D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[Seramus]

Are all of these solutions okay with you?

Based on previous conversations with him, he would be absolutely fine with all of those solutions.

Granted, you might be wrong... such as if you look up the encounter in the next room of a dungeon and he had prepared something completely different. Or if you prepare a spell designed to defeat a certain monster and he was actually using a custom version of that monster, etc.

 

[iserith]

Well, this is the bigger reason why some of us play one way and other plays another.

Well, yes? Notably I'm not criticizing how anyone else is playing. I'm saying how I play and why.

I for one would not like to play in what sounds like your style of game... because if you genuinely believe that Hussar as a player can play with whatever knowledge he already has, then metagaming should be completely acceptable. Is that correct?

It depends on what you mean by "metagaming" because people seem to have their own definitions of that. But regardless, I'm not concerned with how people make decisions for their characters. My role as DM is to describe the environment and narrate the results of the adventurers actions, sometimes calling for a roll to resolve those actions when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure (as determined by me).

In Hussar's example... if you as the DM will not police his character and stop him from getting himself out of a hole "he himself has put himself in"... it seems to me that you shouldn't have a problem with whatever solutions Hussar comes up with to solve his PC's issue. That would include things like looking up spells in the Player's Handbook. That would include things like looking up monsters in the Monster Manual. That would include doing google searches for relevant historical info. Are all of these solutions okay with you? If Hussar has a question of whether his PC knows a bit of esoterica and you aren't going to give him a method for just determining it (like a check) and instead are going to let him decide for himself whether his PC knows it... then there shouldn't be any problems with him the player just looking up the information and then declaring his PC knows the answer. That was he can avoid the dreaded check altogether.

Yep, no problem with any of that. I had a vampire in my last adventure and a player cracked the Monster Manual open and was reading the vampire entry. It had no effect on the game experience except that the player was able to remind me of a detail related to its misty escape which was relevant to the scene for which I was grateful.

That said, as I've said in this thread already, I do as the DMG suggests and remind the players not to allow "metagame thinking" to lead to bad outcomes for their characters or for their game experience because they acted on bad assumptions. So feel free to use that hard-won knowledge, read the books, Google up the answers. I can't stop you. But know that I often change things and you could be acting on bad information. The smarter play is to verify those assumptions before acting on them. That's up to the player to take action in the game world. I go over this in my Table Rules document which all players can read prior to play.

 

[iserith]

Based on previous conversations with him, he would be absolutely fine with all of those solutions.

Granted, you might be wrong... such as if you look up the encounter in the next room of a dungeon and he had prepared something completely different. Or if you prepare a spell designed to defeat a certain monster and he was actually using a custom version of that monster, etc.

Exactly right. Basing their actions on "metagame thinking" is the player's risk to take. It's their problem to contend with, not the DM's.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yep, we definitely wouldn't like playing at each other's tables.

 

[iserith]

Yep, we definitely wouldn't like playing at each other's tables.

As I said, I'd likely have no issue at your table by the sounds of it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, this is the bigger reason why some of us play one way and other plays another. I for one would not like to play in what sounds like your style of game... because if you genuinely believe that Hussar as a player can play with whatever knowledge he already has, then metagaming should be completely acceptable. Is that correct?

In Hussar's example... if you as the DM will not police his character and stop him from getting himself out of a hole "he himself has put himself in"... it seems to me that you shouldn't have a problem with whatever solutions Hussar comes up with to solve his PC's issue. That would include things like looking up spells in the Player's Handbook. That would include things like looking up monsters in the Monster Manual. That would include doing google searches for relevant historical info. Are all of these solutions okay with you? If Hussar has a question of whether his PC knows a bit of esoterica and you aren't going to give him a method for just determining it (like a check) and instead are going to let him decide for himself whether his PC knows it... then there shouldn't be any problems with him the player just looking up the information and then declaring his PC knows the answer. That was he can avoid the dreaded check altogether.

I’m not Iserith, but I would say that yeah, I’d be fine with that. I mean, I tend to run games in my own homebrew setting, so there aren’t really resources available to look up historical information (and besides that, a lot of history in my setting is lost and/or very muddled in the retelling). And I often modify creatures, so looking a monster up in the monster manual might sometimes be effective, but it also might lead you to act on incorrect assumptions. All that said, even if I was running a published adventure and not modifying the setting or any of the monsters, then yes, I would still be 100% ok with players reading the relevant books and acting on information in them.

 

[Charlaquin]

I go over this in my Table Rules document which all players can read prior to play.

Small aside, I would be interested to read this document, if you would be willing to share it. If not, I understand.

 

[iserith]

Small aside, I would be interested to read this document, if you would be willing to share it. If not, I understand.

