PDA

View Full Version : DM Metagaming.



CTLC
2010-01-27, 02:59 PM
well, any of you suffer from DM meta-gaming like i feel i do?

for me, it means that when i do my best to limit my abilities, or get an ally to help me use illusions to further force enemies into false trains of thought, the DM ignores it. i try to never use spear against a certain group so that when they retreat out of my 60ft range [mostly melee party] then i can take advantage of the spear to block off a route [i like preparing for enemy escapes] etc. Thats a weak example, but it also ruins plans i have concerning my alternate forms as a sparrow hengeyokai, I try to never let some npcs see my forms, and i do a good job of it. Suddenly the npc is an expert on hengeyokais, and decides to shoot a sparrow. in a flock of sparrows, i asked the dm oog if i was sensed somehow, because i emit no aura, and cannot have my mind read, and she said no. This happened in an out of campaign scenario, but it still bothers me.

it really hurts the game for me. It also applies to normal meta-gaming, but i think people dont acknowledge it.

Egiam
2010-01-27, 03:10 PM
Hmm.... no?

As Dungeon Master of my group, I carefully maintain a set of notes as to what my NPC's know and do not know. Even my less important characters. Here is an example of how I note my less important NPC's, the ones that I have not written statistics for:

Gerald, Human Commoner 2. Barkeep. 40 years old. Lives upstairs. Knows PC's are adventurers sent to deal with villain. Only knows: -Rumors about his minnions-

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-27, 03:12 PM
Yeah I've had this happen to me before and I feel your pain. My solution was whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-27, 03:14 PM
That sucks. Really. I'm the DM for my group, and I would NEVER do that to my players. I feel for you. Maybe you should have a talk (non-confrontational, if you can manage it) with your DM about it. Tell her why it bothers you, and explain that unless NPCs have outside knowledge of your character through other contacts, they should plan their actions based on what they see your character do. The DM needs to be reminded that it isn't her job to use the best strategy she can for her NPCs, but rather the best strategy that the NPCs would have been able to come up with, which is an entirely different thing.

Remember, though, to be really nice about this and don't be confrontational about it. Bringing it up in private is probably the best way to go. Fun needs to be had, so she needs to adjust what she's doing, but you need to avoid bad blood as well.

clockworkmonk
2010-01-27, 03:16 PM
Whenever I DM, I do my best to remember the goal is verisimilitude. I mean, I want my players to believe the world I created, and the setting. Doing the thing you suggested with the Hengeyokai would break that, and show it all to be obviously fake.

Since I only DM when out active DM needs a break or has nothing prepared, I tend to have to make things up on the fly more alot, I rarely keep notes more than what I scribble out between things, and those notes tend to be motivations.

Kallisti
2010-01-27, 04:34 PM
It's happened before, and the solution depends on the game. If you're on good enough terms with the DM to call him out on it, do. If that'd be too disruptive or you know he wouldn't appreciate being corrected during the game, talk to him afterwards. If he tells you the NPC in question did, in fact, know that, react in character. "But how could the assassin have known the password for the Glyph of Warding?" If he refuses to be reasonable about it, shoot him with a hammer and find a new DM.

AstralFire
2010-01-27, 05:13 PM
Whenever I DM, I do my best to remember the goal is verisimilitude. I mean, I want my players to believe the world I created, and the setting. Doing the thing you suggested with the Hengeyokai would break that, and show it all to be obviously fake.

Since I only DM when out active DM needs a break or has nothing prepared, I tend to have to make things up on the fly more alot, I rarely keep notes more than what I scribble out between things, and those notes tend to be motivations.

DM Metagaming is fine.

DM unfairness or verisimilitude breaking is not.

Dust
2010-01-27, 05:20 PM
Although the examples you gave were indeed weak (even if the enemies DO know you have a throwing spear handy, how does this change THEIR necessity to retreat, etc.), it would seem that your desire to outwit your enemies is a lost cause.
Don't let this ruin the game for you. Stop 'limiting your abilities,' continue to fight tactically, but just assume that all NPCs know everything the GM does. Not much else you can do.

Mastikator
2010-01-27, 05:23 PM
Your DM has lost perspective, DMing is not about trying to kill the PC's, especially by metagaming.

