When is metagaming too much as a DM?

[Runestar]

Just curious - as a DM, were there ever situations where you felt that having full and perfect knowledge of everything in the game was more of a burden/hindrance than a boon?

Before you defend by saying "I am the DM. It is my job to know everything that is going on.", let me elaborate.

Let me use this 3e scene as an example.

Say a lv17 party is facing a balor. One of its myriad of SLAs includes power word: stun. How might you, as the DM, decide who to target with it? You know fully well how many hp each player has, and who would be the most drastically affected by it. But would that be seen as being too metagamey, if the PC with the least hp (say the wizard) got zapped by it? The balor is extremely intelligent, and it does not seem impossible that he can deduce who has the least hp...

Conversely, I would feel stupid going out of my way to target the barbarian with it, knowing fully well that I had wasted a standard action doing zilch, just to prove that I am not metagaming.

Some of you may rebutt with "The players should trust that the DM is fair and doing the right thing" or "Then stop using it - the balor has many other powers worth spamming anyways, like blasphemy". Still, I am interested to know your input. Assume you were dead set on using power word. What might you have done, and would you have faced any repercussions in your group for doing so? Or am I simply thinking too much?

But personally, I felt that I would have been better off not knowing the players' hit points at that instance. Then regardless of how well or poorly power word: stun fared, I can't be guilty of metagaming. I don't have to bother rationalizing my choice to the players or to myself, and the game would just go on.

Your thoughts?

 

[Clavis]

I think there are three fair ways of determining who gets attacked.

1) Whoever is directly in front of, or closest to, the Balor.

2) The last enemy who attacked the Balor.

3) A randomly determined enemy.

None of those involved metagame knowledge, and reflect the kind of decision making that would happen in the space a few seconds.

 

[billd91]

I've been known to have NPCs/monsters do things that I, as DM, know wouldn't work because it makes sense for the PCs' opponent to give it a try based on what they would know.

In the case of the balor and power word: stun, if the adventurers look fairly fresh, he's justified not using it against the barbarian and using it against the less durable PCs instead (if he wants to use it early). If they look a little battered and the barbarian keeps getting in his face, I'd have him go for it. And it might not work - I usually don't keep track of the PCs' hit points, the players do. I might judge wrong and that's fine.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is usually a good idea to roleplay the NPC/monster while making such decisions. Things like who to target, and why become clearer once in the role of the attacker. An extremely intelligent creature that has had experience in combat will probably recognize casters and the dangers they can bring. A hungry dumb animal will be motivated by the closest/easiest meal. Characters who are low on hp may appear wounded or exhausted and some creatures will be attracted to such targets.

If an attacker makes a decision on what it can percieve then the DM isn't really metagaming. Is it metagaming when the rust monster always goes after the plate wearers?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think there are three fair ways of determining who gets attacked.

1) Whoever is directly in front of, or closest to, the Balor.

2) The last enemy who attacked the Balor.

3) A randomly determined enemy.

None of those involved metagame knowledge, and reflect the kind of decision making that would happen in the space a few seconds.

So, if the Balor is in the back, protected by other devil minions and no one in the party has attacked him yet he should target either the closest PC or a random enemy?

Why even have a DM at this point if one of the most intelligent foes in the game is just going to attack like an non-intelligent undead?

In the specific case the OP presents I would base the Balor's decision on a combination of who looks the frailest (lowest Con), who looks the least battle-trained (because non-warrior classes are known to be weaker physically, thus differing HD), and who looks most battered already.

It's a matter of using metagame transparency (i.e. how does a creaure in the game world perceive things that we understand as game terms like hit points) over just flat out asking the group what hit point totals they are at and targetting one of the party that the spell will affect.

 

[Desdichado]

Are you suggesting that an Intelligence... what is it? 24? balor can't figure out from looking at the party who the wizard is, recognize that he (or she) is the greatest threat to them as well as the softest target, and act accordingly?

That's not metagaming; that's roleplaying the balor intelligently.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I certainly wouldn't complain if a player said "I'm not casting PW:S on that Balor, it probably has too many HP" - so why shouldn't the Balor make the same judgement call?

Now, if they're looking it up in the book, that's different - just like the DM looking over everyone's character sheets before deciding.

 

[malkav666]

Ahhh..

Player targeting is always a touchy topic. As far how I play my monsters in that regard it really depends on how smart they are, and how well they work together. When fighting creatures that aren't so smart or devious, I just have them attack the closest PC, or determine it randomly if more than one target is easily accessible.

For more intelligent critters I tend to jot down a quick priority list/tactics flow chart for the group and tend to follow it closely during the fight. For big encounters or incredibly smart creatures. I tend to not hold back any punches and try and make the most optimal choice that the creature could make.

But if you are worried about using meta to harm your kids, then just take a look at the monster from a roleplaying standpoint. Is it smart? If it is, then what information does it have about the group to base its decisions on? If you have a player running around in a dress flinging spells, then I think its fair for a balor to assume that the character may have fewer HP than the huge tin-can warrior charging at it, and could make choices accordingly.

Where meta play on the part of the DM becomes bad is in a scenario where the DM targets players based on mechanical information that the monster would have no way to know. For example in your stun scenario: if there where two characters equipped similarly and you choose a target based upon HP qualifications for a spell. That is badwrong.

In short if you roleplay your monsters using the same set of guidelines you expect from your players regarding meta-play, then it should not be a regular problem. IMO of course.

love,

malkav

 

[Obryn]

For an intelligent adversary, I assume that they know the game rules as well as my players do - or moreso, for super-intelligent adversaries.

As such, I expect a Balor would know his Power Word Stun will probably only work on the softer targets right off the bat, just as your players would know not to bother casting a Power Word Stun against a Balor until you soften him up quite a bit.

-O

 

[tomBitonti]

Once you have a certain amount of metagame knowledge, the problem is the same for running monsters as for running players. Even running a player, there are times when you must remain in character and limit your character decisions to just what your character knows. Not a lot of difference for running monsters.

One does need to have a particular view point, which is, to role play the monsters, rather than have them act as if controlled by an optimizing game controller with perfect information.

There is extra information tracking, certainly, as each monster has their own state, and cannot simply use the DM's global state information.

In the case of the Balor, what the Balor does should factor in Perception, Knowledge, and Intent. Presumably, the Intent is to lay the smack-down on the players (but, is the Balor taking his time, drawing out the player's certain deaths, or is the Balor wanting to squash the offenders as quickly as possible?) In this case, the Balor is super intelligent, but, does he actually have knowledge skills? He might not actually know which player is best to target. I would say that he very well knows what his ability will do, and what type of target it will work best against. And even if he knows how to apply the ability, the players might make it hard to figure out which player is best to target. Players facing a Balor might have very high Bluff and Disguise skills, so the best target might not be obvious, even with a very high Perception skill.

Thx!