Player metagaming

[Henry]

I had a case of a metagame issue right this weekend. Of my 6 players, Player A plays the party Artificer, and Player B plays the Cleric. The party encountered a Flesh Golem; after some serious injuries, Player A decides that his Artificer is going to smash the golem with some *firepower*. He pulls out a Wand of Lightning bolt, and lights the golem up. Player B just sits and smiles without saying a word, because though he KNOWS that firing lightining at Frankenstein's Monster is a bad idea, his character doesn't know it, and NOT A SINGLE PERSON in the party had Knowledge (Dungeoneering) nor any experience with golems. And player A gets slightly mad at Player B and myself because neither of us warned him! We explained it's what is called "live and learn." Not everything is going to produce the optimal result, and it's not in-character to say otherwise. However, his artificer now knows you DON'T fire eletricity at a Flesh Golem.

Which will definitely come in handy later.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wow. I think to start a light-hearted discussion of metagaming, and I get called a bad DM?

This sucks.

Sorry mate, no offense intended. I apologise for impuning you.

I'd like the following to be taken into consideration m'Lud: Reading your original post I didn't notice (it was late!) that you were the DM. Also, typically when someone says a player is metagaming it is normally used in a perjorative sense (i.e. they the PC is being naughty by using rules outside of what the PC would know). Finally I did put "bad DM" and "bad PC" in quotes to lighten up the way I was using the terms - but that might be a technique which is common in my culture but not in other readers'.

I'm only explaining this so that you can understand where my comment was originally coming from; I would rather that I hadn't offended you.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

FWIW I wouldn't consider a fighter taking the straightest route out of an acid cloud (or whatever) to be any more metagaming than a wizard carefully choosing which vertex to land his fireball on to cause maximum damage - they are both artefacts of the "wargame" aspect of 3e combat with miniatures on a board. The alternative for the fighter (and all the other guys) in the acid cloud is what... roll randomly each round to see which direction they manage to move 5ft in? I rather think that would seriously overpower solid fog, acid fog etc!

I would worry about inappropriate monster knowledge, I might worry about tactics like "I'll wait for the fighter to move in to suck up its AoO then I'll duck in myself" but I can see how that could be legitimate. I would certainly worry if someone had read through a module/adventure that I was using and took advantage of that knowledge.

Cheers

 

[painandgreed]

My biggest problem with metagaming is when PCs use out of character knowledge about a campaign setting that is completely different from mine. Especially when it relates to books and suppliments that I don't even own. When the metaplot advances in ways that my game doesn't, confusion is all around. I see this as a problem with game companies more than the players however, and to solve it, I just create my own homebrew settings. My next biggest problem with metagaming is when characters think of trying to use technology that their characters wouldn't know. When the dumb fighter talks about trying to build a steam engine or flying machine or the theif trys to get equipment made from aluminium. Luckily, most schemes are so complex that they are quickly killed off and never affect the game.

 

[Zen]

I was running a game recently where the team encountered a fiendish scorpion that had been summoned as part of a plan to kill an NPC. After dealing with the scorpion, the players wanted to examine the injuries left by the creature, determine it's size, and thereby determine the caster level of the summoner. From there, they would reverse engineer what spells they might be facing.

This wouldn't have helped them much as they had already guessed wizard and the caster was a cleric, but still, there's something profoundly metagamey about the attitude that all magic in this 'fantasy' world is rigorously ordered to such a degree that you can count magic missiles, multiply by 1.5, and get your opponent's caster level.

Sigh. I guess I should be running a D20 Modern CSI: Miami game instead of D&D.

 

[JimAde]

Yes that's annoying. So I mess with my players. Recently I threw a summoned Huge fiendish spider at them. I kept all the stats for a Large one (which is what they bad guy could actually summon) but just used a Huge mini. Scared them spitless!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I was running a game recently where the team encountered a fiendish scorpion that had been summoned as part of a plan to kill an NPC.