Saintjebus
2010-01-27, 05:32 PM
It sounds like it may be a case of the DM forgetting or not being able to separate IC from OOC knowledge. It's hard enough for players to do that, but it's even harder for a DM. He may not even think anything of it. If he's been asked about it and continues to do it, however, than that's just bad DMing.

Ernir
2010-01-27, 05:37 PM
Suddenly the npc is an expert on hengeyokais, and decides to shoot a sparrow. in a flock of sparrows, i asked the dm oog if i was sensed somehow, because i emit no aura, and cannot have my mind read, and she said no. This happened in an out of campaign scenario, but it still bothers me.

:smallconfused:
Are you absolutely sure you are not somehow dealing with a Wizard completely tricked out in knowledge skills and divinations? Because if not, that's... bad.

I have a 12th level Druid in one of the games I run. He uses it creatively. I have yet to make a mook recognize it. They just have absolutely no way to know that one of the eagles soaring around is in fact a Druid on a recon mission.

arguskos
2010-01-27, 05:47 PM
:smallconfused:
Are you absolutely sure you are not somehow dealing with a Wizard completely tricked out in knowledge skills and divinations? Because if not, that's... bad.

I have a 12th level Druid in one of the games I run. He uses it creatively. I have yet to make a mook recognize it. They just have absolutely no way to know that one of the eagles soaring around is in fact a Druid on a recon mission.
I actually did that on accident once. The party was scouting, looking for a tribe of orcs known to be hunters, so they could kill said tribe (hired to do so blahblah). The Druid decides to wild shape into an eagle, and do some aerial recon. He even flew with a group of other birds.

The orcs, seeing a flock of birds, thought "lunch!" and proceeded to shoot into the flock. The Druid had a 1/20 chance of being targeted. He was, and they shot him right in the chest. Sadly, the attack roll (rolled openly, mind you) was a critical, and the orc confirmed it. Bam! Dead Druid. I decided that he stayed in eagle form, and so, the druid was cooked and eaten by orc hunters.

We all had a good laugh, even the druid player, who remarked it could have been a worse death.

Grumman
2010-01-27, 06:14 PM
I actually did that on accident once. The party was scouting, looking for a tribe of orcs known to be hunters, so they could kill said tribe (hired to do so blahblah). The Druid decides to wild shape into an eagle, and do some aerial recon. He even flew with a group of other birds.
I don't think eagles typically "flock". If he'd been acting like an eagle, he probably couldn't have got shot.

Kaun
2010-01-27, 06:43 PM
Yeah Eagles are solo hunters generaly, i think there are a few breeds that hunt in pairs but i may be thinking of falcons or hawks.

arguskos
2010-01-27, 06:48 PM
I don't think eagles typically "flock". If he'd been acting like an eagle, he probably couldn't have got shot.
I didn't know that at the time, and he asked to find a group of eagles and fly with them. We rolled with it. *shrug* It was years ago, in any case.

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-27, 07:06 PM
It sounds like it may be a case of the DM forgetting or not being able to separate IC from OOC knowledge. It's hard enough for players to do that, but it's even harder for a DM. He may not even think anything of it. If he's been asked about it and continues to do it, however, than that's just bad DMing.

Eh... as a DM, I'm gonna have to say I really don't think it's harder for a DM than a player. I think it is easier for a DM. This is because the player who knows something his character doesn't wants to act on it but has to remember not to. The DM shouldn't have the desire to want to act on knowledge the NPCs don't have. If he does, he's not doing it right. The DM isn't supposed to be "trying to win" the fights, like the players are - he is supposed to be making the NPCs "try to win," which isn't the same thing at all. There should be less personal investment in the NPCs winning for the DM than there is in the PCs winning for the players.

Ormur
2010-01-27, 07:10 PM
I think my biggest metagaming problem as a DM is forgetting what first impressions my players' characters would make on NPCs. Thinking the filthy VOP monk is a servant, not knowing the sorceress can do magic etc.

JohnnyCancer
2010-01-27, 07:17 PM
A little DM metagaming is appropriate for a super intelligent BBEG, it's a legit way to play a being who is smarter than yourself. But if the players take the appropriate measures to conceal their plans and abilities, then you shouldn't metagame.

