D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[Redneckomancer]

I think that's part of it.

I also think that this goes back to the DM being at fault. They're presenting the players with a challenge... if the challenge is such that things the players already know gives them an unfair advantage, then that's a flawed challenge. Come up with another way to challenge the players.

Expecting them to pretend not to know the thing they know... what does that challenge? Their ability to play dumb?

It's just silly.

This exactly. If a player is playing the game in good faith it shouldn't matter if they're metagaming or not. If you spoil the movie we're watching, it doesn't matter if you've seen the movie before or not, your specific behavior has ruined the experience.
Also, specifically to RPGs, it's really on how the DM runs the game if metagaming (and not being a dick) can ruin it or not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let's say I'm playing an online, competitive game. I know the cheat codes to the game to cheat but I don't use them. According to your logic, I'm still cheating. That's illogical and meaningless, as is the definition you've come up with.

That only follows if you consider cheating = metagaming. If you think that's a given, its not. There are all kinds of reasons to metagame that have no relationship to cheating.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's a key element missing from your analogy.

In the video game example, there is no character knowledge. There is no distinction between what the character in the game knows and what the player knows.

For an RPG, both A and B are examples of the player making a decision for the character based on information they know only as a player. In one case, he uses fire and in the other he doesn't, but in both cases that decision is made because he knows about the weakness to fire.

I don't know why you consider this true. Its no more impossible to play a computer RPG while firewalling away things you know as a player that the character avowedly doesn't than it is in person to person RPGing. There may be more rewards for the latter, but its entirely doable in both cases.

 

[hawkeyefan]

At least to me it is not really not about advantage, at least not mainly. I think the point of roleplaying is to get immersed and inhabit a viewpoint of a fictional person, and part of doing that is to accept that this person will have different amount of knowledge than you the player. If you're incapable of doing that, what's even the point of playing?

Sure, but then if the point is not the challenge of the situation, then the very idea of an unfair advantage goes right out the window.

Then we're just concerned with plausibility or verisimilitude or what have you. In which case, we would work to find a way for the character to know the bit of detail in question.

Or, alternatively, if the player wants to play as if they don't know, hey that's their choice. What's problematic to me is the GM stepping in and trying to make these decisions for them.

If the goal of play is the challenge of the game, then it's a poorly crafted challenge. If the goal of play is to craft a narrative about the PCs, then worrying about "unfair advantages" is misplaced.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Got it now? Actually, scratch that. I don't care. This is a silly tangent argument. Accept my analogy or not I'm not going to argue about it any more.

Just a note that this sort of thing comes across as a passive-aggressive way to try and have the last word. It may not be producing the effect you intend it to.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know why you consider this true. Its no more impossible to play a computer RPG while firewalling away things you know as a player that the character avowedly doesn't than it is in person to person RPGing. There may be more rewards for the latter, but its entirely doable in both cases.

Does the game make you do that and then get mad when you don't?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, but then if the point is not the challenge of the situation, then the very idea of an unfair advantage goes right out the window.

Then we're just concerned with plausibility or verisimilitude or what have you. In which case, we would work to find a way for the character to know the bit of detail in question.

Or, alternatively, if the player wants to play as if they don't know, hey that's their choice. What's problematic to me is the GM stepping in and trying to make these decisions for them.

If the goal of play is the challenge of the game, then it's a poorly crafted challenge. If the goal of play is to craft a narrative about the PCs, then worrying about "unfair advantages" is misplaced.

This.

And - perhaps it goes without saying but I'll do it for emphasis anyway - the two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Well-crafted challenges certainly can go hand in hand with crafting a narrative.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Does the game make you do that and then get mad when you don't?

How is that relevant? We're not talking about what sort of motivations and countermotivations are present, just that you can do it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How is that relevant? We're not talking about what sort of motivations and countermotivations are present, just that you can do it.

No, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Maxperson]

Stating that a particular variation of a definition is right or wrong isn't helpful. It's not going to convince many people who don't already agree with you. The value of bringing one in is in making your own position clear so that people can engage with it honestly. Accusing people of twisting the meaning of a word just poisons the well of conversation.

It's apples and oranges.

I've said, "When my group buys a vehicle, they aren't allowed to buy sports cars, SUVs or trucks, because that would be cheating." And then they came in and said, "Well, since when you go to the dealership you see sports cars, SUVs or trucks, that's the same as buying one by our definition, so it can't possibly be avoided," there's no conversation to be had. You're talking about Martians while I'm talking about fish.

 

[Irlo]

Just an observation: the analogies are obfuscating the points being made in this thread, not clarifying them.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM is using a Dungeon that I've either played through or DMd before. We come upon a fork, I know going left leads to extra treasure. When asked, I counsel going right to "avoid" using that knowledge - that's still metagaming.

Yes, but only because you brought OOC knowledge into the game and made the decision based on it. Why not let the other players who haven't played through it before make the decision? Why not flip a coin? Nothing forces you to use the knowledge when making the decision.

In that dungeon, we are in a room I KNOW has a hidden door that will open if the PC approaches the wall a certain way. I expressly avoid doing that - that is also metagaming.

Why? You don't have to avoid something if there's a valid reason for doing it. Do you never search for secret doors? If yes, then you are not metagaming because you are not expressly avoiding searching based on OOC knowledge, your avoiding it because your character does not search for secret doors. If no, then you do search for them and so searching for one here would not be metagaming.

