RP Meta Gaming

[Anime Squirrel]

So recently my character has been put in a couple situations were she might die.

NBD death happens.

However, would you, the fair denizens of GiantitP, Meta game and go against your characters personality to avoid death? or would you all run headlong into certain doom for the sake of character role-play ?


I know what i would do, but i like hearing story's so please share me the stuffs from your adventures regarding the subject at hand.

[smcmike]

If character death isn't too much of an inconvenience, I wouldn't sell out the character's personality to avoid it.

On the other hand, real people don't usually throw their lives away lightly, and when a character is always ready to do so, it can feel a bit cartoonish.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I feel like "not rushing headlong into certain doom" is usually in character.

[JellyPooga]

I've played a character that committed suicide by poison rather than face a slow and painful death by crushing before. When I suggested it the GM told me, out-of-character, that my character wasn't really going to die (slowly or painfully, by crushing or otherwise) and would I like to reconsider, but I chose to stay in-character. As a death-obsessed, died-painfully-once-and-been-brought-equally-painfully-back-to-life-once-before assassin/death-cultist, I thought the decision well-founded.

I dislike metagaming for the sake of my characters' survival. If my character is headstrong and none too bright, I will (and have) happily charge(d) into a fight I, the player, know I can't win if I'm playing my character as too arrogant, stubborn or stupid to know when he's out-matched.

Same goes with traps, deceptions/insight and in-character vs. OOC knowledge. I, the player, know that a Lycanthrope will happily shrug off even a critical hit from a non-magical greataxe, but my Barbarian doesn't. Not, at least, until he learns otherwise (and that' doesn't necessarily mean after a single ineffective hit).

[ZX6Rob]

I used to hang out with a guy named Wes when I lived up in North Dakota. Wes was an interesting guy -- 22, divorced, made his living by moving and changing tractor tires. He spent his off time drinking, shooting pool, drinking, hitting on women, drinking, and starting fights. Eventually, after several barroom and parking lot brawls, Wes started hanging around with an even bigger guy named Travis. Travis was real into amateur MMA fighting, and would routinely travel up to Grand Forks to compete in matches for the local league, and soon enough, Wes was joining him. I remember asking Wes, "Do you plan to start doing any formal training? Like, is there a gym around here that teaches jiu-jitsu or kickboxing?" Wes thought for a moment and then said, "Nah, I'm just gonna' get drunk and beat the f*&% out of someone." He did not fare well in the ring, at least not while I was still living there, because, as it turns out, dulling your reflexes and then stepping up to fight someone who is a) sober, and b) formally trained in the art of putting you on the ground as quickly and painfully as possible is a terrible idea.

Now, let's picture Wes as though he were a D&D character, because he does share an awful lot of traits with your standard mentally-imbalanced adventurer. If I were to write a character sheet for Wes, I'd probably put all my good scores in Strength and Constitution. He'd have low Wisdom and low or average Intelligence, because he was impulsive, not well-read, and generally uninterested in learning about anything outside of his immediate interests. I would pick a martial class, because Wes prefers to get up in people's business. He would definitely have proficiency in Intimidate. If I were to describe Wes the Fighter, I'd say that he was brash, headstrong, impulsive, quick to anger, and ready to fight over the slightest provocation. I can certainly imagine Wes the D&D character attempting to throw down against something much bigger or tougher than he is.

But, when I think about Wes the actual person, I can't imagine him running headlong to face down a balor, should the earth crack open and one rise from the fiery fissure. I've seen Wes start fights with dudes bigger than him, but I've also seen him hold his temper against a group of five dudes bigger than him. Wes the person is all of the things that I used to describe Wes the Fighter, but even he isn't going to heedlessly throw his life away.

