PDA

View Full Version : Metagaming



Pages : [1] 2 3

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 04:12 PM
Mainly for DMs around i guess, but how do you all deal with metagaming in your campaigns?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 04:15 PM
I encourage it.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 04:15 PM
really, but doesent that ruin the atmosphere of it?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 04:19 PM
really, but doesent that ruin the atmosphere of it?

No, metagaming is inevitable and ultimately beneficial.

When your players decide to - say - go off and have adventures instead of getting proper jobs like sensible people, they're metagaming. When they fight the monsters instead of running away from them, they're metagaming.

You can't play a game without metagaming, the trick is to avoid doing it in a destructive way that ruins people's fun.

What's the specific issue you're having?

Starsinger
2007-06-24, 04:27 PM
I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 04:29 PM
ok, for example the last session they fought a group of bandits the wizard ran in to the middle of the bandits (as we wizards do :smalltongue: ) took a few hits from some guys some of them missed, he then started casting a spell which took a round to cast, it was dance of ruin or something. so he said "right im going to cast dance of ruin" which was a point blank area affect centered around himself which had a large effected area about himself so there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 04:30 PM
I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

yep, that kind of thing

Jack Mann
2007-06-24, 04:32 PM
Indeed. A certain amount of metagaming is necessary for the game to work.

For example, players are expected to know how the rules work, even though their characters don't. They should know how their spells interact, or what feats they need to take in order to qualify for a prestige class.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 04:33 PM
I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

Would you rather they said "crap, there's no key for this door. Let's forget all about this adventure and go back home?"

Gaelbert
2007-06-24, 04:34 PM
The crazy dance of ruin sounds like it might look dangerous or violent, the party members could think that the wizard is powerful. Don't consider it metagaming. Consider it IC insightfullness.

Jack Mann
2007-06-24, 04:37 PM
ok, for example the last session they fought a group of bandits the wizard ran in to the middle of the bandits (as we wizards do :smalltongue: ) took a few hits from some guys some of them missed, he then started casting a spell which took a round to cast, it was dance of ruin or something. so he said "right im going to cast dance of ruin" which was a point blank area affect centered around himself which had a large effected area about himself so there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

In character, he told them what he was doing. He told them he was casting Dance of Ruin. Presumably, the wizard has told his comrades what spells he knows and what their basic effects are. Certainly, any smart wizard would let his comrades know these things, so that they can take advantage of the effects his spells have in combat, just as they would tell him what their specialties are in combat ("I can trip enemies using my spiked chain, and keep them from charging past me to hit you." "If someone distracts an enemy, I can get behind them and stab 'em in the kidneys.")

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 04:37 PM
ok, for example the last session they fought a group of bandits the wizard ran in to the middle of the bandits (as we wizards do :smalltongue: ) took a few hits from some guys some of them missed, he then started casting a spell which took a round to cast, it was dance of ruin or something. so he said "right im going to cast dance of ruin" which was a point blank area affect centered around himself which had a large effected area about himself so there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

You see, this is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

What would be gained by the other players standing there like schmucks and getting hit by an AoE spell? Would it make the game more believable? Would it increase anybody's enjoyment?

The party wizard would have spent the best part of an hour preparing spells that morning. Is it not reasonable to assume that he mentioned to the other party members "by the way guys, I know this spell called 'Dance of Ruin', if you see me doing *this* (makes gestures) I suggest you get the hell out of the way."

This sort of "metagaming" is just the players not wanting to screw themselves over needlessly. D&D combat is challenging enough as it is, without having to justify your every (entirely metagame) combat-time decision "in character."

Zincorium
2007-06-24, 04:39 PM
Well, part of the solution is to eliminate the player's idea of "I said it and my character does it, end of story". Demand an explanation for why they're running away, and if they don't have a good one, it doesn't happen, any more than a player can walk through a solid wall simply by stating their character does so. Yes, it can get difficult with immature players. But if you explain to them that they're being unreasonable and they still don't see your point, then there's not much that can be done without ruining everyone's fun.

A second way, which is more subtle, is to quietly reward in character behavior and frustrate metagaming. NPCs will treat a character who behaves unreasonably as a nutcase. Doors will be solidly locked because the the key broke and was thrown out. Stuff like that, which helps verisimilitude and helps players retain a semblance of reason in their actions. Do not declare you are doing this, seriously, that pokes holes in the whole plan. Do not deny it if confronted, though, if someone figures it out, that means they are paying attention to the game.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 04:40 PM
ok i hear what you are saying but they didnt have any idea what it would do

Starsinger
2007-06-24, 04:43 PM
The best way to make deliberate attempts to stop idiotic metagaming (i.e. "there's obviously something there, since the DM asked for a spot check... so I'm gonna take 20 on a search check" despite the character failing the spot check.) Is to start asking for spot checks at random, whether there's anything to spot or not.

Likewise, if you decide keys are locked in chests or something, roll for it, give the illusion that it's based on chance.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-06-24, 04:44 PM
I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

That is actually more of a case of "Chekhov's Gun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun)" than serious metagaming... I believe it is perfectly fine to assume there is a hidden key if the players encounter a locked door that they can't break down... Some plot devices are entertaining, even if they are a bit obvious.

I believe the original poster was referring to character knowledge v.s. player knowledge...

For example, a friend of mine used to tell the story of a gaming campaign he had, where all of the players (except for one) were D&D newbies... the party had encountered a Troll for the first time, and before the first die was rolled, the non-newbie player started to give a long lecture to the other players about troll regeneration and how to get around it...

Things like that spoil the fun for everyone...

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 04:44 PM
ok i hear what you are saying but they didnt have any idea what it would do

At the risk of sounding confrontational: what gives you the right to say that?

Unless you literally roleplay through the PCs lives 24/7 in real time (which would be very, very boring) you have no way to know precisely what the PCs would or would not know, and I (and several others here) have pointed out that it makes absolute sense for people to know about the effects of spells their long-term traveling companions are capable of casting.

Too many DMs seem to work on the idea that PCs are never allowed to know anything that gives them an in-character advantage unless they've paid points for it or found it out during uptime. This is stupid. All it does is slow the game down. A lot.

Do you really want to force your players to sit around the table while the guy playing the Wizard describes the contents of the Spell Compendium to the rest of the party "in character"?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 04:47 PM
For example, a friend of mine used to tell the story of a gaming campaign he had, where all of the players (except for one) were D&D newbies... the party had encountered a Troll for the first time, and before the first die is rolled, the non-newbie player started to give a lecture to the other players about troll regeneration and how to get around it...

Things like that spoil the fun for everyone...

I seriously don't get this.

How is getting your character ripped apart because your GM won't let you use fire against it because you "wouldn't know about it in-character" fun by anybody's definition?

prufock
2007-06-24, 04:47 PM
I have no problem with thinking in metagame terms, but I do have a problem with playing in metagame terms.

Thinking metagame examples:
- character creation and planning
- tactical organization
- OOC chat that doesn't directly affect the game

Playing metagame examples:
- OOC roleplaying
- tactical advice between characters who shouldn't be able to communicate
- using knowledge of rules to personal advantage when the character shouldn't have such knowledge (MM stats, for instance)

How I handle it depends on the type of game. In rich, deep-character-building games, I apply an experience penalty to blantant metagaming. In casual games, such as the two I currently run, I'm a lot more lenient, just reminding players that "You can't do that."

Do you have a specific situation in mind?

Jack_Simth
2007-06-24, 04:48 PM
Couple of different ways, depending on my mood at the time, and the nature of the violation.

1) Enfore Knoweledge checks, or "Yeah, you know that, but your character doesn't." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
For instance, if an Int-8 Barbarian with no Knoweledge(Religion) decides to switch from his +1 Greatsword to a mundane greatclub against a human skeleton, without someone with Knoweledge(Religion) mentioning that it's needed, veto the action or apply an XP penalty. A human skeleton is only a DC 11 check to know something useful ... but that's not one you can make untrained (DC 10 is the untrained limit). Simply asking for the appropriet Knoweledge check will go a long ways towards getting rid of this type of metagaming.

2) Custom Monsters, or "Sure, MOST skeletons are susceptible to Bludgeoning damage...." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
Same situation as above; it is well within the DM's right to make custom monsters, or to tweak existing monsters. When the Barbarian swaps weapons without knowing in character that it's a good idea, tweak the critter. DR X/Bludgeoning vs. DR X/Slashing isn't usually a game balance issue. Knoweledge checks are. If anyone at the table happens to have the appropriet knoweledge skill, ask that person to make the appropriet roll (at the normal DC) to find out how you changed the critter (but don't mention that you changed the critter).

3) Deliberately break the Law of Conservation of Detail, or "Too much information." (metagaming type: Instantly knowing what's important)
Your players enter a room. Roll a die and describe three things in detail, even if none of them are important to the plot. If one thing is important to the plot, roll a d3 and describe the important thing in that location on the list. So the ink spilled on the letter that's the actual clue to the murder might be the first, second, or third thing in the room you describe - and you don't know in advance which order you'll use. So if you roll a 2, you might describe the fallen bookcase with scattered books, then the inkwell on an unfinished letter, then the torn tapestry of an ancient battle. If you only describe one thing in the room, that's usually what they'll go after first. If you describe one thing over the others, that's usually what they'll go after first. You need to keep things roughly even to keep the players exploring the game world, rather than just zipping to the "important bits".

There's more, easily applied as they come up.

Edit: Do note that some of these don't apply if the character has encountered that type of beasty before. If the Barbarian has already faced off against a few skeletons, and noticed that the sword doesn't seem to be working well, then switching makes sense, even without Knoweledge(Religion).

Wraithy
2007-06-24, 04:51 PM
there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

in my own defence I only moved out of the area after he began casting, and I appologise deeply for moving out of the area. but that spell ended up doing 39 damage! I have 18 hit points. I am aware that this is not an excuse, but sadly even if one person in the group metagames, we are all effected on a certain level. once again sorry. I tried to move out of the area as naturally as possible, so unlike our party monk danadith (queer name, interpret queer however you wish) who just randomly moved out of the area, I killed the person I was engageing and ran off to save our useless resident binder ("i have a vestiege that gives me +20 to heal checks" and you still can't fight). once again sorry, i did my best, but the metagameing was too strong.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 04:55 PM
Couple of different ways, depending on my mood at the time, and the nature of the violation.

1) Enfore Knoweledge checks, or "Yeah, you know that, but your character doesn't." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
For instance, if an Int-8 Barbarian with no Knoweledge(Religion) decides to switch from his +1 Greatsword to a mundane greatclub against a human skeleton, without someone with Knoweledge(Religion) mentioning that it's needed, veto the action or apply an XP penalty. A human skeleton is only a DC 11 check to know something useful ... but that's not one you can make untrained (DC 10 is the untrained limit). Simply asking for the appropriet Knoweledge check will go a long ways towards getting rid of this type of metagaming.

So an experienced warrior, who has spent most of his life whacking things with weapons, isn't allowed to know that an edged weapon is a bad choice against a skeleton because he isn't a trained theologian?


2) Custom Monsters, or "Sure, MOST skeletons are susceptible to Bludgeoning damage...." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
Same situation as above; it is well within the DM's right to make custom monsters, or to tweak existing monsters. When the Barbarian swaps weapons without knowing in character that it's a good idea, tweak the critter. DR X/Bludgeoning vs. DR X/Slashing isn't usually a game balance issue. Knoweledge checks are. If anyone at the table happens to have the appropriet knoweledge skill, ask that person to make the appropriet roll (at the normal DC) to find out how you changed the critter (but don't mention that you changed the critter).

You do realise that the reason skeletons are weak do bludgeoning damage is because slashing and piercing weapons rely on cutting flesh and puncturing organs, neither of which a skeleton possesses.

Do you honestly think that the correct "in character" response for an Int 8 Barbarian, faced with a horde of skeletons, is to say "Ooh, Thog will stab skeletons in their squishy bellies with Thog's spear. Thog not think for one second that maybe trying to stab a skeleton is completely futile, because Thog not study comparative religions at Barbarian School."


3) Deliberately break the Law of Conservation of Detail, or "Too much information." (metagaming type: Instantly knowing what's important)
Your players enter a room. Roll a die and describe three things in detail, even if none of them are important to the plot. If one thing is important to the plot, roll a d3 and describe the important thing in that location on the list. So the ink spilled on the letter that's the actual clue to the murder might be the first, second, or third thing in the room you describe - and you don't know in advance which order you'll use. So if you roll a 2, you might describe the fallen bookcase with scattered books, then the inkwell on an unfinished letter, then the torn tapestry of an ancient battle. If you only describe one thing in the room, that's usually what they'll go after first. If you describe one thing over the others, that's usually what they'll go after first. You need to keep things roughly even to keep the players exploring the game world, rather than just zipping to the "important bits".

Because the *last* thing you want players to do is to actually follow the plot. I mean, if they don't waste time looking at completely pointless bits of scenery, how are they ever going to appreciate the *effort* you put into your worldbuilding.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 05:01 PM
in my own defence I only moved out of the area after he began casting, and I appologise deeply for moving out of the area. but that spell ended up doing 39 damage! I have 18 hit points.

But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-24, 05:02 PM
The best way to make deliberate attempts to stop idiotic metagaming (i.e. "there's obviously something there, since the DM asked for a spot check... so I'm gonna take 20 on a search check" despite the character failing the spot check.) Is to start asking for spot checks at random, whether there's anything to spot or not.

Likewise, if you decide keys are locked in chests or something, roll for it, give the illusion that it's based on chance.

Or just roll spot, listen, and other such checks for them.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 05:03 PM
But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

if I adhered to my GMs interpretation of my character I'd be in a circular padded room playing a dolly or have shot myself in the head a LOOOONG time ago.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 05:03 PM
At the risk of sounding confrontational: what gives you the right to say that?

Unless you literally roleplay through the PCs lives 24/7 in real time (which would be very, very boring) you have no way to know precisely what the PCs would or would not know, and I (and several others here) have pointed out that it makes absolute sense for people to know about the effects of spells their long-term traveling companions are capable of casting.

Too many DMs seem to work on the idea that PCs are never allowed to know anything that gives them an in-character advantage unless they've paid points for it or found it out during uptime. This is stupid. All it does is slow the game down. A lot.

Do you really want to force your players to sit around the table while the guy playing the Wizard describes the contents of the Spell Compendium to the rest of the party "in character"?


if i don't know that the players characters know something that could turn the tide of a battle then they don't know it, thats why i ask for a backstory from each of them so i know what their characters do or don't know

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 05:06 PM
Or just roll spot, listen, and other such checks for them.

Or just let them do it. Because that will let them find the things that you only created in the first place in *order* that they would find them.

I'm really, really confused by a lot of this. It seems like some people's ideal game is one in which the PCs sit around doing nothing because they wouldn't know, in character, that they were characters in a roleplaying game. Where they never actually find out what the plot is, because they're not looking for it, where they just go about their daily lives, doing pointless mundane tasks, while you sit back, bored out your skulls, but safe in the knowledge that you aren't using any out of character knowledge.

Ali
2007-06-24, 05:07 PM
"But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do."


I think that if a character did stand there and take it, the DM might reward his/her character by fudging the roll and letting him live, barely. That's what I would do if I was the DM.

[Scrubbed]

Wraithy
2007-06-24, 05:08 PM
But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

actually i would be mildly pissed off at best, luckily I have plenty of knowledges and even spellcraft, so next time (while he's casting the spell) I can do a check and, regarding the result: take it like a man, or run like a little b*tch

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 05:08 PM
But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

do you have a problem with playing a fair game or something, all i said was that they had no experiance with this wizard and his spells, which was not in their backstory or their experiances over the last sessions.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-24, 05:11 PM
if i don't know that the players characters know something that could turn the tide of a battle then they don't know it, thats why i ask for a backstory from each of them so i know what their characters do or don't know

[Scrubbed]

Do you honestly expect your players to give you a list of everything their character has ever learned in his entire lifetime just in case it becomes important?

Wraithy: next session you play with this group, get your Wizard to sit you down and explain the entire Spell Compendium to you in character. Seriously.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 05:15 PM
Then frankly, that's you being a jackass, not your players metagaming.

Do you honestly expect your players to give you a list of everything their character has ever learned in his entire lifetime just in case it becomes important?

Wraithy: next session you play with this group, get your Wizard to sit you down and explain the entire Spell Compendium to you in character. Seriously.

Exactly. So where is it not role-playing for someone in the party to have heard at some point in their life to use blunts on skeletons?

Callix
2007-06-24, 05:16 PM
Did you want your party to die? If you did, rocks fall, everyone dies. If not, then they did what you want. Encourage the players to yell at the wizard, since he's a dangerous psychopath. But seriously. If some guy with control over the fabric of the universe starts dancing around in a circle doing crazy violent things, getting outta there would be my personal first response. There is no Knowledge (common sense) skill. Assume characters with >3 Wis have some of it.
Also, why can't the wizard assume some discussion of spell tactics, like: "If I run into the middle of the enemy and start dancing, run. It's a spell called Dance of Ruin, and it'll kill everything within X radius except me."

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 05:16 PM
I seriously don't get this.

How is getting your character ripped apart because your GM won't let you use fire against it because you "wouldn't know about it in-character" fun by anybody's definition?

Hahaha, I want you in my campaigns, just to see the look on your metagaming face when you find out after the battle "oh by the way, that troll was weak against sonic and frost damage, not fire." you reading the MM does not suddenly confer the benefit of your knowledge to your character who, by the way, has probably never seen or heard of trolls before unless he's got bardic music or some ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill.

Metagaming as both a player and a DM annoys me, as a player even if I know it'll hurt me, if my character doesn't know whats happening, he sticks around and takes the inevitable damage. As a DM I make my players justify their actions. no the wizard doesn't have to read the spell description out of the Spell C. but he does need to say "I'm telling them about (x) spell" or when he goes to cast it "Guys, get out of the way!" it doesn't need intricate detail to do the trick.


Did you want your party to die? If you did, rocks fall, everyone dies. If not, then they did what you want. Encourage the players to yell at the wizard, since he's a dangerous psychopath. But seriously. If some guy with control over the fabric of the universe starts dancing around in a circle doing crazy violent things, getting outta there would be my personal first response. There is no Knowledge (common sense) skill. Assume characters with >3 Wis have some of it.
Also, why can't the wizard assume some discussion of spell tactics, like: "If I run into the middle of the enemy and start dancing, run. It's a spell called Dance of Ruin, and it'll kill everything within X radius except me."

So the next time the man with control over the fabric of reality goes to cast mass bull's STR on the group in battle, I expect you to run for fear of your life. when he casts ray of enfeeblement in the same 20' radius of your character I'll expect you to hit the dirt.

Wizards are not always blasters and buff as well, they have spells that selectively buff, like haste, he could have been in the middle of the field casting haste and the characters would have never known. this is why spell craft exists.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 05:17 PM
Then frankly, that's you being a jackass, not your players metagaming.

Do you honestly expect your players to give you a list of everything their character has ever learned in his entire lifetime just in case it becomes important?

Wraithy: next session you play with this group, get your Wizard to sit you down and explain the entire Spell Compendium to you in character. Seriously.

within reason YES. if in their backstory they visisted a magic school and learnt about spells then yes it would count towards knowing what this spell did.If they were busy fighting why would they change their focus to look at the wizard for the right amount of time to realise it was going to be a point blank area affect spell that would hurt them when they had a person trying to remove various parts of their body with a longsword.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 05:17 PM
do you have a problem with playing a fair game or something, all i said was that they had no experiance with this wizard and his spells, which was not in their backstory or their experiances over the last sessions.

Let's look at it from an in-character perspective.

Premise One: The characters live in a world where dragons exist, the gods walk the earth, and magic is existent--if not commonplace.
Premise Two: The characters are aware of Premise One.
Premise Three: The characters are adventurers and therefore are a bit more combat-savvy than your typical farmer.
Premise Four: When a man rushes into a dangerous position and starts doing a funny dance, he's probably going to cast a spell that's going to blow you up/turn you into a newt/wither your manhood/otherwise make your life miserable and/or over. This is bad.
Premise Five: If "bad", then "flee."

"Man doing funny dance" is tantamount to "angry dire bear", "hungry dragon", or "brain-starved illithid" in a world of high-fantasy like D&D. If this had been in a d20 Modern or World of Darkness game, then it would make perfect sense for the thugs to stand there and take it. Why? Because men doing funny dances while being threatened with weaponry are lunatics, not wizards.

Wraithy
2007-06-24, 05:23 PM
Did you want your party to die? If you did, rocks fall, everyone dies. If not, then they did what you want. Encourage the players to yell at the wizard, since he's a dangerous psychopath. But seriously. If some guy with control over the fabric of the universe starts dancing around in a circle doing crazy violent things, getting outta there would be my personal first response. There is no Knowledge (common sense) skill. Assume characters with >3 Wis have some of it.
Also, why can't the wizard assume some discussion of spell tactics, like: "If I run into the middle of the enemy and start dancing, run. It's a spell called Dance of Ruin, and it'll kill everything within X radius except me."

because our wizard is the proof that chaotic stupid is a real alignment.

to crazedgoblin: funny that thanks to knowledge checks I know a rediculous amount about Binders, but nothing about Heironious :smallbiggrin:

Ali
2007-06-24, 05:24 PM
"Hahaha, I want you in my campaigns, just to see the look on your metagaming face when you find out after the battle "oh by the way, that troll was weak against sonic and frost damage, not fire." you reading the MM does not suddenly confer the benefit of your knowledge to your character who, by the way, has probably never seen or heard of trolls before unless he's got bardic music or some ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill."

Ha! That is great.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-24, 05:24 PM
So an experienced warrior, who has spent most of his life whacking things with weapons, isn't allowed to know that an edged weapon is a bad choice against a skeleton because he isn't a trained theologian?

*shrug* simple example. Metagaming offense is a matter of taste. You think the Barbarian isn't a clear enough offense? Well and good. There's plenty of others with a similar theme.

Would you let a Druid with no ranks in knoweledge (Religion) or Spellcraft whip out a Wand of Cure Light Wounds in a similar situation to the same purpose? How is that druid supposed to know that undead are vulnerable to positive energy? For that matter, how, exactly, does the Druid know that it's an undead skeleton, and not, say, an Animated Object of a human skeleton (which would ignore Cure/Inflict spells entirely, and have Hardness rather than DR)?

Would you let the Sorcerer with no ranks in Spellcraft or Knoweledge(Arcana) know it's a bad idea to hit that particular chunk of animate rock (stone golem) with a spell that permits SR, when there's other chunks of animate rock (animated objects, Gargoyles, and so on) where it doesn't pose a problem? Or that the Enervation spell that works so well on everything else will HELP the undead that he can't recognize?



You do realise that the reason skeletons are weak do bludgeoning damage is because slashing and piercing weapons rely on cutting flesh and puncturing organs, neither of which a skeleton possesses.

That's the offical explaination. But tell me - have you ever tried to cut down a tree with a club? An axe - an edged weapon - works better in most instances, even though they have similarities to skeletons (no flesh).



Do you honestly think that the correct "in character" response for an Int 8 Barbarian, faced with a horde of skeletons, is to say "Ooh, Thog will stab skeletons in their squishy bellies with Thog's spear. Thog not think for one second that maybe trying to stab a skeleton is completely futile, because Thog not study comparative religions at Barbarian School."

You're overexagerating, but essentially. If you'd prefer, though, I could switch examples (see above).


Because the *last* thing you want players to do is to actually follow the plot. I mean, if they don't waste time looking at completely pointless bits of scenery, how are they ever going to appreciate the *effort* you put into your worldbuilding.

The pointless bits of scenery are *part* of worldbuilding. Only describing things plot-related is a passive form of railroading.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 05:26 PM
Let's look at it from an in-character perspective.

Premise One: The characters live in a world where dragons exist, the gods walk the earth, and magic is existent--if not commonplace.
Premise Two: The characters are aware of Premise One.
Premise Three: The characters are adventurers and therefore are a bit more combat-savvy than your typical farmer.
Premise Four: When a man rushes into a dangerous position and starts doing a funny dance, he's probably going to cast a spell that's going to blow you up/turn you into a newt/wither your manhood/otherwise make your life miserable and/or over. This is bad.
Premise Five: If "bad", then "flee."

"Man doing funny dance" is tantamount to "angry dire bear", "hungry dragon", or "brain-starved illithid" in a world of high-fantasy like D&D. If this had been in a d20 Modern or World of Darkness game, then it would make perfect sense for the thugs to stand there and take it. Why? Because men doing funny dances while being threatened with weaponry are lunatics, not wizards.

Exactly what I'm saying here. The players are not total morons, I mean, this is a world where capital cities have 2000 lvl 1 magic users, 1400 lvl 2, 900 lvl 3, 750 lvl 4, 400 lvl 5, 150 lvl 6, 70 lvl 7, 20 lvl 8 and 4 lvl 9. (I might have exaggerated the numbers a little on that one).

All in all, I feel like you're expecting your PCs to act like total idiots to the point you have to cheat to keep them alive. Thanks, but I'd rather my DM didn't have to fudge the dice because I stood in a skeleton army for 40 turns with a greatsword. If you don't like that you can just stay home and enoy you're cheetos and mountain dew.

I mean, what character doesn't know fighting a elder dragon at lvl 1 is a bad idea? Did you LOOK at the thing?

And lastly, 'fight undead with blunts' is what, rule #3? Gimme a break. It's universal knowledge.

Gabriel_Luna
2007-06-24, 05:30 PM
Gaming = fun
Metagaming = bad

In that order.

Try not to metagame if you can help it. However if it's a choice between "You all die because the caster didn't specify which hand gestures mean run away" or "ok, maybe you didn't mention it in the background but a TPK isn't on the agenda tonight so I'll let it slide", I know which one I'd choose. Just ask them to tone it down, maybe even suggest to them a way they can avoid this (for example, point out that the wizard might want to explain his spells, and then when he says "ok, I do so" then you can nod and say "Ok, done. No longer a problem.")

If they get really out of hand, solutions include the time honored "If you say it your character says it", or my personal favorite "If you can do it, they can do it".

This last works well on powergaming, too. If a PC can do it, well so can the NPCs. If they want to claim they can do X this time, fine. Let them. Next time, the NPCs can also do X. (examples include special bullets, stacking armor types, deliberate misreading of spell descriptions, fluff flavor text taken as canon rules, etc etc) In your example (though I think it's a little harsh and this particular problem can be handled by simply relaxing a bit), you could allow your NPCs to know what the spellcaster is doing, even if they don't have ranks in Spellcraft. Suddenly the fighters facing the PCs all have an intuition and withdraw to just outside fireball range just in time to miss the explosion from their own caster, for example. If the PCs complain, point out they did it last time. You would be amazed at how quickly a group will start to police itself when this policy is introduced. For this to work, you also need to stop using the exploit as soon as they do. Once they see they're better off playing by the actual rules, you have to as well. I took a group of the worst powergamers and metagamers I have ever seen and turned them into rule-abiding gamers in just a few sessions with this technique. (And it could work for you, too! Just send 1995gp plus oxcart and lading to...)

