PDA

View Full Version : Is the DM the ultiamite metagamer?



Samb
2010-05-12, 12:14 PM
I had a disscussion with my DnD buddies after I got some flack here for saying non-detection is more or less useless for PCs. The main idea was that I was wrong for making encouters with metagame knowledge. Or rather my encounters could not use metagame knowledge to fight my PCs.

This caused a bit of confusion in me. I, as a DM have access to everything. I know everything of import about the PCs, their strengths, their weaknesses, their background, schooling etc. What can and what can't I do with this info? And how would non-dectection affect that?

I'll start with my idea of metagaming. It is when a player uses knowledge that his PC doesn't have to his advantage. Of course, this is not clear cut, as the opposite could be true, the PC is a lot smarter/knowledgable than the player. This is where things like knowledge checks and scrying come into play. These means allow the player the "legalize" metagame knowledge and convert it into something the PC knows.

Given this personal definition; could a DM even metagame? How much info can the DM use when designing a campaign? IMO a DM is given character sheets to design campaigns around. He will target the player's strengths to let them show off, and target their weaknesses to challenge them. When it is time to catalogue the loot he will give the BSF the heavy armor and give the +CHR/WIS item to the cleric. On occasion he will make the rogue face golems and zombies, or psionic PCs will face someone with the psionic hole feat.

Now the issue of non-dectection is handled by me in this way: My challenging encounter (ie targeting your weaknesses) is the way it is. The most non-dectection will get you is a good scouting report and a surprise round. If my BBEG really needs in game reports on the PCs (which is kind of rare) it will get it through other "legalizing ways".

I brought up said befiefs to my friends (one of whom is our current DM) as well as the hypothetical scrying on an Illithid Slayer (by a high INT psion/wizard) and here was the general concenus:
1) If the BBEG had never encountered of heard of the PCs, he would be flat-footed by the Slayer and have not factored him into his tactics. He will still have the same build but his tactics and equipment will be much less tailored to combat said group. This is a first encounter type of situation.
2) He has been following the PCs for a while but never saw the Slayer. If he scrys while the PCs are in combat then he will see the Slayer blink in and out. He makes his knowledge check and gains in game knowledge of slayers and sends out spies/scouts (with linked equipment) instead. Next encounter he only needs to succeed a spot check to not be flat-footed. He can also tailor his equipment a bit more to further frustrate the PCs. This is more a multiple run in situation (as most BBEGs are).

What would be metagaming: The BBEG with equipment and tactics without prior knowledge check on Slayers or sending spies in.

As you can see, in my eyes converting metagame knowledge to in game knowledge is really easy. I know some of you feel my BBEG even attempting to scry and seeing a PC blink in and out is metagaming, but for me I feel it is very reasonable for a general to want to see the conditions in the front line without being there.

Now if the scryer is dumber than the DM then things would be different. Would the BBEG have the foresight to even bother scrying? Would he be wise enough to act on said knowledge? Prolly not and they should be played as such or it would be metagaming.

tl;dr version:
given all the metagame knowledge and power a DM has, there is no real way a DM can "metagame" hence making non-detection rather less attractive (one surprise round). Even if he did, he could easily justify it assuming the BBEG is just as smart as him.

valadil
2010-05-12, 12:25 PM
A GM can't metagame. His NPCs can.

He's intelligent evil though, so he hasn't actually done anything naughty. As the GM you want to challenge this player, so you throw a church inquisitor at them. This is fine. It's the GM's job.

When the inquisitor approaches the party he doesn't know the evil character is evil. He also has no reason to attempt any sort of alignment detection. If the players give him an excuse, have him do detect evil. You're welcome to try to write in such an excuse (maybe everyone who enters the city gate has to be screened).

With higher level spells it gets a little more tricky. You have to figure out why the BBEG is interested in the party. How he realized there was a nondetection spell in effect. How he (thinks he) got around it. Why he went to all this effort. If you can answer all these things, it's no longer metagaming. Note that the PCs don't have to know the answer to these. If they're paranoid enough that you can't find a way to watch them, let them have their privacy.

Kylarra
2010-05-12, 12:28 PM
I don't have time to hash out a detailed response just yet, but I probably will later. I want to point out though, that justification of metagaming is a slippery slope defense that should only be applied in moderation. A DM can justify nearly anything with "plausible deniability", that doesn't mean he should.

Amphetryon
2010-05-12, 12:34 PM
'Metagaming' is, when referencing the DM, exclusively about those things a DM does that make the game less fun, less challenging, and less immersive. It's consistently using the PCs builds against them, or else ignoring PC strengths.

The DM who makes encounters specifically to make a PC's build useless is metagaming. A DM who does this consistently most likely ends up gaming without a party. A DM's job is facilitating the story the group, as a whole, shows interest in telling/running/playing. This means encounters should be challenging but not impossible, and based on the characters presented as much as on the DM's preconceived backstory.

If the Ranger has loaded up on dragon-slaying abilities and the DM willfully ignores this by never including a Dragon, he's metagaming. A DM who willfully negates a Slayer's shtick entirely is also metagaming.

My 2cp.

Optimystik
2010-05-12, 12:35 PM
"Less attractive" is a vague term to use in your conclusion. Exactly what option(s) is Nondetection less attractive than? What alternatives does a PC who has access to nondetection have? Is the Big Bad the only enemy from whom the PC gains benefits for hiding? Is Slayer the only method of gaining nondetection that you're considering?

A cost-benefit analysis requires both - a benefit and a cost. Your premise is that the benefit to Nondetection is minor for a PC, because the DM has the tools to circumvent it - but further discussion needs a cost too, or at least a manageable list of alternatives.

