D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Maxperson]

Sounds like an anti-metagaming DM.

Or, you know, it coulda just been humor.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sounds like an anti-metagaming DM.

How so?

 

[Seramus]

It's pretty amazing just how much metagame thinking one has to do to just to avoid metagame thinking.

Thats definitely true! I do support positive metagaming, like biting plot hooks, buying into the premise of the module, working together with the party, not splitting the party, etc.

Player: Why would my character go with them?
DM: Because you're friends? You're an adventurer? You make stupid decisions for s living? You tell me.

 

[Maxperson]

It's pretty amazing just how much metagame thinking one has to do to just to avoid metagame thinking.

It's really the type of metagame thinking that people like or dislike. It's impossible to avoid and still play the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

How so?

Because it gets into your character’s thoughts.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thats definitely true! I do support positive metagaming, like biting plot hooks, buying into the premise of the module, working together with the party, not splitting the party, etc.

Player: Why would my character go with them?
DM: Because you're friends? You're an adventurer? You make stupid decisions for s living? You tell me.

I agree to certain (quite large!) degree. But the GM and the players should endeavour to provide IC justification for such things too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The awkward thing about metagaming is psyching yourself out of deductions you would have made if you didn't know. Like NOT solving a mystery you might have really figured out, because you already know the answer.

True. And thus with the plot central mysteries the GM should avoid constructing them in a way that this would be an issue. And ultimately such situations are an issue even if you allowed using meta-knowledge for solving the mystery; you still really cannot experience the thought process and excitement of solving the thing. I think this was the one thing pretty much everyone agreed on, such situations should be avoided.

 

[Cadence]

Per the rules, you determine what your character thinks - not the DM and not the dice. If you say your character thinks the NPC is a lich and that your character wants to destroy her, then that's what your character thinks.

You just might not be correct in that assumption.

Was looking up something else (Gnomes of all things), and stumbled on the quotes below over at: Gary Gygax quotes - orbitalflower . I was kind of surprised to see them from GG based on the early editions. In any case, they made me think of you. I don't picture you as an "appeal to authority" kind of person, but something to get in a playful jab now and then might be a thing to deflate someone.

Finally, there is no distinction between “having a PC figure something out” and the player doing so … the two are not separate entities, as the player is making believe he is the game character.
— ENWorld, Q&A with Gary Gygax part 10, 2006

Shortly after that is "How supposedly mature persons can get all worked up over a matter pf personal taste in a game of make-believe is beyond me." (at TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax)

Who can say what a PC knws and doesn’t know aboit the world he lives in? if it’s something that could be known, then there’s no metagaming involved.
— ENWorld, Q&A with Gary Gygax part 6, 2004

Followed shortly by "Also, coming up with new ideas not common to the assumed society should not be labeled as metagaming is the PC is reasonably inteligent." (at TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax )

 

[Charlaquin]

Was looking up something else (Gnomes of all things), and stumbled on the quotes below over at: Gary Gygax quotes - orbitalflower . I was kind of surprised to see them from GG based on the early editions. In any case, they made me think of you. I don't picture you as an "appeal to authority" kind of person, but something to get in a playful jab now and then might be a thing to deflate someone.



Shortly after that is "How supposedly mature persons can get all worked up over a matter pf personal taste in a game of make-believe is beyond me." (at TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax)




Followed shortly by "Also, coming up with new ideas not common to the assumed society should not be labeled as metagaming is the PC is reasonably inteligent." (at TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax )

Given that one of the design goals of 5e was to bring back some of the feel of old-school D&D, it isn’t terribly surprising to me that a style of play developed by setting aside assumptions based on past editions and interpreting the text of 5e as an independent rule set would result in a style of play that is fairly consistent with that old-school mentality.

 

[Imaculata]

I once played in a short adventure as the only player replaying it in an otherwise different group of players. The DM was reluctant to allow me to play the module a second time, but needed one more player, and allowed it on the condition that the first time I tried to use my knowledge from the previous time I had played, I was out of the game (as if it was a forgone conclusion that I would do so eventually.)

At one point, I saw an opportunity to pursue a different path than I had when I had played previously, and wanting to explore that avenue, suggested it in-character. The DM immediately halted the scene, declaring “That’s it! You’re out! I told you you weren’t allowed to use your knowledge of the module to influence anything!”

This DM already presumed malice on your part, and was looking for any opportunity to punish you for your actions. A DM should never get into the mind of the PC's like that, in my opinion. Nor should metagaming ever be this much of a concern. The goal of the DM and the players should always be to have fun. We don't just act upon pc knowledge, but we also act upon what we as players believe will create the most entertainment.

When I replayed my Call of Cthulhu campaign with the same player, he made sure to stay clear of a trap that he had fallen into the first time, by having his character conveniently be elsewhere at that moment in time. What this player was doing, was making sure that other players got to experience the same shock and horror as he did the first time around. This was something we had agreed upon together: He would explore other angles of the same story, and not spoil any surprises for the other players. That was all. He could metagame as much as he wanted, and use it to seek out fun new areas and situations with a new character. He could see how other players would act when put in the same situation as he was.

And that is a ton of fun for both the DM and the player in question.

Often when I am a player, I will intentionally send my character into situations that are bound to create interesting play. I once had my barbarian attend a dinner with the rich upper class, and try to blend in. It was hilarious. He would burp at the table, use the wrong cutlary for each course consistently, or try to eat something with his bare hands, and accuse a nobleman of making up words that he just didn't know (or try to seem educated, by using a word incorrectly). The session had everyone dying with laughter. I knew this would not go well for my character, and end in total disaster. But I had my barbarian insist on being there, consequences be damned!