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 05:35 PM
Gaming = fun
Metagaming = bad

In that order.

Try not to metagame if you can help it. However if it's a choice between "You all die because the caster didn't specify which hand gestures mean run away" or "ok, maybe you didn't mention it in the background but a TPK isn't on the agenda tonight so I'll let it slide", I know which one I'd choose. Just ask them to tone it down, maybe even suggest to them a way they can avoid this (for example, point out that the wizard might want to explain his spells, and then when he says "ok, I do so" then you can nod and say "Ok, done. No longer a problem.")

If they get really out of hand, solutions include the time honored "If you say it your character says it", or my personal favorite "If you can do it, they can do it".

This last works well on powergaming, too. If a PC can do it, well so can the NPCs. If they want to claim they can do X this time, fine. Let them. Next time, the NPCs can also do X. (examples include special bullets, stacking armor types, deliberate misreading of spell descriptions, fluff flavor text taken as canon rules, etc etc) In your example (though I think it's a little harsh and this particular problem can be handled by simply relaxing a bit), you could allow your NPCs to know what the spellcaster is doing, even if they don't have ranks in Spellcraft. Suddenly the fighters facing the PCs all have an intuition and withdraw to just outside fireball range just in time to miss the explosion from their own caster, for example. If the PCs complain, point out they did it last time. You would be amazed at how quickly a group will start to police itself when this policy is introduced. For this to work, you also need to stop using the exploit as soon as they do. Once they see they're better off playing by the actual rules, you have to as well. I took a group of the worst powergamers and metagamers I have ever seen and turned them into rule-abiding gamers in just a few sessions with this technique. (And it could work for you, too! Just send 1995gp plus oxcart and lading to...)



cool ok i might try that

Jack Mann
2007-06-24, 05:36 PM
Now, while I think that Wraithy and friends were perfectly fine (as I explained earlier), I do think that there are times when metagaming should be discouraged. Sometimes, it does help the game for the characters to be a bit clueless. It's good to give them something to discover. It also rewards those who work to discover things (by putting skill points into knowledges, interacting with NPCs, etc.).

The skeletons example is, admittedly, pretty much common sense. The barbarian shouldn't have to think too hard to realize that his club is a better weapon, knowledges or no. But he shouldn't necessarily know that, say, the demon is more vulnerable to cold iron without ranks in knowledge (religion) or some previous experience with demons. Of course, if the players knew that they were facing demons, and one of them has the knowledge ranks, I'd probably assume that someone told him.

I don't mind the players thinking, "Well, there has to be a way into this dungeon somewhere. Let's find it." That's necessary for the story to move forward. I'd be a bit less charitable if one said, "Hey, Jack was looking through old Module THX-1138. We need to break that panel with the buttons on it to open the door." Sometimes, I want the players to explore.

And sometimes I want them to figure things out. Now, I wouldn't throw out something they couldn't defeat. However, I might put them into a situation where defeating it requires some work, and maybe some investigation. Of course, that requires a certain amount of metagaming too, since you have to let them know that this tentacled monstrosity is different from the one they killed last week before one of them buys the farm.

Basically, there has to be a compromise. The characters should have some incentive to explore, to learn, to grow. But they have to do some metagaming, or the game just doesn't move forward.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 05:39 PM
Now, while I think that Wraithy and friends were perfectly fine (as I explained earlier), I do think that there are times when metagaming should be discouraged. Sometimes, it does help the game for the characters to be a bit clueless. It's good to give them something to discover. It also rewards those who work to discover things (by putting skill points into knowledges, interacting with NPCs, etc.).

The skeletons example is, admittedly, pretty much common sense. The barbarian shouldn't have to think too hard to realize that his club is a better weapon, knowledges or no. But he shouldn't necessarily know that, say, the demon is more vulnerable to cold iron without ranks in knowledge (religion) or some previous experience with demons. Of course, if the players knew that they were facing demons, and one of them has the knowledge ranks, I'd probably assume that someone told him.

I don't mind the players thinking, "Well, there has to be a way into this dungeon somewhere. Let's find it." That's necessary for the story to move forward. I'd be a bit less charitable if one said, "Hey, Jack was looking through old Module THX-1138. We need to break that panel with the buttons on it to open the door." Sometimes, I want the players to explore.

And sometimes I want them to figure things out. Now, I wouldn't throw out something they couldn't defeat. However, I might put them into a situation where defeating it requires some work, and maybe some investigation. Of course, that requires a certain amount of metagaming too, since you have to let them know that this tentacled monstrosity is different from the one they killed last week before one of them buys the farm.

Basically, there has to be a compromise. The characters should have some incentive to explore, to learn, to grow. But they have to do some metagaming, or the game just doesn't move forward.

i agree there will allways be some but all i wanted to know is how other deal with that kind of thing

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 05:42 PM
make up a god, insert hand in...uh...handhole, rain death from above on idiocy.

Counterpower
2007-06-24, 05:46 PM
Running away from a psychopathic, Chaotic Stupid wizard while he's casting makes some reasonable amount of sense. Telling everyone at the table the weaknesses of the enemy you're all fighting from your near-perfect memorization of the Monster Manual is much less reasonable. I've resorted to metagaming before, and in the most obvious I trust my players to use that reasoning as well. I generally try to bait my plot hooks effectively, but it is something of a challenge considering the differing goals. But I trust my players not to ignore the hook anyway, since they know as well as I do that ignoring it brings the game to a complete halt, and that's no fun for anyone. That said though, knowledge skills and abilities exist in the game for a reason. If the players want to know what that demon is vulnerable to, their choices do not include pulling out the Monster Manual and checking. Their choices do include a simple bardic knowledge check, a Knowledge check, etc. It's not like they'll have a hard time with the discovery. As for whether it'll slow down the game? Sure, it'll be slower than if someone just remembered from reading the Monster Manual what the weakness was, but that's a slowdown I can live with, if only for versimilitude's sake.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-24, 05:48 PM
As a DM, I usually think of ways to make the players run afoul of the plot whether they like it or not. They can ignore the problem when they're asked to help, but it's a little harder when the kidnappers that they were asked to find go after the players next. It's just a matter of knowing what your players are willing to fight for.

As a player, well, my current character actively seeks adventure, because he's looking for interesting things to do. He's also Good, so requests for help usually get his attention. He's not a good war wizard, yet he's willingly participating in an army battle because the army is hunting him, so he wants to protect the village that is now threatened by the army.

When it comes to dealing with metagaming, I usually ask for Knowledge checks if I don't think the characters have a reason to know something. If they fail, then I tell them that their character doesn't know and to roleplay accordingly. It usually isn't any more difficult than that; I have reasonable players. In situations like the one the OP mentioned, I usually assume that the characters were smart enough to brief each other and leave it at that.

TheElfLord
2007-06-24, 05:49 PM
do you have a problem with playing a fair game or something, all i said was that they had no experiance with this wizard and his spells, which was not in their backstory or their experiances over the last sessions.

Well I think regardless of the metagaming you'd be here with a question.
This is just speculation, but if the spell did 39 damage to an area, and one of the characters only had 18, it could have been deadly for multiple party members. If the people had stayed, than one would be dead for sure, and maybe 2 others. Then you would be on here asking about how to solve near TPK situations. Unless you were planning to kill them all.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 05:52 PM
Well I think regardless of the metagaming you'd be here with a question.
This is just speculation, but if the spell did 39 damage to an area, and one of the characters only had 18, it could have been deadly for multiple party members. If the people had stayed, than one would be dead for sure, and maybe 2 others. Then you would be on here asking about how to solve near TPK situations. Unless you were planning to kill them all.

That and he probably had a look on his face like the was trying to kill you.

Callix
2007-06-24, 05:53 PM
Have the bandits run away from the maniacally capering wizard. Note the spell Dance of Ruin has specific notable somantic components (a dance) which are not likely to be emulated by other spells. Also, the wizard has just charged the enemy. The only reason to do this could be to inflict maximum damage with an area of effect spell. Otherwise, he's wizard-ka-bob. This is obvious to the players. It is also obvious to the bandits. Those who cannot help in killing him will probably run for it.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 05:55 PM
i wasent planning to kill the party but the wizard probably was, i just don't see why they should beable to try to act on something they didn't know about in character.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 05:57 PM
i wasent planning to kill the party but the wizard probably was, i just don't see why they should beable to try to act on something they didn't know about in character.

To not know he could be casting an area effect spell would be to not know area effect spells exist, and being born in and growing up in a world where magic exists, they've probably heard of it. And thats role-playing. :P

HidaTsuzua
2007-06-24, 05:58 PM
The problem with "well it depends on your character background" is that now you've made character backgrounds a factor in character effectiveness. Coming up with characters is easy, coming up with explanations for the GM isn't. An example is a druid who looks hideous and thus prefers to stay in wildform all day. Now you have an excuse for your druid to do so and throw in some angst about being ugly you could get XP for it! Other examples is adventuring mentors, avid book readers, or the like (what to use the best for background depends on the setting).

Now there are knowledge skills. The question is when do I roll? Do I have to roll to remember that red dragons breathe fire? Can everyone roll and compare notes? Knowledge checks and speaking are free actions after all. Though honestly, knowledge checks are the best way to model this. The problem is that knowledge is hard to find in D&D. After all, fighters have lots of problem knowing about monsters without resorting to multiclassing due to how the skill system works. Trog Barbarian of the Cold Skeleton and Zombie Full North will be hard pressed to know about them. If he does, he also knows (or rather the chance to know) about Pelor, Lolth, and holidays thereof. Wizards get a new fun option, ingame metagaming since they have the knowledge checks and the knowledge to use them.

Let's say you have a player that goes "Trog doesn't know about trolls and fire and I will use cold instead!" This is still metagaming. And it puts the player in an odd position of "when can Trog use fire?" After all, if he does it too soon it's metagaming. If it's too late, it's still metagaming.

Part of the problem is that D&D allows for easy stereotypes. After all, dragons are color coded for your convenience. Trolls are all but immune to everything but fire. The way around this is custom built monsters or accept some metagaming.

Other systems allow for multiple ways to build the same effect. I've found battles when fighting threats with unknown abilities to be quite fun. Heck I was in a High Powered Hero game where combat worked that way. Figure out what your opponent can do and figure how to counter it with what you can do. This does require more work on the GM's part though.

He_Who_Smells
2007-06-24, 05:59 PM
{Scrubbed}

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 06:01 PM
i wasent planning to kill the party but the wizard probably was, i just don't see why they should beable to try to act on something they didn't know about in character.

They know, in character, that the squishy, wizard-looking man in no armor just bumrushed them to put himself into a superior casting position at great personal risk. He may not actually be a wizard, and the thugs certainly don't know what spell he's casting, but let's be frank: they don't need to know what spell, just that it's a spell, and it's probably very, very dangerous and very, very short range--otherwise, why would he have charged in like that?

You don't have to know what something is to understand that it's probably dangerous--particularly when it does something you weren't expecting.

Zaeron
2007-06-24, 06:02 PM
I played D&D with a big group of powergamers my first few times. Even then I was big on the 'no metagaming' rule, but I think certain things need to be taken for granted.

First off, you need to remember that this world has had monsters in it forever. People didn't grow up with stories of Anansi the spider tricking the fox into letting him go, or of Thor hurling lightning bolts, they grew up with stories of undead and trolls and monsters, being killed by heroes of legend.

If you're playing a D&D game set in a high fantasy world, there's no real reason that even an ignorant farmer out on an adventure wouldn't have heard stories about undead or trolls. A seasoned adventurer, hardened from years of travel and combat? I think he can figure out that stabbing a skeleton won't be very effective, and I bet he's even heard stories about holy water hurting them and clerics being able to drive them away. I'm sure even in remote villages, Bards tell tales of the undead and hydras and the like.

Second off, if I were playing a wizard, I wouldn't expect to have to tell my party in character every single time I changed my spells memorized. With my parties, we always assumed that hand gestures and such had been worked out in advance - 'off screen' - if the wizard was gonna throw a fireball, he'd make a gesture the whole party knew meant 'get away!' If the rogue needed the party to shut up right now!, everybody knew that was what he meant when he held up a closed fist. Players don't have the time to go into every little detail of what they do - by necessity some of the 'working together' thing is done off screen.

The only time I would even consider asking the PCs 'how do you know what spell he's casting' is if the spell didn't have any obvious somatic components (Dance of Ruin sounds like it looks pretty obvious), and if the PCs didn't know the caster doing the spell.

I think it's pretty silly for a DM to say "well the PC should have just stood there and taken it, I would have made sure he didn't die, I'd have left him barely alive!' - nobody likes being 'barely alive', it makes them useless until they're healed. And for that matter, if you're going to change the rules to save them, why even bother having combat? The entire point of combat in D&D is to be challenged, not to have the DM hold your hand like you were 5.

With no intent to offend, I think some of the DMs in this thread are simply being too controlling. To go back to the undead example, even if the warriors had never heard of undead, the first time they tried to stab one, they'd realize their weapons weren't being very effective. DMing is also about making a fun world for your players. I don't know about the other people here, but speaking as a DM, I always thought of the encounters where I had to intervene to save the PCs as failures on my part. I always felt that a good encounter is one the PCs can defeat without me fudging dice rolls for them.

And speaking as a player, I always felt that the encounters that were best were the ones where we faced a challenge that was almost insurmountable, without the aid of our DM. Everybody should work together to make those sorts of encounters possible - If the DM is going to enforce a 'you had no idea at all trolls were weak to fire' rule, that DM should make darn sure players have a chance to learn about the monsters before they fight them. There are many monsters in the Monster Manual which are difficult if not bordering on impossible to kill without knowing the weak point. A troll when you have no access to fire - not even an idea that it's weak to fire - is a far higher challenge rating than it is listed at. Forcing players to rely on a dice roll which can go either way to effectively decide whether you'd win or lose the encounter is simply unfair. It's far more effective to simply be lenient - 'you've heard stories of creatures like this, creatures steel cannot harm, whose wounds seal themselves even as they are made. The wise man from your village claimed that fire could drive these creatures back!' - is a lot more fun than 'the huge creature laughs in your face as you futilely stab it over and over, then it grasps your arms and rips them from your torso, using them to batter the rest of your party into the grave.'

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:03 PM
Well I think regardless of the metagaming you'd be here with a question.
This is just speculation, but if the spell did 39 damage to an area, and one of the characters only had 18, it could have been deadly for multiple party members. If the people had stayed, than one would be dead for sure, and maybe 2 others. Then you would be on here asking about how to solve near TPK situations. Unless you were planning to kill them all.

If the wizard runs in and casts a spell on an area that could very reasonably kill the whole party in that area... then I'm not to blame for a TPK, the wizard is, but I don't encourage stupidity by forgiving and making special allowances for people doing stupid things. If I do that they come to expect me to bail them out. so yes I would not enjoy it but I would let the TPK happen.

Damionte
2007-06-24, 06:03 PM
Here's a Metagame problem our group will be struggling with over the next couple of weeks,

For the past couple of months our group has been waiting for the planets to align so we can use a specific divination device to unlock a bit of information that we need.

At the end of last weeks session we unlocked the information but as the finale of the session came apun us the group was forced to retreat and was actually split into 3 parts.

Our Beguiler who had access to the information had shadow walked away. He did so unexpectantly and before most of the rest of the party had time to react.

The core of the party Fighter, Pallad, Swashbuckler, & Rogue teleported away with our party sorc who can only carry that many people with him anyway. None of these character have had a chance to see any of the information we came for.

My self, "Cleric" and my cohort "Dragon Aspirant" did a short range dimiension door, then flew out of the area under our own power." Both my character and my cohort have access to the information we gleamed through our divination.

That was the end of an important session. Now it's time for the next week. In real life soem things have come up. The beguiler has been hired for a new job in San Diego and will be leaving the group. So that turned out to be his last session with us. "works out for the GM since that was the only evil character in the group and was already being seduced away by the opposing forces, so we're sure to see the character again later as an NPC.

Due to helping the beguiler get ready to go IRL I called in to say I would be late to this weeks game. If I even made it at all. The rest of the group got together to play as normal.

Rather than find something else to do in game time rather than try and push on with the main mission the core of the party decided to push on. In game they had not yet regrouped with the beguiler or my cleric. So still needing the information we came for they sought out an alternate source. A local wizard in our home game city which the party is not really on good terms with. "Two of his apprentices have been members of our party in the past and ... well we have a bad track record for bringing his apprentices back in one peice." This Wizard gave them another way to get the information and showed them where to go, makign a deal with them to retrieve a tome of power that he needed from the same location. The party made the deal and the wizard teleported the group to the area they needed to go.

About the time they had thier first random encounter I showed up to the game, having had my drinks with the beguiler in real life who would not be returning.

Except now the party is still split up. Not only that but the rest of the party has been teleported a 1/4 way across the kingdom. I though find out who they dealt with. I go to the same wizard of who'm I really don't get along with. He offers to teleport me back to the group as well since he has been following thier progress with a scrying globe. In return though he want's 500 gold, the Orog Chieftens axe, and he want's myself and my cohort to agree to be put under a guess spell not to reveal the information that he has bargained the party for. "I messed up and let it slip that I knew the information they were buying from him in the first place, while we were trying to negotiate the terms."

Now like I said this wizard and I go way back and we simply don't trust each other. Neither of us are evil, "that I know of" we just have a logn history of untrust and rivalry in the local court. Thus ofcourse I won't submit to a geas. so he won't teleport me.

Ok now I told you that story so I can tell you this one.

Now we get to the meta-game part.

Our party sorc could easily just teleport back to our keep and pick me up and teleport back to the party. This though reeks to the GM and a few other folks in the party as a bit of metagaming. I understand where they're coming from.

At the same time it was really meta gaming reasons that had me left behind in the first place.

It's been two days since our retreat from the tower were we garnered the information inthe first place. Plentyy of time for me to have flew back on my own to our keep. So the only reason the party had to deal with the wizard is because I the player wasn't there that week.

so we've been working through issues and someone always pops in the metagame implication for any reasoning we bring up.

1st the party doesn't want to try and fight it's way into this TOMB without the cleric! So it would make sense for them to try and contact me. They though don't have the means to.

2nd I now know where they are and could just do a sending to let them know I am ready to join them. The GM and one of the others is not so sure I would even get the idea without the tabel talk we had to do to coem up with that.

3rd If we don't do it they will definately be forced to go into the tomb without me, plus I'll have nothing to do next week but sit there and watch the rest of them play.

so I say teleport back and get me. The GM is not so sure.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 06:06 PM
in future situations where this arises im going to ask for checks if they start to run for no reason other than out of character information and if they did have experiances in such and such in their passed they get bonuses to said roll.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 06:06 PM
Dan Hemmens your an idiot, clearly your idea for a good campaign is one where you can change something you dissagree with through Metagaming.

Say for example I stole something or found something that may be important to the group and the mission we were on, but I didn't really trust the group enough to share it with them until later on. Your the type of person that would get your character to demand I hand it over. Even though your character wouldn't know I had it. That is Metagaming and it's fu*king annoying.

If you want a campaign in which you can do just about anything and know just about everything about a persons character in game, then I suggest you find good old Dan Hemmens and ask to join his group, which is probably him and well him.
Dan said nothing of the sort. He said--in essence--that the characters are going to know about the world they live in, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

For instance, you know what a tiger is or what a panda is and what they look like, and you've heard about what they eat and where they live. Meanwhile, Graak the Orcslayer, Barbarian of the Frozen North, knows about smilodons and ice trolls, where they live, what they eat, and what they're probably resistant to.

That's not metagaming. That's verisimilitude, which is what the game called D&D is about.

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:11 PM
And speaking as a player, I always felt that the encounters that were best were the ones where we faced a challenge that was almost insurmountable, without the aid of our DM. Everybody should work together to make those sorts of encounters possible - If the DM is going to enforce a 'you had no idea at all trolls were weak to fire' rule, that DM should make darn sure players have a chance to learn about the monsters before they fight them. There are many monsters in the Monster Manual which are difficult if not bordering on impossible to kill without knowing the weak point. A troll when you have no access to fire - not even an idea that it's weak to fire - is a far higher challenge rating than it is listed at. Forcing players to rely on a dice roll which can go either way to effectively decide whether you'd win or lose the encounter is simply unfair. It's far more effective to simply be lenient - 'you've heard stories of creatures like this, creatures steel cannot harm, whose wounds seal themselves even as they are made. The wise man from your village claimed that fire could drive these creatures back!' - is a lot more fun than 'the huge creature laughs in your face as you futilely stab it over and over, then it grasps your arms and rips them from your torso, using them to batter the rest of your party into the grave.'

Yes I agree, they should have the chance to hear about this... "AND THUS THE LORD SAID UNTO THE WORLD 'LET THERE BE GATHER INFORMATION' AND THERE WAS, AND IT WAS GOOD" the skills aren't there for decoration. as to the hearing stories about trolls, it depends, in my world trolls are not all that common and there are different races. they probably HAVEN'T heard about trolls, so they'd need to ask, or research the matter.

Zaeron
2007-06-24, 06:12 PM
Tons of stuff.

If you know where the pary is, and have access to a spell that allows you to contact them, as a DM I would allow that. The wizard slipped up by allowing you to see them.

Arguing that you 'wouldn't have thought of using a spell to contact them' is sort of unfair. We as players are not always familar with our character's abilities, but our characters, presumably, are. If I roleplayed D20 Modern as a network technician, no DM would expect me to be able to describe how I was setting up a network, they'd just let me make the proper rolls and leave it at that. They wouldn't come to me later and say "You didn't tell me you also wanted to plug a router in, so that didn't happen and your network isn't working". Even though I might not know how to set up a network, my character does. In the same way, you as a player might not remember every single spell in your toolbox, but it's almost certain your cleric knows what he can cast.

Counterpower
2007-06-24, 06:13 PM
Damionte: using a sending spell to contact the party seems like the best idea to me. Seriously, why wouldn't someone in your position do that?

Fax_Celestis: I agree that people have some knowledge about the world they live in. However, there will be times when the characters run into things they know nothing about. Correct?

Keiichi: I agree. Let them use the skills they've bought. And if they haven't........ well, that's a problem. There are spells that can detect vulnerabilities, there are at least two classes (bard and loremaster) that have abilities that help, there are.... well you get the idea. Being able to tell what your enemies are weak to seems like an important consideration, and if they haven't paid it any attention, then after their first battle with lycanthropes goes badly (due to a lack of silver weapons) maybe they'll realize that this is important.

Zaeron
2007-06-24, 06:14 PM
Yes I agree, they should have the chance to hear about this... "AND THUS THE LORD SAID UNTO THE WORLD 'LET THERE BE GATHER INFORMATION' AND THERE WAS, AND IT WAS GOOD" the skills aren't there for decoration. as to the hearing stories about trolls, it depends, in my world trolls are not all that common and there are different races. they probably HAVEN'T heard about trolls, so they'd need to ask, or research the matter.

Gather Information checks are different than 'I heard a bard in a tavern once' though. Gather Information checks imply you're looking for something specific. I never had to go looking for stories about bears and elephants, I just heard them.

If trolls are quite rare in your world, then yeah, it's a lot more reasonable to argue that people are unlikely to know how to fight them. By the same token however, that does put a little more responsibility on your shoulders as a DM to make sure players have a chance to learn about them before encountering one.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 06:18 PM
in future situations where this arises im going to ask for checks if they start to run for no reason other than out of character information and if they did have experiances in such and such in their passed they get bonuses to said roll.

"Man obviously doing something dangerous--probably a spell" isn't "out of character information."

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 06:20 PM
"Man obviously doing something dangerous--probably a spell" isn't "out of character information."

knowing our wizard he could of been doing ANYTHING hehe. I do see what you mean.

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:22 PM
Gather Information checks are different than 'I heard a bard in a tavern once' though. Gather Information checks imply you're looking for something specific. I never had to go looking for stories about bears and elephants, I just heard them.

If trolls are quite rare in your world, then yeah, it's a lot more reasonable to argue that people are unlikely to know how to fight them. By the same token however, that does put a little more responsibility on your shoulders as a DM to make sure players have a chance to learn about them before encountering one.

Ya, it does put some of it on my shoulders. At the same time, however, they are encouraged to put ranks into some of the other skills rather then the handful that are usually used, they get to learn more about the creatures in my world and their variants (the sonic/cold troll are actually in my world) they now know more as players and PCs and the don't have to metagame and in the end they feel like they did more as characters.

oh and yes "I heard about this once" is knowledge skills, YAY skills for everything.

Metagaming needs a slogan
"Metagaming: sucking the soul out of D&D since 1974"

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 06:23 PM
Fax_Celestis: I agree that people have some knowledge about the world they live in. However, there will be times when the characters run into things they know nothing about. Correct?

Entirely granted. However, running away from something you don't know about shouldn't be an unreasonable response.

Counterpower
2007-06-24, 06:25 PM
Of course, with all of these monsters, it's only fair for some of their weaknesses to be common knowledge. After all, when a devastating war rips through the major empire at the time, leaving behind a druidic sect completely devoted to stopping future incursions, some details about that are going to be fairly easy to know. Like the fact that a good deal of the aberrations from that war were vulnerable to byeshk. On the flip side, the Mournland is a region of power gone wild, where the dead don't always stop moving and where the arcane energies of some spells have been mutated to create living spells. No one knows yet what caused that catastrophe. And if one of my players wants to inform the party that these living spells have SR.......... well, no, not without some kind of check. That, to me, is the difference between common and uncommon knowledge.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 06:26 PM
knowing our wizard he could of been doing ANYTHING hehe. I do see what you mean.

it still just sounds like you're angry they weren't as dumb as you thought and escaped your so called 'death trap'

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:28 PM
it still just sounds like you're angry they weren't as dumb as you thought and escaped your so called 'death trap'

The death trap that he had no idea about until it was happening because it was being caused by one of his players who was acting of his own volition.

I want you to think about that one for a minute.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 06:28 PM
Of course, with all of these monsters, it's only fair for some of their weaknesses to be common knowledge. After all, when a devastating war rips through the major empire at the time, leaving behind a druidic sect completely devoted to stopping future incursions, some details about that are going to be fairly easy to know. Like the fact that a good deal of the aberrations from that war were vulnerable to byeshk. On the flip side, the Mournland is a region of power gone wild, where the dead don't always stop moving and where the arcane energies of some spells have been mutated to create living spells. No one knows yet what caused that catastrophe. And if one of my players wants to inform the party that these living spells have SR.......... well, no, not without some kind of check. That, to me, is the difference between common and uncommon knowledge.

