D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[iserith]

That would be fine to me if I were the DM, obviously. But it's a different story if the character never used water breathing, and they just happened to cast it right before coming upon a water trap that the player knew about but his character didn't. That would clearly be an example of meta-gaming, and I would bet most people other than Aaron would see it clearly that way.

I wouldn't see it that way. My role as DM in the game is to describe the environment and to narrate the results of the adventurers' actions, occasionally asking for some mechanics to be used to resolve uncertainty.

In no part of my job description does it say I must police the thoughts of my players to figure out why they chose to describe what they wanted to do. All I need is a clearly stated goal and approach from the players to be able to fulfill my role.

 

[machineelf]

I wouldn't see it that way. My role as DM in the game is to describe the environment and to narrate the results of the adventurers' actions, occasionally asking for some mechanics to be used to resolve uncertainty.

In no part of my job description does it say I must police the thoughts of my players to figure out why they chose to describe what they wanted to do. All I need is a clearly stated goal and approach from the players to be able to fulfill my role.

I also don't think I should police the thoughts of my players, generally speaking. I wouldn't waste my time doing that. Now, if they speak to me in meta-speak kinds of ways, like if they say, "can I roll a persuasion check to see if I can convince him to join me," I will ask, "well, what do you say to convince him?" I don't make a big deal out of it, but I try to model the idea of role-playing. The idea is, tell me what you say or do, and I'll call for roll and skill check when appropriate. But try to play the role. That's what role-playing literally is.

But if there are players who just do not want to role-play in that fashion at all, they want to use meta-knowledge and meta-game speak all the time, and they are more interested in min-maxing and power gaming than playing a role, then my game is probably not for them, and that's OK. I'm not going to waste anyone's time or get into lectures at the table. The end goal is for everyone to have fun. But if they don't want to role-play, they probably won't feel comfortable at our table with the way me and the other players like to play.

To get back to the OP's original complaint, when one or more people are trying to role-play, and let's say the OP's rogue character meets an old man and has a conversation with him, but hasn't told the other characters about it, it breaks immersion and is annoying, as well as inconsiderate, when the other players just assume their characters know all about it already and come barging in talking about "have you killed the old man yet." You don't have any qualms if players do that kind of thing constantly in your group? Honest question. I do, but maybe I'm just different than you.

 

[Bawylie]

Long time ago, when this game was in its infancy, DMs needed a way to protect their secrets. So there were some passages on Problem Players and a strong suggestion in the rules that the DM could veto player actions that were unacceptable, that violated alignment, or that the character couldn't possibly have knowledge of.

Probably, that was the best thinking at the time.

Since then, we invented DM screens and social contracts to protect our secrets. We disseminated the rules widely so that information that needed to be secret was distinct from what was readily available, and we came up with (unspoken, or spoken) behavioral norms that are more or less self-regulated.

So concepts like metagame thinking, player stance, and playstyle kind of evolved to codify what we were doing. And they've since devolved into practically meaningless, buzzwords. And we didn't stop there. We invented a whole bunch of buzzwords to help us argue on the internet! It's been glorious.

But probably some of these legacy holdovers have passed their expiration dates. A troll is plainly no longer a surprise and it's doubtful they ever were. The sharing of knowledge between a present player and an absent character (once uniformly understood as a Problem) is now more of a theoretical issue than a practical one.

And a lot of problems with players who are just starting out and trying to test the boundaries of the game, players who's characters do a LOT of pvp or GTA, need most to be addressed by their DMs, who should be explaining what is or is not acceptable play. This kinda stuff would never fly in Scrabble! But these aren't stance problems, or player-character knowledge problems, or playstyle problems. It's social and practical.