Yora
2010-05-12, 12:36 PM
The gms main job is to make the adventure and campaign fun for everyone involved. This means rewarding their good ideas and punishing their really stupid mistakes, while still balancing it to make it not too easy so it gets boring, and not too hard it gets frustrating.
If it helps to achieve this goal, everything can and should be done by the gm.

Zeta Kai
2010-05-12, 12:38 PM
Yes, yes s/he is. And that's okay, as long as everyone's having fun.

Next question, please. :smallwink:

druid91
2010-05-12, 12:41 PM
Well, it really does depend on what level of security the characters have. It all depends on how reasonable that the Dm makes it sound. Are you facing friend computer the paranoid Epic wizard? or that random noble of the local walled city?

Also you assume a something with your slayer scenario they might not be blinking in and out of view. While some things require you lose your focus not all do, my psionic were-cat never did.

Pluto
2010-05-12, 01:48 PM
Yes, the DM metagames. Yes, it is useful and beneficial to the game.

No, that doesn't mean that every NPC should know every obscure quirk of every class feature that the PC's have ever taken.

valadil
2010-05-12, 01:50 PM
The DM who makes encounters specifically to make a PC's build useless is metagaming.

Yes, but a GM should also challenge the party and make the player weaknesses relevant.

I'll step outside of D&D for a moment. Other games include flaws, some of which are phobias. By buying a phobia, a PC gets extra character points elsewhere.

I'm of the opinion that phobias have to come up in game. If they don't, they're just free points.

I don't see how exploiting other weaknesses in a build is any different. When characters are min maxed, they exploit the advantages gained every single session. If you fail to include the weakness, your character is optimized for free.

(I'm just going to start using Superman terminology because it's easier to write).

I don't advocate using your PC's kryptonite every session of course. That just makes things boring. But if you gained super strength by having that weakness, kryptonite should come up at least once.

A GM who includes kryptonite is metagaming a little. That's not a bad thing though. I think this is where it's allowed or even encouraged. Now, if Lex Luthor shows up with kryptonite then you're in danger of going too far. Why? Because the GM transferred his knowledge of kryptonite to an NPC who had no reasonable way to gain that knowledge.

Amphetryon
2010-05-12, 01:53 PM
challenge the party =/= make the PC's build useless.

Akal Saris
2010-05-12, 01:54 PM
Well, if I were a PC in your game who relied on stealth (maybe an archer rogue), but every important fight negated my stealth because the NPCs had huge spot checks/true seeing/blindsight, I'd be pretty frustrated.

Challenging the PCs doesn't always mean negating their class abilities. Your BBEG could easily prepare a fight that you make challenging for the entire party without knowing that the slayer exists, for example. Likewise, maybe you'll throw undead at the rogue now and then, but most rogues probably aren't actually going to be the stars of combat anyways, so why punish them?

I metagame all the time as a DM, but only in the sense that I design encounters that I believe will be fun and interesting for my PCs. Usually I try to include elements that will let a PC "shine" in the encounter rather than elements that negate the main schtick of a PC's build.

And it's been years since I had a BBEG actually scry on a PC to learn their weaknesses. Doing it just once, though, was enough to scare the PCs and make them all buy cloaks of nondetection, so I rewarded them by later revealing in-game that the BBEG was frustrated because he couldn't track down the PCs as they foiled his various plans. That didn't have a significant impact on how I designed the encounters, but it gave the PCs a feeling of having 1-upped the boss.

FishAreWet
2010-05-12, 01:54 PM
The DM should metagame. He shouldn't send predominantly undead against a party of Scouts, Rogues and Ninjas. Nor should he send predominantly undead against Servants of Pelor. A DM must metagame to keep encounters balanced.

But what about Nondetection/Track? As you said, these are often useless because if the DM wants something to be found... it is. Be it the party or the trail of the BBEG. Is this good DMing? It's preferable to not have to fall back on it but sometimes I think it's necessary.

quiet1mi
2010-05-12, 01:56 PM
I commonly have my BBRG wizard's and Clerics have slots left "open" to replace with whatever works best...

After all I cannot replicate the intelligence or wisdom of 26-30...

valadil
2010-05-12, 01:58 PM
Well, if I were a PC in your game who relied on stealth (maybe an archer rogue), but every important fight negated my stealth because the NPCs had huge spot checks/true seeing/blindsight, I'd be pretty frustrated.


It's become apparent to me that there are two kinds of metagaming against PCs. You can exploit their weaknesses and you can negate their advantages. I'm firmly in favor of #1. Less sure about #2. It's probably something I'd use once per PC, just to make them think about how to handle themselves without a crutch, but more than that is mean.

jiriku
2010-05-12, 02:00 PM
Samb, I would argue that, to the contrary, it's the DM's job to metagame, but not like you think.

Players should not metagame to overcome challenges. It's the intent of the rules that characters should use their own abilities to solve problems.

DMs should metagame, but to create challenges. DM metagaming around the character's strengths and weaknesses, whatever they may be, is A-OK if used to create fun and enjoyable games.

If one of my players takes illithid slayer, i'll consider it my job as the DM to a) include mind flayers as opponents, and b) make sure he knows that there are points where the mind flayers would have ambushed him, but they didn't because they couldn't find him. In fact, the more he crows about his nondetection aura, the more I'm going to showcase how the bad guys are losing opportunities to harm him because of his nondetection. My player is obviously excited about his ability and it's my job as the DM to metagame around that ability in a way that creates fun.