And that's what's really relevant to us as role-players. We're not just piloting a set of statistics with some broad character traits around a grid. When we role-play, what we're doing is imagining a person, a complete person with complex motivations, goals, and ideas, and making decisions as if we were that person. Now, the term "metagaming" comes up -- and is, in my opinion, not the correct term -- when we act "out of character"; that is, making decisions in the game based on non-character knowledge or acting counter to the motivations or alignment we've allegedly established for the character due to tactical advantage, self-preservation, or some other player-centric reason. But I would argue that a character who always tries to make the optimum tactical decision is a much more believable character than someone who heedlessly throws their life away rushing headlong into danger. Similarly, a character who is normally described as brave, noble, selfless, and honorable is still perfectly capable of deciding to run away or retreat from an obviously superior foe. After all, there's no honor in dying senselessly, and if your sacrifice does nothing to truly help anyone else, it's hardly in-character to go through with it.

Self-preservation is one of the most ingrained and instinctual behaviors of any human being, no matter what personality traits they may have otherwise. The need to survive, to avoid death is hard-wired into our very DNA, built and refined by literally millions of years of evolution. Regardless of how cowardly or brave you may describe your character in the game, there are always going to be situations in which you can reasonably act opposite to those definitions. The act of self-sacrifice, the willingness to lay down one's own life in service of some greater cause, is something that no human being (or elf, or dwarf, or weird, homebrew cat-person) is going to enter into lightly, and the circumstances for facing the bleak eternity of oblivion head-on should be dire, indeed.

So, in short, yes, be willing to go against whatever personality traits you've written down. "My character is honorable and doesn't back down from a fight" is a trait, a suggestion, a generalization; not an edict handed down by the gods on lighting-chiseled stone. Let the event make your character more nuanced and complex, and be willing to question your character's stated motivations and traits.

[Hrugner]

I like making new characters as much as playing old ones. If my character has the option for a good death, he'll take it. I'm not saying that I won't play their survival instinct, and I've had characters wet their pants and suddenly lose all pretense of honor and nobility, but I've also had characters do the opposite.

I lose a lot of over confident and young characters to easily avoidable death. Far too often they "keep it real" in a way that's simply unsustainable.

[Slipperychicken]

However, would you, the fair denizens of GiantitP, Meta game and go against your characters personality to avoid death? or would you all run headlong into certain doom for the sake of character role-play ?

It depends on what it is. A lot of people do things that go against the grain when their lives are at stake. A motivated parent might die to save his kid's life, but might be more willing to publicly say bad things about his kid if the alternative is death.

Basically ask yourself if your character values it... whatever it is, over his own life. That should answer your question.

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like "not rushing headlong into certain doom" is usually in character. Yeah. It would seem like a no brainer, but I suppose some people need that pointed out.

[Knaight]

I feel like "not rushing headlong into certain doom" is usually in character.

This is more or less where I stand on this one. Even exceptionally reckless, arrogant, and just plain dumb characters can usually see when they're actually doomed and act a bit more cautiously. I enjoy getting characters in trouble of their own making as much as the next person - probably considerably more, most of the time. Actual suicide is a bit rarer, including assisted suicide.

[RickAllison]

My monk did something that would seem overtly dangerous, plunging into a volcano. Of course, this was actually a calculated ploy to return to his home, the Elemental Plane of Air, to obtain reinforcements for the coming battle. Unfortunately, he rolled a 1 so he ended up in the Elemental Plane of Earth. Worked out fine for him, he had spent almost as much of his life down there fighting as he did in his home. Of course, he did this without his wonderful Chain familiar, and now she is actually twenty years in the past with the rest of the party...

[Safety Sword]

Most most epic character death was still a paladin that insisted on being last to withdraw when the dragon awoke.

It wasn't a headlong rush to death, but the first attack being a massive critical hit probably made it seem more viable than realistic to "hold it off for just a minute" so my friends could escape...

[Daishain]

Generally speaking, no, I won't compromise my character's behavior for purely OOC knowledge. That stated, I also don't play flat characters, and at least a hint of self preservation is there in even the most selfless of them. My paladin might insist on being the last one out, but he is damn well getting out.

[unwise]

It depends, what is causing the death? An inability/disability, a belief or a personality trait?