And those actually ARE metagame concerns. When you all sit down to play Monopoly and one player disrupts the game by rolling different-sided dice or stealing money from the bank, they're not playing the same way everyone else is. And unless someone explains how the game is played, you're gonna keep getting the disruptive behavior. But if you've got someone who isn't interested in playing monopoly the way everyone else is, then that's actually a huge problem. Because that's just an incompatible situation and you don't have a game there anymore. So you either have to make a correction, stop playing, adapt to the disruption, or suffer it. Me? I'd attempt to make a correction and if that fails, excuse myself from play.


-Brad

 

[machineelf]

A troll is plainly no longer a surprise and it's doubtful they ever were.

I do think that the troll example, and monster traits in general, is not a good example to use, and I think it kind of distracts from the bigger problems of meta-gaming. Although I'm going to get back to monster traits in a bit.

Like I said above, if we really wanted to get into it, my view is much more nuanced than some flat ban on all meta-gaming. You can't do that, because you can never get rid of all kinds of meta-gaming. But there are some general concepts that I thought were widely accepted, but perhaps not.

But let's take something like knowledge of the campaign world. If I am running a Faerun campaign, and none of my players know anything about it, then the player knowledge might closely fit the character knowledge, if their characters don't know much more about the world than their immediate surroundings. So as they explore, I might have them make history checks when they learn more about the world, or they might learn things as they travel and research and adventure. And character knowledge pretty much parallels player knowledge.

But let's say one player is a virtual expert on the Forgotten Realms. There would be some pretty silly scenarios if that player had to constantly act like he knew nothing of the world. I think it makes more sense if that player plays a character who just does know more about the wider world for one reason or another. Ultimately it's up to him how he wants to create his character and what knowledge that character has. But this is an example of where there is some crossover, or bleedthrough, of player knowledge and character knowledge.

And I have no problems with that. These kinds of things are not big meta-game concerns I draw a hard line against, or any line against.

What I don't like though are meta-game playing that is inconsiderate to other players. Let's say that as all these new players encounter various unusual creatures, like lets' say a beholder, and say the one player who is a veteran D&D player blurts out right from the start, "stay away from his central eye, it's an anti-magic field."

Well, hold on, wait a minute, the other players didn't know that, and perhaps their characters didn't either. If there is a good reason that your character knows that bit of information, story and background-wise, then fine, no problem. But if you keep doing that for every single creature because the player just knows everything about every creature, isn't it kind of apparent how rude and inconsiderate that is to the other players who are role-playing and are learning about these creatures for the first time? And unless there is a good reason why that character is an expert on every single creature, then it is a meta-game issue, that is, again, an inconsiderate way to play.

 

[Corwin]

But let's say one player is a virtual expert on the Forgotten Realms. There would be some pretty silly scenarios if that player had to constantly act like he knew nothing of the world. I think it makes more sense if that player plays a character who just does know more about the wider world for one reason or another. Ultimately it's up to him how he wants to create his character and what knowledge that character has. But this is an example of where there is some crossover, or bleedthrough, of player knowledge and character knowledge.

Should that player write out all 27,576,325,983 things his character can know and run them by you in advance, prior to encountering them in game for the first time? So as not be accused of being a metagamer later? I mean, his character can't know *everything*. Without the player identifying every possible bit of knowledge/trivia in advance, he could still be accused of cheating. Even though he describes his character, as you say, as a "virtual expert". There will still come a time when you will give him that inevitable dirty look for saying something you don't think he should know. Best he write them all down first, no?

 

[Bawylie]

I do think that the troll example, and monster traits in general, is not a good example to use, and I think it kind of distracts from the bigger problems of meta-gaming. Although I'm going to get back to monster traits in a bit.

Like I said above, if we really wanted to get into it, my view is much more nuanced than some flat ban on all meta-gaming. You can't do that, because you can never get rid of all kinds of meta-gaming. But there are some general concepts that I thought were widely accepted, but perhaps not.

But let's take something like knowledge of the campaign world. If I am running a Faerun campaign, and none of my players know anything about it, then the player knowledge might closely fit the character knowledge, if their characters don't know much more about the world than their immediate surroundings. So as they explore, I might have them make history checks when they learn more about the world, or they might learn things as they travel and research and adventure. And character knowledge pretty much parallels player knowledge.