However, what I'll never, never, ever do is have every foe he faces have some uncanny contingency in place that allows them to find him whenever they want to, thus making his nondetection useless. That's just as lame and weak as having every adventure site covered in an anti-teleportation field from level 11 onwards. The DM code of honor requires that you do not metagame in order to make player abilities worthless.

erikun
2010-05-12, 02:33 PM
A GM can't metagame. His NPCs can.
This, pretty much. Metagaming is using out-of-character knowledge, which certainly doesn't apply when we're not even talking about a character.

As for what a DM should do: They should we working on challanging their players. Part of this means looking at the PCs capabilities and throwing encounters at them that challange their abilities. Part of this means looking at the unique abilities of each PC and adding hurdles to make those abilities seem significant.

Yes, part of that involves having NPCs who are capable of knowing the unknowable or dispelling the undispellable. Not all the NPCs, but just as the DM shouldn't throw encounters at the party that are always immune to whatever the PCs are using, the DM shouldn't throw encounters at the party that are always vulnerable to the PCs tactics. I mean, "reasonably speaking", people who are becoming powerful enough to challange the world are more likely to run into someone who is smarter, faster, and stronger than they are.

Akal Saris
2010-05-12, 02:42 PM
It's become apparent to me that there are two kinds of metagaming against PCs. You can exploit their weaknesses and you can negate their advantages. I'm firmly in favor of #1. Less sure about #2. It's probably something I'd use once per PC, just to make them think about how to handle themselves without a crutch, but more than that is mean.

I'll add a 3rd kind: Playing to your PC's Strengths. If a band of ogres would normally be too powerful for your PCs, but you know that your PCs have smite evil, lots of will-targeting spells, and a ranger who hates giants, then you can target your PC's strengths and throw powerful creatures at them that they will still be able to fight, and in doing so give them the opportunity to use their class features.



DMs should metagame, but to create challenges. DM metagaming around the character's strengths and weaknesses, whatever they may be, is A-OK if used to create fun and enjoyable games.

If one of my players takes illithid slayer, i'll consider it my job as the DM to a) include mind flayers as opponents, and b) make sure he knows that there are points where the mind flayers would have ambushed him, but they didn't because they couldn't find him. In fact, the more he crows about his nondetection aura, the more I'm going to showcase how the bad guys are losing opportunities to harm him because of his nondetection. My player is obviously excited about his ability and it's my job as the DM to metagame around that ability in a way that creates fun.


My view exactly.

Rixx
2010-05-12, 02:44 PM
I had a thread on this a while back. General consensus was that a bit of DM metagaming to better the experience of the players was a good thing, and that abilities like Favored Enemy or Nondetection should be useful at least sometimes.

Optimystik
2010-05-12, 02:47 PM
If one of my players takes illithid slayer, i'll consider it my job as the DM to a) include mind flayers as opponents, and b) make sure he knows that there are points where the mind flayers would have ambushed him, but they didn't because they couldn't find him. In fact, the more he crows about his nondetection aura, the more I'm going to showcase how the bad guys are losing opportunities to harm him because of his nondetection. My player is obviously excited about his ability and it's my job as the DM to metagame around that ability in a way that creates fun.

However, what I'll never, never, ever do is have every foe he faces have some uncanny contingency in place that allows them to find him whenever they want to, thus making his nondetection useless. That's just as lame and weak as having every adventure site covered in an anti-teleportation field from level 11 onwards. The DM code of honor requires that you do not metagame in order to make player abilities worthless.

Isn't there a middle ground between these two extremes though? A player's nondetection should definitely be relevant, but it shouldn't be a silver bullet.

Using your example of the mindflayers - I agree, there should be times when he escapes a dangerous ambush due to his ability. But I wouldn't want him using Cerebral Blind as a crutch, either - he should have to rely on mundane stealth and cunning every bit as much as his class feature to avoid being found out, because a flayer hive should have more ways to spot an enemy than relying on psionic sweeps.

Ruinix
2010-05-12, 02:56 PM
DM metagameing is the wors sh!t about all in a rol game with friends. cause its to damn close of the jerk DM and some times is a bit of both.


how to NOT metagame and screw players chars and builds and use their weakness in ur benefit? easy...

take a story, desing bosses and capitains and dont get too far frome there for minions.

done. then ur players have some encounters with that kind of mobs and they adjust to that, of course ur bosses can adjust too, but no DM metagameing for change build or nothing, just a bit adjust in "avancement"

for example. the campaing begin at lev 5. u plan the PCs reach the final boss at lev 9-10.

so start the campaing with the boss on lev 6-7 and then advance him and adjust IF AND ONLY IF YOUR BOSS HAVE ANY WAY OF RETRIEVE INFO FROM THE PCs PARTY, if not, just advance the boss to the target level in normal way without exploit any PC weakness in a intentional way lke psionic hole.

druid91
2010-05-12, 03:03 PM
DM metagameing is the wors sh!t about all in a rol game with friends. cause its to damn close of the jerk DM and some times is a bit of both.


how to NOT metagame and screw players chars and builds and use their weakness in ur benefit? easy...

take a story, desing bosses and capitains and dont get too far frome there for minions.

done. then ur players have some encounters with that kind of mobs and they adjust to that, of course ur bosses can adjust too, but no DM metagameing for change build or nothing, just a bit adjust in "avancement"

for example. the campaing begin at lev 5. u plan the PCs reach the final boss at lev 9-10.

so start the campaing with the boss on lev 6-7 and then advance him and adjust IF AND ONLY IF YOUR BOSS HAVE ANY WAY OF RETRIEVE INFO FROM THE PCs PARTY, if not, just advance the boss to the target level in normal way without exploit any PC weakness in a intentional way lke psionic hole.

Part of what he is saying is that the Dm could simply rule all the time that the Boss has a way of gaining intel on the party. I mean is it that hard for the Dm to say "the wizard scries the minions you were just fighting he now knows who you are and how you fight."

