D&D General [Poll] Metagame justifications for in-character behavior

[EzekielRaiden]

Pretty straightforward: when is it okay to use a metagame justification for an in-character behavior? Since I was asked by another user to avoid true/false polling, this is a five-option poll. And since my efforts to add some color to the choices in the past have gotten rather harsh criticism, I've kept it to single-word answers, zero embellishment.

Since "often" and "sometimes" might be ambiguous, if you feel you need further specificity:
"Often" means the significant majority of the time it's fine, but meaningful exceptions exist (e.g. much more than 50% of the time, but shy of 100% of the time.)
"Sometimes" means either there is no pattern (every case has to be judged individually), or the pattern is that it's about equally likely that a given situation is acceptable or not.

 

[Mallus]

Always. The metagame level is the actual world, where all character decisions are ultimately made.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just to clarify, when you say “use a metagame justification for an in-character behavior,” you mean like using a particular tactic because you’re familiar with the monster’s stats? That kind of thing?

 

[James Gasik]

So we had a discussion about metagaming back in March. Here's what I had to say about it then.

Out-of-character/metagame knowledge

There is a degree of OOC knowledge that is necessary to make the game run smoothly. DM's who refuse to let people even use game terminology at the table are shooting themselves in the foot- maybe it breaks your immersion, but I'm reminded of the +1 sword problem. You find an unidentified magic...

www.enworld.org

I feel this kind of metagaming is perfectly justifiable.

In case anyone is curious, here's my definitions of metagaming.

Out-of-character/metagame knowledge

There is a degree of OOC knowledge that is necessary to make the game run smoothly. DM's who refuse to let people even use game terminology at the table are shooting themselves in the foot- maybe it breaks your immersion, but I'm reminded of the +1 sword problem. You find an unidentified magic...

www.enworld.org

 

[Kobold Stew]

I will always play a character who wants to be part of a team and am working to have fun together and not at the expense of one another, and I expect that of other players. For that reason, I have said "always": my metagame expectation of supportive fun trumps any in-world justification for crappy behaviour to one another.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just to clarify, when you say “use a metagame justification for an in-character behavior,” you mean like using a particular tactic because you’re familiar with the monster’s stats? That kind of thing?

If your reason for doing so is because you're familiar with those stats, and not because the character has any reason to know, that would be an example. On the other hand, if the party has fought trolls before, or been taught by an old troll-hunting expert, etc., then there's clearly an in-character reason for them to know that certain tactics work and others don't.

Another example, as referenced in that other thread, would be a character preparing for their new wizard employer to betray them, because they know their DM likes "sudden face-heel turn" drama. A third example would be a spellcaster preparing a whole bunch of undead-fighting spells (out of the many other spells they could prepare) solely because they overheard the DM telling a non-player observer that there would be undead in the next adventure.

Point being: the reason for the behavior is not grounded in the thoughts or knowledge of the characters, but rather in the thoughts or knowledge of the players, regardless of origin.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Always. The metagame level is the actual world, where all character decisions are ultimately made.

That's....an interesting defintion of "metagame." As in, I've never heard that definition before. So you do not distinguish between the thoughts of the characters as they exist within the fiction and the thoughts of the players as they exist on Earth?

 

[iserith]

In my view, why a player makes a decision for their character is nobody's business but that player's. They can do it because they think that's what their character would do, based on established characterization. Or they can do it because they are trying to exploit some kind of game information. Now, if the actual action undertaken is itself not fun for everyone and doesn't contribute to an exciting, memorable tale, then a discussion should be had about it.

Ultimately, any action taken can be justified in some reasonable manner that suits the fictional situation. To suggest otherwise is to admit to a failure of imagination in a game based on make-believe.

 

[Charlaquin]

If your reason for doing so is because you're familiar with those stats, and not because the character has any reason to know, that would be an example. On the other hand, if the party has fought trolls before, or been taught by an old troll-hunting expert, etc., then there's clearly an in-character reason for them to know that certain tactics work and others don't.

Another example, as referenced in that other thread, would be a character preparing for their new wizard employer to betray them, because they know their DM likes "sudden face-heel turn" drama. A third example would be a spellcaster preparing a whole bunch of undead-fighting spells (out of the many other spells they could prepare) solely because they overheard the DM telling a non-player observer that there would be undead in the next adventure.

Point being: the reason for the behavior is not grounded in the thoughts or knowledge of the characters, but rather in the thoughts or knowledge of the players, regardless of origin.

Ok, I get you. I would probably have phrased it as not having an in-character justification rather than having a metagame justification, but I think I understand the intent of the question. I answered “always.”

 

[Charlaquin]

That's....an interesting defintion of "metagame." As in, I've never heard that definition before. So you do not distinguish between the thoughts of the characters as they exist within the fiction and the thoughts of the players as they exist on Earth?

I think it would be more accurate to say that, since the players make all decisions for the characters and exist outside the game world, all actions the character takes are ultimately motivated by out-of-game (“metagame”) factors. Some actions the character takes also have in-fiction justifications, and others do not.