See, yeah. That's fine. I'd even go so far as having "they're resistant to magic" being common knowledge...but how resistant is ultimately up to the dice. And a failed roll could indicate bad information.

He_Who_Smells
2007-06-24, 06:29 PM
Dan said nothing of the sort. He said--in essence--that the characters are going to know about the world they live in, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

For instance, you know what a tiger is or what a panda is and what they look like, and you've heard about what they eat and where they live. Meanwhile, Graak the Orcslayer, Barbarian of the Frozen North, knows about smilodons and ice trolls, where they live, what they eat, and what they're probably resistant to.

That's not metagaming. That's verisimilitude, which is what the game called D&D is about.

That wasn't what I meant at all.
If I looked at a person in real life I could tell they were for example a white male about 6 foot tall. In D&D it's the same as you said we know what a Panda is etc. However, from a glance I couldn't tell what a person was carrying, especially if it was a small item. In a group of people playing D&D we know what the people are carrying and stuff because they are next to us. If you want to do good role-play your guy wouldn't know what they were carrying. With Dan's Metagaming idea you would, the same goes for spells, unless your person could determine what spell someone was doing in game, they wouldn't be able to tell if the spell is dangerous and therefore wouldn't have a good enough reason to then say I run away, especially as the guy is meant to be an ally. However with Metagaming the guy playing the Wizard told the group what the spell was and people for no "in game" logical reason ran away from him.

And people's argumants about if a wizard ran into the battle he was obviously going to do something dangerous etc...
I ask you, imagine your in a fight or a game of rugby and your in the heat of a group, would you be watching everything around you, I wouldn't unless I wanted to get knocked down, I'd be focusing on the guy I was going for not everone else around me, especially if they 30 odd feet away from me

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-24, 06:30 PM
i didn't plan it at all, the wizard cast the spell, not me i did not tell him to do it, nor did i want the other players to die or tell them to run from it, i was just wondering why they would run away, ignoring their present target.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 06:31 PM
That wasn't what I meant at all.
If I looked at a person in real life I could tell they were for example a white male about 6 foot tall. In D&D it's the same as you said we know what a Panda is etc. However, from a glance I couldn't tell what a person was carrying, especially if it was a small item. In a group of people playing D&D we know what the people are carrying and stuff because they are next to us. If you want to do good role-play your guy wouldn't know what they were carrying. With Dan's Metagaming idea you would, the same goes for spells, unless your person could determine what spell someone was doing in game, they wouldn't be able to tell if the spell is dangerous and therefore wouldn't have a good enough reason to then say I run away, especially as the guy is meant to be an ally. However with Metagaming the guy playing the Wizard told the group what the spell was and people for no "in game" logical reason ran away from him.

And people's argumants about if a wizard ran into the battle he was obviously going to do something dangerous etc...
I ask you, imagine your in a fight or a game of rugby and your in the heat of a group, would you be watching everything around you, I wouldn't unless I wanted to get knocked down, I'd be focusing on the guy I was going for not everone else around me, especially if they 30 odd feet away from me

And then the wizard doing the polka would kill you.

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:32 PM
And then the wizard doing the polka would kill you.

Yup... roll up a new character and suck up those tears.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 06:34 PM
And people's argumants about if a wizard ran into the battle he was obviously going to do something dangerous etc...
I ask you, imagine your in a fight or a game of rugby and your in the heat of a group, would you be watching everything around you, I wouldn't unless I wanted to get knocked down, I'd be focusing on the guy I was going for not everone else around me, especially if they 30 odd feet away from me

If you're playing soccer, and suddenly the goalie charges across the field, you're going to notice. This is essentially the same thing.

Saph
2007-06-24, 06:35 PM
Metagaming's generally bad, but sometimes there's no way around it. Often playing strictly by in-character knowledge will slow the game down while you wait for other characters to catch up / meet up / have everything explained to them. In these cases, you metagame just to speed things up to the fun parts.

Metagaming is bad in combat. Very bad. Knowledge skills and knowledge checks are there for a reason. It's reasonable to ask your DM if there are some facts that you should know even without the right skill, but it's blatant cheating to refer to the stats of something in the Monster Manual when you, in-character, are not supposed to know anything about it. If no-one in your country has ever seen a Nightwalker and lived, then there is no justification at all for you somehow knowing every one of its abilities, strengths, and weaknesses.

Gabriel's example is an excellent way to deal with it. Have every enemy the PCs fight metagame exactly as much and to exactly the same degree as the PCs do. You know all the monster's stats? Wow, all of a sudden it knows yours, too. You can recognise everything it does without Spellcraft or Knowledge? Guess what? It can do the same.

Other options for dealing in combat with metagaming PCs:

a) Change descriptions. Every monster is the same, but has a different name and is a different colour/shape/size. All of a sudden the PCs have to think instead of using their mental database.

b) Invert strengths and weaknesses. This is a particularly vicious and very satisfying way to discourage really bad metagamers. Every monster with the Cold Subtype now has the Fire Subtype, and vice versa. Every monster with regeneration/acid now has regeneration/electricity, and vice versa. The great part about this is that it doesn't penalise non-metagamers at all. Only if the players cheat do they get hurt.

c) Have the monsters exclusively target the guy who's metagaming. Completely breaks suspension of disbelief, but hey, if they're metagaming, it probably wasn't anywhere there in the first place, right? This option is recommended more as stress relief than as a long-term solution.

When metagaming goes from 'blatant cheating' to 'outrageously annoying' is when the PCs start relying on it to work through the plot. "Oh, the door's locked. There must be a key around here." How the hell do you know, you idiot? So every person in your world, when they lock a door, leaves the key somewhere outside within easy reach? Maybe, just maybe, some people lock doors from the INSIDE? Or take the key with them when they leave? Radical idea, I know, but you don't think it might be worth a little consideration?

I often get players in my games who try to solve the adventure by metagaming. They go "Oh, the DM must want us to do this, so we'd better . . ." etc. Usually this keeps on going for a few hours until we get a conversation like this:

Player: "Okay, how do we deal with this monster?"
Me: "Are you going to walk up and ask it?"
Player: "It's too strong for us to beat. So we have to get around it, right?"
Me: *shrug*
Player: "Should we talk to it?"
Me: "Who are you asking?"
Player: "Just tell us."
Me: ". . ."
Player: "Come on, there's a way through this, right?"
Me: "What makes you so sure?"
Player: "You designed a way for us to get round this."
Me: ". . ."
Player: "Didn't you?"
Me: ". . ."
Player: "You didn't make any way for us to deal with this?"
Me: "Not really."
Player: "How are we supposed to get through this room, then?"
Me: "That's your problem."
Player: " . . . You're serious, aren't you?"
Me: "Yes."

That's about the point where they finally figure out they're going to have to think for themselves, and the point at which the adventure gets interesting. :)

- Saph

Raum
2007-06-24, 06:37 PM
Crazed, are you upset because of the possibility of metagaming? Or because you didn't "win" the encounter?

Frankly, expecting detailed lists of every thing the PCs might know is unrealistic. So is expecting long in character discussions of potential tactics. Why wouldn't a group adventuring together discuss spell usage, tactics, and the basics of working together?

I doubt Dan Hemmens is saying there is never a case of inappropriate metagaming, just that most metagaming is easily explained as part of the off camera game. Growing up in a world filled with magic and magical beasts should give any adult a general knowledge of common creatures and spells. To say otherwise means you're saying the PCs live in a single instant of time and forget history and interactions with others - unless they've paid skill points to remember.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 06:40 PM
Yup... roll up a new character and suck up those tears.

{Scrubbed}

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:43 PM
Alright, I think it's example time.

Lets say the rogue in the party decides to walk up behind the wizard and shank him out of battle... that wizard wasn't expecting it and takes XD6 damage and dies like the d4 rolling class that he is. Would you say "the wizard gets a reflex save" to save him in spite of the fact melee attacks don't allow for one or would you say "I guess the rogues a jerk." probably the later. Why allow the party a get out of jail free card because the wizards an idiot? I took fencing, I know that in a sword fight you are completely focused on that person, I don't even know whats happening 5 feet to my left with the next match. in a pitched battle with a person swinging a real sword at you, and the person behind you swinging a real sword, you're damn right you don't pay attention to the wizard. Even so, lets say the dance involves bright flashing neon signs that attract attention... unless trained in the arcane arts you don't know if that's the "dance of ruin" or the "dance of puppies and victory for our side".

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:45 PM
{Scrubbed}

WOW! that's a pretty harsh, unfounded, accusation.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 06:46 PM
WOW! that's a pretty harsh, unfounded, accusation.

Or I know the type from experience, have a witty reply for that one?

In other words, you seem to be more interested in killing me than roleplaying, and that, friend, has a habit of tipping dice.

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 06:53 PM
Or I know the type from experience, have a witty reply for that one?

First of all I'd like to state that no, I do not cheat. I roll my dice in plain site for the players and DM (when I am a player) to see. as a DM I am more likely to save a character then kill him by fudging a roll, and thats in a "hmm, I rolled 2 20s on those attacks... they just became 19s" situation when only shear blind (un)luck would screw the character.
Second off, I'd like to point out that by your arguments you're the one saying "It's okay to cheat on tests by reading the person next to yours answers." Also, I have lost several characters due to not using out of character knowledge. something happens that I as a player go "oh ****" to, but my character goes "barbed devil? come on, I've already taken a large red dragon, I can take anything." When **** doesn't go your way you suck it up. you don't cheat by relying on knowledge you don't have and start thinking about a new character.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 06:55 PM
Alright, I think it's example time.

Lets say the rogue in the party decides to walk up behind the wizard and shank him out of battle... that wizard wasn't expecting it and takes XD6 damage and dies like the d4 rolling class that he is. Would you say "the wizard gets a reflex save" to save him in spite of the fact melee attacks don't allow for one or would you say "I guess the rogues a jerk." probably the later. Why allow the party a get out of jail free card because the wizards an idiot? I took fencing, I know that in a sword fight you are completely focused on that person, I don't even know whats happening 5 feet to my left with the next match. in a pitched battle with a person swinging a real sword at you, and the person behind you swinging a real sword, you're damn right you don't pay attention to the wizard. Even so, lets say the dance involves bright flashing neon signs that attract attention... unless trained in the arcane arts you don't know if that's the "dance of ruin" or the "dance of puppies and victory for our side".

I'm a fencer too, and I've done mass combat. You learn real quick to concentrate on more than one person or you end up real dead.

These are adventurers, people who do dangerous things for a living kill dangerous things for a living, or end up very very dead.

If the dude who doesn't look like he can carry a sword, much less swing one, suddenly hops in the middle of combat, getting the hell out of his way isn't a bad idea. He's probably got a trick up his sleeve--magical or otherwise--that probably is endangering you.

TheElfLord
2007-06-24, 06:57 PM
If the wizard runs in and casts a spell on an area that could very reasonably kill the whole party in that area... then I'm not to blame for a TPK, the wizard is, but I don't encourage stupidity by forgiving and making special allowances for people doing stupid things. If I do that they come to expect me to bail them out. so yes I would not enjoy it but I would let the TPK happen.

As the DM you are responsible for everything that happens in your game, even he actions of your players.

Not to mention that a player induced TPK could have serious issues for the continuation of the game. And if you as the DM have put time and effort into the game, its not something you want to throw away lightly.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 06:58 PM
I'm a fencer too, and I've done mass combat. You learn real quick to concentrate on more than one person or you end up real dead.

These are adventurers, people who do dangerous things for a living kill dangerous things for a living, or end up very very dead.

If the dude who doesn't look like he can carry a sword, much less swing one, suddenly hops in the middle of combat, getting the hell out of his way isn't a bad idea. He's probably got a trick up his sleeve--magical or otherwise--that probably is endangering you.

lemme see, no armor, maybe a robe, maybe a pointy hat, probably chanting an arcane phrase with the dance, may have a staff, has motive to run into a group of armed men and dance...



Second off, I'd like to point out that by your arguments you're the one saying "It's okay to cheat on tests by reading the person next to yours answers."

I know what I'm saying, and that's not it. Nice try tho.

Jayabalard
2007-06-24, 07:00 PM
Metagaming should be avoided unless it can't be helped; if you have a player who metagames a bunch, start changing the details so that he turns out wrong.

If a character does a big ooc lesson at the beginning of the fight about how to use fire to deal with the troll, tell him when he starts that he's metagaming and that he should cut it out; change the monster on the fly so that fire doesn't prevent the regeneration.


Dan said nothing of the sort. He said--in essence--that the characters are going to know about the world they live in, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

For instance, you know what a tiger is or what a panda is and what they look like, and you've heard about what they eat and where they live. Meanwhile, Graak the Orcslayer, Barbarian of the Frozen North, knows about smilodons and ice trolls, where they live, what they eat, and what they're probably resistant to.

That's not metagaming. That's verisimilitude, which is what the game called D&D is about.The characters will know of the world that they have experienced; depending on thier education, and how available the information is, they may or may not know about other areas of the world. Basing the level world knowledge of a D&D character's on what we (people in the current modern world in, the information age) know about the world is absurd.

Graak the Orcslayer isn't particularly educated, so he is only going to know about "smilodons and ice trolls" if they are well known where he grew up or if he has personal experience with them. Otherwise, his knowledge will be based on word of mouth stories, which will have some correct information and some incorrect information; the ratio will depend on exactly how well known they are in his area.

Gavin Sage
2007-06-24, 07:01 PM
You know I don't worry about situational metagaming. If some swashbuckling rapier user picks up a club when faced with a skeleton, that's fine since anyone who knows what they can do should also know what they can't. Hence anyone using a weapon could realize that poking hole in bone isn't exactly easy. Where I would question metagaming is in preparation. If that swashbuckler picks up a convienent piece of wood to club with fine, but if they go randomly buying an expensive mace because the GM had said off hand he/she might want to use some undead, I'd want to see more justification.

Some metagaming really shouldn't be stopped because Knowledge is not really a well constructed skill set. Its trained only, and most classes don't have a wide range of options for it. Or any. I mean okay they don't exactly have points to spend but why can't a Fighter be versed in history if so inclined, they obviously have a martial bent to them so wouldn't they be interested in say past great battles? And even the illiterate Barbarian could know about nature and geography.

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 07:02 PM
I'm a fencer too, and I've done mass combat. You learn real quick to concentrate on more than one person or you end up real dead.

These are adventurers, people who do dangerous things for a living kill dangerous things for a living, or end up very very dead.

If the dude who doesn't look like he can carry a sword, much less swing one, suddenly hops in the middle of combat, getting the hell out of his way isn't a bad idea. He's probably got a trick up his sleeve--magical or otherwise--that probably is endangering you.

not entirely true, though I can almost see your point, I'd like to flashback to the haste example, running could mean exclusion from his help. Also the mage I'm playing right now has stats of
STR 15
Dex 10
Con 18
Int 15
wis-8
CHA-8 (Damn warforged minus')

I play him like a combatant more then a caster and have more HP then our dex based fighter. I charge into combat regularly unarmed (natural slam attack) if the players ran everytime I did that... I'd be dead as can be cause a mage alone, even a mage played as a fighter, is still an unarmed unprotected solo character... I'd last all of 15 seconds without my backup.

Starsinger
2007-06-24, 07:06 PM
Player: "Okay, how do we deal with this monster?"
Me: "Are you going to walk up and ask it?"
Player: "It's too strong for us to beat. So we have to get around it, right?"
Me: *shrug*
Player: "Should we talk to it?"
Me: "Who are you asking?"
Player: "Just tell us."
Me: ". . ."
Player: "Come on, there's a way through this, right?"
Me: "What makes you so sure?"
Player: "You designed a way for us to get round this."
Me: ". . ."
Player: "Didn't you?"
Me: ". . ."
Player: "You didn't make any way for us to deal with this?"
Me: "Not really."
Player: "How are we supposed to get through this room, then?"
Me: "That's your problem."
Player: " . . . You're serious, aren't you?"
Me: "Yes."

That's about the point where they finally figure out they're going to have to think for themselves, and the point at which the adventure gets interesting. :)

- Saph

Oh yeah, the worst kind of meta-gaming! "PC Syndrome". Yes, the DM designed a way for the PCs to survive an encounter. But in character, they shouldn't know that. This false bravado, "We can handle this big scary creature, the DM wouldn't put us up against a creature we can't handle." doesn't mean characters should just charge into combat, with the meta-game knowledge that it's appropriate to their CR.

Callix
2007-06-24, 07:18 PM
Keiichi: I assumed the wizard was a normal wizard. You are not playing a normal wizard, and your party know it. The average, fleshy, d4-and-more-important-stats-than-Con wizard avoids melee combat like the plague. If they charge into a big melee, abnormally, then something is up, and they have decided they don't need backup. Otherwise, they should have discussed it.

If your normal tactic is to charge, you charge and so does everyone else. If your normal tactic is to Batman from long range and you charge, you've got something up your sleeve, and it's probably indiscriminate.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-06-24, 07:20 PM
When your players decide to - say - go off and have adventures instead of getting proper jobs like sensible people, they're metagaming. When they fight the monsters instead of running away from them, they're metagaming.


But adventuring is a career choice instead of being a farmer, or a cooper, or a merchant etc. So I really don't think that's metagaming. In that scenario, the players really aren't using knowledge they know that their characters don't to a benefit.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-24, 07:23 PM
But adventuring is a career choice, so I really don't think that's metagaming. In that scenario, the players really aren't using knowledge they know that their characters don't to a benefit.

yeah it's almost like this thread is all about reversing your ideas so that what we call metagaming is roleplaying and what we call roleplaying is metagaming. that or a day old burrito gave me a wicked case of paranoia

Damionte
2007-06-24, 07:25 PM
Oh yeah, the worst kind of meta-gaming! "PC Syndrome". Yes, the DM designed a way for the PCs to survive an encounter. But in character, they shouldn't know that. This false bravado, "We can handle this big scary creature, the DM wouldn't put us up against a creature we can't handle." doesn't mean characters should just charge into combat, with the meta-game knowledge that it's appropriate to their CR.

You know what. I take a lot of flak from my gaming group for not attacking all the time. I am such a survivalist that I won't engage just because it's there. I also often will lead the retreat to. I'll often be the first one to speak up and say, "Hey this thing is dangerous maybe we should get the hell out of here."

Keiichi
2007-06-24, 07:33 PM
yeah it's almost like this thread is all about reversing your ideas so that what we call metagaming is roleplaying and what we call roleplaying is metagaming. that or a day old burrito gave me a wicked case of paranoia

Nah the way I see it is people using role playing to justify metagaming. "Your character doesn't know that" "Ah but my back story says I do/the wizard told me earlier even though no such exchange has happened"

my argument against that is that A) the back story would need to be known by the DM ahead of time (So that he knowns and can give your character knowledge he might know when it comes up and so he can approve it, and yes back stories need to be approved or it may not work with the world or the portion of the world. It could also be "my character slew a dragon at age 6")
B) important and game relevant things must actually be said in game

Roland St. Jude
2007-06-24, 08:06 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep in mind that we broadly prohibit any flaming of other posters. That includes any insults or attacks on others. Please review the Rules of Posting. Thank you.

skywalker
2007-06-24, 08:22 PM
Fax and Dan are right. There is absolutely no reason why you should need knowledge(religion) to know that skeletons would be more easily damaged by bludgeoning weapons(although it pains me to think that a club could deal damage better than a MASSIVE great sword).

It's also silly to think that your characters wouldn't discuss things like whose spells do what, what each party member can do, etc. A wizard with a 12 CON doesn't look particularly squishier than a fighter with 18 CON, does he? If they're both the same height and build, and the wizard is wearing flowing robes, how could you tell that you should protect him before the fighter?

Further, how does a cleric know which cure spells to cast? You can take your power trip a long way.

Anybody who calls Dan Hemmens an idiot needs to take a closer look at the guy's posts. He's a smart guy. Come on. And everybody knows arguing with Fax is just plain silly.

nerulean
2007-06-24, 08:26 PM
As far as the on-going discussion of how much you would know about the group around you goes, that depends entirely on the group. Remember that even at first level, you are playing an exceptional individual who has a keen grasp of his trade, and if he has chosen to travel with an adventuring party then the chances are he knows, or is eager to learn, the basics of adventuring. This can mean group awareness in a fight and learning to recognise the hand gestures your wizard uses to cast a certain spell, or something mundane like the fact that the wizard is a fragile person and is much more likely to get injured in combat than the fighter. If your party is working as a cohesive group of adventurers then it's plausible to assume that you'd know at least some of your companions' strengths and weaknesses, but if you're a group of loosely allied loners then it's less likely. If the wizard was intentionally trying to secretly kill you all then he may well have kept the spell secret from the other party members -- perhaps you could ask him. Perhaps you could ask him as he casts, "Would you have cast this spell before around the party, or told them how it worked?". Perhaps you could then allow knowledge or int rolls to give the others the opportunity to run away, with modifiers to the DC according to the wizard's response.

It is pretty logical that people who live in a world full of dragons know which of the dragons are likely to rain down evil death from above and which ones are more likely to hear you out about how you need that chalice from their hoarde to save the world. It is pretty logical that a barbarian who's lived in a country controlled by a high level necromancer his whole life knows that those things need smashing rather than stabbing. That's what you call a low DC knowledge check, and as with other low DCs you don't bother to make the PCs roll them. Mechanically, you assume they're taking ten. Realistically, no one around the table wants to stop and wait while you roll a dex check to tie your shoelaces. Conceptually, it's just something a character can do.

When it's less obvious information than that, then things get a bit more interesting. This is the time when knowledge checks, gather information checks, bardic knowledge checks and the like come into play and must actually be rolled. They could succeed, in which case you carry on as before, or everyone could fail all the relevant checks and then it falls to the DM to decide what to do: you could feed them hints as to the right information in amongst a list of inconsequential things, you could say they discover nothing, or you could even give them false information depending on how badly they do. It's worth remembering that, while running away often puts a dent in morale, it is a perfectly valid tactic and means that a single missed check doesn't have to end in a TPK. The party, having been defeated by the troll on Tuesday, can spend Wednesday travelling to a library, Thursday doing research and stocking up on torches and fire spell scrolls, and be back and ready to burn that thing by Friday evening. Unless everyone dies or you're running on a tight time schedule, there is rarely a situation where there is absolutely nothing at all a group of adventurers can do. One fact to remember about D&D players is that they are often imaginative, inventive problem solvers, even if you occasionally do have to remind them of this fact.

Some of the best encounters I can remember have arisen from the players knowing nothing whatsoever about the beast we were fighting. We came up against something that none of the party recognised from the DM's description of, but between the bard, the paladin and the beguiler, the first of whom has, of course, bardic knowledge, and the latter who both had some fairly prodigal knowledge checks, we successfully identified the nightcrawler and saw it off without a great amount of difficulty. There was a certain sense of satisfaction in the knowledge that, without any form of out of character information entering into the combat, we managed to defeat such a big nasty. We all went and looked it up afterwards and gave ourselves a pat on the back.

brian c
2007-06-24, 09:52 PM
So an experienced warrior, who has spent most of his life whacking things with weapons, isn't allowed to know that an edged weapon is a bad choice against a skeleton because he isn't a trained theologian?



You do realise that the reason skeletons are weak do bludgeoning damage is because slashing and piercing weapons rely on cutting flesh and puncturing organs, neither of which a skeleton possesses.

Do you honestly think that the correct "in character" response for an Int 8 Barbarian, faced with a horde of skeletons, is to say "Ooh, Thog will stab skeletons in their squishy bellies with Thog's spear. Thog not think for one second that maybe trying to stab a skeleton is completely futile, because Thog not study comparative religions at Barbarian School."



Because the *last* thing you want players to do is to actually follow the plot. I mean, if they don't waste time looking at completely pointless bits of scenery, how are they ever going to appreciate the *effort* you put into your worldbuilding.


Dan, understand what 8 intelligence means. For a barbarian with 8 intelligence, he probably doesn't care that skeletons don't have organs because he doesn't think that much. Thog knows that when he stabs a thing with his sword, it dies. Thog doesn't care why, he just wants to stab something because stabbing is fun. After his first few stabs are unsuccessful, he might try to change tactics. However, unless he's fought skeletons before (or has ranks in Knowledge Religion) he probably won't realize that his sword doesn't do anything. Heck, if he does enough damage to go past their DR, he might never realize.

The issue is that characters have to roleplay not only their physical stats but their mental stats also. It's easy to roleplay physical- you smahs things, dodge things, absorb blows, it's all very easy. If your character has 8 intelligence though, you have to realize that you'll do dumb things sometimes. I played a half-ogre barbarian with 8 intelligence and like 10 wisdom once- the party sorcerer convinced him to attack a hill giant by himself (we were level 6 or so, hill giant is CR 7) by saying "Henk, that giant stole your shiny thing!". As the player, I knew that there was no shiny thing and that the giant could beat me. However, as the character, Henk was convinced that he had been robbed. I ended up almost dying, but it was a lot of fun for everyone.



Aside from that, I have an example of constructive metagaming with newbies. The game I played in last semester had 5 PCs, but only me and one other had significant experience (ie we didn't need helping during character creation). Early in the campaign, our party had to interrogate a prisoner. My character was elsewhere, but I gave the party a lot of advice, completely metagaming. I actually had to remind them that I wasn't really there. However, they were really quite clueless, so if I hadn't helped them the whole campaign could have stalled.

For the example of troll regeneration, that's lame. Trolls are supposed to be tough because of that, and because you can only stop it with fire. If the party doesn't know about it, then the troll will actually be just as tough as its CR indicates. If the party goes in swinging torches, then it's just not any fun anymore.

Foxtale
2007-06-24, 10:27 PM
Solve it like we did: add Knowledge (Metagame) as a skill (costing twice as much, just like any other non-class skill).

HidaTsuzua
2007-06-24, 11:30 PM
Dan, understand what 8 intelligence means. For a barbarian with 8 intelligence, he probably doesn't care that skeletons don't have organs because he doesn't think that much. Thog knows that when he stabs a thing with his sword, it dies. Thog doesn't care why, he just wants to stab something because stabbing is fun. After his first few stabs are unsuccessful, he might try to change tactics. However, unless he's fought skeletons before (or has ranks in Knowledge Religion) he probably won't realize that his sword doesn't do anything. Heck, if he does enough damage to go past their DR, he might never realize.


Is 8 INT really that bad? Look at the converse, is 12 INT that amazing? Roll out a 8 Int will have a 9 and a 12 int a 11 with a large standard deviation again due to how the d20 system works. Even so, smart people make mistakes due to bias or bad information. And dumb people can be surprisingly good at what they focus on.

You can make mistakes with roleplaying justification. Of course that can backfire too. I remember a friend who whenever he came up with a plan roll an INT check to see if his character thought of it. All it did was take time and came off as arrogant (since it presumed his plan was the best).