Gnaeus
2010-05-12, 03:12 PM
A big portion of why metagaming is bad, whether by players or DMs, is that it shatters the illusion of reality into tiny pieces. When a player uses out of game knowledge that his character wouldn't have, whether that means exploiting the weakness of a monster his character never heard of, or sailing across Krynn to find the dungeon where the player knows that the dragonlance is hidden, or building a cannon with the player's knowledge of metallurgy and ballistics, it makes the illusion that your game is a self-contained realistic world into a joke.

Now, if the NPC had reason and ability to scry on PCs, or if the PCs are famous and the NPC had motive and opportunity to hear all about their fights, the NPC SHOULD have counters in place. If the NPC is highly intelligent, they should have counters in place against tactics that are dangerous to them. If the NPC is superhumanly smarter than the DM, it is reasonable to give them some otherwise unobtainable knowledge, Sherlock Holmes style (I smelled your components, and saw the stains on your fingers, so I knew that you liked to cast X. or I am familiar with all the normal wind patterns in my cavern, so when I felt a breeze I knew that someone had disturbed them). All of those are things which benefit the realism of the world, and are not metagaming.

If all (or an unreasonable number) of your encounters are designed to short circuit PC builds, or if monsters use your knowledge in a way which could not reasonably be available to them, it is just as bad as if the PCs do it, and for the same reasons.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-12, 03:17 PM
Simple stuff...

The Mind Flayer leadership takes note of the fact that many of their people just aren't reporting in. They're getting slaughtered and only minor information is available.

So, they start ordering their people to bring around more unusual minions... things with Blindsight & Tremorsense, for example.

If word gets back that some Wizard is throwing Magic Missles & Force Orbs like crazy, the Bad Guys are justified in passing out scrolls of Force Ward.

BlckDv
2010-05-12, 03:34 PM
I actually make notes after any noteworthy PC activity... a fight, visit to a bar, etc. Who did they interact with, what "clues" did they leave (bloodstains, arrows, left stuff in an inn when they fled), what might be mentioned in casual conversation after they leave?

This way if at a later date I realize an NPC would have taken an interest in or investigated PCs, I have a basis for retroactively deciding what he is likely to already know about them based on where and when he would have gone looking.

Then again, I don't usually use a "BBEG", I just have notes about several NPCs and their plans and motives, and the more the PCs interact with them, the more fleshed out they become. In time they may delve deep enough to end up confronting major forces like demon lords or dark gods, or they may end up thwarting a devout follower of a good power with really twisted ideals.

Shademan
2010-05-12, 03:35 PM
what i would say if my players says I'm metagaming: SILENCE! I AM YOUR GOD!

but I reckon you might have a point there...

The Big Dice
2010-05-12, 03:39 PM
There's a difference between metagaming and using the metagame to enhance the gaming experience.

What I mean is, metagaming can be described as using out of character knowledge to affect thing in character. It's a hard thing to pin down, but when the GM regularly designs encounters specifically to counter character abilities, or tends to refine encounters on the fly to counter player plans, it's a reasonable assumption to think that the GM is metagaming against the players.

Using the metagame is a different kettle of fish. That's when encounters, sessions and campaigns are designed to let the characters do their thing. Maybe not to the point where characters always win, but in a way that means the players can feel good about choosing the options they do.

TheThan
2010-05-12, 03:41 PM
I believe that metagaming is an intrinsic part of being a DM. As a DM it is your job to know the capabilities and strengths of each player character at your table. This knowledge is used to provide entertaining and challenging encounters, as well as entertaining stories for your players. You know what sorts of spells they have, what sorts of magic items they have, and what they need. Basically you know what the party’s strengths and weakness are (and probably know them better than the players themselves). Using that knowledge is not only a powerful tool in your DMs toolbox its also necessary in order for you to make appropriate encounters and give out appropriate wealth and experience. But most importantly it’s necessary for you to make the game fun.

Imagine for instance you join someone’s campaign, you’re level one and you’ve received your first quest. Something simple like the mayor’s daughter has gone missing, you must find her. So you go out adventuring and discover a cave. You hear faint whimpering and figure this is where the mayor’s daughter went. So you enter the cave and find the girl, you also find a beholder in the cave and it promptly kills your entire 1st level party.

Now your upset, the game is over, you’ve have one session, one encounter and didn’t even completely one single quest. So you ask the DM why he put a beholder in a 1st level adventure. The Dm responds with “I didn’t know you couldn’t handle one”. Most people would be very upset and in a bit of disbelief that the DM didn’t know a 1st level party couldn’t handle fighting such a higher level monster. But the DM didn’t metagame, and accidentally killed the party with a monster that was too powerful for them to fight.





If the Ranger has loaded up on dragon-slaying abilities and the DM willfully ignores this by never including a Dragon, he's metagaming. A DM who willfully negates a Slayer's shtick entirely is also metagaming.

My 2cp.

Also note that ranger forces[/I[ the DM to metagame. The Dm knows what the ranger’s favored enemies are, so in order for the ranger to get some use out of his class features, the Dm [I]has to throw those enemies at him. Even if the rangers’ favored enemy does not feature heavily in the campaign setting, or campaign, the Dm now must accommodate the ranger player in order for him to have functioning class features. Its not really the Dm’s or the player’s fault, its just an example of very bad class design (I could go on and on here, but I wont).

Samb
2010-05-12, 05:50 PM
On DMing styles:
As long as the rules/fluff are consistent and everyone is having fun, then you are okay.

That being said, there is no "right" way to make a campaign. A DM could be a killer DM or a pushover, or more realistically somewhere in between.

