is greater chance that you notice/remember things about it than if you just glance at it, but even in the latter case there is still a chance that you notice/remember if that was at all possible in the first place.

It seems to overtly punitive to me to just make characters effectively autofail in completely unrealistic manner unless the player constantly remembers to click every pixel in the hopes that this was the right thing that allows them to roll.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, at this point you’re giving up on making actual reasoned arguments and just saying “no, you’re wrong”?

I can't be bothered to repeat the same things that I have said many times already.

 

[iserith]

@Doug McCrae Thanks for posting those. Upthread though, these sections were dismissed as not being relevant to "metagaming." And now the specific section that refers to the group's position on "metagaming" as a table rule has also been dismissed. I think we're past the point of reason.

 

[Charlaquin]

3.5 DMG:

METAGAME THINKING
“I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,” a player says to the others, “because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters’ actions on logic that depends on the fact that they’re playing a game; they’re using metagame thinking. This behavior should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose the other side of the pit has a lever, for example, but it’s rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don’t let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. You have figured out the reason why the trap exists, and the PCs will need to do the same.

In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it.” In fact, this is wonderful—it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.​

4e DMG:

Metagame Thinking: Players get the best enjoyment when they preserve the willing suspension of disbelief. A roleplaying game’s premise is that it is an experience of fictional people in a fictional world.

Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It’s like a character in a movie knowing he’s in a movie and acting accordingly. “This
dragon must be a few levels higher than we are,” a player might say. “The DM wouldn’t throw such a tough monster at us!” Or you might hear, “The read-aloud text spent a lot of time on that door—let’s search it again!”

Discourage this by giving players a gentle verbal reminder: “But what do your characters think?” Or, you could curb metagame thinking by asking for Perception checks when there’s nothing to see or by setting up an encounter that is much higher level than the characters are. Just make sure to give them a way to avoid it or retreat.​

5e DMG:

METAGAME THINKING
Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like when a character in a movie knows it's a movie and acts accordingly. For example, a player might say, "The DM wouldn't throw such a powerful monster at us!" or you might hear, "The read-aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door - let's search it again!"

Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: "What do your characters think?" You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive.​

Since 5e is what we’re discussing, only the 5e entry is particularly relevant. Though it is interesting to see how significant the difference between 3e’s hard “metagame thinking should always be discouraged” stance to 4e’s softer “you can discourage metagame thinking by...” stance, where 5e’s text is mostly the same as 4e’s, with the removal of the suggestion to call for a Perception check when there is nothing to be found (which would be inconsistent with 5e’s approach to ability checks)

 

[Charlaquin]

The player of course always has an opportunity to declare and describe their action in more detail. But if they don't that doesn't mean they would just miss certain things automatically. It makes perfect sense: if you examine a think closely, there is greater chance that you notice/remember things about it than if you just glance at it, but even in the latter case there is still a chance that you notice/remember if that was at all possible in the first place.

This approach would seem to encourage players to examine everything closely, leading to a lot of time spent on carefully studying features of the environment that have little or no significance for fear of missing additional information.

It seems to overtly punitive to me to just make characters effectively autofail in completely unrealistic manner unless the player constantly remembers to click every pixel in the hopes that this was the right thing that allows them to roll.

This is not an accurate characterization of the way many of us adjudicate actions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes it is. It's even phrased in the same way that some of you talk about this issue ("a character wouldn't know"):

"Decide how you feel about a player sharing information that his or her character wouldn't know..."

^ So there's your "metagaming."

This part: "...or that the character is incapable of sharing as a result of being unconscious, dead, or far away..." deals with the separate issue of whether there can be table talk between players whose characters aren't in the same room (or dead or whatever).

It has absolutely nothing to do with using OOC information IC. It is merely about the players sharing information between themselves.