Player metagaming

[Quasqueton]

I think I have seen the most hilarious (and ultimately useless) bit of metagaming by a Player.

We were starting a new campaign recently, and I told the Players the game would start in the middle of their voyage from the Old World to the New World (where my campaign usually takes place). The Players created their characters and we began.

The party sorcerer took Aquan as one of her two starting languages. Common and Aquan. Nothing especially fitting for this character about knowing Aquan. She didn't admit to it, but I gotta assume that language was chosen specifically because we were starting the game on the ocean.

Ironically, the ocean voyage of the game only lasted two game sessions, and not a single "aquan" encounter. The only potentially useful non-Common language turned out to be Draconic and possibly Orcish and Goblin.

What are the worst, best, funniest, or most annoying cases of Player metagaming you've witnessed?

Now that I've written the above, I just remembered another case of metagaming at character creation using languages. The party had discovered an ancient elemental temple where being able to read and speak the four elemental languages got them past some guardians without a fight. Before completing the adventure, a near TPK wiped through the party.

One of the Players making a new character asked the other Players what languages they spoke, and finding that only the elemental-summoning druid spoke any elemental languages (Terran and Ignan), she (different Player than above) took Aquan and Auran. [The druid was the lone survivor of the near TPK, and his elemental languages had nothing to do with the temple "puzzle".]

Quasqueton

 

[Hypersmurf]

The party sorcerer took Aquan as one of her two starting languages. Common and Aquan. [I know that actually isn't allowed by RAW.]

Hmm? As long as she's human or half-elf, where's the problem?

-Hyp.

 

[diaglo]

20 dead guys leaving a destroyed tower.

the party is going to the tower as replacements.

the tower is attacked by a Hill Giant.

worst bit of recent metagaming....


Player 1: I say we attack the Giant b/c the DM would never place such a tough encounter here.

 

[Quasqueton]

Hmm? As long as she's human or half-elf, where's the problem?

You know, I put in that bracketed note at the last moment before hitting send because I knew someone was going to home in on that and comment about a rules error. I was just trying to deflect a potential sidetrack. But of course that just drew attention to it, and when making a second read I realized it wasn't actually a rules error after all.

And ironically, the very first response to this thread was exactly what I was trying to avoid. <shrug> Can't win for losing.

Quasqueton

 

[Desdichado]

Metagaming, to some extent, isn't necessarily bad. My shifter ranger, in my Eberron game, for instance, wasn't really living up to his character concept very well thanks to a really low hit point roll (the wizard has more hit points! ) I decided that a few levels of barbarian would help him out. The bigger hit die, the ability to rage and shift (and do both at the same time) were certainly mostly metagame considerations rather than character considerations.

Although both classes fit my character concept quite well; a semi-feral, woodland loving, outdoorsman and guerilla warfare trained specialist who was laid off by the military by the ending of the war just as he was shipping to the front lines. Embittered by missing his shot for glory, he's pursuing other avenues (namely adventuring) to get enough prestige and fame that he can approach his human relations and demand treatment as an equal.

 

[JimAde]

I heard this one second-hand, but it's a case of "metagaming out of necessity." Some friends of mine were in a game where the GM (whom they have played with for years) runs a homebrew universal rules system. The GM said to make up "normal, modern people" characters. Within 30 minutes of the game start they had been kidnapped by aliens and the GM was calling for zero-g skill rolls.

Every single character but one had bought the skill. The GM didn't bat an eye.

 

[fusangite]

I'm with Joshua: metagaming is not necessarily bad. Furthermore, its introduction as a concept has actually made discussions of player and character motivations and actions more confused and problematic. Not only do I not oppose "metagaming" in many circumstances, I wish the term would go out of use and we could start using terms that actually made some sense.

 

[EricNoah]

Thing is, I do want to have the players make characters that will be effective in the given setting. Unless I'm trying to run a fish-out-of-water type game. If I knew of a character with Aquan I might go out of my way to make sure she gets to use it sometime. After all my job is to entertain the players (and they of course are there to entertain me ) -- I personally find it entertaining to see that my skills and powers are effective and I thus assume the same is probably true for others.

Edit: That said -- if I do pick something "weird" and it's pretty clearly for flavor, I don't expect it to come up much if at all. But again, if it does -- it's very entertaining.

 

[Arnwyn]

I don't mind metagaming if it's "metagaming with justification". As long as the players can justify their decisions in the context of the current campaign, then they can metagame until the cows come home AFAIC.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Somewhat like Eric I find your first example to be more a case of "bad DM" than "bad player". It seems to me to be very sound for starting characters to have bothered to choose languages which may have some relevance to the location that the game is starting in, and I can't think why a DM wouldn't think "Great, plot hook!" and make use of the hook which the player has provided.

After all, you wouldn't say a Ranger was metagaming for taking 4 ranks in knowledge(dungeoneering) because the player knew that his adventures were going to be in a dungeon, would you?

Cheers