How would a killer DM deal with a ranger that specializes in dragons? That party will either be decimated by a dragon well beyond the PC's ability, or they never see a dragon.

How would a push over deal with this ranger? The ranger starts his career killing dragon eggs and ends up slaying greater wyrms.

How would a moderate DM deal with it? The ranger will shine when fighting dragons, and be respectable against other encounters. This is how I deal who players who take a more specialized role. Another thing to consider is that maybe not everyone in your party might not like to fight one type all the time. A DM needs to cater to the rest of the party, and not just the specialist.



Why would a BBEG scry the PCs? The same reason PCs would scry their enemies, to gain information, tactical advantage etc. So you don't go in blind and anticipate upcoming problems. A challenging encounter will be hard no matter what, an opponent with prior knowledge will just be even more difficult (+1-2 on CR).

The Heroes of Horror uses the same mechanic, in that the more info you have on the encounter, the easier it.

Just a clarification: non-detection is less useful for a PC compared to a NPC. An NPC that cannot be scyed is far better because the PC don't even have metagame knowledge of their opponent.

Pluto
2010-05-12, 06:13 PM
Just a clarification: non-detection is less useful for a PC compared to a NPC. An NPC that cannot be scyed is far better because the PC don't even have metagame knowledge of their opponent.
:smallconfused:
And why does the BBEG have metagame knowledge of the player characters again?

Samb
2010-05-12, 06:18 PM
:smallconfused:
And why does the BBEG have metagame knowledge of the player characters again?

Could you not misquote me? I said players can't get metagame knowledge the way a DM can not the BBEG.

If a BBEG needed metagame to become in game knowledge, it will happen. The reverse may not be as true.

Amphetryon
2010-05-12, 06:22 PM
Why would a BBEG scry the PCs? The same reason PCs would scry their enemies, to gain information, tactical advantage etc. So you don't go in blind and anticipate upcoming problems.As has been said - more than a couple times, in a couple threads now - the DM's job in making the BBEG is different than the player's job in making a PC. The DM is making a character that exists off-screen for a significant portion of the game, generally speaking. Either he's pulling strings through his minions, or he's made for only a portion of the game, or, as the likeliest third option, he shows up and gets defeated.

Therein lies the rub. In a heroic game, the PCs are supposed to win. They may be sorely challenged, they may even lose thanks to poor tactics or rotten luck, but if they are up against a BBEG that they cannot beat, it's a very different game than the presumptive default of D&D. When the DM uses metagame knowledge to stack the deck so firmly against rules-savvy PCs that their builds are useless or liabilities, there should be no shock when the players take umbrage.

Raum
2010-05-12, 06:27 PM
I had a disscussion with my DnD buddies after I got some flack here for saying non-detection is more or less useless for PCs. The main idea was that I was wrong for making encouters with metagame knowledge. Or rather my encounters could not use metagame knowledge to fight my PCs.I'd rephrase that somewhat - A GM's encounters shouldn't use metagame knowledge without an in-game reason. Essentially, the GM should hold himself to the same standard expected of the other players.


<snip>
I'll start with my idea of metagaming. It is when a player uses knowledge that his PC doesn't have to his advantage. <snip>Ok, not sure I completely agree but that's a decent working definition. Question though, is this always a bad thing? I suspect there are a lot of things which meet this definition which are necessary to play...starting with following the adventure hook being dangled in front of them.


Given this personal definition; could a DM even metagame? Yes. You're still "playing the game" (I hope!) as such, the GM is simply a player with different roles. This becomes more obvious and intuitive when you've played some of the systems where the GM role changes hands regularly.


How much info can the DM use when designing a campaign? <snip>All of it. Just see above on in-game reasons. Say the PCs are going head to head with a rogue mage guild. The first encounters will be about feeling each other out...learning capabilities. But the guild is filled with intelligent people! If PCs commonly use a fire attack, they should not be surprised when a future group of mages is protected from fire. They've had time to observe and react.


<snip>
As you can see, in my eyes converting metagame knowledge to in game knowledge is really easy. <snip>Agreed. Though the BBEG in question does need a reason to see the PCs as threats before he sends out spies, investigators, or scrying mages. Depending on the campaign and the BBEG's personality, that may happen quickly or never.


...given all the metagame knowledge and power a DM has, there is no real way a DM can "metagame" hence making non-detection rather less attractive (one surprise round). Even if he did, he could easily justify it assuming the BBEG is just as smart as him.Err, not sure how you got to that conclusion. Didn't you just agree that GMs should be justifying use of metagame info? If you're not building it into the story appropriately, you may be metagaming. Just as any other player is when they act in-game on out of game knowledge.

Encounters should run the gamut between easy and deadly...but they should do so for coherent and consistent in-game reasons. Not simply because it's "time" for a hard encounter...

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-12, 06:29 PM
I think metagaming to increase the challenge to the PCs is important, especially the higher level they get, especially in a mid-to-high optimisation environment (or the converse).

This does take one of two paths:

Fitting the variety of enemies to the PCs strengths and weakness over the course of the adventure.

NPC knowledge of the PCs, facilitating specific anti-PC tactics, if the NPCs have a reason or means to do so.

In the former case, when running a module, I take the pre-emptive approach and suggest to the players what sort of favoured enemies (etc) are liable to be used in the campaign. I.e., if it's a campaign with relatively few Undead, I'll suggest them away from anti-Undead-based stuff. I'll suggest (broadly) what sort of favoured enemies they are likely to find useful and so on. I generally run my adventures as modules or actually run modules, rather than doing things week-to-week or on the fly, so this is important so as not to negate some class features, for example.