Sure. This is the one I generally use for online games wherein I don't expect the players have played together before or with me as DM:

Spoiler

1. Remember the goals of play as stated in the rules: Everyone has a good time together and helps to create an exciting, memorable story. All choices you make at the table should be in service of these goals and no others.

2. Avoid lengthy debates by making use of the improvisational technique known as "Yes, and..." When hearing a serious idea or proposal from another player, accept the idea ("Yes...") then add to it ("...and..."). Try to find the good in it and think of ways it can work rather than ways it can't. Add to someone else's idea to make it better rather than deny it.

3. Describe what you want to do by stating a clear approach to a goal - what you do and what you hope to achieve by doing that. A question is not a statement of goal and approach, nor is asking to make an ability check or the like. Do not roll an ability check before you're asked to do so or an attack roll outside of initiative, unless prompted by the DM.

4. When the spotlight is on you, act immediately. Your turn is for acting, not for thinking about what to do.

5. You decide how your character thinks, acts, and talks. If you wish to inform your character's actions with your experience as a player, that is perfectly acceptable. You are reminded that "metagame thinking" can sometimes lead you to the wrong conclusions. Verifying your assumptions through action is smart play.

6. If, for some reason, you choose to attack or otherwise hinder another player character, the target of the attack or hindrance will get to decide whether it hits, misses, or dice are involved.

7. Be as charitable as possible when interpreting the words and actions of the DM and other players. At the same time, be mindful and courteous of others when choosing your words and actions. Please do not seek to offend or to be offended.

8. Use good microphone etiquette: Mute yourself if you have a lot of continuous background noise. Pay attention and respond promptly. Be understanding of interruptions due to lag or other issues.

EDIT: This is actually a decent topic of its own. I'll start a new thread. I'm curious if other people have something similar.

 

[Oofta]

The problem I see with questioning player actions as “metagaming” is that the line between non-metagame action and metagame action is never clear. Any action however large or small can be called out as metagaming. And if a DM wants players to “perform” their non-meta game ritual before finally attempting the action everyone knows is the right one, how does one determine how many good-faith “non-metagame” actions are required before a “metagame” action is allowed? 1, 3, 10?

Better, as you say, to not even play the “metagame game” with your players and allow them to declare whatever action they wish. Much better, IMHO, to give experienced players a fresh setting to play in where little of their monster knowledge will aid them.

But if a player (or DM) prefers that they rely on PC knowledge instead of player knowledge then there should be an easy way of asking the DM what the PC would know. On the flip side if I have a home brew monster that the players have never seen, there may still be a chance that the PCs have.

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to monsters and what people know. After all, I've never seen a polar bear in the wild but I know that if I do see one and it's hungry I'm in deep doo-doo if I can't get away from it. But a large, hunched over female creature that looks like an old crone? I don't care if you just got done reading XGTE, your PCs probably don't know what an Annis hag is because they haven't ever been seen in this area. If you start telling people what her abilities are, I'm going to ask you to stop.

Which is a long way of saying: different people play with different styles and different reasons.

 

[5ekyu]

But if a player (or DM) prefers that they rely on PC knowledge instead of player knowledge then there should be an easy way of asking the DM what the PC would know. On the flip side if I have a home brew monster that the players have never seen, there may still be a chance that the PCs have.

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to monsters and what people know. After all, I've never seen a polar bear in the wild but I know that if I do see one and it's hungry I'm in deep doo-doo if I can't get away from it. But a large, hunched over female creature that looks like an old crone? I don't care if you just got done reading XGTE, your PCs probably don't know what an Annis hag is because they haven't ever been seen in this area. If you start telling people what her abilities are, I'm going to ask you to stop.

Which is a long way of saying: different people play with different styles and different reasons.

Yeah, I fall more or less onto this camp - be very lenient with what charscters know about the world and its denizens. Ho fir skil checks only in cases where there is z comprllingvreadon to push for it.

My general concept of play as GM is "ssy yes unless I have z compelling reason to say no" and do I tend to put the burden of "ptoof" on me, not the player.

But, I do not feel the meta-gsme thinking case is dome mystery nebulous unfathomable quagmire best avoided. I know that has gotten a bit of youtubery push lately (Nerdarchy, Other Matt, etc iirc snd others) but I expect my players to try and separate player and character knowledge. One primary reason is that we dont drive golks out of the room ehfn the party splits. So, every player sees the other events, even when their character is not there. So, if we say "no-metagame-knowledge", they know not to use it until it is shared and folks can play with much less stoppage for separating groups so dome secrets can be krpt.

Now, I suppose we could just say to heck with that too and just act like everybody knows every scdne we play- but thats not gonna suit our playstyle or themes of games. Our groups are often packed with folks with agendas and secrets and total player knowledge thing eould noe that up.

Course, probably nobody is talking about GM staying out of metagame worries to that extent.