D&D General "When I DM I do my Best to Curb Players Meta-Gaming or Using Out-of-Character Knowledge." (a poll)

[el-remmen]

Maybe the premise for this one is not so simple, seeing as people have varied definitions of "meta-gaming," but I am not going to let that stop me from asking - no matter how you define it - if as DM you try to address it at all. If so, how?

 

[Charlaquin]

Simple for me, cause the answer is no, however you define it.

 

[billd91]

It depends, really. I try to remind players about things their PCs wouldn't know that they might - though that's not often a problem. But if the players can suss out various narrative beats and tropes and lean into them, I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's impossible to play the game without a certain level of meta knowledge. But I definitely don't like it when players use info from the Monster Manual that they're character couldn't know. So, true, but in a very liberal sense of it.

 

[TwoSix]

I’ve never needed to, the large majority of players I’ve had do a pretty good job of policing themselves.

 

[Umbran]

If that metagaming is in the purpose of helping the table have a good time (like understanding how a system shares spotlight time, and using it to share spotlight), then I feel no need to stop it.

I strongly prefer that players not use, say, monster stat information without first establishing the character knows it first. But I rarely need to enforce that - my players seek to establish it themselves before I have to act on that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have enough other things to do than to police the players. Heck, a player could be cheating and I'd never probably know it nor put in any effort to try and determine it. If they feel the need to do so for their own enjoyment and it's not affecting me or the other players... then so be it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I voted False.

I mean, I don't really try very hard to do that. I've never had it get "out of control" to the point where I had to step in. One time a player did start doing it a bit much and then the other players berated him and he stopped. People definitely do a little bit of metagaming and I'm absolutely fine with that - as @Umbran says it can be actively helpful in certain forms - sheesh I metagame that way, I avoid taking too much spotlight time (i.e. always prep my turns ahead, and despite preferring jacks-of-all-trades, try to avoid sticking my oar into every situation).

 

[delericho]

No. I mostly don't worry about it, unless there is something egregiously off going on (like a PC in one city discovers a crucial fact which a PC in an entirely different city and with no way to communicate then uses). But for the classic "how do you know trolls are affected by fire?" example... yeah, I don't care much about that.

 

[Seramus]

No. I mostly don't worry about it, unless there is something egregiously off going on (like a PC in one city discovers a crucial fact which a PC in an entirely different city and with no way to communicate then uses). But for the classic "how do you know trolls are affected by fire?" example... yeah, I don't care much about that.

I'm normally pretty light about it, but this is the kind of thing that breaks my immersion. Perfect precision can be a thing of beauty in the right game, but Rary's Telepathic Bond has to be earned.