In the latter case, if you don't want the BBEG to know who or what you are, you really had better make sure the fleeing minions don't get away. 'Cos if he knows who you are, it'll be that much harder to stop him... I don't consider that sort of thing to be so much metagaming as more the realistic consequences of a believable world.



(In my games nondetection specifically is generally of limited use, as it would first assume the bad guys would be actually using divination spells to look for the PCs (which is not a hugely common experience).)

Pluto
2010-05-12, 06:33 PM
Could you not misquote me? I said players can't get metagame knowledge the way a DM can not the BBEG.
Right.

But if the DM is turning the metagame knowledge of the characters into in-game knowledge of the BBEG (which would be necessary to build to your situation where nondetection less useful for PC's than it is for NPC's), then DM metagaming does become a problem.

Samb
2010-05-12, 06:43 PM
Right.

But if the DM is turning the metagame knowledge of the characters into in-game knowledge of the BBEG (which would be necessary to build to your situation where nondetection less useful for PC's than it is for NPC's), then DM metagaming does become a problem.

PC's do this all the time via knowledge checks and scrying on their own. This is all legal and I allow my PCs to do this. Their foresight should be rewarded, why would a DM doing the same thing all of the sudden be metagaming? Answer, it shouldn't.

I don't see why you would feel this (perfectly plot justifiable) method would suddenly be metagaming. Maybe you feel as a PC you should have all the advantages? Maybe you prefer a pushover DM playstyle?

When I wrote my OP it was under the assumption that there is a plot relevant reason for a BBEG to scry the PCs it will happen, non-detection or not.

On the flip said, a challenging encounter will be challenging whether or not the PCs are detected or not. They were designed to be that way, with or without metagming. Hence, another reason non-detection is not as good for PCs.

Samb
2010-05-12, 07:12 PM
I'd rephrase that somewhat - A GM's encounters shouldn't use metagame knowledge without an in-game reason. Essentially, the GM should hold himself to the same standard expected of the other players.

Ok, not sure I completely agree but that's a decent working definition. Question though, is this always a bad thing? I suspect there are a lot of things which meet this definition which are necessary to play...starting with following the adventure hook being dangled in front of them.
What is "not a bad thing". Sorry i didn't understand this line.



Yes. You're still "playing the game" (I hope!) as such, the GM is simply a player with different roles. This becomes more obvious and intuitive when you've played some of the systems where the GM role changes hands regularly.

I thought DMs run the game.....



Agreed. Though the BBEG in question does need a reason to see the PCs as threats before he sends out spies, investigators, or scrying mages. Depending on the campaign and the BBEG's personality, that may happen quickly or never.
If a BBEG is scrying on the PCs, he does it for a reason. Reasons that are usually pretty obvious (ie why anyone uses remote viewing). I did say that the opponents' INT and personality will factor into it as well.



Err, not sure how you got to that conclusion. Didn't you just agree that GMs should be justifying use of metagame info? If you're not building it into the story appropriately, you may be metagaming. Just as any other player is when they act in-game on out of game knowledge.
I would hope I made a convincing NPC with his or her own motivations, if they do anything you should assume they did it for a reason. Their seems some confusion, I don't make the BBEGs scry just because I can. I do it because my BBEG is paranoid, or maybe he is a voyeur, or maybe he feels threatened by the PCs. Maybe he is all of the above. In sum: If I need a reason and a means to detect you, it will happen.



Encounters should run the gamut between easy and deadly...but they should do so for coherent and consistent in-game reasons. Not simply because it's "time" for a hard encounter...
The impression i'm getting is that a lot of players posting here prefer DMs that don't challenge them. If metagame knowledge is what is needed to justify the power boost of a BBEG (really just better tactics and items) then everyone seems to cry foul.

Optimystik
2010-05-12, 07:14 PM
The BBEG learning about the PCs is metagaming if:

a) The BBEG has no reason to make these checks or scry (e.g. he is not aware of the PCs yet, does not consider them a threat, or is focused on what he considers a more important objective, etc.)

b) The BBEG is willing but unable to do so (no scrying magic, no library, no reliable info on his foes etc.)

Past a certain point in the campaign, most BBEGs will have both of these things and therefore be able to check up on the PCs without it being metagaming - but even then, the PCs have ways to foil his reconnaissance efforts.

Samb
2010-05-12, 07:18 PM
The BBEG learning about the PCs is metagaming if:

a) The BBEG has no reason to make these checks or scry (e.g. he is not aware of the PCs yet, does not consider them a threat, or is focused on what he considers a more important objective, etc.)




I brought up said befiefs to my friends (one of whom is our current DM) as well as the hypothetical scrying on an Illithid Slayer (by a high INT psion/wizard) and here was the general concenus:
1) If the BBEG had never encountered of heard of the PCs, he would be flat-footed by the Slayer and have not factored him into his tactics. He will still have the same build but his tactics and equipment will be much less tailored to combat said group. This is a first encounter type of situation.

I already addressed this in the OP.



Past a certain point in the campaign, most BBEGs will have both of these things and therefore be able to check up on the PCs without it being metagaming - but even then, the PCs have ways to foil his reconnaissance efforts.
If plot demands it a DM and hence a BBEG will have all of this, or not even need it to present a credible threat. Either way, non-detection is a non issue (okay it could give you surprise round which isn't too bad).

druid91
2010-05-12, 07:32 PM
Ok if your party goes to extraordinary lengths to keep themselves hidden, trying to engage the BBEG in a shadow war where its the PC's agents Vs the BBEGs agents. Where direct contact with the PCs is about as common as seeing the BBEG is and multiple times the only thing that the BBEG has seen of their capabilities is simulacrum of a couple members of the party, giving an indication of what they are capable of.... at half strength.