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-27, 07:18 PM
A little DM metagaming is appropriate for a super intelligent BBEG, it's a legit way to play a being who is smarter than yourself. But if the players take the appropriate measures to conceal their plans and abilities, then you shouldn't metagame.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

illyrus
2010-01-27, 09:48 PM
I've had multiple DMs play the prediction game with our group. If we defeated one group of monsters and there were no survivors the next group would suddenly know how to counter our tactics. Talking to the DM in question tends to just get a retroactive justification of why the monsters all have precognition.

My method to counteract this is to have a variety of tactics. Ideally the tactics overlap the obvious counter to the other tactics. That or you use the threat of a tactic to enforce battlefield control. If the DM is worried about a monster getting further than 30 feet away from your character due to x tactic then you can come up with ways to take advantage of that.

Ernir
2010-01-27, 10:00 PM
Thinking the filthy VOP monk is a servant

Filthy? He hasn't been filthy for ages! The Sorceress keeps prestidigitating the filth off, and nobles keep offering us places to stay.

Your point remains, though. :smalltongue:

Akal Saris
2010-01-27, 10:09 PM
Actually, as a DM I tend to play my monsters as less intelligently than they probably should be (provoking AOO's, targeting the strongest PC, not concentrating attacks, losing morale easily, etc), but I also try to design encounters that play to different PCs' strengths/weaknesses.

Winter_Wolf
2010-01-27, 10:37 PM
My first thought on seeing the thread title was that DMs kind of have to do a lot of metagaming. What happened to your hengeyokai sounds less like metagaming than some kind of jerkassery. Your DM might or might not be aware of it, best to bring it up in as polite a way as possible and inquire about it.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-01-28, 02:47 AM
I guess I've done this sort of thing by mistake - as a DM, you have to keep track of a lot of charcters, and things can go astray here and there.

I'd recommend bringing it up with the DM - "[DM's name], is there a reason this NPC knows about my plan to do X, cause I can't see why he's doing Y unless he knows my plan."

MickJay
2010-01-28, 05:32 AM
I agree that this looks like the GM becomes too attached to his NPCs, to the point that he'll try to save them (that's fine, that's what the NPCs would be trying to do anyway), even by metagaming (that's bad). If it's a single situation, it might be possible that the GM wanted the PCs to have an encounter, but for plot reasons also wanted NPCs to survive. In that case, while still a poor move, it's somewhat justified.

dsmiles
2010-01-28, 07:30 AM
Hmm.... no?

As Dungeon Master of my group, I carefully maintain a set of notes as to what my NPC's know and do not know. Even my less important characters. Here is an example of how I note my less important NPC's, the ones that I have not written statistics for:

Gerald, Human Commoner 2. Barkeep. 40 years old. Lives upstairs. Knows PC's are adventurers sent to deal with villain. Only knows: -Rumors about his minnions-

That's pretty much how I do it. A BBEG that has some sort of scrying spell (and knows the PCs are after him/her) may know a lot about them, but minions don't know their capabilities.

BobVosh
2010-01-28, 07:45 AM
I try my best to avoid doing any metagaming of what mobs know. I'm glad to say I haven't done anything nearly as jerkish as the first example.

Mostly I tend to forget illusions so I make mistakes there. If it is something important (wall to spy through etc) I will retcon. Something like mislead I will say "lucky guess," then make dang sure they guess very unluckily next chance.

I do believe two metagamed wrongs cancel out if done right :D

SpikeFightwicky
2010-01-28, 11:44 AM
I was DMing a game once, and I had a spy NPC (rogue that was really good at disguising, hiding, moving silently, bluffing, etc...) that another NPC (not the BBEG until the PCs turned him into one) hired to keep tabs on them. Whenever the opportunity came up for one of the players to detect him (spot, listen, etc...), they always rolled really low. I expected him to get caught eventually and likely killed, but they never spotted him. I levelled him up in scale with the PCs and when the NPC that hired him started orchestrating encounters, they used the rogue's intel to better attack the party.