Diggorian
2007-06-24, 11:44 PM
I dislike metagaming and handle it in two major ways.

1. Impression management: by the controling what the players perceive you can control their conclusions. This is done by describing things in novel ways, as others have proscribed to before. I never say a troll is a troll, I show what a troll looks like with description. Once I described a party facing a female troll, and many thought it was a Green Hag after the battle. If a Knowledge check is successfull for a common monster I'll give a regional name for the creature and as much useful info as the skill roll unlocks. "The scum beast is a fierce giant that fights on despite the most grievious wounds."

2. Common Knowledge: not a new skill of that name :smallamused: , but whatever information has a DC lower than 10 + ability modifier to know I'll tell them freely. I'll grant a +2 competence bonus to that if something in their past might help.

A Barbarian with Int 8 and Wis 14 that has never fought a skeleton would likely try the axe on it first (cause how sturdy does a bunch of bones look). If he doesnt crush it on the first attack, a 12 DC Wisdom check (10 + 2 Wis) is enough to deduce crushing/bludgeoning would be better, no roll needed.

If Wizard has cast Big Nasty AoE spell before, it maybe easily recognizable especially if spectacular. If not, and allies are unable to get a high enough Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana DC, they'd better ask what he's doing.

Fax Celestis
2007-06-24, 11:56 PM
And everybody knows arguing with Fax is just plain silly.

Vicotry for me!

Aquillion
2007-06-25, 02:44 AM
Solve it like we did: add Knowledge (Metagame) as a skill (costing twice as much, just like any other non-class skill).
I would give it as a class skill to bards, since almost everything it deals with can be covered by either "I heard of something like this in a story..." or "This is the way adventures work..." ("How did I know it was there? Please. I'm a professional storyteller. Trust me, there is always a secret passage.")


Exactly. So where is it not role-playing for someone in the party to have heard at some point in their life to use blunts on skeletons?It is worth pointing out that, per RAW, characters in D&D always know (with no roll required) whenever their attacks are not damaging an opponent, or when the damage they do is being reduced by DR. Even if a fighter has an int and wis of 3, he still recognizes any situation in which his sword is ineffective after, at most, a single swing.

Whether the party knows or can deduce the correct way of damaging the opponent is another story, but any DM who insists that the party continue to use attacks that aren't hurting their opponents is, in fact, bending the rules against the players; they're supposed to know instantly when something isn't working, no matter what their int, wis, or skills are.

Charity
2007-06-25, 03:00 AM
If you're playing [expletive deleted], and suddenly the goalie charges across the field, you're going to notice. This is essentially the same thing.

I was with you there Fax then you had to go and spoil it by using the 'S' word
Tsk tsk.
*Shakes head*

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-25, 04:06 AM
Crazed, are you upset because of the possibility of metagaming? Or because you didn't "win" the encounter?

Frankly, expecting detailed lists of every thing the PCs might know is unrealistic. So is expecting long in character discussions of potential tactics. Why wouldn't a group adventuring together discuss spell usage, tactics, and the basics of working together?

I doubt Dan Hemmens is saying there is never a case of inappropriate metagaming, just that most metagaming is easily explained as part of the off camera game. Growing up in a world filled with magic and magical beasts should give any adult a general knowledge of common creatures and spells. To say otherwise means you're saying the PCs live in a single instant of time and forget history and interactions with others - unless they've paid skill points to remember.


im not upset about anything i just wanted to know how people deal with Metagaming in the first place, it was up to the players wether they completed the encounter dead or alive, but thats just it they did not discus tactics at all, most of the characters in the party don't trust the other characters they adventure with.

Overlard
2007-06-25, 05:23 AM
I've only had to deal with one serious metagamer. Other gamers tend to keep themselves or each other in check, but this one guy really had no problem with what he did and what get pissed off if anyone questioned him on it.

He essentially memorised the monster manuals, and every single character he played had full knowledge of what the players were facing. His reasoning for this was that all his characters were adventurers, and would have undoubtedly faced this creature before, and then know its abilities and weaknesses.

The conversation would generally go:

Me: This bizarre creature stands almost fifteen feet high, with cracked veins of glowing red...
Him: Oh, that's a [insert monster name here]. He's an outsider, immune to fire and has huge DR. Acid works well, but his saves are high. Watch out for his SLA, and he hits hard. No reach though, so use that to your advantage.
Me: And how do you know this?
Him: He's in the MM.
Me: No, how does your character know this? Do you have knowledge (planes)?
Him: I'm a sorcerer, all my skill points went on bluff and concentration.
Me: So how do you know?
Him: My character has encountered them before.
Me: You've been playing this character since level 1, you're now level 10. You've never met one of these things before.
Him: ...I killed one before I joined the party.
Me: You were a farmboy when you joined the party. You'd never seen anything like this before.
Him: Then my father told me about them. Can we get on with killing it?
Me: Your father was killed before you were born! This is the backstory you came up with!
Him: Then I read it in a book in the city! Let's roll initiative!

In the end, I started mixing up the desciptions of the monsters. Trolls were covered in thick fur, elementals looked like normal people with strange eyes and so on. He got really irritated about that and claimed I was thwarting his initiative of memorising the MMs.

Well... duh.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 05:26 AM
i wasent planning to kill the party but the wizard probably was, i just don't see why they should beable to try to act on something they didn't know about in character.

Because the game requires it.

Your character doesn't know about levels, classes, hit-points or Feats, he doesn't know that he's fighting on a battle grid (assuming he is). D&D combat is an abstract tactical wargame and it only *works* if you treat it as one.

Seriously, the example you gave is a textbook example. Either you let the players act on information that they have not informed you that they have, or else you get semi-regular TPKs.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 05:27 AM
Hahaha, I want you in my campaigns, just to see the look on your metagaming face when you find out after the battle "oh by the way, that troll was weak against sonic and frost damage, not fire."

You'd like to see the look on my face? Are you particularly fond of seeing people looking bored?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 05:38 AM
im not upset about anything i just wanted to know how people deal with Metagaming in the first place, it was up to the players wether they completed the encounter dead or alive, but thats just it they did not discus tactics at all, most of the characters in the party don't trust the other characters they adventure with.

If they don't trust the characters they adventure with, why are they adventuring with them?

(Clue, the answer begins with "M" and ends with "etagaming").

lord_khaine
2007-06-25, 05:42 AM
there are a lot of other places where the game actualy require metagaming, fx the first time the party meets a group of ogres, and dont run away on the spot, thats metagaming that they know they actualy got a chance of defeating something around 5 times their mass in melee combat, when regular logic would compare it to try and have a boxing mach with a gorilla.

ohh and keiichi, changing the trolls weakness should warant a increase in their challenge rating, since fire is a lot easyer to get your hands on than sonic damage.

and i would like to see the look on your face when your group desides to ignore whatever type of damage would beat the trolls regeneration, and just drown the trolls instead :P

Roderick_BR
2007-06-25, 06:11 AM
Depends. In some light-hearted games, we pretty much go OotS style.
In more serious campaigns, we agree in doing more immersion, trying to avoid side talk and meta gaming. It's a matter of group style, and agreeing on game style before each session.

Wraithy
2007-06-25, 06:37 AM
abandon thread! abandon thread!
*cries into a hanky* the scrubbing! the scrubbing!

Kiroho
2007-06-25, 06:50 AM
In the end, I started mixing up the desciptions of the monsters. Trolls were covered in thick fur, elementals looked like normal people with strange eyes and so on. He got really irritated about that and claimed I was thwarting his initiative of memorising the MMs.

Well... duh.

I did a very similar thing with a group that ended up on an unexplored island. I had specifically "evolved" the monsters on the island differently than what the players were used to. I know the characters had never encountered any of these creatures before as they didn't exist where they came from. Their first encounter was with a pack of chaotic evil, ravenously hungry blink dogs attacking a pair of neutral good displacer beasts. I was described the fighting groups without actually giving them names. "You see a large pack of dogs fighting a pair of large panther looking creatures with long black tentacles coming off the shoulders. The dogs are hard to follow as they seem to vanish and reappear about the panther creatures. None of you have ever seen anything quite like any of these creatures before."

The party assumed standard Blink Dogs and Displacer Beasts and responded accordingly. They were a bit surprised when the hungry dogs then turned on them. At this point I made it clear that the MM as they knew it may not have any basis in reality.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 06:51 AM
Me: This bizarre creature stands almost fifteen feet high, with cracked veins of glowing red...
Him: Oh, that's a [insert monster name here]. He's an outsider, immune to fire and has huge DR. Acid works well, but his saves are high. Watch out for his SLA, and he hits hard. No reach though, so use that to your advantage.


Now I know this is going to be unpopular, but even this, particularly extreme example just doesn't strike me as being all that bad.

It's all game mechanical information. Your characters don't understand game mechanics at all. They don't realise they're just fictional constructs made out of numbers, battling other fictional constructs made out of numbers. They think they're in a life-or-death situation.

However, the D&D combat system *requires* that you make decisions based on game mechanical information. Information that they, by definition, cannot know in-character.

So what is actually *wrong* with this guy giving his party a rundown of this creature's weaknesses? All it does is give the players more information when they're making their (totally metagame) decisions in combat.

Saph
2007-06-25, 07:00 AM
Fax and Dan are right. There is absolutely no reason why you should need knowledge(religion) to know that skeletons would be more easily damaged by bludgeoning weapons(although it pains me to think that a club could deal damage better than a MASSIVE great sword).

There is, however, a BIG reason why your characters won't know the exact combination of weapon abilities to bypass the damage reduction of Zxetqwysdf, obscure type of yugoloth. There's a difference between "you can kind of work this out from looking at it" and "there is no way you could know this in-character".


Anybody who calls Dan Hemmens an idiot needs to take a closer look at the guy's posts. He's a smart guy. Come on. And everybody knows arguing with Fax is just plain silly.

No, Dan isn't an idiot, but he does seem to take pleasure in defending positions that are more false than true. Being smart and caring about accuracy are different things. And Fax is defending a much more limited form of metagaming which basically boils down to 'characters are allowed to be aware of their surroundings and use common sense'. I wouldn't even call this metagaming - metagaming is when you use out-of-character knowledge that's clearly not available in-character.

- Saph

Kiero
2007-06-25, 07:13 AM
Mainly for DMs around i guess, but how do you all deal with metagaming in your campaigns?

Don't play systems that make it possible.

CrazedGoblin
2007-06-25, 07:13 AM
Now I know this is going to be unpopular, but even this, particularly extreme example just doesn't strike me as being all that bad.

It's all game mechanical information. Your characters don't understand game mechanics at all. They don't realise they're just fictional constructs made out of numbers, battling other fictional constructs made out of numbers. They think they're in a life-or-death situation.

However, the D&D combat system *requires* that you make decisions based on game mechanical information. Information that they, by definition, cannot know in-character.

So what is actually *wrong* with this guy giving his party a rundown of this creature's weaknesses? All it does is give the players more information when they're making their (totally metagame) decisions in combat.

if your character has met the creatures or has some experiance with them then yes, your character could tell the rest of the party things like that, but i think youve taken the whole idea of metagaming abit far.

Roog
2007-06-25, 07:18 AM
Mainly for DMs around i guess, but how do you all deal with metagaming in your campaigns?

I allow pretty much any metagaming - as long as the player can come up with a good+believable justification or background reason for it. This can only be used to add charcter detail, not to remove it. From that point on the player must stick with the justification they gave - its fully accepted character detail. (And I generally won't let the player re-justify a metagaming change to the justification)

For example in the situation with the wizard running into the middle of combat and starting to dance, I can think of several justifications I would accept.

Justification: When a guy in a robe does that I run (or similar).
Result: OK you run, just remember thats how you will act in a situation like that in the future (or until you pick up some more spellcraft skill)

Justification: We sorted out some signals earlier (during periods glossed over) - thats the only spell he knows that involves dancing (This requires the wizards agreement).
Result: The character generally knows (by sight only) roughly what the wizard is casting.
(And what I don't say to the players). Thats usefull for the characters now, but if the charcters end up in conflict, then the wizard will be at a disadvantage. Additionally if the character ends up in a situation where he cannot see the wizard, and the wizard does not think to shout out what he is doing, a tactical stuff-up could easlly occur.

As for players using meta-game knowledge about monsters, I often change monsters to fit the situation/climate/local legends/etc before using them. The players know this - I'm not trying to ambush them. So the player can meta-game the situation, but if they create a jusification as to how the character knows something about this creature, and this is some local variant (prepared ealier), the character may end up 100% sure and 100% wrong.

There is one thing I that I discourage with reguard to meta-gaming, and that is player vrs player confilct when one of the players really doesn't wan't it. (Hey, if they both wan't it, its fine). On the other hand I would also try to avoid Meta-gaming-anti-meta-gaming in situations like that.

Meta-gaming-anti-meta-gaming: When a player deliberatly creates a character+personality designed to further the players agenda (usually PVP confict), that would require meta-gaming during play to not play to that agenda, allowing the player to claim that they are not meta-gaming ("I'm just role playing my character's personality/allignment/quirks") and get away with victimising their target player(s).

Note: I have only played with one player like this - fortunately he has got over it, and is not only non-conformist.

Overlard
2007-06-25, 07:42 AM
Now I know this is going to be unpopular, but even this, particularly extreme example just doesn't strike me as being all that bad.

It's all game mechanical information. Your characters don't understand game mechanics at all. They don't realise they're just fictional constructs made out of numbers, battling other fictional constructs made out of numbers. They think they're in a life-or-death situation.

However, the D&D combat system *requires* that you make decisions based on game mechanical information. Information that they, by definition, cannot know in-character.

So what is actually *wrong* with this guy giving his party a rundown of this creature's weaknesses? All it does is give the players more information when they're making their (totally metagame) decisions in combat.
If the characters have met the monsters before, or have done in-game research, or have ranks in an appropriate knowledge, then I don't have a problem with them having reasonable knowledge of the monster and using that accordingly.

But if a player spurts out all the details of a fe that the character should have no knowledge of, then it completely ruins any surprise or mystery. Knowledge of the monster means the challenge is lowered, and if they use knowledge they haven't earned, I'm going to treat the CR as being lower in terms of xp rewards & treasure. I've informed my players of this, and they don't have a problem with it.

The troll example near the start of the thread is a good example. New guys don't know about trolls, so when they start regenerating and get up after being "killed", that's a new experience for the players. They have to work out a way to put the trolls down for good. If they don't work it out, either the DM can give some subtle hints about sealing wounds, or the characters can retreat until they've got a better plan (and maybe even looked into the weaknesses of the beast by asking around or studying in a library). When they defeat the troll, there's a sense of satisfaction. If one player parrots the trolls abilities, and tells everyone the weaknesses, and didn't earn the knowledge, then the encounter is far easier, less satisfying and cheaper.

Some metagaming is inevitable, but that doesn't mean you should cram it in everywhere you can. Knowing how to avoid AoOs and flanking bonuses are on a completely different level than detailed lists of the enemy's weak points.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 07:42 AM
if your character has met the creatures or has some experiance with them then yes, your character could tell the rest of the party things like that, but i think youve taken the whole idea of metagaming abit far.

Not really since D&D as a system rewards system mastery by the player. Its important to recognize that as players we don't expect the DM to make an encounter impossible to win, in fact as players we expect them to be a reasonable challenge based on the game system in question, which in turn is derived from the player understand of the game. Combat is the ultimate representation of this, since as a DM if you build a combat encounter that is so hard that it kills the characters your game is over as much as the players, so it behooves the DM to not kill the characters intentionally. Players will recognize this fact, and have their characters attack the big ugly demon thing, despite the fact that any person in their right mind should be running away. So its really not that much of a stretch to let the players exercise some of their hard earned player knowledge to help kill the big ugly demon thing, since again the game system assumes that at some level the players will recognize a threat and take appropriate actions to defeat said threat. Why? Because being a D&D master makes your character more effective, which D&D as a game rewards.

I should probably point out that the CR system is also based around the fact that the players know how to kill something in game. The dragons in particular are an appropriate CR if the characters are equipped to actually kill one. This effectively means that a single troll encountered without fire or acid is actually a much hard encounter than its CR would otherwise indicate. The DM must adjust for this, or let the players use their knowledge that trolls can be killed using fire or acid.

beholder
2007-06-25, 07:54 AM
D&D combat is an abstract tactical wargame and it only *works* if you treat it as one.

D&D is a pen and paper role playing game.
apart from that. guys its not a big deal, don't insult each other.
and i just had a cool idea
everyone's saying how if you saw a guy in robes doing funny dances, theyd run away. gave me a cool idea
meet burt. hes the parties newest cohort, he was a sheep farmer 2 weeks ago, but now hes paid 2 gold pieces a day. he wears robes and a pointy hat. at a pretedermined signal, his job is to run into battle and chant these words that the party wizard taught him. the fleeing enemies are promptly executed by combat reflex-ready fighters.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 08:00 AM
D&D is a pen and paper role playing game.

But combat is not so much when looked at directly. Combat is more akin to a tactical battle game than the rest of the rules. The reason of course being that D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, which requires detailed combat rules (or rather D&D has always had detailed battle rules, without them its not really D&D). So when you enter combat players tend to look at it as a combat game, which is entirely predicated on the knowledge of the combat rules, so knowing how to kill a troll with fire or a demon with cold iron isn't really a huge issue when you get right down to the types of things players are going to do in combat.


meet burt. hes the parties newest cohort, he was a sheep farmer 2 weeks ago, but now hes paid 2 gold pieces a day. he wears robes and a pointy hat. at a pretedermined signal, his job is to run into battle and chant these words that the party wizard taught him. the fleeing enemies are promptly executed by combat reflex-ready fighters.

Ah, Burt. The non-wizard. Good times.

Saph
2007-06-25, 08:04 AM
Not really since D&D as a system rewards system mastery by the player. Its important to recognize that as players we don't expect the DM to make an encounter impossible to win, in fact as players we expect them to be a reasonable challenge based on the game system in question, which in turn is derived from the player understand of the game. Combat is the ultimate representation of this, since as a DM if you build a combat encounter that is so hard that it kills the characters your game is over as much as the players, so it behooves the DM to not kill the characters intentionally. Players will recognize this fact, and have their characters attack the big ugly demon thing, despite the fact that any person in their right mind should be running away. So its really not that much of a stretch to let the players exercise some of their hard earned player knowledge to help kill the big ugly demon thing, since again the game system assumes that at some level the players will recognize a threat and take appropriate actions to defeat said threat. Why? Because being a D&D master makes your character more effective, which D&D as a game rewards.

I should probably point out that the CR system is also based around the fact that the players know how to kill something in game. The dragons in particular are an appropriate CR if the characters are equipped to actually kill one. This effectively means that a single troll encountered without fire or acid is actually a much hard encounter than its CR would otherwise indicate. The DM must adjust for this, or let the players use their knowledge that trolls can be killed using fire or acid.

You've just written an entire post on metagaming without bringing up the concept of 'role-playing' even once.

Does your character know that trolls can be killed with fire and acid? Does your character want to fight dragons? Why is your character attacking the demon? Does he have an in-character reason? Do the characters have any personality at all, or do they just do whatever the DM says they're supposed to and what the player feels like at the time?

If you play role-playing games without any role-playing, then of course the rule 'don't metagame' isn't going to make much sense.

- Saph

PS - if you just 'attack the big ugly demon thing' in my games, assuming that I as the DM won't throw anything at you that you can't beat, you'll die. Horribly. There are lots of things in my gameworld that the PCs can't possibly beat in a straight fight. I warn the players of this before a campaign starts, just to make sure they understand.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-25, 08:05 AM
D&D is a pen and paper role playing game.
apart from that. guys its not a big deal, don't insult each other.
and i just had a cool idea
everyone's saying how if you saw a guy in robes doing funny dances, theyd run away. gave me a cool idea
meet burt. hes the parties newest cohort, he was a sheep farmer 2 weeks ago, but now hes paid 2 gold pieces a day. he wears robes and a pointy hat. at a pretedermined signal, his job is to run into battle and chant these words that the party wizard taught him. the fleeing enemies are promptly executed by combat reflex-ready fighters.

how much hp does he have?

beholder
2007-06-25, 08:06 AM
But combat is not so much when looked at directly. Combat is more akin to a tactical battle game than the rest of the rules. The reason of course being that D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, which requires detailed combat rules (or rather D&D has always had detailed battle rules, without them its not really D&D). So when you enter combat players tend to look at it as a combat game, which is entirely predicated on the knowledge of the combat rules, so knowing how to kill a troll with fire or a demon with cold iron isn't really a huge issue when you get right down to the types of things players are going to do in combat.


but isn't it a better game if a smarter party member notices that when he retreats next to the campfire, the horrible shaggy green monster which regenrates seems worried to follow? i understand for a tactical wargame you know these things, so you choose which technique to defeat them, but i always thought D&D was an RPG, even in combat.

beholder
2007-06-25, 08:07 AM
how much hp does he have?

3, 4 if he's lucky

Saph
2007-06-25, 08:08 AM
i understand for a tactical wargame you know these things, so you choose which technique to defeat them, but i always thought D&D was an RPG, even in combat.

It is. D&D works just fine if you roleplay, 'even' in combat. Better, actually.

- Saph

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 08:10 AM
Mainly for DMs around i guess, but how do you all deal with metagaming in your campaigns?


I let all my players know up front that I am planning on a heavy RP game, with a focus on developing characters rather than optimizing characters. If a character blatantly metagames, and it cannot be undone (blurted information for example) then I assess a plenty to them, and talk to them more in depth after session.

If it is something that can be undone, I offer them the choice of undoing or taking the plenty. Sometimes they choose the plenty.

As an example of the second one, I was DMing one time and the party got split up. The party barbarian was outside a cottage and said he was going to head inside. Then I changed scenes to inside the cottage where the other PCs were. Those PCs had just got totally messed up because they completely let their guard down in an unsafe area.

When I changed back to the barbarian he said "I run away." I reminded him that his character doesn't know anything about what happened inside and thus would act as he initially had. He refused, saying he didn't care, he was running away. I explained that I was going to assess an experience penalty on him that removed all exp he had gained that session, and a 20% penalty for the next session. He agreed to the exp penalty.


Really, metagaming is a preferance of the group. Another DM I know (who I am currently playing with) starts all of his campaigns with "Your character knows everything that your player knows, but be informed that I do change things up from time to time." That means that as far as information does, we are free to metagame that aspect as much as we know.

But when I DM I am more interested in the growth of the characters so I like to restrict their knowledge to what their characters would honestly know.

Also, for everyone who is saying "A party would know all of the wizard's spells", that's totally not the case in my experience. In my campaigns, wizard's are usually very secretive, hiding their abilities from everyone. In the campaign I am playing in right now I told my party up front that I was a wizard and that I could do some things, and left it at that.

As an aside, if the game isn't big on role-playing, or it is more combat/strategy based, then metagaming isn't as big of a deal. Instead of playing the role of the character you are the player attempting to defeat the challenge. Not using information you heard that is beneficial would be silly in this kind of a situation.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 08:24 AM
You've just written an entire post on metagaming without bringing up the concept of 'role-playing' even once.

That's because the D&D combat system is an abstract tactical wargame. It really is. It's designed to be played like an abstract tactical wargame, and if you play it like anything else, you die.


Does your character know that trolls can be killed with fire and acid? Does your character want to fight dragons? Why is your character attacking the demon? Does he have an in-character reason? Do the characters have any personality at all, or do they just do whatever the DM says they're supposed to and what the player feels like at the time?

Does my character know trolls can be killed with fire and acid? Maybe, why the hell not?

Will it damage my enjoyment of the game if my character gets killed by a troll? Yes.


If you play role-playing games without any role-playing, then of course the rule 'don't metagame' isn't going to make much sense.

My games include plenty of role-playing. It's just that I don't give a damn whether you know how to kill a troll in-character or not.

Does knowing how to kill a troll reveal anything about your character's personality, his history, or his ongoing relationships? Does it actually relate to anything which matters at all from a role-playing perspective?


PS - if you just 'attack the big ugly demon thing' in my games, assuming that I as the DM won't throw anything at you that you can't beat, you'll die. Horribly. There are lots of things in my gameworld that the PCs can't possibly beat in a straight fight. I warn the players of this before a campaign starts, just to make sure they understand.

So what do you do if your players make a legitimate, in-character decision to attack something they can't possibly defeat?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 08:28 AM
Don't play systems that make it possible.

Doesn't Wushu involve a metric boatload of metagaming? It's just that in this case instead of the "metagame" information being "I know how to kill trolls" it becomes "I know that my character doesn't have to know how to kill trolls, because my character can take literally any action in this scene and it will still be game mechanically effective."

beholder
2007-06-25, 08:30 AM
Does knowing how to kill a troll reveal anything about your character's personality, his history, or his ongoing relationships? Does it actually relate to anything which matters at all from a role-playing perspective?


well for one thing it will tell you if he's ever heard of trolls before

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 08:31 AM
No, Dan isn't an idiot, but he does seem to take pleasure in defending positions that are more false than true. Being smart and caring about accuracy are different things.

I take issue with this.

I am one hundred percent sincere when I say that metagaming is a necessary, inevitable, and desirable part of any role-playing game. I am one hundred percent sincere when I say that objecting to players acting on OOC knowledge in combat is stupid, because combat is an abstract minigame designed to challenge your out of character abilities.

All of these are, in my opinion, absolutely correct and entirely accurate.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 08:33 AM
well for one thing it will tell you if he's ever heard of trolls before

Well ... yes it would tell you that. But that piece of information has zero value in terms of roleplaying.

Roleplaying is about who your character really is. This in itself is remarkably difficult to explore in D&D, since your character's core identity will inevitably be subsumed in the wider assumptions of the "adventure".

beholder
2007-06-25, 08:38 AM
Well ... yes it would tell you that. But that piece of information has zero value in terms of roleplaying.

Roleplaying is about who your character really is. This in itself is remarkably difficult to explore in D&D, since your character's core identity will inevitably be subsumed in the wider assumptions of the "adventure".

i disagree there. i think you could roleplay the panicky inexperienced fighter, or the grizzled disillusioned mercenary. i like playing conan-style, or at leats one aspect of conan, where you figure out the enemie's weaknesses, and exploit them.

Saph
2007-06-25, 08:38 AM
That's because the D&D combat system is an abstract tactical wargame. It really is. It's designed to be played like an abstract tactical wargame, and if you play it like anything else, you die.

Rubbish. Where do you get these bits of hyperbole? I don't play D&D as an abstract tactical wargame, and neither do most of my players. The ones that do have no higher a survival rate than the ones that don't. In fact, the ones that treat it as a wargame die faster. You didn't design D&D, and you sure as hell don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of how every other D&D game in the world is run.


Does my character know trolls can be killed with fire and acid? Maybe, why the hell not?