Now would you say that the BBEG finds them just so you can have that tough dragon fight you wanted? Even though it contradicts everything that the PCs have done up to that point?

Ormagoden
2010-05-12, 07:36 PM
Whats the CR of and Ultiamite? Is it an outsider?

KurtKatze
2010-05-12, 07:36 PM
Sometimes i think all that thinking is too much thinking ^^

honestly in a rounded campaign i take into consideration the setting, i have swamp, what creatures inhabit that swamp? Why are they a thread/ why would PC's have a reason to challange them. Same with a crypt etc.

If i take the monsters out of the MM than, there is variety, there will be creatures with high spot checks or some immune to crits, but there won't always be!

For the BBEG encounter i would include several conditions for the PC's to choose from with proper preperations, some more in their favour, others less, depending on how they choose the fight will be more easy/difficult.
If they face an BBEG arcaner/diviner for example and they are a force to be recond with 7th + level, i think they will have a certain reputation (i use reputation scales depending on what they have achived, done in thier past) so, if they are a reknown force of good, and the BBEG is not from another plane or anything he will have an eye on "The reknown heroes" ofc IF they use nondetection or make a will save against scrying, tell them some strang eresonance occured, a diviner or arcaner with the apprpriate skills will be able to figure it out and from that point, use nondetection for example. Ofc. this wil make the BBEG more weary of them trying to get in spies of his to infiltrate/observe the party. If he is very self concoiouess he won't do that not seeing a thread.

I really dunno, but having a setting will include all strenghts/weaknesses of the SC's earlier or later and appropriate behaviour of NPC's will sooner or later either exploit weaknesses ort let em shine.

I have a hmm kinda realistic approach ofc it is their game but i am sure if my players would feel this too strongly in either case strength or weakness, they would think it is lame.

Raum
2010-05-12, 07:49 PM
What is "not a bad thing". Sorry i didn't understand this line.Is metagaming, as you've defined it, always something to be avoided? See previous post for one example on why it isn't - at least in my opinion.


I thought DMs run the game.....And quarterbacks run offenses. As said before, it's just a matter of different roles. But that discussion is probably best in another thread, it's tangential to metagaming.


If a BBEG is scrying on the PCs, he does it for a reason. Reasons that are usually pretty obvious (ie why anyone uses remote viewing). I did say that the opponents' INT and personality will factor into it as well.Sure (though obvious to the GM isn't always obvious to the players), but if the BBEG is scrying why isn't non-detection more helpful? It's potentially more resource intensive, difficult, time consuming, and detectable to use other methods of spying.

Scrying, in general, is less useful than many make it out to be. As I remember, it's target may even detect the scry. I tend to have BBEG's rely on reports from defeated foes who ran and from observers far more than scrying.


<snip> In sum: If I need a reason and a means to detect you, it will happen.Hmm, I approach it slightly differently. NPCs usually have specific goals and resources (at least at a general level) long before I need to ever stat them out. Those resources decide how much access they'll have to intelligence on the PCs at least as much as the reasons / goals.


The impression i'm getting is that a lot of players posting here prefer DMs that don't challenge them. If metagame knowledge is what is needed to justify the power boost of a BBEG (really just better tactics and items) then everyone seems to cry foul.Possibly. Frankly, the expectation of graduating 'encounter levels' and level appropriate 'challenge ratings' is one of the reasons I prefer GMing other games.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-05-12, 07:52 PM
Whats the CR of and Ultiamite? Is it an outsider?

Well as an Ultiamite I'd expect a Vermin or Monstrous Beast. Possibly an Outsider, though it would need a larger, more powerful "leader" version, an Ultiamight.

Edit: To have a point to my post, I would say that a BBEG should use the same checks and methods that the PCs could use to find out about things (which in particular will vary from one to the next. One BBEG may have a Scrying obsession while another might use Gather Information and a third uses a spynetwork). If the methods they use fail and they can't or won't use other methods then they don't have the information. If they do acquire information via means which are out-of-character in either way (magic hater uses Scrying when her hatred for magic is more important to her than knowledge of some upstart adventurers or just gets their information because the DM doesn't separate in- and out-of-character knowledge) then that is metagaming, and is generally unacceptable (to me). Some things every once in a while that could not have happened by chance are okay (the DM may fudge rolls in a player's favour on occasion, letting them get away with a bit for their side is only fair), the BBEG keeping constant knowledge of whether or not someone with Nondetection is still with the party despite only checking through Scrying is not. Occasional things to keep things interesting? Good. Continued and/or very common metagaming for the purposes of making the game easier for the BBEG or any other purpose? Not good. If a PC has invested in an ability (using levels or wealth) they, probably, do so on the condition that a. the DM will make the ability useful sometimes or b. that they know how useful the ability is before investing in it.

I will return to this.Maybe.

Eldariel
2010-05-12, 07:55 PM
If plot demands it a DM and hence a BBEG will have all of this, or not even need it to present a credible threat. Either way, non-detection is a non issue (okay it could give you surprise round which isn't too bad).

I'm of the opinion that plot shouldn't have any in-game power. That is, things shouldn't happen because "plot", but because of in-game variables. Plot is the overarching scenario of the campaign and I feel plot should be modified by the PCs and the opposing forces' actions rather than simple decisions that "plot needs X now". "Plot requires X" works in movies and books to an extent (as long as at least somehow vindicated), but a collaborative creation process like tabletop RPG is a very different matter. As such, the plot should move differently if there's Nondetection in play as opposed to no such thing simply because it affects how the Opposing Power can act; limiting its knowledge and thus making it more difficult to hit when it hurts and accurately prepare.