But let's say one player is a virtual expert on the Forgotten Realms. There would be some pretty silly scenarios if that player had to constantly act like he knew nothing of the world. I think it makes more sense if that player plays a character who just does know more about the wider world for one reason or another. Ultimately it's up to him how he wants to create his character and what knowledge that character has. But this is an example of where there is some crossover, or bleedthrough, of player knowledge and character knowledge.

And I have no problems with that. These kinds of things are not big meta-game concerns I draw a hard line against, or any line against.

What I don't like though are meta-game playing that is inconsiderate to other players. Let's say that as all these new players encounter various unusual creatures, like lets' say a beholder, and say the one player who is a veteran D&D player blurts out right from the start, "stay away from his central eye, it's an anti-magic field."

Well, hold on, wait a minute, the other players didn't know that, and perhaps their characters didn't either. If there is a good reason that your character knows that bit of information, story and background-wise, then fine, no problem. But if you keep doing that for every single creature because the player just knows everything about every creature, isn't it kind of apparent how rude and inconsiderate that is to the other players who are role-playing and are learning about these creatures for the first time? And unless there is a good reason why that character is an expert on every single creature, then it is a meta-game issue, that is, again, an inconsiderate way to play.

I mean sure, if the other players truly don't want to know.

But fortunately, we have some coincidental developments to answer this question.

MMORPGs frequently introduce new content with new raids and bosses. Often, the very hardcore groups test themselves against the new content and record it and disseminate the videos. Bragging rights.

Following that, some groups put together visual guides for players who come after. So they get a sense of the new content and bosses and raids, and don't go in blind or feeling incompetent or helpless.

Most people don't like feeling incompetent or helpless. Most battles are prefaced by some rousing words or discussion of a plan. This is important psychologically even if it ends up tactically worthless.

And there's big view counts on these visual guides. People study them before they test themselves against that new content.

Now, I'm not saying every player does that. Group to group and player to player, the fun of the experience is nuanced and variable. Some people really don't want to know. Cool.

Most probably do, if real life phenomena is any evidence at all.

But as to the idea that it's inconsiderate... maybe. It can be, if everyone is on the same page about no spoilers and someone comes along spoiling every encounter. But absent establishing No Spoilers as a common value, it's not inconsiderate at all. It's the height of considerate, normally, bc it's looking out for the success and wellbeing of the other players and adventurers.


-Brad

 

[machineelf]

Should that player write out all 27,576,325,983 things his character can know and run them by you in advance, prior to encountering them in game for the first time?

Lol. Where are you guys getting this and why do you think I'm some unbending legalist nutcase who draws an extremely hard line in all cases? I already mentioned, several times in this thread, that there are nuances and you can never completely eliminate all forms of metagaming. You are playing a game after-all, you do have make rolls and think about them, and use the mechanics of your class. I have no problem with that, that's part of the game.

What I am saying is that when Aaron suggests that there is no problem whatsoever, and it's not "meta-gaming" in any way, for his character to somehow know a dungeon has a water trap, and he prepares a spell for it, before his character could possibly have known that, that is when a line gets crossed. And it's not a hard thing to undertand, you don't have to understand 27,576,325,983 things to know that if your character didn't know about the trap, it's an unfair edge play to just say, "oh I randomly case this spell that will protect me from a trap that my character doesn't know is there."

It seems like it's common sense to me, that role-playing means to some degree at least that your character doesn't have omniscient powers and doesn't somehow know everything that every other character at the table knows.

I'm a bit surprised why some people here have decided I'm an unbending meany when it comes to role-playing, and yet those same people have no qualms with Aaron's suggestion that his character knowing every single thing and is the luckiest wizard in the world for happening to cast that water-breathing spell just before running into a water trap. What a coincidence!