Will it damage my enjoyment of the game if my character gets killed by a troll? Yes.

If you aren't willing to risk character death, don't play a combat-heavy RPG. If you aren't willing to think in-character, don't play a roleplay-heavy RPG.


My games include plenty of role-playing. It's just that I don't give a damn whether you know how to kill a troll in-character or not.

So you have plenty of role-playing, right up to the point where it could have the slightest detrimental effect on your combat efficiency, at which point roleplaying can take a jump. Okay, then.


So what do you do if your players make a legitimate, in-character decision to attack something they can't possibly defeat?

Think about it. It's not hard to work out.

- Saph

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 08:44 AM
You've just written an entire post on metagaming without bringing up the concept of 'role-playing' even once.

I most certainly did. Reason being that D&D as game is meant to be played like a game. That is the game rewards players that know how to play, and what the rules are. System mastery is a boon, which means that a good portion of the time you'll known things about the game system that make no sense for a character to know as a character, but you as a player are required to know.


Does your character know that trolls can be killed with fire and acid? Does your character want to fight dragons? Why is your character attacking the demon? Does he have an in-character reason? Do the characters have any personality at all, or do they just do whatever the DM says they're supposed to and what the player feels like at the time?

Yep, the character knows how to kill trolls. Why? Because he's an adventurer thats what adventurers do, kill things and take their stuff. This is the most basic conceit of D&D. As for killing dragons, of course I want to kill them, they have really good stuff. :smalltongue: As for attacking demons, its a demon as a good and noble adventuring sort you attack those sort of things, its evil after all. ;) Add to the fact that I'm usually the DM and my characters have as much personality as I feel like evoking at that particular time, given the dozens or so that I need to keep track of.

I'd also appreciate if you would keep your insinuations about my preferred gaming style and structure to yourself.


If you play role-playing games without any role-playing, then of course the rule 'don't metagame' isn't going to make much sense.

- Saph

Yes, but the question isn't about roleplaying its about basic combat functions in D&D. Knowing how to kill specific monsters is a boon in the system because the CR structure is based around knowing how to kill monsters. A troll is a much more challenging encounter if as a DM you declare my character doesn't know that pouring oil on it and lighting it on fire will help kill the thing faster. The rules assume that the character has some basic knowledge that trolls + fire = bad times for trolls.


PS - if you just 'attack the big ugly demon thing' in my games, assuming that I as the DM won't throw anything at you that you can't beat, you'll die. Horribly. There are lots of things in my gameworld that the PCs can't possibly beat in a straight fight. I warn the players of this before a campaign starts, just to make sure they understand.

Fair enough. With advanced warning as a player I'd keep that in mind so as not to put my character into undue jeopardy on the assumption that the game I'm playing works on D&D's default assumptions. Which is ultimately my point, D&D as a designed system assumes as the default that the players will use their knowledge of the system to succeed. One of the most obvious functions of that knowledge is combat. Another really good one is skill ranks. If you never need to get better than DC X the character never needs a total bonus better than X + 1, which is an entirely metagame decision to limit your character's skill growth and cap it based on the rules of the game.


<in reference to impossible to defeat encounter> Think about it. It's not hard to work out.

- Saph

You kill them and end the game? I suppose if that works for you, but for me if the players know they can't beat a balor at level three then they wont fight the thing. Of course I wouldn't present them with a balor at level three since that just strike me as poor use of game time.

beholder
2007-06-25, 08:47 AM
just a reminder that we are all OOTSer's here and we should love each other like widdle carebears

Saph
2007-06-25, 09:03 AM
I am one hundred percent sincere when I say that metagaming is a necessary, inevitable, and desirable part of any role-playing game. I am one hundred percent sincere when I say that objecting to players acting on OOC knowledge in combat is stupid, because combat is an abstract minigame designed to challenge your out of character abilities.

Then why don't you listen when people tell you that certain types of metagaming are neither necessary (since they usually don't have them in their games), nor inevitable (since they usually don't have them in their games), nor desireable (since they and most other players in their group hate them)? Why don't you pay any attention when other people tell you that they do not play D&D combat as an abstract OOC minigame? Several people, including me, have told you this.

You're free to take issue with the conclusion I've come to, but if you're going to take issue you might want to take into account that by telling us that we metagame and play combat as an OOC minigame when we've just told you we don't, you're effectively telling us that you know more about our games than we do. This is irritating.


I most certainly did. Reason being that D&D as game is meant to be played like a game.

Says who? You and Dan keep talking about how D&D is 'meant' to be played. What are you going to do if the rest of us play it differently, arrest us?


Yep, the character knows how to kill trolls. Why? Because he's an adventurer thats what adventurers do, kill things and take their stuff. This is the most basic conceit of D&D. As for killing dragons, of course I want to kill them, they have really good stuff.

Except that many people do not play D&D as a game of 'kill everything and take its stuff'. I don't, for one.


Fair enough. With advanced warning as a player I'd keep that in mind so as not to put my character into undue jeopardy on the assumption that the game I'm playing works on D&D's default assumptions.

What assumptions? By the DMG, 15% of the encounters a party will face are 1-4 points in CR above the party level. 5% of the encounters are 5 or more points in CR above the party level. You're the one who's making assumptions, and the core books directly contradict you.


You kill them and end the game?

*sighs* I give up.

- Saph

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:04 AM
I have to agree with Saph that D&D doesn't have to be played as a squad based tactical war game, nor does it require you to do more meta gaming than you want to. I don't even think that D&D makes for a very good war game, I certainly wouldn't choose it over any other system on the market.

However, I wonder if we are all agreed on the terminology of what is being discussed here? Are we all in agreement about what differentiates a tactical war game from an RPG combat system? Are we all in agreement about what constitutes meta gaming? It's no good coming at this debate from different points of view if we don't define what we are discussing.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 09:06 AM
Then why don't you listen when people tell you that certain types of metagaming are neither necessary (since they usually don't have them in their games), nor inevitable (since they usually don't have them in their games), nor desireable (since they and most other players in their group hate them)? Why don't you pay any attention when other people tell you that they do not play D&D combat as an abstract OOC minigame? Several people, including me, have told you this.

I pay attention when people tell me they don't play D&D combat as an abstract OOC minigame. I just don't believe them.

There is literally no way to apply the D&D combat rules "in-character". They are abstract. You cannot apply an abstract ruleset in-character, because they are abstract. They by definition do not translate to anything in-character.


You're free to take issue with the conclusion I've come to, but if you're going to take issue you might want to take into account that by telling us that we metagame and play combat as an OOC minigame when we've just told you we don't, you're effectively telling us that you know more about our games than we do. This is irritating.

Irritating it may be, but I'm afraid that's the logical conclusion of our two positions.

Unless you can give me a concrete example of how your D&D games do *not* treat combat as an abstract tactical wargame (without resorting to the old handwave of "our characters would just *do* that!") I will carry on assuming that you do, in fact, treat it that way, even if you don't realize it.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 09:07 AM
So you have plenty of role-playing, right up to the point where it could have the slightest detrimental effect on your combat efficiency, at which point roleplaying can take a jump. Okay, then.


I completely agree with your implied sentiment here. I think that too many players approach the game in this way.

I've seen characters that were afraid of heights scale mountains when they knew treasure was up there. And characters fearful of drowing jump in for a swim when they see something glinting in the mud.

The problem is that a player's desire to get mechanical advantages can override their desire to play in-character. IMO, this is usually done by players who aren't really role playing, they are just making a minute attempt at it to pacify their DM.

As a DM I think it is important to reward players who RP well with mechanical benefits (bonus exp) and also by talking to them. "Hey Joe, I wanted to let you know I think you did a really good job role-playing your character last session." IME players being recognized for good role playing is one of the biggest promoters of further role playing.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:09 AM
Unless you can give me a concrete example of how your D&D games do *not* treat combat as an abstract tactical wargame (without resorting to the old handwave of "our characters would just *do* that!") I will carry on assuming that you do, in fact, treat it that way, even if you don't realize it.

How about the fact that I don't use models, counters, maps or boards for the most part? Would that differentiate things sufficiently? What is the definition of a wargame?

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 09:11 AM
You're free to take issue with the conclusion I've come to, but if you're going to take issue you might want to take into account that by telling us that we metagame and play combat as an OOC minigame when we've just told you we don't, you're effectively telling us that you know more about our games than we do. This is irritating.

- Saph

The question Saph is how do you play combat? Do you as a player power attack an orc because you know that it probably has a pretty low AC and thus is an easy target for power attack, which might get you cleave on his buddy, particularly since you're at level one? Because if you do this there is no in character justification that I can think to describe this particular action, its entirely a metagame function of knowing the combat rules as well as the fact that you have a low level character that is fighting some typically low level enemies.

There are plenty of descriptive functions that can make combat more evocative, but combat itself is very abstract and the basic functions are completely devoid of any roleplay. You can roleplay your character in combat but combat itself is entirely a metagame fucntion of the rules. This I think is Dan's point.

To illustrate: Imagine if you will Bob the Barbarian. Bob wields a great axe. Bob's player Chuck decides that Bob is a pretty typical barbarian, he's uncouth and uncivilized with a general fear of magic. Sounds good so far for Bob as a character. Bob has power attack, Chuck likes to use it a lot in combat. Saph, our DM, presents Chuck's group a combat encounter with a homebrew monster with a pretty hefty AC that is enough to keep Bob from power attacking every single turn. Chuck has Bob attack the monster using power attack, Bob is a big burly barbarian after all. The attack fails, Saph describes the attack as bouncing off its thick hide. Chuck is left with two options here about how Bob is going to be have. The first is have Bob keep attacking like the crazy barbarian he is and power attack some more, since obviously a sufficient application of force should kill the monster from Bob's perspective. However, Chuck knows that power attacking is a bad idea since the monster's AC is too high to really work with power attack after careful observation of the other player's attacks. So does Chuck have Bob wail away in character to no avail, or should Chuck have Bob do the logical thing and not use power attack through metagame thinking?

As a DM Saph what would you want Chuck to do? What would you do as a player? I'm not trying to antagonize you here, I really do what to know what you think of similar situations.


How about the fact that I don't use models, counters, maps or boards for the most part? Would that differentiate things sufficiently? What is the definition of a wargame?

Usually anything that simulates or resolves combat through rules, typically involving dice. As a point of interest I can play Warhammer in my head using stat blocks and solid knowledge of the rules. Just because there are no minis or boards doesn't mean that it isn't still a wargame. D&D combat works the same way. Board or no the rules still work the same, although I would posit that determining reach and distance moved is easier with a board and markers.

valadil
2007-06-25, 09:13 AM
When I run games I make sure all the players are aware that it's a collaborative storytelling session first and a game second. So far all the players have been fine with this (those that want a tactical combat sim don't come to my games) and metagaming hasn't been an issue.

Other DMs I've played with have not hesitated to tell a player when they metagame in a bad way. 99% of players will take a step back, look at the situation, agree with the DM, and take back what they said. Of course, this goes for the out of game knowledge being used to an advantage kind of metagaming, not the kind that is needed to make the game work right. I think we all agree that players should play nice and accept plot hooks to some degree.

I've heard tales of players who, when confronted with a new monster, will announce with page of the MM it's on and read off its stats. I'm sorry but this is never beneficial to the game. It's one thing for a commoner to know that trolls burn. Trolls are probably common to all sorts of folklore. Knowing what resistances a Balor has is not common folklore and your character should not automatically have that knowledge because you have no life and instead read the MM every night before bed.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:16 AM
Er, no Belpherion. You have limited Bob's actions there. Bob, seeing that his wild, but powerful blows have no effect on the Monster, hears the cries of his companion Elric the Red "Bob, go for it's underbelly", Bob makes a more measured attack. Are mechanics and Roleplaying interacting? Sure. Is this metagaming? Perhaps. Define metagaming.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 09:17 AM
Rubbish. Where do you get these bits of hyperbole? I don't play D&D as an abstract tactical wargame, and neither do most of my players. The ones that do have no higher a survival rate than the ones that don't. In fact, the ones that treat it as a wargame die faster. You didn't design D&D, and you sure as hell don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of how every other D&D game in the world is run.

I didn't design D&D, but I've read the designers' notes, in which they say "we included a whole bunch of System Mastery in the game, so being good at manipulating the system gives you bonuses and this is deliberate."

I'd also argue that if your game doesn't have a lower survival rate than games which are played as tactical wargames you are probably playing it as a tactical wargame.

Let me put it this way: do any of your characters have Power Attack? How do they decide when to use it, how many points to switch from their Attack Bonus to damage, and so on? Is it a purely "in character" call? How do you even *make* that decision in character, since you don't even know what a Feat *is*?


If you aren't willing to risk character death, don't play a combat-heavy RPG. If you aren't willing to think in-character, don't play a roleplay-heavy RPG.

What if you don't want to risk character death as a result of a legitimate roleplaying decision?


So you have plenty of role-playing, right up to the point where it could have the slightest detrimental effect on your combat efficiency, at which point roleplaying can take a jump. Okay, then.

You have plenty of role-playing, of which "does my character know how to kill trolls?" is considered a stupid, meaningless question, with no more relevance than "what colour underwear is my character wearing?"

The far more pertinent question is "will my character survive this essentially meaningless fight, and therefore be able to carry on exploring the serious role-playing issues that he was set up to explore in the first place." To which the answer is "only if you also assume he knows how to kill a troll."


Think about it. It's not hard to work out.

I suspect the short answer is "they die."

I suspect the longer answer is "they die, but it's okay because they died while *roleplaying*, and my players and I have bought into the idea that the hallmark of a good roleplayer is being willing to suffer needless in-game penalties for legitimate character decisons."

Saph
2007-06-25, 09:18 AM
I pay attention when people tell me they don't play D&D combat as an abstract OOC minigame. I just don't believe them.

<snip>

Unless you can give me a concrete example of how your D&D games do *not* treat combat as an abstract tactical wargame (without resorting to the old handwave of "our characters would just *do* that!") I will carry on assuming that you do, in fact, treat it that way, even if you don't realize it.

. . .

I'll spell this out as clearly as I can.

You are wrong. We do not treat combat as an abstract tactical wargame. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. Your assumptions about how we play the game are wrong. Your conclusions about how we play the game are wrong. Your beliefs about what is and is not possible in D&D are wrong. You are wrong, Jim.

(To drive the point home, please imagine the scene from Episode 1 of Red Dwarf where Lister keeps asking Holly about the crew, and Holly keeps repeating "Everybody's dead, Dave". Switch out "Everybody's dead" with "You're wrong".)

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 09:18 AM
How about the fact that I don't use models, counters, maps or boards for the most part? Would that differentiate things sufficiently? What is the definition of a wargame?

A game which uses abstract rules to simulate combat, with the aim or option of using your personal strategic abilities to achieve victory.

Arbitrarity
2007-06-25, 09:19 AM
Meta-gaming, as defined by some it seems, is use of knowledge that is not within your character's knowledge.

If I remember correctly, the DMG defines metagaming as use of logic that relies on being within a game.

Now. What is, or is not, within your character's knowledge, is supposedly defined by knowledge checks, or background. Should I wish to play a mechanically effective character, therefore, I must include as much learning of how monsters function in it as possible.

Now, really. I don't care that you play D&D as a game not all about killing things and takng their stuff. Great! Good for you! I try to do that too! But, the examples about metagaming are related to combat. Non-Combat Metagaming is a terrible thing, because it breaks verismilitude, etc.

But in combat metagaming is required to avoid death. Often. You can look down your nose at those who even dare mention combat in *gasp* D&D. But it doesn't change that they have a somewhat legit concern. How do you kill a troll without fire or acid? You can't. How do you kill the Tarrasque without knowing that you need a wish?

"In character research"? "Knowledge checks"?

Yeah. Ok. Tell that to Big Mr. T over there as he eats your skull.

Some things are assumed, some things are obvious. This relates to in or out of character knowledge. The skeleton, for example. This is metagaming for a game-mechanical combat advantage. But in many cases, it is a necessary one.

A lack of knowledge, while potentially amusing (I once got stuck by a mimic. After we killed it, I had someone cut the skin off my palms to get the sticky sutff off. After we were done, the adhesive wore off :smallfurious: ) furthermore has issues when relating to clear "know the trick or die" encounters.

How about incoporeal creatures? Do you know they can be affected by magic weapons? Why should the barbarian use the +1 shortsword instead of the MW greataxe?

Oh look. TPK. Way too many factors are deadly, and knowledge of them is so obvious, to be not usable to a party. I once didn't know incoporeals were immune to mundane attack. I died. So did the rest of the party.

beholder
2007-06-25, 09:20 AM
To illustrate: Imagine if you will Bob the Barbarian. Bob wields a great axe. Bob's player Chuck decides that Bob is a pretty typical barbarian, he's uncouth and uncivilized with a general fear of magic. Sounds good so far for Bob as a character. Bob has power attack, Chuck likes to use it a lot in combat. Saph, our DM, presents Chuck's group a combat encounter with a homebrew monster with a pretty hefty AC that is enough to keep Bob from power attacking every single turn. Chuck has Bob attack the monster using power attack, Bob is a big burly barbarian after all. The attack fails, Saph describes the attack as bouncing off its thick hide. Chuck is left with two options here about how Bob is going to be have. The first is have Bob keep attacking like the crazy barbarian he is and power attack some more, since obviously a sufficient application of force should kill the monster from Bob's perspective. However, Chuck knows that power attacking is a bad idea since the monster's AC is too high to really work with power attack after careful observation of the other player's attacks. So does Chuck have Bob wail away in character to no avail, or should Chuck have Bob do the logical thing and not use power attack through metagame thinking?

As a DM Saph what would you want Chuck to do? What would you do as a player? I'm not trying to antagonize you here, I really do what to know what you think of similar situations.

i think you could RP that bob realizes that this creature needs more skill than brawn. i might be an odd entity in RP though. in one game, i played a lizard man barbarian.before a combat concerning a fort mr.lizard bragged he was invincible and that he would scare off raiders, as arrows did not hurt him. lo and behold , the group was attacked by raiders. mr.lizard stood up above the battlements (behind which everyone else was cowering, as the arrows flew thick) and demanded that the raiders leave or suffer his wrath. miraculously, no arrows hit him, but one shattered near his feet, and i had fun making him scream in rage and jump down to get his bow to have a go at the raiders, from up on the battlements.
tactically clever? hell no!
but i had a lot of fun doing it.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:22 AM
Power Attack can be rationalised any way you like. It can be aiming for more vulnerable areas, it can be swinging with more power than skill, it's up to you how you want to Roleplay it. It can be a 'totally in character call'. The Character decides to what degree he wants to sacrfice surety of a hit for an advantage and it is translated to game mechanics.

A game which uses abstract rules to simulate combat, with the aim or option of using your personal strategic abilities to achieve victory.
There are no games with combat that don't do that, though. There are, however, degrees of emphasis within those confines.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 09:23 AM
Er, no Belpherion. You have limited Bob's actions there. Bob, seeing that his wild, but powerful blows have no effect on the Monster, hears the cries of his companion Elric the Red "Bob, go for it's underbelly", Bob makes a more measured attack. Are mechanics and Roleplaying interacting? Sure. Is this metagaming? Perhaps. Define metagaming.

Fair enough option description there Matthew, but its still a metagame decision to not use power attack, or rather how much. Its based entirely on player knowledge of how the game system works and relative probabilities of success based on that knowledge.

Any knowledge that a player applies to the game that the character would have no knowledge of at all, like the fact that Bob has a strength 18 or that his great axe deals 1d12 damage plus four from his strength. In character Bob does know that his very strong compared to the average person, and that he can hack things up extremely well with is axe.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 09:24 AM
Er, no Belpherion. You have limited Bob's actions there. Bob, seeing that his wild, but powerful blows have no effect on the Monster, hears the cries of his companion Elric the Red "Bob, go for it's underbelly", Bob makes a more measured attack. Are mechanics and Roleplaying interacting? Sure. Is this metagaming? Perhaps. Define metagaming.

Beleriphon's example is exactly the one I was going to use, so I'll reply to this if I may.

What you're doing there is metagaming, and tacking an after-the-fact in-character justification onto it.

If you are faced with something which you cannot damage because of its thick hide, you want to hit harder, not softer. Heck, you could even argue that "going for the underbelly" also counts as a Power Attack (it's harder to hit, but you'll do more damage if you get through).

Either way your decision is based on your game-mechanical understanding of how Power Attack works, not on your IC evidence.

If you allow your understanding of the mechanics to affect your character's behaviour in any way then you're metagaming. You are using metagame information to determine your in-character actions.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:29 AM
Well, that's where I would like to see some definitions, because in D&D Roleplaying and Mechanics interact. I rarely see that in a Tactical Wargame. There is almost no Roleplaying in a Tactical War Game.

So, in our example, Bob is roleplaying his Barbarian, he's also receiving information about the world in which he is interacting via game rules and effects. Neither Bob nor his player know the AC of the Monster in question. The player can try and guess the AC based on their rolls and the DMs description, but he doesn't know it. All Bob knows is that it is resisting blows that would cut a Goblin in half and it looks tough.

This is the difference, in my opinion, between D&D and a Tactical Wargame. In a Tactical Wargame you have access to all the stats and information of everything deployed and to a fair points system that gives each side a 50/50 chance of winning. The DM controls no forces, merely deciding what is and is not fair. In D&D all the Players are on the same side, facing the DM, but he is not their opponent. They are expected to win.


Beleriphon's example is exactly the one I was going to use, so I'll reply to this if I may.

What you're doing there is metagaming, and tacking an after-the-fact in-character justification onto it.

I could be doing that, but I don't have to be. The descriptions of events could lead me to make my decisions, rather than the mechanics I observe.


If you are faced with something which you cannot damage because of its thick hide, you want to hit harder, not softer. Heck, you could even argue that "going for the underbelly" also counts as a Power Attack (it's harder to hit, but you'll do more damage if you get through).

Sure, but Power Attack isn't about hitting harder, it's just a mechanic that excahanges AB for DB. You can describe it any way you like.


Either way your decision is based on your game-mechanical understanding of how Power Attack works, not on your IC evidence.

If you allow your understanding of the mechanics to affect your character's behaviour in any way then you're metagaming. You are using metagame information to determine your in-character actions.
Not so, especially for a newbee player. They don't understand the rules very well and may simply make their decision based on the descriptions given to them. An experienced player may also do this, even if they understand the rules. Doing the 'optimal' thing doesn't have to be a purely meta gaming decision or even stem from an understanding of the mechanics of the game.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 09:29 AM
But in combat metagaming is required to avoid death. Often. You can look down your nose at those who even dare mention combat in *gasp* D&D. But it doesn't change that they have a somewhat legit concern. How do you kill a troll without fire or acid? You can't. How do you kill the Tarrasque without knowing that you need a wish?


But, if we're willing to agree that metagaming (to one extreme or another depending on your definition) is a "bad thing", then why would the DM put you in a situation where you are forced to metagame in order to survive?

With the troll example, if no one knows the information, and know one makes the knowledge check, then the appropriate reaction would be, assuming you knock the troll to the ground but it regenerates, to run the hell outta there. This creature you just killed keeps getting back up.

But, let me ask you another question. If the DM made up a brand new monster that you never heard of, and it required a specific type of elemental damage to kill it when you reduced it to 0 hp other wise it kept coming back, and you don't have your out of character knowledge to draw on (because the DM just made it up), what is the correct course of action? I'm hoping you'd say its to get the hell outta there.

In my opinion, if the only difference between situation 1 and situation 2 is that you have the out of character knowledge suitable to defeat situation 1, you should easily be able to understand why some DMs who are focusing on Role Playing would expect your character to react to both situations the same.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 09:34 AM
Power Attack can be rationalised any way you like. It can be aiming for more vulnerable areas, it can be swinging with more power than skill, it's up to you how you want to Roleplay it. It can be a 'totally in character call'. The Character decides to what degree he wants to sacrfice surety of a hit for an advantage and it is translated to game mechanics.

But that's exactly the point. Your character can't know that he's capable of trading "surety of a hit for more damage" because "a hit" and "damage" don't mean anything in-character.

If "Power Attack" means "Strike at vulnerable areas" then your previous example of "going for its vulnerable underbelly" once again means *more* power attack, not less.

You can't justify any kind of D&D combat strategy in-character, because your characters know the game mechanics. The best you can do is say "my metagame decision to use an optimal strategy reflects my character's IC decision to use an optimal strategy." You're still playing a strategy game.

Similarly you can say "my decision to use a Reach weapon against this demon, represents my in-character desire to keep the damned thing far away".


There are no games with combat that don't do that, though. There are, however, degrees of emphasis within those confines.

Just out of interest, how many modern RPGs have you played?

Dogs in the Vineyard doesn't do that. Wushu doesn't do that.

And D&D goes out of its way to give you out of character strategic options, and makes no effort to translate them into IC terms.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:36 AM
But that's exactly the point. Your character can't know that he's capable of trading "surety of a hit for more damage" because "a hit" and "damage" don't mean anything in-character.

If "Power Attack" means "Strike at vulnerable areas" then your previous example of "going for its vulnerable underbelly" once again means *more* power attack, not less.

No, you see, Power attack means whatever you want it to mean. All it is is a mechanic that exchanges AB for DB. It's mechanics can represent a wide variety of in game decisions. if the underbelly is more difficult to hit than the zone he was previously aiming for and he wants to be sure of hitting it, he takes a more measured blow. that's the nature of abstract combat.


You can't justify any kind of D&D combat strategy in-character, because your characters know the game mechanics. The best you can do is say "my metagame decision to use an optimal strategy reflects my character's IC decision to use an optimal strategy." You're still playing a strategy game.

Similarly you can say "my decision to use a Reach weapon against this demon, represents my in-character desire to keep the damned thing far away".

Absolutely you can, or you can say, these mechanics represent my characters decision, rather than my character's decision represents these mechanics. From where you take the decsion is up to you.


Just out of interest, how many modern RPGs have you played?

Dogs in the Vineyard doesn't do that. Wushu doesn't do that.

And D&D goes out of its way to give you out of character strategic options, and makes no effort to translate them into IC terms.

They don't do this?


A game which uses abstract rules to simulate combat, with the aim or option of using your personal strategic abilities to achieve victory.

How do they handle combat, then?

I have played a lot of RPGs (not as many as some people, but enough) over the years and I am yet to find one that doesn't handle combat abstractly or allow players to make decisions to affect the outcome.