Boci
2010-05-12, 07:56 PM
The impression i'm getting is that a lot of players posting here prefer DMs that don't challenge them. If metagame knowledge is what is needed to justify the power boost of a BBEG (really just better tactics and items) then everyone seems to cry foul.

Your impression is wrong. My PCs are currently facing a dragon that did not know they were coming. They are still being challanged.

In the above example, if the DM is worried that the BBEG is too weak because he doesn't have the rightt actics to counter the PCs, why not just make him stronger. Then it is still a challanging fight and as a bonus the PCs can have the satiosfaction of "Good thing we managed to stay off his radar. We could never have beaten him if he was prepared for us"

Ormagoden
2010-05-12, 08:02 PM
Well as an Ultiamite I'd expect a Vermin or Monstrous Beast. Possibly an Outsider, though it would need a larger, more powerful "leader" version, an Ultiamight.

See I was thinking it was some kind of inevitable...

ScionoftheVoid
2010-05-12, 08:18 PM
See I was thinking it was some kind of inevitable...

One that stops people who have gained knowledge meant to stay beyond the ken of mortals and the divine alike? An Anti-metagaming Inevitable would be rather cool.

Divide by Zero
2010-05-12, 08:44 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheComputerIsACheatingBastard

I figure the DM is basically like the computer in this situation...

Ormur
2010-05-12, 10:11 PM
In designing encounters the DM should determine whether they are appropriate according to the situation and knowledge of the enemies and/or try to keep them fun and challenging.

A BBEG wizard might be prepared enough to deliberately exploit some PC's weaknesses and ward himself against their tricks. Even if he didn't know everything about the PC's beforehand it might be reasonable that he prepared for some common tricks. A rogue that didn't know the PC's before he fought them however shouldn't by coincidence have a scroll the negates their only flaw.

It's also reasonable when travelling dragon-lands that the PC's with the coward flaw would find himself facing a dragon with frightful presence. Having every guard in every town using a fear build is not.

The DM should think of certain criteria for his NPC's. The BBEG becomes aware of the PC's when they slaughter his men and leave traces or talk too loudly about their plans in a tavern full of informants. The slavers that took your party prisoner might have dealt with mages and have means of holding them etc.

The criteria don't have to be all laid out in advance but they should be reasonable when they come into force. Having the slavers preparing specifically for spell-casters with still spell, silent spell and eschew materials feats probably isn't reasonable just to keep the players on the rails just as the tactically omniscient evil opposite party isn't either.

Emmerask
2010-05-12, 10:14 PM
Your impression is wrong. My PCs are currently facing a dragon that did not know they were coming. They are still being challanged.

In the above example, if the DM is worried that the BBEG is too weak because he doesn't have the rightt actics to counter the PCs, why not just make him stronger. Then it is still a challanging fight and as a bonus the PCs can have the satiosfaction of "Good thing we managed to stay off his radar. We could never have beaten him if he was prepared for us"

How do you know that they are challenged?
Do you use :smallbiggrin: metagame :smallbiggrin: knowledge to prepare the encounter :smalleek:

Dm´s use metagame knowledge all the time, starting with giving the party roughly cr appropriate monsters over to including backstory elements of the characters into the story.
Some dms of course abuse their knowledge for example re-planing an encounter after hearing the players cunning scheme to overcome it - which is obviously an abuse of knowledge that should not happen...

But overall the dm having said metagame knowledge and using it to create a more fun sessions for everyone involved is a good thing :smallwink:

Optimystik
2010-05-12, 10:30 PM
I already addressed this in the OP.

I wasn't disagreeing with you there, merely adding my perspective. :smallsmile:


If plot demands it a DM and hence a BBEG will have all of this, or not even need it to present a credible threat. Either way, non-detection is a non issue (okay it could give you surprise round which isn't too bad).

It's a non-issue as far as the Big Bad is concerned, but often being able to slip by lesser minions is just as important, and they are much less likely to have ways around your protections.

Xyk
2010-05-12, 10:41 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but the DM should never allow his NPCs to metagame any more than his PCs. In order to have a realistic (Except the magic bits) world, you have to have everyone on th same level. If a PC casts non-detection but the BBEG is some kind of evil mastermind, he will most likely find a better spell than scry or hire spies. Scry shouldn't be able to work, but if he's a smart cookie, he'll figure out that they must be hidden magically.

Kylarra
2010-05-12, 11:02 PM
I think a problem is that you're presenting it as a binary and that's all that's available. The problem is, you're setting the "metagaming binary" at your own level of metagaming, which is fine in actual gaming, but for the purposes of formulating a logical argument, not very useful since metagaming is a spectrum, not a binary.

It's hard to say one is not metagaming because by deliberately not metagaming one is still metagaming, just with a different goal in mind. I hesitate to throw out gaming comics as a reference, because they're more often than not satirical or hyperbole, but eh these two (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=185) strips (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=186), demonstrate what I mean.

On some level, the DM (as well as the players) is pretty much always metagaming, but this is not inherently a bad thing, it simply depends on how much they do it and for what purposes.

Samb
2010-05-13, 01:09 AM
I think a problem is that you're presenting it as a binary and that's all that's available. The problem is, you're setting the "metagaming binary" at your own level of metagaming, which is fine in actual gaming, but for the purposes of formulating a logical argument, not very useful since metagaming is a spectrum, not a binary.
I don't think I imposed a "binary" on anything. Nor do think it matters since the point of my OP is that the DM's leeway to metagame (or convert metagame knowledge into in game knowledge) is so much more than than the PCs' that it basically acts as if it is "binary".


On some level, the DM (as well as the players) is pretty much always metagaming, but this is not inherently a bad thing, it simply depends on how much they do it and for what purposes.
Yeah, I basically subscribe to that as well.