Metagaming is 100% avoidable. There's never a time where you are metagaming no matter what you choose to do.

NOT acting in a certain way is very likely ALSO bringing in out of character knowledge.

Not acting a certain way CAN be bringing in OOC knowledge, but it's also easily avoidable.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, so your metagaming threshold has moved from "pretty much every combat" to some amount greater than "rarely or never" for leading with fire vs. troll.

The threshold is case by case. You aren't going to be able to pin it down to something specific that applies across the board.

Same parameters (player knows, PC doesn't) except it is the end of the adventuring day and they are out of spell slots.
Is it metagaming if they pick fire bolt over their other attack cantrips... say ray of frost, poison spray, and chill touch... to attack the troll?

What is their go to cantrip that they use when they run out of spells?

 

[Maxperson]

It's not the opposite. A and B from @Xamnam are both instances of a player making decisions on what his character does based on knowledge that he has as a player. They are similar in that regard.

B doesn't exist. You act or don't act based on what your PC knows or typically does, not what the player knows.

Just imagine what the character could do in that moment, entirely separate of the player. The character has no idea that fire is necessary to harm the trolls. The character may try another attack first. The character may actually try fire first. He may either make a lucky guess, or just blunder into the trick by blind luck!

I think we all agree that this is something that can happen, correct?

Now, bring the player into it. How can the character now guess or blunder into using fire? How is that possibility maintained once you're considering the player knowledge? How can C happen?

It can't. No matter what, you're going to call it metagaming and cheating. Which means that what may happen in the fiction is now subject to out of game considerations. That is metagaming. The character is now incapable of choosing fire, which is something that could conceivably happen.

In 38 years of playing D&D, I've never seen a new player(or an experienced player with a new and unknown monster) randomly switch from their regular attack to some other attack that just happens to be the one the creature is vulnerable to. I'm okay with the super, duper, extremely looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong odds of this circumstance happening.

This is why people describe metagaming as often being the fault of the GM, or that attempts to prevent it often actually bring it directly to the forefront.

Okay. So the once in a gazillion times that the above happens, it's my fault.

The rest of the time it works out nicely and there's no fault or metagaming to be had.

 

[Maxperson]

Just an observation: the analogies are obfuscating the points being made in this thread, not clarifying them.

If they can't understand it another way, I'm left with analogies.

 

[Maxperson]

What's problematic to me is the GM stepping in and trying to make these decisions for them.

Sure, but to me and my group it's not problematic for PCs not to know everything that the player knows. It's not a player's right or decision to decide what his PC knows. It's only his right or decision to decide within valid parameters how his PC acts.

The game sets up many parameters that limit what players can declare for their PCs. Metagaming is just another one that some groups use and some don't.

 

[Oofta]

That only follows if you consider cheating = metagaming. If you think that's a given, its not. There are all kinds of reasons to metagame that have no relationship to cheating.

I don't see how people are confusing the point I was making. Regardless, I think the DM (and group) decide if metagame is cheating. But semantic arguments never go anywhere. I've stated my preference: minimize metagaming and ask if your PC knows something if it's in question.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can you perfectly replicate the state of mind you would have had if you did not know some piece of information? No, I believe you are correct there. But I do believe you can do it well enough for game purposes. And, since we are in the context of playing a game, I think that is really where we should be concentrating our thought.

My experience has been that most players (including ones as young as 10) can consider what they would have done if they did not know something and produce a result that feels correct within the game. Sometimes that is very simple ("oops I didn't mean to reveal that map; you don't know there's a trap there" -- "well, we usually follow the left-handed rule, so we go that way") and sometimes it's more complex ("Yes Dave rolled high for sense motive and you didn't, but you don't know that in character. You think the band drummer is into you and just wants a fun date" "My character generally likes fun dates, so I'll head out with him").

But overall, if people actually try, I've never seen them have a problem making decisions to the level of granularity a game requires. Far more often it's just someone who really hates losing and so is very reluctant to take a course of action the player feels will adversely affect their characte.

Right, so in other words the rule is not “don’t use information your character wouldn’t know,” it’s “don’t take actions I think your character would take if they didn’t know”

 

[Mort]

Metagaming is 100% avoidable. There's never a time where you are metagaming no matter what you choose to do.

I disagree. If your PC acts differently than you otherwise would have had him act because you (the player) know something the character shouldn't - that's metagaming.

Even if you have the PC act randomly (flip a coin, roll a die etc.) to determine his next action - you are ONLY doing that because you (the player) know something and wish to avoid it influencing the PCs action - it's still metagaming.

Now, what you CAN do (for groups that care about metagaming - and it matters), is not be a jerk about it. For ex. Let the DM know you have experience with the module - what's their preference? Let the other players know you'll be playing a passive character (to not exert undue influence) and that they'll be making the decisions.

It's a bit of a rabbit hole. Which is why, a while back, I completely stopped caring about whether the players metagame and really only care if they're being jerks at the table.

 

[Charlaquin]

What you describe is not metagaming. Not bringing in out of character information is the literal opposite of what metagaming is. Metagaming = bringing in out of character knowledge.

Consciously deciding not to do something because of out of character information is still acting on out of character information.