Saph
2007-06-25, 09:39 AM
To illustrate: Imagine if you will Bob the Barbarian. Bob wields a great axe. Bob's player Chuck decides that Bob is a pretty typical barbarian, he's uncouth and uncivilized with a general fear of magic. Sounds good so far for Bob as a character. Bob has power attack, Chuck likes to use it a lot in combat. Saph, our DM, presents Chuck's group a combat encounter with a homebrew monster with a pretty hefty AC that is enough to keep Bob from power attacking every single turn. Chuck has Bob attack the monster using power attack, Bob is a big burly barbarian after all. The attack fails, Saph describes the attack as bouncing off its thick hide. Chuck is left with two options here about how Bob is going to be have. The first is have Bob keep attacking like the crazy barbarian he is and power attack some more, since obviously a sufficient application of force should kill the monster from Bob's perspective. However, Chuck knows that power attacking is a bad idea since the monster's AC is too high to really work with power attack after careful observation of the other player's attacks. So does Chuck have Bob wail away in character to no avail, or should Chuck have Bob do the logical thing and not use power attack through metagame thinking?

As a DM Saph what would you want Chuck to do? What would you do as a player? I'm not trying to antagonize you here, I really do what to know what you think of similar situations.

Okay, fair enough, since you're really interested. This'll have to be my last post on the topic, though, since my argument with Dan's clearly hit a brick wall.

First off, it's reasonable to assume that Bob has fought quite a few battles before, and survived. Otherwise, he wouldn't be there, right? So he has some degree of common sense when it comes to combat.

Now, if Chuck specifically decided when he created the character that Bob was going to be suicidally stupid, then he might just keep on power attacking until he dies. Otherwise, though, it's likely that Chuck didn't create Bob as a complete idiot. Remember, a character has to be really stupid to not understand basic concepts of self-preservation. In that case, in-character, Bob will see that what he's doing isn't working and can switch tactics. You seem convinced that this is 'metagaming', but I don't see how it is. Characters aren't idiots. They can see what's happening and adapt. In fact, it's quite possible that the character is supposed to be smarter and more perceptive than the player is.

You asked what I'd want Chuck to do. The answer is that I wouldn't really 'want' him to do anything. He could fight to the death using stupid tactics, and I wouldn't stop him if that was what he wanted. He could stop power attacking and hit more reliably, and that's fine too. Or he could just run away, since it's quite likely if he's on his own that this monster is too tough for him to beat. Barbarians move fast - there's a good chance he might be able to outrun it. Remember, not every encounter has to end up with a fight to the death.

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 09:42 AM
Well, that's where I would like to see some definitions, because in D&D Roleplaying and Mechanics interact. I rarely see that in a Tactical Wargame. There is almost no Roleplaying in a Tactical War Game.

Quite so. In D&D mechanics and roleplaying interact. The manner in which they interact is commonly called "metagaming".


So, in our example, Bob is roleplaying his Barbarian, he's also receiving information about the world in which he is interacting via game rules and effects. Neither Bob nor his player know the AC of the Monster in question. The player can try and guess the AC based on their rolls and the DMs description, but he doesn't know it. All Bob knows is that it is resisting blows that would cut a Goblin in half and it looks tough.

And how does he know that? Metagaming.


This is the difference, in my opinion, between D&D and a Tactical Wargame. In a Tactical Wargame you have access to all the stats and information of everything deployed and to a fair points system that gives each side a 50/50 chance of winning. The DM controls no forces, merely deciding what is and is not fair. In D&D all the Players are on the same side, facing the DM, but he is not their opponent. They are expected to win.

Saph would disagree with you about the players being "expected to win", but that's another argument.

If the players are all on the same side, why *shouldn't* the players know the stats for the monsters. It'll speed up combat, reduce Analysis Paralysis, and generally make the game a whole lot smoother.

If the players are going to win *anyway* what does it matter if they win "fairly"?


I could be doing that, but I don't have to be. The descriptions of events could lead me to make my decisions, rather than the mechanics I observe.

No they couldn't. Because the description of events clearly implies that you need to be doing more damage. It's only the mechanics that tell you where your real problem lies.


Sure, but Power Attack isn't about hitting harder, it's just a mechanic that excahanges AB for DB. You can describe it any way you like.

Exactly. It's a metagame concept with an in-character justification.


Not so, especially for a newbee player. They don't understand the rules very well and may simply make their decision based on the descriptions given to them. An experienced player may also do this, even if they understand the rules. Doing the 'optimal' thing doesn't have to be a purely meta gaming decision or even stem from an understanding of the mechanics of the game.

Not even a newbie player would say "damn, I missed on a nineteen, I'd better put more points into Power Attack". But somebody basing all their information on what happened IC *would*, because however you cut it, not being able to hurt something means you need to do more damage, not hit more often.

Roog
2007-06-25, 09:45 AM
If you are faced with something which you cannot damage because of its thick hide, you want to hit harder, not softer. Heck, you could even argue that "going for the underbelly" also counts as a Power Attack (it's harder to hit, but you'll do more damage if you get through).

Either way your decision is based on your game-mechanical understanding of how Power Attack works, not on your IC evidence.

If you allow your understanding of the mechanics to affect your character's behaviour in any way then you're metagaming. You are using metagame information to determine your in-character actions.

Thats not meta-gaming that is real-life-experience in a world that has different rules to ours.
I that world, a person who is skilled/trained in making the most powerfull attacks possible (ie has power attack feat) knows that 1: the heavier armour (ie AC) a target has the better you have to aim to get through (ie take a smaller penalty), and 2: the more solid the creature is under that armour (ie DR) the harder you have to hit to get through (ie DR reduces damage).
Sometimes the character may be wrong (possibly when encountering adamantium armour - with its unusual DR properties), but the basics should be obvious to the character unless they are somehow a character with power attack who has never hunted or used armour or fought people in armour or been trained to fight people in armour or basicaly has an INT or WIS higher than 3.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:49 AM
Quite so. In D&D mechanics and roleplaying interact. The manner in which they interact is commonly called "metagaming".

I wouldn't agree, but let's find a neutral definition:


Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming


And how does he know that? Metagaming.

See above.


Saph would disagree with you about the players being "expected to win", but that's another argument.

I don't know that he/she (sorry Saph, not sure of your gender) would. I don't think Saph is saying they aren't expected to win, just that they won't always.


If the players are all on the same side, why *shouldn't* the players know the stats for the monsters. It'll speed up combat, reduce Analysis Paralysis, and generally make the game a whole lot smoother.

If the players are going to win *anyway* what does it matter if they win "fairly"?

That's a play preference, not an absolute way to play the game.


No they couldn't. Because the description of events clearly implies that you need to be doing more damage. It's only the mechanics that tell you where your real problem lies.

That's description translated as mechanics, it's not metagaming.


Exactly. It's a metagame concept with an in-character justification.

It could be, it doesn't have to be.


Not even a newbie player would say "damn, I missed on a nineteen, I'd better put more points into Power Attack". But somebody basing all their information on what happened IC *would*, because however you cut it, not being able to hurt something means you need to do more damage, not hit more often.
No, only if you only accept one definition of Power Attack, or if you think of Ab and DB as being very separate concepts. Differing conceptualisation of AC, AB, DB and HP will make a huge difference to how an individual views the game.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 09:51 AM
No, you see, Power attack means whatever you want it to mean. All it is is a mechanic that exchanges AB for DB. It's mechanics can represent a wide variety of in game decisions. if the underbelly is more difficult to hit than the zone he was previously aiming for and he wants to be sure of hitting it, he takes a more measured blow. that's the nature of abstract combat.

Essentially we're just agreeing loudly here.

You say: Power Attack Can Mean Whatever You Like In Character.
I say: Power Attack Doesn't Mean Anything In Character.

These are functionally the same. The point is that you make your decision based on the game mechanics. You see that you missed on a high dice roll, so you drop the power attack.


Absolutely you can, or you can say, these mechanics represent my characters decision, rather than my character's decision represents these mechanics. From where you take the decsion is up to you.

No, it isn't. You can *pretend* that you're basing the decision on purely in-character factors, but that's all you'll be doing.

Once you've seen the dice, once you've understood that your dice roll is a "miss", that information becomes part of your decision-making process.

If the only information you have is "your blow is absorbed by the creature's tough hide", you don't know whether you're dealing with high AC or Damage Reduction.

The correct mechanical response to each of those problems is diametrically opposite.

Your character will make the right in-character tactical move only if you correctly identify the game mechanical effect.


They don't do this?

How do they handle combat, then?

The same way they handle every other situation. It's called "unified conflict resolution" amongst gamers.

For a more general example: you could have a system where the whole of combat was resolved by having each character roll their BAB + 1D20, and then have the final outcome of combat based on that single dice roll. That wouldn't be a strategic game, because there'd be no strategy involved.


I have played a lot of RPGs (not as many as some people, but enough) over the years and I am yet to find one that doesn't handle combat abstractly or allow players to make decisions to affect the outcome.

There's more of them these days.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 09:55 AM
The same way they handle every other situation. It's called "unified conflict resolution" amongst gamers.

For a more general example: you could have a system where the whole of combat was resolved by having each character roll their BAB + 1D20, and then have the final outcome of combat based on that single dice roll. That wouldn't be a strategic game, because there'd be no strategy involved.

There's more of them these days.
Fair enough, I cannot say I have played Wushu or Dogs in the Vineyard.


I think, given the definition of metagaming, what you are doing is redefining it so that it is a normalised part of the game [i.e. within expectations]. If you do that, though, it is no longer metagaming, because it no longer goes beyond the bounds of the supposed limits set by the game.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 09:59 AM
I think, given the definition of metagaming, what you are doing is redefining it so that it is a normalised part of the game [i.e. within expectations]. If you do that, though, it is no longer metagaming, because it no longer goes beyond the bounds of the supposed limits set by the game.

Precisely. I was typing up this exact thing when I noticed you already had.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 10:01 AM
Well, that's where I would like to see some definitions, because in D&D Roleplaying and Mechanics interact. I rarely see that in a Tactical Wargame. There is almost no Roleplaying in a Tactical War Game.

True, but there is no roleplaying rolling a d20 and adding modifiers. Anything that simulate combat with rules is a wargame at some level. D&D combat really isn't any different. Sure you can have all kinds of fun in character moments, thats half the fun, but the actually application of the rules and decisions based on those rules are fall entirely in the realm of wargaming.

Really though as Dan points out metagaming is that point when you need to make a decision for a character based on the rules of the game. Bob screaming his clan's battle cry as he charges has no effect on the fact that Bob has used a charge action. The charge is the important things since Bob as a character likes to running screaming at monsters and smash them stupid. Its what he does, and he does it well.


So, in our example, Bob is roleplaying his Barbarian, he's also receiving information about the world in which he is interacting via game rules and effects. Neither Bob nor his player know the AC of the Monster in question. The player can try and guess the AC based on their rolls and the DMs description, but he doesn't know it. All Bob knows is that it is resisting blows that would cut a Goblin in half and it looks tough.

But is it because the monster has a high AC or DR? From Bob's perspective there isn't a difference, from Chuck the player's perspective there is a huge difference. So its does affect Chuck's decision about tactics when in combat. So knowing those sorts of things is important to succeed in combat. So power attack might be a really good option, and Chuck just needs to use more to get past the DR of the monster. Really though, the in character justification is largely irrelevant to the decision you make as a player since all they do is justify the action you took to succeed.


This is the difference, in my opinion, between D&D and a Tactical Wargame. In a Tactical Wargame you have access to all the stats and information of everything deployed and to a fair points system that gives each side a 50/50 chance of winning. The DM controls no forces, merely deciding what is and is not fair. In D&D all the Players are on the same side, facing the DM, but he is not their opponent. They are expected to win.

More or less true of most games. I would still say though that actual wargames offer anything but a 50-50 chance. Thats is beside the point though. The mechanics for resolving combat in D&D are still like a wargame, you can have all kinds of fun in character interaction, but its still metagame thinking to use combat rules.

I'll try a different example, again with Bob the barbarian and Chuck the player. Chuck's DM has had Bob and his party encounter two goblins demanding tribute to pass the bridge they hold. Chuck decides that Bob is going to charge one of the goblins, what with Bob having a pathological hatred of them and all. Both are in charging range so which does Chuck have Bob charge? It doesn't really matter since Bob's adventuring buddy's are going to kill the other one by the time Bob is done power attacking his target into little goblin bits. This is a decision that Chuck makes from his knowledge of the rules and how long its likely to kill a goblin and the threat they pose.

Now I'll freely admit that Elric the Red might now want to fight, or there could be a whole gobo colony under the bridge, but assuming two normal looking goblins with what most players know about the game most groups would kick the crap out of uppity goblinoids charging tolls at bridges.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 10:02 AM
Essentially we're just agreeing loudly here.
That may be true. In my experience a lot of arguments are just that.


You say: Power Attack Can Mean Whatever You Like In Character.
I say: Power Attack Doesn't Mean Anything In Character.

These are functionally the same. The point is that you make your decision based on the game mechanics. You see that you missed on a high dice roll, so you drop the power attack.

Perhaps, though that makes for an interesting argument for concealed rolling (i.e. by the DM).

A lot depends on whether you see the mechanics as defining the game world or the game world defining the mechanics. They are more or less the same thing, but where you place the emphasis has a big impact on how you play the game.

Charity
2007-06-25, 10:06 AM
If I had the patience to post on this topic, I would have been most pleased to have made my point as succinctly as Saph just made it for me.
Ta Saph.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 10:07 AM
I wouldn't agree, but let's find a neutral definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

Which bit of that definition are you using?

If it's the bit that says "uses information his character wouldn't have access to" then umm ... that's sort of exactly what I'm saying.



That's description translated as mechanics, it's not metagaming.


No, that's mechanics translated as description, and that *is* metagaming.


No, only if you only accept one definition of Power Attack, or if you think of Ab and DB as being very separate concepts. Differing conceptualisation of AC, AB, DB and HP will make a huge difference to how an individual views the game.

Which is sort of my point again.

In-character, my character finds he cannot penetrate the beat's hide, so he strikes at its softer underbelly.

Game mechanically, this could mean (a) that he has found that the creature has huge DR and decided to Power Attack or (b) that he has found that the creature has huge AC and decided *not* to Power Attack.

Since the player has to make a *decision* about whether to Power Attack or not, and he manifestly cannot make it on the basis of in-character information, he has to make it on the basis of out-of character ("metagame") information.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 10:11 AM
Fair enough, I cannot say I have played Wushu or Dogs in the Vineyard.


I think, given the definition of metagaming, what you are doing is redefining it so that it is a normalised part of the game [i.e. within expectations]. If you do that, though, it is no longer metagaming, because it no longer goes beyond the bounds of the supposed limits set by the game.

It's no longer metagaming by that definition, but neither is memorising the entire Monster Manual, since the Monster Manual is a published part of the game.

A more useful definition of metagaming is the RPG-specific one given at the bottom of the page, which basically says "using information your character doesn't have access to." Which would include dice rolls.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 10:17 AM
It's no longer metagaming by that definition, but neither is memorising the entire Monster Manual, since the Monster Manual is a published part of the game.

A more useful definition of metagaming is the RPG-specific one given at the bottom of the page, which basically says "using information your character doesn't have access to." Which would include dice rolls.

I think a better definition would be information that your character can never have access to. Thus a character can know trolls burn, demons don't like holy water, and clubs are good for smashing skeletons. What the character doesn't know is that trolls have Regeneration 5 and convert all damage to nonlethal, they don't know that a Balor has a strength of 30, or that skeletons have 10 hitpoints.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 10:18 AM
Which bit of that definition are you using?

If it's the bit that says "uses information his character wouldn't have access to" then umm ... that's sort of exactly what I'm saying.



No, that's mechanics translated as description, and that *is* metagaming.

And here is exactly the problem of a lack of definition. Actually, that Wikipedia Article contradicts itself, so perhaps it's no use. I was just using the overview bit. However, we can take a look at this one as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_%28role-playing_games%29

Looks to me like there is no agreed upon definition. Some of those things I would not wish on any campaign, some I think are fairly normal.

[Edit] I think the out of character knowledge bit assumes that this is undesirable and beyond the limits of the game. Obviously, that's silly, but is it really meta gaming?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 10:19 AM
That may be true. In my experience a lot of arguments are just that.

And how.


Perhaps, though that makes for an interesting argument for concealed rolling (i.e. by the DM).

Ironically, I'd say the opposite. It makes for an interesting argument *against* concealed rolling.

If players are going to have to make tactical decisions, and they can't make them based on IC description (for reasons discussed), you're royally screwed.

Unless what you do is have the GM make *all* the mechanical decisions for the player (so the player says "I duck under its arm and try to strike for its underbelly" and the GM interprets that as "power attack" or "stop power attacking" as appropriate).

But that leads to a situation where the GM is *almost* just playing with himself.


A lot depends on whether you see the mechanics as defining the game world or the game world defining the mechanics. They are more or less the same thing, but where you place the emphasis has a big impact on how you play the game.

I don't see it as either. I see the mechanics as defining the interactions around the table, and the game-world as existing in the imaginations of the participants.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-25, 10:24 AM
it helps if you think of the characters as puppets you control.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 10:25 AM
Ironically, I'd say the opposite. It makes for an interesting argument *against* concealed rolling.

If players are going to have to make tactical decisions, and they can't make them based on IC description (for reasons discussed), you're royally screwed.

Unless what you do is have the GM make *all* the mechanical decisions for the player (so the player says "I duck under its arm and try to strike for its underbelly" and the GM interprets that as "power attack" or "stop power attacking" as appropriate).

But that leads to a situation where the GM is *almost* just playing with himself.

Indeed. I have certainly played Roleplaying games like that, but what you end up with are formulaic passwords to certain game effects.

I think much of this boils down to disagreeing about the meaning of Metagaming. To me, some metagaming is desirable (in the broad context of what you are describing), but I would also say that a lot of metagaming (to judge by the examples) is not.


I don't see it as either. I see the mechanics as defining the interactions around the table, and the game-world as existing in the imaginations of the participants.
Fair enough, then we have a third definition of how to conceptualise the relationship. No way is less valid than any other, but they will affect how you play the game and what you think of as undesirable (or metagaming in the sense of beyond the expected limits set by the game).

barawn
2007-06-25, 10:29 AM
If it's the bit that says "uses information his character wouldn't have access to" then umm ... that's sort of exactly what I'm saying.

With the Power Attack example, you're wrong. The character does have access to that information - he knows exactly how he missed. He knows perfectly well whether it was his recklessness which caused the miss, or simply bad luck. And he knows exactly what he needs to do the next time around.

The only time metagaming is a problem is 1) if there's no way for the characters to learn that information, or, far worse, 2) there is a way for the characters to learn that information, and the player simply ignored it. The big example is monster data - knowing that a certain creature is immune to fire, for instance. There's a way to learn that - it's a Knowledge skill check. Without it, you don't have that information. At all.

The example that the OP gave at the beginning is only pseudo-metagaming. There, the wizard cast a spell, everyone else backed off. What should've happened is that the wizard should've said "Everyone else back off!" Out of character, he forgot, but unless he's a mean bastard, and doesn't care about the others, the DM should've either assumed he'd do it, or asked him if he's going to do that.

If he was being a mean bastard, and the other players still backed off anyway, then yeah, that's bad metagaming.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 10:35 AM
In that case, in-character, Bob will see that what he's doing isn't working and can switch tactics. You seem convinced that this is 'metagaming', but I don't see how it is.

To reiterate:

It is metagaming because while Bob knows that he has failed to wound the creature, and while he can switch tactics in character, knowing which tactic to switch *to* relies on metagame knowledge.

It's because of the way D&D combat works. A "hit" doesn't mean a "hit" it means a hit that causes damage. But "damage" doesn't mean "damage" it means "a reduction in your ability to avoid being damaged or to turn a more serious wound into a less serious one."

So "your axe strikes the scaly carapace of the creature, but clatters off, shaking loose a few scales, which quickly regrow themselves" could mean any one of the following:

It could mean "you missed, because the creature has a large Natural Armour bonus."

It could mean "you hit, but your damage wasn't enough to get through its DR."

It could mean "you hit and caused damage, but the GM has chosen to describe that as your attack bouncing off the carapace because this creature has a great many hit points."

It could mean "you hit and caused damage, and that thing about the scales regrowing themselves means that the creature is Regenerating."

If you're working purely off IC information, you've got nowhere to go. You know your attack failed, and you know in character that it failed because your attack "clattered off the creature's scaly carapace" but you won't know the way to *deal* with that unless you use metagame information.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 10:36 AM
...

If something is described as being good, or done well, there has to be something to describe when it is bad, or not done well.

Thus, if someone said "I am a good role player", some else could say "You cannot say that because there is no hard and fast definition of 'a good role player.'"

However, if we define role playing as 'acting as the character that you have created would act', and a player does that, I think we can say then that that player is "a good role player".

If a player doesn't act as their character would (based on the DM's interpretation of the player's character), then we can say that that person is not "a good role player".

One word that has taken many different meanings but is applied to this is Metagaming. If someone said that someone was a metagamer, I would assume they meant that the person used out-of-character knowledge to benefit their character.

As far as I know, Metagaming is generally considered a bad thing to role playing games. If you change the definition of Metagaming to mean "When you refer to anything out-of-character" then you have completely changed the purpose of the word.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 10:42 AM
With the Power Attack example, you're wrong. The character does have access to that information - he knows exactly how he missed. He knows perfectly well whether it was his recklessness which caused the miss, or simply bad luck. And he knows exactly what he needs to do the next time around.

Your character doesn't know that "his recklessness caused him to miss", he knows that "his blow bounced off the creature's hide."

What you're doing (and I think what Saph is doing as well) is just arbitrarily defining your metagame decisions as in-character ones.

The simple way to test this is to play the kind of game Matthew very briefly touched on, where the DM rolls all your dice in secret, and just gives you an IC description (hell, they could even stat up your character for you). Do you honestly think you'd be able to decide whether or not to Power Attack if you didn't know what your roll was?


The only time metagaming is a problem is 1) if there's no way for the characters to learn that information,

Like in the case of a dice roll for example?


or, far worse, 2) there is a way for the characters to learn that information, and the player simply ignored it. The big example is monster data - knowing that a certain creature is immune to fire, for instance. There's a way to learn that - it's a Knowledge skill check. Without it, you don't have that information. At all.

But again, what do you *gain* by this insistence on living by Knowledge checks?

All you do is reduce PC survivability.


The example that the OP gave at the beginning is only pseudo-metagaming. There, the wizard cast a spell, everyone else backed off. What should've happened is that the wizard should've said "Everyone else back off!" Out of character, he forgot, but unless he's a mean bastard, and doesn't care about the others, the DM should've either assumed he'd do it, or asked him if he's going to do that.

If he was being a mean bastard, and the other players still backed off anyway, then yeah, that's bad metagaming.

I just don't see why so many DMs are so keen to get their PCs killed pointlessly. How is making a decision based on knowledge your character *might* have anyway, in order to stop your character dying just because one PC is being a **** in any way "bad"?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 10:48 AM
...

If something is described as being good, or done well, there has to be something to describe when it is bad, or not done well.

Thus, if someone said "I am a good role player", some else could say "You cannot say that because there is no hard and fast definition of 'a good role player.'"

However, if we define role playing as 'acting as the character that you have created would act', and a player does that, I think we can say then that that player is "a good role player".

If a player doesn't act as their character would (based on the DM's interpretation of the player's character), then we can say that that person is not "a good role player".

This is a complete side issue, but why is the quality of my roleplaying based on how well my portrayal of my character matches the DM's expectations?

Does this mean that if I'm playing an elf, and the DM thinks all elves are gay, and my character is not gay, that I am a bad roleplayer (and before anybody says "that's a stupid example", it's a real one).


One word that has taken many different meanings but is applied to this is Metagaming. If someone said that someone was a metagamer, I would assume they meant that the person used out-of-character knowledge to benefit their character.

As far as I know, Metagaming is generally considered a bad thing to role playing games. If you change the definition of Metagaming to mean "When you refer to anything out-of-character" then you have completely changed the purpose of the word.

I've kept the definition the same actually, although I've dropped the "to benefit your character" qualification. If you base your characters actions on your out of character knowledge, that is metagaming.

This must include basing your character's actions on your knowledge of the system, since the system is not an in-character concept.

For what it's worth, I *do* think that there is such a thing as "bad metagaming", I just think that it's an issue of style rather than application.

Ethdred
2007-06-25, 10:53 AM
It's no longer metagaming by that definition, but neither is memorising the entire Monster Manual, since the Monster Manual is a published part of the game.

A more useful definition of metagaming is the RPG-specific one given at the bottom of the page, which basically says "using information your character doesn't have access to." Which would include dice rolls.


I admit that I skimmed the last few posts, but it seems that you are arguing that all game mechanics are meta-gaming, since they are not 'real' for the character. This, while true, is completely useless as a definition - it is a reductio ad absurdum. Since the character is not real, it cannot therefore have any access to any information, so the player is always metagaming, by your definition. So there is no point in using your definition, as it doesn't help with the problem at hand. At best we can say that there are certain levels of metagaming, and we have a disagreement about which is the best level to be at. I think we can say that everyone would agree with having enough metagaming (again, using your definition) to actually play the game. So yes, you have to roll dice and the results have to mean something. What people are objecting to is using knowledge that your character would not have if, and this is the important thing, the character and everything in the game world were actually real. So the character would know that his greataxe was not hurting the creature, and would then have a number of options, including changing weapons or even running away. Yes, that is possible - I've noticed that all the 'metagaming maximalists' seem to think that either you know everything about the creature or you die. The rest of us are aware that sometimes you have to run away to live and fight another day. Being unable to hurt the creature, or seeing the wounds you inflict heal immediately, is a good sign to run away and at least have another think about things. The metagaming element comes in when you include in the list of options things that the character would not include - eg, whipping out the flaming oil.

In response to the original problem, what people seem to be forgetting is that the mage's player was behaving like a pratt for deliberately endangering the lives of other PCs. If he'd done that to me, I'd have metagamed him a PHB upside his head.

Personally, I've been playing this game so long that it's very hard for me not to metagame in the accepted sense of the word. But I have often asked the DM 'Can I take a Knowledge(whatever) roll so my character can know what I know?'

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 10:57 AM
...

If something is described as being good, or done well, there has to be something to describe when it is bad, or not done well.

Thus, if someone said "I am a good role player", some else could say "You cannot say that because there is no hard and fast definition of 'a good role player.'"[

However, if we define role playing as 'acting as the character that you have created would act', and a player does that, I think we can say then that that player is "a good role player".

If a player doesn't act as their character would (based on the DM's interpretation of the player's character), then we can say that that person is not "a good role player".

Its not the DM's job to say what actions my character can take, or whether they are in character. Those decision are left solely to the province of the player.


One word that has taken many different meanings but is applied to this is Metagaming. If someone said that someone was a metagamer, I would assume they meant that the person used out-of-character knowledge to benefit their character.

As far as I know, Metagaming is generally considered a bad thing to role playing games. If you change the definition of Metagaming to mean "When you refer to anything out-of-character" then you have completely changed the purpose of the word.