The worst thing was, the PCs were suspicious that I was metagaming when this stuff happened (sorceror always used fireball, so some of the enemies used fire resistance magic items... fighter had only one weapon on him, so they'd try to disarm him all the time, one time stealing his weapon). I couldn't reveal that there was a spy tailing them because it would swing the metagame the other way, so I eventually retired the spy and instead used something more obvious, but the PCs STILL fell for it...

A teen accompanied the party for suspicious reasons, and always ran off late at night to communicate with the BBEG through a magic device -> if they were the least bit suspicious, they would have found everything out... she had very low social skills, mediocre sneaky skills and the communication device - a small crystal orb - would have been detected via detect magic, but the party 'leader' believed her sob story and let her tag along until they reached their next destination - the elected party leader's PC background was that he lost his family, including teenaged daughter in some kind of violent way, and the other PCs never questioned their 'leader'...

They were instantly suspicious of every other NPC they encountered except this one. I'm still not sure how this one slipped through the cracks...

KurtKatze
2010-01-28, 12:28 PM
Hmm, ok it's not so great to ask it here mb, but i have a question:

My elite array characters will enter a forrest soon to find some thieves and destroy them (i have no doubt they will). To make it at least a bit of a challange for them i plan on a well planned ambush.

Problem: In order to ambush them my thieves would have to know that they come. I thought long about that when i rocognized:

Hey, one of the stronger enemies is a lvl 4 ranger so i could have a hawk to check the forrest for intruders. Thing is, if you describe it, they could very well shoot the hawk. Or well, they have a druid, who could entangle it, if it sits on a tree etc. I rather would not have that happen because they will succeed anyway but not without some trouble from say, an ambush^^

None of them has knowledge nature (not even the druid^^) so, should i discribe the hawk at all or just mention that some times rapütors are flying around and leave it at that? Or would this be considered unfair?

Sorry that i post it here but i am sure it wouldn't need it's own thread.

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-28, 12:40 PM
Hmm, ok it's not so great to ask it here mb, but i have a question:

My elite array characters will enter a forrest soon to find some thieves and destroy them (i have no doubt they will). To make it at least a bit of a challange for them i plan on a well planned ambush.

Problem: In order to ambush them my thieves would have to know that they come. I thought long about that when i rocognized:

Hey, one of the stronger enemies is a lvl 4 ranger so i could have a hawk to check the forrest for intruders. Thing is, if you describe it, they could very well shoot the hawk. Or well, they have a druid, who could entangle it, if it sits on a tree etc. I rather would not have that happen because they will succeed anyway but not without some trouble from say, an ambush^^

None of them has knowledge nature (not even the druid^^) so, should i discribe the hawk at all or just mention that some times rapütors are flying around and leave it at that? Or would this be considered unfair?

Sorry that i post it here but i am sure it wouldn't need it's own thread.

If NONE of them have knowledge Nature, they pretty much deserve to get screwed over for it, so I would consider it perfectly fair for you to do the bolded part.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-01-28, 12:46 PM
How much do you normally describe the setting? Overemphasizing it could set off (unintentional) warnings in your player's minds. What you could do is throw in a loud encounter (even if it's minor and doesn't involve combat). Anything that would get them to raise their voice, or get the wildlife to make lots of noise. That would be enough to get the ambushers on edge if it's loud enough.

As for the bird, if you mention when they enter the forest that they hear 'typical forest-y sounds' like birds, the occasional hawk, insects and do it casually, that should be good enough. If the forest is dense enough, they might not even be able to spot it through the canopy, and it can survey from above (not very well, but enough to know there are some unnatural visitors about).

Tyndmyr
2010-01-28, 01:56 PM
I agree that this looks like the GM becomes too attached to his NPCs, to the point that he'll try to save them (that's fine, that's what the NPCs would be trying to do anyway), even by metagaming (that's bad). If it's a single situation, it might be possible that the GM wanted the PCs to have an encounter, but for plot reasons also wanted NPCs to survive. In that case, while still a poor move, it's somewhat justified.

No, not really. If you want your NPCs to survive for plot reasons, they should have realistic means of escape and survival set up. Blatant metagaming or fiat should be avoided regardless.