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

[Xamnam]

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, 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.

The bold isn't my argument. The italics is helpful context in interpreting your posts, and the value of stating personal definitions. (I do know you've stated this before in this thread) This is a conversation between many different people, so people are inherently going to be bringing in their personal definitions.

The reason I state this is because if I can see things that are considered metagaming as positive, I'm going to want to argue with someone that simply states all metagaming is bad. Definitions help make these positions more understandable, and help conversation function as explanation rather than a fight for who is right. A fight specifically over definitions is very likely to go nowhere productive. I'm not saying your definition is wrong. Please do the other side the same kindness.

 

[Bill Zebub]

O


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 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.

And the question is whether this is an acceptable kind of metagaming because it doesn't result in "unfair advantage" or whether it's still unacceptable because it's still using player knowledge. In the point of view of the anti-metagamers, that is. I don't care one way or another.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.

 

[Xamnam]

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.

No, I don't think metagaming is synonymous with cheating. Nor do I think having the ability to change the rules is similar in function to information that informs decision making.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Incorrect, because they don't say that metagaming is cheating. You do.

 

[Oofta]

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?

At a certain point you have to trust your players and simply ask them to not metagame as much as possible. It's all anyone can expect.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Oofta]

Incorrect, because they don't say that metagaming is cheating. You do.

I never said metagaming was cheating. I said it's the same logical construct and conclusion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I never said metagaming was cheating. I said it's the same logical construct and conclusion.

Robin Hood only splits arrows. You split hairs. Well done.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

O


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.

Further, is it metagaming if at least one other player at the table knows that you've played through or DMed this same dungeon?
At an anti-metagaming table, if the person with that knowledge then argues to go the way you choose NOT to go, is that a potential problem?