I think people feel metagaming is bad because they don't realize that we all do it at some level, and certain types of metagaming are frowned upon by that group. There is no good or bad here, merely a preference in how much out of character knowledge you want to apply to an in character decision.

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-25, 10:59 AM
an easy solution is a in world creature dictionary item that has diverse knowledge on different types of creatures.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 11:00 AM
I admit that I skimmed the last few posts, but it seems that you are arguing that all game mechanics are meta-gaming, since they are not 'real' for the character. This, while true, is completely useless as a definition - it is a reductio ad absurdum. Since the character is not real, it cannot therefore have any access to any information, so the player is always metagaming, by your definition. So there is no point in using your definition, as it doesn't help with the problem at hand.

You see this is where we differ.

I think it *does* help with the problem at hand.

The "problem at hand" is that a particular DM is upset because his players used metagame knowledge to avoid a situation which was not their fault, and would have resulted in their being killed.

My solution to that situation is to say that metagaming in this situation is completely the right thing to do, because *nobody* would have been helped by a TPK.

So my point is really that "metagaming" (which is universal and unavoidable) isn't the problem. The problem is things messing up the game, whatever those things may be. A specific instance of metagaming could cause problems for a specific gaming group, but that doesn't mean that "metagaming" is bad, just that wrecking the game, unsurprisingly, wrecks the game.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 11:04 AM
I think people feel metagaming is bad because they don't realize that we all do it at some level, and certain types of metagaming are frowned upon by that group. There is no good or bad here, merely a preference in how much out of character knowledge you want to apply to an in character decision.

I think it's more than that actually. I think people think metagaming is wrong because so many perpetuate the idea that "being true to your character" is the only thing that matters in an RPG. (I would argue that this itself has its origins in the power disparity between the GM and players, but that's another thing entirely).

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 11:07 AM
Yes, that is possible - I've noticed that all the 'metagaming maximalists' seem to think that either you know everything about the creature or you die.

Not at all, if I know nothing about a creature then running away is really good option that I'm probably going to take. However the point is that knowing something about a creature that is available, again trolls, and using said knowledge isn't bad. I fail to see how doing so can harm the game, or an encounter, since trolls are by design meant to be fought using fire or acid. Without them the encounter is much harder. If as a player I have a oil or acid flasks and the DM brings in a troll I'm going to assume that we know that how to kill the thing. Thats why I bought oil and acid flasks, and since the DM knows I bought them I can assume that he intends for me to use them on said troll. If suddenly I need to start rolling Knowledge (Nature) checks to figure this out I need to ask why the DM bothered using a troll if I can't make use of troll killing items off the hob.

barawn
2007-06-25, 11:11 AM
Your character doesn't know that "his recklessness caused him to miss", he knows that "his blow bounced off the creature's hide."

No! The character isn't receiving a one line description of his actions. He knows exactly what happened. If he didn't take his time and set his feet, and his powerful swing glanced off the side of the creature due to his hard hide, that tells him he needs to be less reckless.


Do you honestly think you'd be able to decide whether or not to Power Attack if you didn't know what your roll was?

I'm not one of the upper echelon of melee combatants in the world. I hope my character could figure out what caused him to miss when I couldn't.


But again, what do you *gain* by this insistence on living by Knowledge checks?

All you do is reduce PC survivability.

You gain believability, and oh, I don't know, actual role-playing. It's not just about PCs surviving. It's about a good story.

If you don't care about role-playing, fine. Feel free to metagame as much as you want.


How is making a decision based on knowledge your character *might* have anyway, in order to stop your character dying just because one PC is being a **** in any way "bad"?

If your character "might" have the information, you plead to the DM and get a circumstance bonus if you can make it believable.

If your character "doesn't" have the information, how is cheating and pretending he does any different than lying to the DM about your hit points?

I mean, if all you care about is the PCs surviving, why bother with these "hit point" things, anyway?

GoblinJTHM
2007-06-25, 11:14 AM
I mean, if all you care about is the PCs surviving, why bother with these "hit point" things, anyway?

Because then keeping your char alive =s not doing anything stupid like jumping off a cliff?

Tyger
2007-06-25, 11:18 AM
I wasn't going to chime in on this one, but I (perhaps foolishly) am going to anyway.

I think the basic fundamental difference here is that people are talking about two different types of metagaming, and some people are OK with both, some with neither and some come down on either side.

Personally, I feel that the mechanics of battle, spell casting and the like, and the use of such, is not metagaming, its simply the rules we have that let us work out what would otherwise be an all but impossible system. Battle rules (whether we call this Role-playing or a tactical combat game) are there to take what is likely too complex to ever reduce to paper, and simplify it enough for us to have a system that allows us to kill things that don't even exist. I think its correct to say that taking a five foot step, using power attack, or using combat reflexes are all out of character things that we do, which are expressions of things that real warriors would do. They are not a matter of In-Character vs Out-of-Character knowledge.

The example that started this all, is a matter of In-Character knowledge vs Out-of-Character though. And that is exactly what we have Knowledge skills for. Ditto all the examples of monster stats/weaknesses/strengths. In our games, the very first thing done when we encounter something new is an appropriate knowledge check. Sure, we could have something in our backgrounds (some of which are insanely complex and lengthy) but if you are going to say your character knows something, you have to back it up with a skill. Otherwise you may as well just ignore the entire skill system, play a cinematic system and put your D&D books on eBay.

Hell, we don't even get to tell other players our HP totals during battle. We are permitted only to tell the cleric that we're "Severely, moderately or lightly" wounded. And that of course is open to both cleric and other player interpretation.

Personally, I think that the use of PLAYER KNOWLEDGE (not combat tactics, ability scores, skill etc) that the CHARACTER doesn't have, which impacts upon the game, is metagaming and should be frowned upon IN MY GAMES. Others are free to do what they will, but you play in my sandbox, you play by my rules. :smallsmile:

Kiero
2007-06-25, 11:19 AM
Doesn't Wushu involve a metric boatload of metagaming? It's just that in this case instead of the "metagame" information being "I know how to kill trolls" it becomes "I know that my character doesn't have to know how to kill trolls, because my character can take literally any action in this scene and it will still be game mechanically effective."

I'd hardly call that metagaming, when there's no metaspace to manipulate, only description of what you're doing.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 11:22 AM
No! The character isn't receiving a one line description of his actions. He knows exactly what happened. If he didn't take his time and set his feet, and his powerful swing glanced off the side of the creature due to his hard hide, that tells him he needs to be less reckless.

So you're conveniently deciding that, as a professional adventurer, your PCs IC understanding of combat is perfectly modelled by your OOC understanding of the game mechanics. How convenient.


I'm not one of the upper echelon of melee combatants in the world. I hope my character could figure out what caused him to miss when I couldn't.

What caused him to miss was a game mechanic something which in character does not exist. How on earth is it possible for him to work that out in-character?


You gain believability, and oh, I don't know, actual role-playing. It's not just about PCs surviving. It's about a good story.

Once upon a time, there were some bold adventurers, who all had extremely interesting personal histories and were intimately involved in ongoing events in the world.

One day, they met a troll.

It ate them.

The end.

Please explain to me how "a group of adventurers encounter a troll, they do not know how to defeat it, they all die" is a better story than "a group of adventurers encounter a troll, they know how to defeat it, they all live".


If you don't care about role-playing, fine. Feel free to metagame as much as you want.

I *do* care about role-playing. I just don't feel the need to masochistically demonstrate how *much* I care about role-playing by getting my characters killed, thereby removing my ability to roleplay them.


If your character "might" have the information, you plead to the DM and get a circumstance bonus if you can make it believable.

If your character "doesn't" have the information, how is cheating and pretending he does any different than lying to the DM about your hit points?

I'm not pretending my character has access to information he doesn't. I'm making a decision about my character's actions based on information he doesn't have.

If I'm going to attack a troll, and I have an acid flask, it is legitimate, in character, to decide to use it. The fact that my IC decision to attack with a flask not a sword is coloured by my OOC knowledge of trolls isn't cheating.

What's the alternative, just out of interest?


I mean, if all you care about is the PCs surviving, why bother with these "hit point" things, anyway?

These days, I don't. I run games in which PC death is game mechanically impossible without player consent.

barawn
2007-06-25, 11:23 AM
Because then keeping your char alive =s not doing anything stupid like jumping off a cliff?

So what? Apparently, characters dying is a bad thing, and we should be sacrificing the entire point of the game to prevent it. I figured if Dan can make a strawman argument, so can I.

Let's go back to the original post for a moment.
1) Wizard casts spell which will hurt everyone around him. He tells no one to move away.
2) Melee characters near him move away so they won't be hurt. They do this for no apparent reason.
3) DM is upset because the melee characters had no way of knowing to move away.

Is this metagaming? Possibly yes, possibly no. The melee characters could've backed off because they always back away from wizards whenever they cast spells. That's fine, if they're consistent about it. Could be cool. Paranoid barbarians that the wizard spooks every time he starts talking in gobbledygook.

Dan's suggesting that the DM's being pissy for no reason, because hey, everyone dying isn't fun for anyone. The thing is - the DM, if he said "why are you moving? you don't have any reason to move" - is not killing the nearby melee guys.

The wizard is, because he's apparently too much of a dork to tell a bunch of his party members near him he's going to annihilate them with a spell.

Now, if the DM doesn't want the party to die, the simple thing is to say "yeah, Wizard? You might want to tell the other guys to back off." at which point the wizard says "Oh, okay, yeah, I do that." Or, the DM could just decide by fiat that the wizard does so. He should still say this. Then if the wizard decides "no, I really wanted to kill the other guys" - then people in the party will realize "hey, we're playing with a jerk!"

Aquillion
2007-06-25, 11:23 AM
It's worth pointing out that the main problem with metagaming of this type is that it reduces the usefulness of already-limited-use knowledge skills. If everyone who encounters a monster is going to say "Oh, it's a -blah-", why would anyone take approprate knowledges?

On the other hand, there is no general "knowledge: monsters". IMHO there would be one if it was supposed to be regularly required... at the very least, people like rangers and paladins would probably have knowledge of potential threats, while bards would know about them from epic tales (the existing bardic knowledge, per raw, doesn't provide any information on non-unique monsters.) Shoehorning knowledge about the weaknesses of undead, say, into "Knowledge (religion)" is kind of silly, especially when the characters are adventurers with strong reason to study the weaknesses of monsters specifically.

But here's a much better way to deal with players who metagame by memorizing the entire MM. Next time they are talking to a merchant, have him say, "Ah! Adventurers! I recently obtained an item that could be quite useful to you. It is a book, containing the details and weaknesses of numerous different beasts, each rated by the challenge it would pose to... well, by complete coincidence, to a four-person group just like yours! I suppose you could say that it is a manual, of sorts... indeed, a monstrous one. I could not part with it for anything less than a hundred gold, but I am certain it would be of use to you on your travels."

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 11:28 AM
No! The character isn't receiving a one line description of his actions. He knows exactly what happened. If he didn't take his time and set his feet, and his powerful swing glanced off the side of the creature due to his hard hide, that tells him he needs to be less reckless.

No, all that does is tell him that the creature has a particularly tough hide and that our intrepid adventurer didn't do any damage.


I'm not one of the upper echelon of melee combatants in the world. I hope my character could figure out what caused him to miss when I couldn't.

I sure they could, sort of. In character a high AC, probably from natural armour, is the same as a high DR. You can't damage the creature. The question wasn't whether your character knows or not, it was whether you as a player can make an accurate decision for that character without knowing why the attack bounced off the creatures hide. High DR and low AC requires a liberal application of Power Attack. A high AC and no DR requires attacks that will get past that AC.


You gain believability, and oh, I don't know, actual role-playing. It's not just about PCs surviving. It's about a good story.

If you don't care about role-playing, fine. Feel free to metagame as much as you want.

How is making a die roll to determine what a character knows roleplaying? Isn't it by most estimations the antithesis of roleplaying, at least among the groups that seem think of rolling dice is some how not assisting roleplay?


If your character "might" have the information, you plead to the DM and get a circumstance bonus if you can make it believable.

If your character "doesn't" have the information, how is cheating and pretending he does any different than lying to the DM about your hit points?

I mean, if all you care about is the PCs surviving, why bother with these "hit point" things, anyway?

Do you not get what we're saying here? This isn't about roleplaying at all, this about using your knowledge of the game system as player to make decisions based on in game results. Nobody is saying that your character shouldn't be threatened, but realistically is knowing that trolls are weak against fire going to make a fight with a troll any less threatening? From my perspective it wont, but not allowing a character to use acid or fire to kill a troll because of an arbitrary die roll is just plain silly.


It's worth pointing out that the main problem with metagaming of this type is that it reduces the usefulness of already-limited-use knowledge skills. If everyone who encounters a monster is going to say "Oh, it's a -blah-", why would anyone take approprate knowledges?

The fringe benefits like knowing that certain plants only grow in river valleys. Or hell, what trolls eat other than hapless adventures. The Knowledge skills have their uses in covering things the players don't know about the world, and in turn the characters don't know. I personally find them generally useless outside of getting synergy bonuses, but hey to their own.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 11:32 AM
So what? Apparently, characters dying is a bad thing, and we should be sacrificing the entire point of the game to prevent it. I figured if Dan can make a strawman argument, so can I.

And what, pray, is the "entire point of the game"?


Let's go back to the original post for a moment.
1) Wizard casts spell which will hurt everyone around him. He tells no one to move away.
2) Melee characters near him move away so they won't be hurt. They do this for no apparent reason.
3) DM is upset because the melee characters had no way of knowing to move away.

Is this metagaming? Possibly yes, possibly no. The melee characters could've backed off because they always back away from wizards whenever they cast spells. That's fine, if they're consistent about it. Could be cool. Paranoid barbarians that the wizard spooks every time he starts talking in gobbledygook.

Dan's suggesting that the DM's being pissy for no reason, because hey, everyone dying isn't fun for anyone. The thing is - the DM, if he said "why are you moving? you don't have any reason to move" - is not killing the nearby melee guys.

I never said he was. But he *is* getting pissy because the melee guys chose to prioritize "keeping their characters alive" over "keeping strictly to their GM's opinions about what their characters should know."


The wizard is, because he's apparently too much of a dork to tell a bunch of his party members near him he's going to annihilate them with a spell.

Yes, the wizard is being a dork.


Now, if the DM doesn't want the party to die, the simple thing is to say "yeah, Wizard? You might want to tell the other guys to back off." at which point the wizard says "Oh, okay, yeah, I do that." Or, the DM could just decide by fiat that the wizard does so. He should still say this. Then if the wizard decides "no, I really wanted to kill the other guys" - then people in the party will realize "hey, we're playing with a jerk!"

Yes, he could have done that. He didn't. And he didn't post here saying "help, how do I keep the party alive without metagaming" he posted saying "my players suck because they used metagaming to keep their characters alive."

barawn
2007-06-25, 11:33 AM
So you're conveniently deciding that, as a professional adventurer, your PCs IC understanding of combat is perfectly modelled by your OOC understanding of the game mechanics. How convenient.

Well, considering the OOC game mechanics are brain-dead stupid and ridiculously easy to understand, I certainly hope he does! In fact, if anything, my understanding is worse!


What caused him to miss was a game mechanic something which in character does not exist. How on earth is it possible for him to work that out in-character?

No! The game mechanic modelled something which happened in the game world, which he experienced first hand.


Please explain to me how "a group of adventurers encounter a troll, they do not know how to defeat it, they all die" is a better story than "a group of adventurers encounter a troll, they know how to defeat it, they all live".

Because apparently those were the stupidest adventurers ever, who, when faced with an enemy they did not know how to beat (apparently, none of them took any ranks in Knowledge - great job, adventuring into the wild with no knowledge whatsofreaking ever of what's out there) didn't even freaking run away.


If I'm going to attack a troll, and I have an acid flask, it is legitimate, in character, to decide to use it. The fact that my IC decision to attack with a flask not a sword is coloured by my OOC knowledge of trolls isn't cheating.

What's the alternative, just out of interest?

Find a way to justify his knowledge that trolls are vulnerable to acid. It's not that hard, and it makes for a much better story.

Possible ways:
1) Just roll Knowledge (nature), and hope.
2) Argue that trolls are semi-common near his home, and therefore he should know about them. Hope for +2 circumstance bonus.
3) Yell to everyone else in the party to see if they know if trolls are vulnerable to acid. 4 Knowledge (nature) checks at DC 16, good chance someone'll hit it.
4) Why is he carrying around an acid flask anyway? Maybe he just likes using it when he's in desperate situations.
5) When faced with a desperate situation, what adventurer wouldn't try flinging the freaking kitchen sink? The difference here is that you would try attacking normally first if you know nothing about trolls.

Aquillion
2007-06-25, 11:34 AM
I sure they could, sort of. In character a high AC, probably from natural armour, is the same as a high DR. You can't damage the creature. The question wasn't whether your character knows or not, it was whether you as a player can make an accurate decision for that character without knowing why the attack bounced off the creatures hide. High DR and low AC requires a liberal application of Power Attack. A high AC and no DR requires attacks that will get past that AC.As I said elsewhere, this is not the case. Per the section in the RAW about DR, characters know automatically when DR is making their hits ineffective; the examples given make it clear that the DM is supposed to describe in unambigous terms that supernatural damage resistance is in play there (eg "Your weapons have no effect; the monster's wounds heal as quickly as you can inflict them!")

DR negating a hit is not the same as AC causing it to miss, and per RAW even someone with an int and wis of 3 could never confuse the two; a character who tries to damage a creature with a weapon that fails to get through its DR always knows that their current weapon is ineffective against this opponent. The rules are set up that way because, as others have noted, forcing players to fight monsters with inappropriate weapons would massively raise their CR.

Now, one in-character way to deal with this might be to run away and ask about ways of beating that particular creature... but for a DM to make it anything less than completely obvious to the characters that a creature is protected by DR after they've tried to hit it once is, in fact, bending the rules against the players (and, IMHO, doing it for particularly bad reasons... at that point you get into DM vs PCs, which just isn't fun.)

Per RAW, DR is instantly recognizable to all characters whenever they fail to penetrate it; while they might not specifically know what DR is, they realize that their current weapon is less than effective against this opponent, with no rolls required.

barawn
2007-06-25, 11:37 AM
Yes, the wizard is being a dork.

Depends. Is the wizard a dork, or is the player a dork? If the player's a dork, the DM declares by fiat that the wizard did it anyway, and tells the player "you're a dork, stop trying to kill everyone, your character's not a jerk."

If the wizard is trying to kill everyone... again, how is this any different than just lying to the DM about your hit points? Or simply saying "nono, I cast protection from trolls before it showed up! Really, I did. I just forgot to tell you." An in game situation happened where the characters were too stupid to realize they were within 5 feet of a homocidal maniac.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 11:43 AM
This is a complete side issue, but why is the quality of my roleplaying based on how well my portrayal of my character matches the DM's expectations?


Because the DM is the game's arbiter. If he is rewarding players who role play their characters well, then his expectations for your character are what matters. If you write up an explanation of your character, his background, personality, beliefs, etc.. hand it to the DM, he reviews it, asks you some questions, etc, and then you perform some actions then seem contrary with the character's outlook you have presented to the DM, the DM is likely to question your conduct and most likely not reward your character.



Does this mean that if I'm playing an elf, and the DM thinks all elves are gay, and my character is not gay, that I am a bad roleplayer (and before anybody says "that's a stupid example", it's a real one).


When you say that the DM thinks all elves are gay, do you mean all elves act in a stereotypical homosexual fashion? If in the DM's campaign there is something genetic that makes all elves behave in this way, and you know about it upfront, and you choose to RP a non-gay elf, then I would say that you are a bad role player. I would also question the DM's decision on the matter, but nontheless, you would have known up front how all members of this particular race are in this campaign, and specifically chosen not to be that way.

In the same light, if the DM had a race called EvilMonster that is humanoid and always evil, delighting in slaughter, etc, etc, and you choose to RP an EvilMonster as a good character, I'd say you are a bad role player. But rarely does D&D present these kind of absolutes.



I've kept the definition the same actually, although I've dropped the "to benefit your character" qualification. If you base your characters actions on your out of character knowledge, that is metagaming.

This must include basing your character's actions on your knowledge of the system, since the system is not an in-character concept.


I think that's where you are running into disagreement. If my character has a 30 foot movement speed and I am standing 25 feet away from an opponent that I want to hit, I know out of character that when I start moving towards my intended destination that I am going to be able to make it all the way there because the game mechanics have determined that my character can move 30 feet.

However, in character there is no reason to assume that I had to use out of character information for this. My character, being a real being in the fantasy world that he grew up in, knows generally how far he can move in a 6 second span of time.

When my character decides to attack something, I as a player know that I am going to roll a 20-sided die, apply modifiers, and compare it against the target's armor class.

My character, on the other hand, knows that he is going to swing his sword at the goblin, and that the stronger he is the more likely he is to land a hit, and also the stronger he is the greater his capacity is for injuring his targets, and also that generally speaking it is easier to successfully hit an opponent wearing no armor than it is to successfully hit a target wearing full plate armor.



For what it's worth, I *do* think that there is such a thing as "bad metagaming", I just think that it's an issue of style rather than application.

But the word metagaming its self has consistently been linked to poor player conduct in a storytelling game. I have yet to see any examples in a rulebook that talks about good metagaming and calls it by the same name, metagaming. Metagaming has a negative connotation by its very nature, as it breaks suspension of belief.

What you are doing is expanding the definition of Metagaming from "Using out of character information for in character purposes" to "Using anything not directly related to a character's knowledge in any shape, way, or form."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 11:47 AM
No! The game mechanic modelled something which happened in the game world, which he experienced first hand.

See Beleriphon's post for response to this point.


Because apparently those were the stupidest adventurers ever, who, when faced with an enemy they did not know how to beat (apparently, none of them took any ranks in Knowledge - great job, adventuring into the wild with no knowledge whatsofreaking ever of what's out there) didn't even freaking run away.

So do all your encounters go like this:

DM: You encounter a monster.
PCs: What is it?
DM: Make a Knowledge: Nature check.
PCs: [Fail]
DM: You don't know.
PCs: We run away.

Gosh, tales of endless adventure eh guys?


Find a way to justify his knowledge that trolls are vulnerable to acid. It's not that hard, and it makes for a much better story.

How? How does it make for a better story? How does explaining how you knew how to win a completely arbitrary fight make the story better?

In fact, what criteria are you basing your definition of a "good story" on anyway?


Possible ways:
1) Just roll Knowledge (nature), and hope.
2) Argue that trolls are semi-common near his home, and therefore he should know about them. Hope for +2 circumstance bonus.
3) Yell to everyone else in the party to see if they know if trolls are vulnerable to acid. 4 Knowledge (nature) checks at DC 16, good chance someone'll hit it.
4) Why is he carrying around an acid flask anyway? Maybe he just likes using it when he's in desperate situations.
5) When faced with a desperate situation, what adventurer wouldn't try flinging the freaking kitchen sink? The difference here is that you would try attacking normally first if you know nothing about trolls.

Trying to attack normally first could get you killed. But we've already established that this makes a "better story". Somehow.

barawn
2007-06-25, 11:47 AM
How is making a die roll to determine what a character knows roleplaying? Isn't it by most estimations the antithesis of roleplaying, at least among the groups that seem think of rolling dice is some how not assisting roleplay?

Because if your character has no ranks in Knowledge (nature), he never read up on trolls. You haven't fleshed out the entire backstory of your character, so maybe he did hear about them at some random point. That's the roll. It's roleplaying because you're actually using the fact that your character never bothered to learn anything about the world before going into it.

Just rolling Knowledge (nature) is the simplest way to do it, anyway. It's easy enough to justify an action in character. You just have to do it, and stick to it. And if you get fooled later, you let yourself get fooled.

I don't know why you (and Dan) are making this out to be "You must have this information or die!!" Jeez, if that were true, the hillside would be strewn with PCs. Faced with problems, people throw everything at them. That's what the characters would do, too.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 11:48 AM
As I said elsewhere, this is not the case. Per the section in the RAW about DR, characters know automatically when DR is making their hits ineffective; the examples given make it clear that the DM is supposed to describe in unambigous terms that supernatural damage resistance is in play there (eg "Your weapons have no effect; the monster's wounds heal as quickly as you can inflict them!")

...

Per RAW, DR is instantly recognizable to all characters whenever they fail to penetrate it; while they might not specifically know what DR is, they realize that their current weapon is less than effective against this opponent, with no rolls required.

Of course they realize their attack isn't effective, nothing happened. However from a character perspective this is the same as high AC. The attack didn't work, they don't know why only that it didn't work.



A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).

That says nothing about the weapon, only the attack being ineffective. I agree that the DM should let the players know why the attack didn't work so they make an accurate assessment of their situation. But from an in character perspective DR or high AC are largely irrelevant since both amount to the same thing: attacks that didn't deal any damage. The characters have no knowledge of damage reduction or armour class, but can certainly recognize an ineffectual attack. I'm not arguing that they can't, only that the end result is the same and the characters can only see the end result.


I don't know why you (and Dan) are making this out to be "You must have this information or die!!" Jeez, if that were true, the hillside would be strewn with PCs. Faced with problems, people throw everything at them. That's what the characters would do, too.

Thats not what we're saying. What we're saying is that it doesn't make any difference if I use my OOC knowledge to have a character throw acid flask just decide to do so because its a random choice, or the result of a random Knowledge (Nature) check. The end result is the same, the troll gets hit with acid. If you feel making an encounter harder for the sake of some Knowledge (Nature) checks more power to you, but I fail to see what that adds in any real way.

barawn
2007-06-25, 11:51 AM
How? How does it make for a better story? How does explaining how you knew how to win a completely arbitrary fight make the story better?


Because it starts to establish backstory for your character that wasn't there before. Or it starts to set his personality for when things go bad.


Trying to attack normally first could get you killed. But we've already established that this makes a "better story". Somehow.

If you're playing games where one false move gets the party killed, fine. But facing appropriate CR encounters, you're never this bad off. Heck, you'd have to be a 2nd level party facing a troll before one false move gets someone killed.

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-25, 11:58 AM
Of course they realize their attack isn't effective, nothing happened. However from a character perspective this is the same as high AC. The attack didn't work, they don't know why only that it didn't work.

Whaa? Are you seriously suggesting that actual in-game characters don't actually see any sort of realistic world? What in God's name do they see, then? They didn't "swing their sword at the creature" or anything, they just "attacked"? Do they see the world like a blurry, untranslated game of Final Fantasy?!

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 12:04 PM
Whaa? Are you seriously suggesting that actual in-game characters don't actually see any sort of realistic world? What in God's name do they see, then? They didn't "swing their sword at the creature" or anything, they just "attacked"? Do they see the world like a blurry, untranslated game of Final Fantasy?!