Heck, a DC 20 + Spell Level Spellcraft check would've given them more info.

Kudos to them for trying an in-game, in-character route to get to the information.

 

[fredramsey]

I definitely don't mind "metagaming" in terms of combat tactics, AoO, etc. D&D combat is not at all "simulationist". It is very abstract, almost a game within a game. Now some people, I know, have a real problem with that, and that's fine. But my group has a lot of fun figuring out where the best place is to move to get flanking a couple a rounds from now, etc.

Some monster metagaming is almost unavoidable, like a blessed crossbow bolt can kill a Rakshasa, black dragons spit acid, etc. But that's not necessarily a bad thing either. I tweak monsters enough to keep them on their toes. Amazing what a couple of class levels can do for a monster.

 

[Zen]

Heck, a DC 20 + Spell Level Spellcraft check would've given them more info.

Kudos to them for trying an in-game, in-character route to get to the information.

Well, not really. They knew the scorpion as a summoned creature because it disappeared when they killed it. Unless I misunderstand Spellcraft, a successful check wouldn't give them the caster level, which is what they were trying to determine.

I would have had no trouble with the logic 'A small scorpion = weak magic user'; but what made this strategy too meta-gamey for my liking was it was meant to lead to this conversation: "We're facing a 4th level magic user with access to X spells; he's already cast Y." It's not a good plan anyway because there are so many variables (scroll, anyone?), but they were playing as if their characters had several books at hand that outlined all the details of magic, and if you determined one element, the rest would be easily decipherable. Characters do not have this; even ones with great spellcraft rolls do not have all the rules of magic at their fingertips. Players do. That's what makes this attempt player logic, not character logic, and therefore (ineffective) metagame playing.

I like the idea of using a wrong-sized mini. I like that a lot.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, not really. They knew the scorpion as a summoned creature because it disappeared when they killed it. Unless I misunderstand Spellcraft, a successful check wouldn't give them the caster level, which is what they were trying to determine.

Actually:

20 + spell level: Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

So, a Spellcraft check of 24 will tell you that the spell is one of the Summon Monster spells, I-IV.

Of course, they'd have to do this while the spell was still active. Otherwise:

Lingering Aura: A magical aura lingers after its original source dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a magic item). If detect magic is cast and directed at such a location, the spell indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its original power:

Original Strength Duration of Lingering Aura
Faint 1d6 rounds
Moderate 1d6 minutes
Strong 1d6x10 minutes
Overwhelming 1d6 days

With Faint being spell level 1-3, Moderate 4-6, etc.

Thus, standing around, magically studying the aura through a detect magic spell would give them a rough approximation of the original spell's power. Assuming a 5th-level PC, you could easily tell whether the spell was of spell level 1-3 (it would fade almost instantly). If it took a bit longer (5 minutes or less), you'd know it was spell level 4-5. If the aura outlasted your detect spell, you'd be less certain - it was either a particularly long lasting Moderate effect, or a Strong effect.

Casters higher than 5th-level have no such problems identifying original effect strengths (barring artifact / deity level magic).

"We're facing a 4th level magic user with access to X spells; he's already cast Y."

I don't really see this as a problem, so long as you remember to filter it through your "CharacterScope."

While the players may say something like that, it should be understood that the characters are likely saying something more like, "My mentor is known far and wide for his skill at conjuring, and I've studied the basics of magical theory quite extensively. Spells that pull creatures from other planes of existence have miniscule durations - no more than a few seconds for all but the most powerful of conjurors - and that fight lasted more than a few heartbeats. I surmise that we're dealing with a reasonably powerful wizard, here - one whose powers exceed my own ..." blah blah blah.

Now, *I* can come up with appropriate flavor text for the Spellcraft roll and the results thereof.

Not all players can, and, here's the important part,

nor should they be required to.

If they can, more power to them.

If they can't, complaining about how they're bad, metagamey players certainly isn't going to help anything.