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

[tetrasodium]

It depends. There comes a point where the metagaming is no longer moving the game along smoothly & it crosses the line into something that forces the GM to invoke things like the quantum ogre.

Spoiler: the 3.5 DMG had a great section on it

METAGAME THINKING “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deacti- vates the trap,” a player says to the others, “because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters’ actions on logic that depends on the fact that they’re playing a game; they’re using metagame thinking. This behavior should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real role- playing and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose the other side of the pit has a lever, for example, but it’s rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don’t let them second- guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. You have figured out the reason why the trap exists, and the PCs will need to do the same.

In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it.” In fact, this is wonderful—it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.

 

[J.Quondam]

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.

This is my experience, too. Most people I've ever played with have made it a point to justify their PCs' knowledge and behavior in-game, so the metagame "problem" fixes itself. And gamers who don't do that typically seem to be aiming for a playstyle I don't really enjoy, so I don't play with them for long...and again the problem fixes itself.

 

[iserith]

This is what I put in my table rules so that all players know and can buy into our stance as a group:

"Metagame, but Verify. We will never question the reason for another player's choices for his or her character as long as it achieves the goals of play. Use your player skill and knowledge to succeed, but be aware that assumptions can be risky so it's skillful play to verify your assumptions through action before making choices based on them. Monsters and lore may be frequently modified from what you may expect."

 

[CleverNickName]

It depends. There comes a point where the metagaming is no longer moving the game along smoothly & it crosses the line into something that forces the GM to invoke things like the quantum ogre.

Spoiler: the 3.5 DMG had a great section on it

METAGAME THINKING “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deacti- vates the trap,” a player says to the others, “because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters’ actions on logic that depends on the fact that they’re playing a game; they’re using metagame thinking. This behavior should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real role- playing and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose the other side of the pit has a lever, for example, but it’s rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don’t let them second- guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. You have figured out the reason why the trap exists, and the PCs will need to do the same.

In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it.” In fact, this is wonderful—it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.

 

[el-remmen]

Total aside but I instinctively know my main group players are too keen on sniggering and being juvenile to really take anything called "Ballenroe" seriously lol. I guess we all probably know stuff which just wouldn't fly for our groups.

One of my great annoyances was coming up with what I thought was an awesome name for a major NPC, safety-Googling it, and finding oh yeah it's also a name of a city in Morocco, but I've never heard of it, and neither will the players, and of course, the week before the session introducing the NPC, turns out the tube (subway) was filled with billboards to "Come visit beautiful [NPC name]!", and it's nothing but smirking when he's introduced. So much for his majesty and respect!

I remember way back in the early days of these forums someone cracking on a player in one of my games naming his character "Dresden the Black." A German poster replied, "That is like if I named my character, Detroit the Blue!" to which I replied "Detroit the Blue is a great name!"

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I routinely re-skin monsters to discourage this.

 

[el-remmen]

But "do my best" being attached to it rather than a different qualifier makes it sound like it's at the extreme end of "curb"ing.

Maybe "actively" would have been a better qualifier.

 

[ad_hoc]

Define "best"?

I ask nicely. I had a prospective new player look up videos on the adventure we were going to play and how it ends before the game.

So I said sorry not the group for you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?

this is a hard one for me to answer... I ask them not to and I trust them to be truthful with me... and I don't really do anything to make them not other then discuss things open and honnestly... and not withstanding that it has been pointed out someone could lie about there own preference and there own reasoning in order to get an advantage in a friendly non competitive game, my players agree with me and again we just talk it out.

so no I don't

I do my Best to Curb Players​

 

[fikuvino]

I voted "true," but I rarely have to do it. Most people I play with do their best to stay within the bounds of character knowledge and avoid doing too much meta-gaming.