 

[iserith]

I also don't think I should police the thoughts of my players, generally speaking. I wouldn't waste my time doing that.

The standard reply is "I don't have to police my players' thoughts - they do that on their own." Or words to that effect. Which shows just how deep this stuff runs for almost no justifiable reason at all. (Not that preferences need justifying.)

Now, if they speak to me in meta-speak kinds of ways, like if they say, "can I roll a persuasion check to see if I can convince him to join me," I will ask, "well, what do you say to convince him?" I don't make a big deal out of it, but I try to model the idea of role-playing. The idea is, tell me what you say or do, and I'll call for roll and skill check when appropriate. But try to play the role. That's what role-playing literally is.

But if there are players who just do not want to role-play in that fashion at all, they want to use meta-knowledge and meta-game speak all the time, and they are more interested in min-maxing and power gaming than playing a role, then my game is probably not for them, and that's OK. I'm not going to waste anyone's time or get into lectures at the table. The end goal is for everyone to have fun. But if they don't want to role-play, they probably won't feel comfortable at our table with the way me and the other players like to play.

Roleplaying is just playing a role. If I'm a fighter and I do a thing, then I'm playing the role of a fighter doing a thing. I am, in fact, roleplaying, regardless of how I arrived at the decision to do that thing. I doubt anybody would really care about your preferences with regard to "metagaming" if you didn't claim that the way other people play isn't roleplaying because they don't care about "metagaming."

To get back to the OP's original complaint, when one or more people are trying to role-play, and let's say the OP's rogue character meets an old man and has a conversation with him, but hasn't told the other characters about it, it breaks immersion and is annoying, as well as inconsiderate, when the other players just assume their characters know all about it already and come barging in talking about "have you killed the old man yet." You don't have any qualms if players do that kind of thing constantly in your group? Honest question. I do, but maybe I'm just different than you.

No, I don't really care how the players communicate with each other. If the players have issues with it, then they can work it out amongst themselves. (Which is what I advised the OP do.)

Having said that, I do address the issue of "metagaming," as it's being defined in this thread, during Session Zero. I address it by saying "I don't care about it."

 

[Corwin]

Lol. Where are you guys getting this and why do you think I'm some unbending legalist nutcase who draws an extremely hard line in all cases? I already mentioned, several times in this thread, that there are nuances and you can never completely eliminate all forms of metagaming. You are playing a game after-all, you do have make rolls and think about them, and use the mechanics of your class. I have no problem with that, that's part of the game.

You are answering your own question as this paragraph progresses. Because your players can never know if/when your sensibilities will be tread upon and the stinkeye launched. They must walk on eggshells, constantly ready to have to defend themselves from accusations of being a filthy metagamer should they choose to take an action that fails your unwritten, or to use your own word "nuanced", smell test.

 

[machineelf]

But fortunately, we have some coincidental developments to answer this question.

MMORPGs frequently introduce new content with new raids and bosses. Often, the very hardcore groups test themselves against the new content and record it and disseminate the videos. Bragging rights.

Yeah, but this isn't an MMORPG. There's not really any role-playing in WoW or other MMORPGS.

Maybe that's the disconnect here. There are a lot of players who have grown up on MMORPGS and are bringing that concept into their table-top role-playing experience, and so they have no problem with everyone at the table meta-talking and metagaming, because the fun for them is just beating the main boss at the end of the dungeon.

But for a lot of us, role-playing isn't just about beating the boss, it's about immersion int the character and immersion in the world. There's always a problem when half of the table wants that role-playing immersion, and the other half of the table just wants to kill stuff and beat the end-boss. The end-boss folks are probably blissfully unaware how annoying and immersion breaking that approach is for the role-players. But I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play that way. Do it. You have your table, and I have mine. I don't force people to role-play according to my desires; our group likes to roleplay that way. We are all in on it together. If I suddenly stopped DMing that way, my players would get upset.