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

[Xamnam]

Yes and that influence = not metagaming. It takes more than the OOC knowledge having some influence to be metagaming. You have to actively bring that knowledge into the game via a PC that does not know the information for it to be metagaming. Why is it so important for you to twist the meaning in order to claim metagaming happens anyway?

They're not twisting the meaning, they're just using a different definition than you.

A: Using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.
B: Not using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.
C: Not using fire on a troll because you don't know anything about it.

I agree with them, A and B are much closer in process and consideration than B and C are, and fall under what metagaming means to me.

 

[Maxperson]

I've never used traps very often for a simple reason. Most of the time they're dumb. If you have a trapped corridor, how do people use your facility? You don't have servants? Allies? They all need to know to keep to the left in this hall? If every door is trapped, do people use the window to get in and out? How many people have to know how to disable a trap if you're running any kind of organization? How do you keep a trap functioning? Indiana Jones has fun visuals but I couldn't help but wonder. It's in a cave. No animals ever wandered in? How is the tension or air pressure still there after centuries? Or if it's a standard "poison needle trap" why does the poison not dry up? How do they get reset if they've been used once?

So most of the time, disarming a trap is not physically disarming it, it's finding the right stone to push which you identify because it's shiny from all the people pushing it and so on. I still do traps once in a while and magical glyphs actually make more sense to me than most mechanical traps, but then you have to have a way for the rogue to find them. If you have one in the party of course.

I probably just overthink this stuff, but I want my campaign world to be logical. Even with magic, most traps simply aren't logical. If there are traps, there has to be some relatively simple way of disarming them without tools. Then again I don't really do dungeons either for much the same reason, they're typically illogical.

It's not just you. Traps aren't/shouldn't be placed in random corridors of the castle. Rather, they should be on important areas like the corridor to the treasury and the treasure door. Then the king tells the servants you are forbidden to go down that corridor and orders his seneschal or other trusted person who has treasury access to keep that small area clean so as not to reveal the correct path to the vault.

 

[Maxperson]

They're not twisting the meaning, they're just using a different definition than you.

A: Using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.
B: Not using fire on a troll because you know it's weak to it.
C: Not using fire on a troll because you don't know anything about it.

I agree with them, A and B are much closer in process and consideration than B and C are, and fall under what metagaming means to me.

Close in process isn't relevant. It's a true dichotomy. Either you bring in OOC knowledge or you don't. If you do you are metagaming. If you don't you are not.

Using an alternate definition than the rest of us who say it's cheating in our games(because we're using the true dichotomy meaning) is worthless. All the, "Yes it is still metagaming!!!" arguments will fall flat because that's not what metagaming means.

B is also a false definition. Either the player is going to use fire because his PC knows it's weak to it, or he isn't because his PC doesn't know it's weak to it. At no point is the player ever going to be like, "Well, I know the troll is weak to fire, so I won't use fire." and leave it at that. Edit: this was written poorly. The action is not a dichotomy, only the definition.

If metagaming is allowed then the definition itself isn't relevant.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

B is also a false definition. Either the player is going to use fire because his PC knows it's weak to it, or he isn't because his PC doesn't know it's weak to it. At no point is the player ever going to be like, "Well, I know the troll is weak to fire, so I won't use fire." and leave it at that.

Sorry if you've already addressed this but there's been a lot of posts so... here goes:

• if a player knows the troll is weak to fire and
• the PC doesn't know that for... reasons... and
• the PC has the cantrip fire bolt

If the PC uses fire bolt against the troll in round 1 of combat, is it metagaming?

 

[Xamnam]

Using an alternate definition than the rest of us who say it's cheating(because we're using the true dichotomy meaning) is worthless. All the, "Yes it is still metagaming!!!" arguments will fall flat because that's not what metagaming means.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry if you've already addressed this but there's been a lot of posts so... here goes:

• if a player knows the troll is weak to fire and
• the PC doesn't know that for... reasons... and
• the PC has the cantrip fire bolt

If the PC uses fire bolt against the troll in round 1 of combat, is it metagaming?

See above. I corrected it to say the action isn't the dichotomy, only the definition.

If a PC uses firebolt in round 1 against the troll and starts pretty much every combat with firebolt, that is not metagaming. If there's a valid reason for the use of fire by a PC that doesn't know about the weakness, that's still not metagaming since the player is not engaging fire due to his knowledge of the weakness, but rather to be consistent in his roleplay.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

See above. I corrected it to say the action isn't the dichotomy, only the definition.

If a PC uses firebolt in round 1 against the troll and starts pretty much every combat with firebolt, that is not metagaming. If there's a valid reason for the use of fire by a PC that doesn't know about the weakness, that's still not metagaming since the player is not engaging fire due to his knowledge of the weakness, but rather to be consistent in his roleplay.

What if, rather than "pretty much every combat", that PC leads with fire bolt in only about half their combats? Would the player leading with fire bolt against the troll be metagaming then?

 

[Maxperson]

Arguing 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.

I still don't see the value.

Me: Metagaming is bringing in out of character information and having the PC use it anyway. That is cheating in my game.
Them: Any influence at all by out of character information is metagaming, so there's no point in you trying to avoid metagaming since you can't avoid it by our definition.

Well, okay. Then they can be metagaming in their own game using that definition, but as they aren't metagaming by my definition the conversation is over, since I'm talking about apples and they are talking about oranges. Nothing they say that hinges on their definition can matter to the conversation that I'm having, since their definition does not exist in it.

 

[Maxperson]

What if, rather than "pretty much every combat", that PC leads with fire bolt in only about half their combats?

I still wouldn't question that. It's when they rarely or never use it and suddenly they do, because troll. And only if the PC doesn't have that knowledge. At that point there is no other reason to use the firebolt other than using what only the player knows.

 

[Mort]

O

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.

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.

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.

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