Of course they swing a weapon, but a high AC, particularly natural AC, is representative of a creature being hard to land a telling blow upon. DR is representative of a creature that his hard to damage. An axe chop can be described in both instances as the same end result of the axe bouncing of the beastie's tough hide.

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-25, 12:07 PM
Ah, I see what you mean now. Never mind, then.

barawn
2007-06-25, 12:08 PM
What we're saying is that it doesn't make any difference if I use my OOC knowledge to have a character throw acid flask just decide to do so because its a random choice, or the result of a random Knowledge (Nature) check. The end result is the same, the troll gets hit with acid. If you feel making an encounter harder for the sake of some Knowledge (Nature) checks more power to you, but I fail to see what that adds in any real way.

Yes, it does make a difference. If it's random choice, then they'll probably throw the flask again the next time they see something that looks like a troll, or maybe even regenerates like a troll.

They might also be a little bit more frustrated, and when they beat the troll, the PC who knew nothing about trolls might be overzealous, burning the body, tossing it off a cliff ("you can never be too sure!"), hurriedly abandoning the area, which means that the other characters in the party would develop all sorts of different reactions to that PC.

If they make a Knowledge (Nature) check, that's an additional bit of backstory you can add. Apparently they learned about trolls at some point in their past. You can either treat that as random, or actually work it in somehow.

PC1: "Do I know about trolls' vulnerability to fire?"
DM: "Make a Knowledge (nature) check."
PC1: "OK. (rolls) Wow, that's high."
DM: "Yup, you know."
PC1: "OK. I tell the other guys, 'Fire and acid! Use fire and acid!'"
(battle follows. after the battle...)
PC2: "(in character) 'How did you know about the troll?'"
PC1: "(in character) 'My swordplay teacher told me about them. Fierce creatures - he couldn't wound it at all, so he finally had to run away. It was closing in on him when lightning struck and started a forest fire. Suddenly this fierce, unwounded creature started writhing in agony as a burning branch fell on him. He told me this to teach me one thing - fortune doesn't favor the bold.'"

barawn
2007-06-25, 12:10 PM
Of course they swing a weapon, but a high AC, particularly natural AC, is representative of a creature being hard to land a telling blow upon. DR is representative of a creature that his hard to damage. An axe chop can be described in both instances as the same end result of the axe bouncing of the beastie's tough hide.

DR is representative of unnaturally tough hide. It will look relatively strong, but certainly not strong enough to resist the blow that you placed on it.

Counterspin
2007-06-25, 12:13 PM
Barawn : Skipping the knowledge roll does not preclude having any of the RP you described.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 12:13 PM
PC1: "Do I know about trolls' vulnerability to fire?"
DM: "Make a Knowledge (nature) check."
PC1: "OK. (rolls) Wow, that's high."
DM: "Yup, you know."
PC1: "OK. I tell the other guys, 'Fire and acid! Use fire and acid!'"
(battle follows. after the battle...)
PC2: "(in character) 'How did you know about the troll?'"
PC1: "(in character) 'My swordplay teacher told me about them. Fierce creatures - he couldn't wound it at all, so he finally had to run away. It was closing in on him when lightning struck and started a forest fire. Suddenly this fierce, unwounded creature started writhing in agony as a burning branch fell on him. He told me this to teach me one thing - fortune doesn't favor the bold.'"

Why can't you do the same thing without a Knowledge check? The end result is the same, and you don't have to worry about being eaten by a troll because of a poor roll on a Knowledge check you may or may not have any ranks in. Maybe I'm just looking at this from a totally different game design stand point but stuff like that should be left to what you have, a fun explanation about why your character chose to use fire or acid.


DR is representative of unnaturally tough hide. It will look relatively strong, but certainly not strong enough to resist the blow that you placed on it.

I think it depends on the creature in question. The dragons most certainly owe their damage reduction to a hide that looks like it resists a sword blow, other creatures such as lycanthropes are probably due in part to tough hide and in part to rapidly sealing wounds. The description of the in character event is the important part for the character, but in the case of a creature with a tough hide that resists blows versus a creature with a high natural armour class bonus the end result would look effectively the same.

Delaney Gale
2007-06-25, 12:16 PM
*tosses two copper in*

So let's say that you (the roleplayer) are walking through a forest and you see a cute lil' bear cub. You are say... a computer programmer. Not a forest ranger or a macrobiologist or an ecologist. What do you think?

*ding!* There's probably a mother bear around here somewhere and she won't be happy if I'm near her cub! And you walk away.

Some things are common knowledge, particularly in a setting where common knowledge is the difference between living and dying. Trolls? Everyone's heard a good tavern story about a troll. Your party's wizard runs into the middle of a group of people with weapons and starts waving his hands around and chanting? Well, ain't that a dead giveaway that he's expecting the guys around him to stop being a factor right quickly.

However, if my character's been haunted by an ice devil in his dreams and finally gets to face off against it- his common knowledge is that ice = weak against fire. He casts fireball. Oops, it's immune to fire 'cuz it's a devil! You don't hear tavern stories about ice devils because most people who fight them die.

In fact, I can even reference OOTS- when Haley is trying to decide what arrow to shoot at Sabine in the first battle. She knows that demons are vulnerable to cold iron and that devils are vulnerable to silver- that's common knowledge/prior experience, and why she has the specially tipped arrows with her. However, she doesn't know which one Sabine is- that's a failed Knowledge check.

So, here's the question- are you going to allow your characters an amount of common sense ("I have a mace with me because some things, like skeletons, aren't too concerned with rapiers"), or are you going to say that life in your campaign world is completely dependent on luck ("Ok, I'll make a knowledge roll... oops! Looks like I forgot why I brought that mace along! *tries to stab a skeleton in the face*)? I'd say give them a little credit- a character with INT 18, even if they have no ranks in the relevant Knowledge skill, wouldn't be that dumb.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-06-25, 12:19 PM
Mainly for DMs around i guess, but how do you all deal with metagaming in your campaigns?

I allow my players to metagame all they like.

And then the NPCs metagame. And are optimised. And, yes, they are well prepared.

It does become a bit of an arms race, but it's quite fun.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 12:19 PM
Of course they swing a weapon, but a high AC, particularly natural AC, is representative of a creature being hard to land a telling blow upon. DR is representative of a creature that his hard to damage. An axe chop can be described in both instances as the same end result of the axe bouncing of the beastie's tough hide.

I dunno. I think the fact that the book goes out of its way to state that the opponent knows that the attack is ineffective is differentiating it from a miss. If a character swings a sword and misses, my descriptive text is totally different than if a character swings a sword, hits, but the damage is absorbed by DR.



Why can't you do the same thing without a Knowledge check? The end result is the same, and you don't have to worry about being eaten by a troll because of a poor roll on a Knowledge check you may or may not have any ranks in. Maybe I'm just looking at this from a totally different game design stand point but stuff like that should be left to what you have, a fun explanation about why your character chose to use fire or acid.


see this post:



It's worth pointing out that the main problem with metagaming of this type is that it reduces the usefulness of already-limited-use knowledge skills. If everyone who encounters a monster is going to say "Oh, it's a -blah-", why would anyone take approprate knowledges?


Player 1: "Yeah, made my knowledge check, I know trolls are weak to fire and acid."
Player 2: "Yeah, I don't want to be less effective in this combat so I have assumed my character knows that trolls are weak to fire and acid."
Player 1: "*Grumble*"

Counterspin
2007-06-25, 12:21 PM
Tormmskull : I think Bel is talking about the RP when he says "Why can't you do the same thing." I certainly was.

barawn
2007-06-25, 12:22 PM
Why can't you do the same thing without a Knowledge check?

Because it's cheesy. It's exactly the same as saying "hey, DM, can I pretend I cast that protection from evil spell before we encountered that evil outsider guy?"

It's a game. There's supposed to be some randomness in it. The randomness means that your characters don't always end up the way you want them to.

You could do it without a Knowledge check, but doing it in combat is a little lame. Doing it out of combat, if I was the DM, I'd say "take all of the CR1 monsters in the MM, half of the CR2s, a third of the CR3s, and a quarter of the CR4s." That's roughly equivalent to a knowledge (nature) check, modifying things based on intelligence.

Counterspin
2007-06-25, 12:25 PM
And now barawn gets down to the brass tacks of this argument. Those of us who metagame are having badfun. As with most arguments on the boards, it's just a preference thing.

barawn
2007-06-25, 12:26 PM
I think it depends on the creature in question. The dragons most certainly owe their damage reduction to a hide that looks like it resists a sword blow

Dragons have natural AC in the 20s or higher! Of course their hide looks like it will resist a sword blow!

Their DR, however, comes from the fact that their hide is supernaturally strong, so it's even harder than it looks.

barawn
2007-06-25, 12:28 PM
And now barawn gets down to the brass tacks of this argument. Those of us who metagame are having badfun. As with most arguments on the boards, it's just a preference thing.

Hey, I never said it was badfun. I said it wasn't a good story. Dan asked me "what makes a good story?" and I didn't answer that for a reason - because whatever makes a good story for you, go with it. I think it's crap, and I can justify that position fairly well.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 12:29 PM
Tormmskull : I think Bel is talking about the RP when he says "Why can't you do the same thing." I certainly was.

:smallconfused: <-- This is me.

I am assuming Bel means "Why can't you just role play that you fought a troll once or met a guy who fought a troll or heard a story about a guy who fought a troll, and thus learned about its weakness'", am I right?

If so, I point you back to my previous post summarizied as 'Why would anyone take that knowledge check if they can just role play that they have it.'



And now barawn gets down to the brass tacks of this argument. Those of us who metagame are having badfun. As with most arguments on the boards, it's just a preference thing.


Of course it is a preferance thing. I might prefer to always know how to defeat any enemy. I might also prefer not being able to have my character killed. Its totally my choice if that's what I prefer, but it won't stop other people from thinking the games I play in are cheesy.

SITB
2007-06-25, 12:33 PM
Dragons have natural AC in the 20s or higher! Of course their hide looks like it will resist a sword blow!

Their DR, however, comes from the fact that their hide is supernaturally strong, so it's even harder than it looks.

So how are you going to differentiate between them within character?

"Your sword bounces off his hide"

"Your sword bounces spectacularly off his hide"?

Counterspin
2007-06-25, 12:37 PM
Tormsskull : And that's a systemic consideration, not an RP one. I don't give a lick about imbalancing the value of the Knowledge skills.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 12:38 PM
Player 1: "Yeah, made my knowledge check, I know trolls are weak to fire and acid."
Player 2: "Yeah, I don't want to be less effective in this combat so I have assumed my character knows that trolls are weak to fire and acid."
Player 1: "*Grumble*"

Yeah, but I'm looking at it like this.

PC1: [DC25 Check made] "Trolls are weak to fire and acid, and they live in damp swamps prefering caves near a watering hole, usually fetid and their mating season starts in a week."
PC2: [No Knowledge skill] "Everybody knows about fire and acid, but I didn't know trolls like fetid stinking holes to live in."

The knowledge check to get help, or prevent a character from doing something.


So how are you going to differentiate between them within character?

"Your sword bounces off his hide"

"Your sword bounces spectacularly off his hide"?

I'm a fan of telling the players it has damage reduction once they've attacked a monster with damage reduction.

barawn
2007-06-25, 12:50 PM
So how are you going to differentiate between them within character?

How about "Your sword bounces off his hide. Your instincts tell you that the solid blow you landed should've cut through hide that looks as strong as his, but it didn't."

barawn
2007-06-25, 12:52 PM
PC2: [No Knowledge skill] "Everybody knows about fire and acid, but I didn't know trolls like fetid stinking holes to live in."

Isn't that the DM's choice, however? To decide whether trolls are so common that the DC 16 knowledge check is overkill? In which case, the player would still need to ask. Otherwise, what about when they travel halfway across the world, to a land they've never heard of, and encounter a bizarre creature that yet, the players themselves have read the sourcebook for?

The players shouldn't be making the DM's decisions for him. Especially when they relate to the world itself.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 12:55 PM
How about "Your sword bounces off his hide. Your instincts tell you that the solid blow you landed should've cut through hide that looks as strong as his, but it didn't."

So essentially you're handwaving "instincts" to mean "knowledge of the game mechanics."

Counterspin
2007-06-25, 12:56 PM
So rather than having characters have a rough working knowledge of how beasties they run across work, you're going to have everyone have an instinctual capacity to tell how hard a creature's armor should be to cut through? How is knowing exactly how much force it would take to cut through a creature with DR's hide if it didn't have DR not metagaming?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 01:02 PM
:smallconfused: <-- This is me.

I am assuming Bel means "Why can't you just role play that you fought a troll once or met a guy who fought a troll or heard a story about a guy who fought a troll, and thus learned about its weakness'", am I right?

If so, I point you back to my previous post summarizied as 'Why would anyone take that knowledge check if they can just role play that they have it.'

Because the Knowledge skills are massively, massively broad and have a huge number of possible applications?

Having to make a Knowledge check to know Trolls don't regenerate damage from Fire causes massive headaches. Like "can I legitimately cast a fireball at it?" or "is the fact that its wounds are closing enough reason for me to try to attack it with my torch".

It also means that any Adventurer who knows anything about Trolls must also be assumed to be a competent Herbalist, botanist, zoologist and so on.

barawn
2007-06-25, 01:03 PM
So essentially you're handwaving "instincts" to mean "knowledge of the game mechanics."

You've got that backwards. The game mechanics are a structural window onto their world. The game mechanics represent their instincts.


How is knowing exactly how much force it would take to cut through a creature with DR's hide if it didn't have DR not metagaming?

Because they've spent their entire lives hacking through things. They'd know.

Blackbrrd
2007-06-25, 01:05 PM
in my own defence I only moved out of the area after he began casting, and I appologise deeply for moving out of the area. but that spell ended up doing 39 damage! I have 18 hit points. I am aware that this is not an excuse, but sadly even if one person in the group metagames, we are all effected on a certain level. once again sorry. I tried to move out of the area as naturally as possible, so unlike our party monk danadith (queer name, interpret queer however you wish) who just randomly moved out of the area, I killed the person I was engageing and ran off to save our useless resident binder ("i have a vestiege that gives me +20 to heal checks" and you still can't fight). once again sorry, i did my best, but the metagameing was too strong.

Just run away the next time the wizard does something weird like that again, like running into the middle of a lot of monsters casting a spell.

barawn
2007-06-25, 01:06 PM
Having to make a Knowledge check to know Trolls don't regenerate damage from Fire causes massive headaches. Like "can I legitimately cast a fireball at it?" or "is the fact that its wounds are closing enough reason for me to try to attack it with my torch".

Massive headaches? What you just described is playing a character - deciding, based on the information that the character's received, how he would respond.

That shouldn't cause headaches at all.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 01:06 PM
So essentially you're handwaving "instincts" to mean "knowledge of the game mechanics."

So how would you interpret:



A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).

?

The mechanics of the game are telling you in very clear words that a character knows that his attack was ineffective.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 01:09 PM
Knowledge Checks are always a difficult business, especially when people like to roll for them. In most instances it is much more useful (consistant/sensible?) for them to 'take 10'. The difficulty of knowing something is up to the DM, but there should be plenty of circumstance modifiers and such for easily identifiable monsters (for whatever reason). Personally, I would have a hard time telling an Orc from a Hobgoblin, I think, or a Troll from an Ogre. Maybe if somebody showed me a picture I would have a better idea, but there would be plenty of room for error. Still, Knowledge Checks are as silly as Strength Checks to break down doors in (A)D&D.

DR versus AC. A *lot* depends on how you visualise this sort of thing, but as far as I am aware, AC assumes complete negation of damage in a slightly different way to DR. In most cases AC causes a blow to go awry, in some cases Armour may have been said to have 'absorbed the damage', but I think that is often thought a little bizzare (and the reason for Armour as DR rules).

When AC causes a miss, it's usually a result of a Blow not landing right. When DR reduces damage it's a case of a successful blow causing no damage. Not quite the same thing, but there is potential for overlap. It's the difference between a bullet ricocheting(sp?) off of the Vampire's Body Armour and a bullet going through the Vampire and leaving a big hole behind, but having no effect.

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way, but that's always been the distinction in my mind.

Beleriphon
2007-06-25, 01:10 PM
So how would you interpret:


?

The mechanics of the game are telling you in very clear words that a character knows that his attack was ineffective.

No damage is a pretty ineffective attack. It didn't do anything to the monster. Bob whacked the beast with his great axe, the beast didn't appear to be wounded. Ineffective attack. Bob still doesn't know how many dice of damage his axe does, or that the creature has Dr15/admantine, he can certainly tell if his attack has no discernible effect though.

barawn
2007-06-25, 01:11 PM
Just run away the next time the wizard does something weird like that again, like running into the middle of a lot of monsters casting a spell.

Nono. Do it when the wizard casts something silly. Like detect magic, or something.

Accidentally metagaming is fine, so long as you retroactively explain it and subsume it into the character. Can be hilarious.

Tormsskull
2007-06-25, 01:12 PM
Having to make a Knowledge check to know Trolls don't regenerate damage from Fire causes massive headaches. Like "can I legitimately cast a fireball at it?" or "is the fact that its wounds are closing enough reason for me to try to attack it with my torch".


Maybe a DM would assume Trolls are common knowledge, but that doesn't help for other monsters with weakness'. The underlying principle here is: If a player can increase his chance of defeating an encounter by using metagaming (out of character knowledge), is that acceptable?

If your argument is "I am assuming that the average person knows trolls are weak to fire and acid" that is fine, if the DM agrees with you, cool deal. But take a monster that is not common, what then? If seems like you and Bel are arguing that it would be ok to use out of character information in order to defeat the encounter. Am I understanding that correctly, or is your example only applicable to monsters you think would be common knowledge?

Counterspin
2007-06-25, 01:13 PM
Even for a creature they've never encountered before? Even though "magically tough" can be expressed in two entirely different ways, through natural armor and DR? I suppose if you're comfortable with that bit of handwaving to convince yourself that you're free of the "horror" of metagaming, who am I to disagree?

As always, whatever floats your boat. I don't think there's anything wrong with your playstyle, but I do think your logic is off.

Can anyone list off the benefits of preventing players from using any knowledge of monsters without their characters making an associated knowledge check?

With metagaming you get
1. Ease of use - No knowledge checks to bog down combat
2. Inferred basic competence - this may not be something you want in your game, but if trolls are common in my home area, I don't think I should have to make a check to know about fire and acid

Downsides of metagaming
1. Devaluation of knowledge skills
2. DM may need to increase CR of encounters, though I believe that the CR of monsters presumes you know at least the "fire and acid" style basics

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 01:14 PM
Because they've spent their entire lives hacking through things. They'd know.

So why is it that PCs are these uber-competent, massively experienced, battle hardened grognards when they're trying to distinguish between two effects which are, in character, completely identical, but if you dare suggest that somebody who has spent "their entire life hacking through things" might know the weaknesses of a troll ... well perish the though.

barawn
2007-06-25, 01:16 PM
Personally, I would have a hard time telling an Orc from a Hobgoblin, I think, or a Troll from an Ogre. Maybe if somebody showed me a picture I would have a better idea, but there would be plenty of room for error.

Yes, but transplant a PC from D&D here, and he'd have a hard time telling a Ford from a Chevy from a Toyota, and you can probably do so at a glance (for one, you'd know where to look for the manufacturer, and they wouldn't).

These people live in that world. They're used to identifying the differences between those creatures. Just like we're used to looking for a little symbol on a car, or the style of a headlight.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 01:17 PM
So how would you interpret:


?

The mechanics of the game are telling you in very clear words that a character knows that his attack was ineffective.

Yes, and if a character's blow "misses" due to natural armour it is ineffective in exactly the same way.

Which is the whole point.

The difference between DR and AC is a purely mechanical one. Hell, there's even a rules variant which converts armour to DR, so it *can't* be completely distinct IC.

barawn
2007-06-25, 01:18 PM
So why is it that PCs are these uber-competent, massively experienced, battle hardened grognards when they're trying to distinguish between two effects which are, in character, completely identical, but if you dare suggest that somebody who has spent "their entire life hacking through things" might know the weaknesses of a troll ... well perish the though.

Because the first (recognizing when something is harder than it looks) is part of what they do, by necessity (they attack things!), whereas the second is not.

barawn
2007-06-25, 01:21 PM
The difference between DR and AC is a purely mechanical one. Hell, there's even a rules variant which converts armour to DR, so it *can't* be completely distinct IC.

If you attack someone and miss due to AC, it's because your blow wasn't on target enough.

If you attack someone and miss due to DR, it's because your blow wasn't strong enough.

Just because there's a rules variant that shifts "hitting armor" from "wasn't on target" to "wasn't strong enough" doesn't mean that they're not different. It just means that in that variant, you're treating armor as damage-absorbing, rather than damage-deflecting.

Matthew
2007-06-25, 01:26 PM
Let me put it another way. I would think anybody who hasn't seen an Orc before would have a hard time discerning between it and anything similar he has also not seen before. A Level 1 PC may or may not have seen an Orc before, it's up to the DM to apply Circumstance Modifiers as appropriate. Even so, Knowledge Checks make very little sense.

Armour as DR is an interesting point, but I think it affects what happens in the game. When a Character misses, he fails to land the blow. When he hits, but causes no damage it's different, as the damage is absorbed. He should be able to tell the difference between DR and AC, in my opinion.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 01:26 PM
Maybe a DM would assume Trolls are common knowledge, but that doesn't help for other monsters with weakness'. The underlying principle here is: If a player can increase his chance of defeating an encounter by using metagaming (out of character knowledge), is that acceptable?

If your argument is "I am assuming that the average person knows trolls are weak to fire and acid" that is fine, if the DM agrees with you, cool deal. But take a monster that is not common, what then? If seems like you and Bel are arguing that it would be ok to use out of character information in order to defeat the encounter. Am I understanding that correctly, or is your example only applicable to monsters you think would be common knowledge?

Basically yes, I think it's okay to use OOC knowledge to defeat an encounter *within reason*.

If your DM gives you enough information, out of character, that you recognise a monster and remember its weaknesses, and if you happen to have about your person the apparatus required to exploit those weaknesses, then I don't see the benefit in spending two rounds getting mullered before you spontaneously "decide to try the cold iron longsword".

Now actually, I don't think it's ever going to come up. If you're armed with cold iron, it means you must expect it (IC) to be needed in some cases, and will probably know vaguely what those cases are.

If, as a DM, you are worried about people doing this it is very easy to restrict the information you give the players. Don't say "a troll" say "a monster", if the players ask for a more detailed description, call for Spot checks, and give them a full ID with a Knowledge check.

Diggorian
2007-06-25, 01:26 PM
Wow. This thread is moving at IM speed :smallbiggrin:

What works for me and might help y'all:

Natural armor: "You axe lands but slides off unable to get a good 'bite'. Best adjust the angle."

DR: "The axes hits squarely but resounds as though hitting stone. The huge rent it should've left is a mere nick."

Both indicative and IC.

Keiichi
2007-06-25, 01:29 PM
there are a lot of other places where the game actualy require metagaming, fx the first time the party meets a group of ogres, and dont run away on the spot, thats metagaming that they know they actualy got a chance of defeating something around 5 times their mass in melee combat, when regular logic would compare it to try and have a boxing mach with a gorilla.

ohh and keiichi, changing the trolls weakness should warant a increase in their challenge rating, since fire is a lot easyer to get your hands on than sonic damage.

and i would like to see the look on your face when your group desides to ignore whatever type of damage would beat the trolls regeneration, and just drown the trolls instead :P

A sonic is about as easy to come across acid, and cold isn't that hard to come across, and that variant does have a +1 CR over regular trolls because... well... they don't make frost torches. Also what my party did WAS drown that troll, they lured him toward a pit that they bipassed earlier and shoved him in it cause they were having troubles. I rewarded them with 1.5 times the XP. I think that kind of ingenuity is awesome.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-25, 01:29 PM
When a Character misses, he fails to land the blow. When he hits, but causes no damage it's different, as the damage is absorbed.

This is unfortunately not the case.

For those who have forgotten, D&D combat goes like this:

An "Attack" isn't an attack, it's an attack that has a chance to hit.
A "Hit" isn't a hit, it's a hit that causes damage.
"Damage" isn't damage, but a reduction in one's ability to avoid injury by skill, luck, magic, or divine favour.
One's ability to avoid injury by skill, luck, magic, or divine favour is restored by healing.

Aquillion
2007-06-25, 01:32 PM
Even for a creature they've never encountered before? Even though "magically tough" can be expressed in two entirely different ways, through natural armor and DR?You're handwaving the definition of "ineffective". I would say that there's a difference between failing to beat a monster's AC (a 'miss', or a 'bad blow' of some sort) as opposed to beating its AC and failing to beat its DR (an 'ineffective attack'). As a DM, I would always describe them differently, and if I saw a DM who didn't I'd probably think it was bad DMing; in my book, they're just not describing what's happening very well.

What it comes down to is whether you think that AC and DR describe fundamentally distinct concepts in the game. I think that they do; I think that a player who beats a monster's AC always knows that they have beaten its AC (they know whether they'd landed a "good blow" or a "bad blow"). If the fighter beats the monster's AC, in other words, he knows that he just hit it with something that should have left a mark, landed his axe in the cleft between its armored plates, hit it squarely in its soft underbelly, etc. If the monster still doesn't take any meaningful damage, they'll know it's because their current line of attack is no good.

That "knows the attack was ineffective" line is there for a reason. There's no such line anywhere in the wording on AC. It is plain, from the context, that the RAW are intended to say that it is crystal-clear to characters when something strange like DR is encountered; if it worked any other way, most of the monsters with DR would require a significantly higher CR.

barawn
2007-06-25, 01:36 PM
If, as a DM, you are worried about people doing this it is very easy to restrict the information you give the players. Don't say "a troll" say "a monster", if the players ask for a more detailed description, call for Spot checks, and give them a full ID with a Knowledge check.

Wait, wait. So, instead of expecting the players to, I don't know, have some ability to separate their own knowledge from their characters, the DM instead has to play silly word games?

I'm not saying metagaming is bad. If you want to allow it, feel free. But if a DM starts out by saying "keep metagaming to a minimum, and I mean it," the players should respect that.

And if they fail, as in the OP's post, the DM should take action. The simplest method is to require them to justify their actions, and stick with that justification.

Counterspin
2007-06-25, 01:43 PM
Aquillion : I was discussing a very specific claim that barawn made. I found that claim annoying primarily because everyone has this "hardness sense" where they know how hard it should be to pierce any animal's hide regardless of whether they've fought it before. The rest of my post was incidental to that point.

Again, just to see if there's anyone doing anything other than sniping back and forth, what are the benefits of requiring knowledge rolls for rudimentary resistances in these situations, rather than allowing the party's equipment to restrict their options when encountering a resistant creature?