If it is an inability, then you die. A delusional character cannot simply stop being delusional. A guy with psychotic rage cannot just calm down. A mute person cannot suddenly speak etc.

If it is a personality trait that the person is aware of, then it is actually unrealistic not to change in most cases. A stubborn person is not stubborn to the point of death in 99% of cases. A caustic mean bastard will act kind if it will save his life. A lot of good people even do bad things to live, its human nature. A lot of peaceful people joined viscous warlords when their life and liberty were on the line.

If it is a belief it opens up interesting options. I am an opinionated person, I have strong views of most things. Only a few of these hundreds of beliefs would I theoretically die for. Even then I may well lack the bravery to do so before I rationalize my beliefs to be more convenient to the situation. As far as RP goes, I think it is far more interesting to compromise on your beliefs then deal with the consequences of that than it is to die as a hero standing for some belief. Personally that is what I would do. People say they like flawed characters, but that is not really true in my experience. People like heroes with the veneer of believably, they don't like actual real characters who sometimes do the wrong or cowardly thing for selfish reasons. Nobody has time for the super hero who does not put themselves second when push comes to shove.

[Daishain]

viscous warlordsThere are sapient slime warlords in real life? :P

[Starchild7309]

I think one it would depend on the situation, what's at stake and if there are really no other alternatives.

An example from my last session. I am a dwarf currently who moves super slow and we are in a swamp, 3+ foot deep water when we are attacked by a dragon. As a sorcerer i have few hp and virtually no AC. This is a dragon that we have been hunted by for the last three sessions. In getting lost, we stumbled upon its lair. It drops our Paladin and the call to retreat is put out. With the movement being 3 squares per 1, I can move 5 ft a round. I know I am not escaping. I am usually brash and brave and have faced this dragon before face to face, but I don't want to die, but see no way of getting away so I call out to my companions to escape and I will hold him off. Luckily for me I wound him pretty badly and the dragon takes a round to recoup. My companions seeing that I am on deaths door manages to run over to me, (he is hasted and large at the time) pick me up and run me and the body of our companion to safety.

The moral of the story, just because you are brave and headstrong and brash doesn't mean your companions can't save you from yourself. My character didn't want to die, in fact he wanted revenge and was willing to act even more brash than usual, but luckily companions sometimes don't let you be stupid for stupids sake.

[unwise]

There are sapient slime warlords in real life? :P

Hehe, Mussolini right at the end? Funny thing is I spell checked it to that.

[Malifice]

I used to hang out with a guy named Wes when I lived up in North Dakota. Wes was an interesting guy -- 22, divorced, made his living by moving and changing tractor tires. He spent his off time drinking, shooting pool, drinking, hitting on women, drinking, and starting fights. Eventually, after several barroom and parking lot brawls, Wes started hanging around with an even bigger guy named Travis. Travis was real into amateur MMA fighting, and would routinely travel up to Grand Forks to compete in matches for the local league, and soon enough, Wes was joining him. I remember asking Wes, "Do you plan to start doing any formal training? Like, is there a gym around here that teaches jiu-jitsu or kickboxing?" Wes thought for a moment and then said, "Nah, I'm just gonna' get drunk and beat the f*&% out of someone." He did not fare well in the ring, at least not while I was still living there, because, as it turns out, dulling your reflexes and then stepping up to fight someone who is a) sober, and b) formally trained in the art of putting you on the ground as quickly and painfully as possible is a terrible idea.

Now, let's picture Wes as though he were a D&D character, because he does share an awful lot of traits with your standard mentally-imbalanced adventurer. If I were to write a character sheet for Wes, I'd probably put all my good scores in Strength and Constitution. He'd have low Wisdom and low or average Intelligence, because he was impulsive, not well-read, and generally uninterested in learning about anything outside of his immediate interests. I would pick a martial class, because Wes prefers to get up in people's business. He would definitely have proficiency in Intimidate. If I were to describe Wes the Fighter, I'd say that he was brash, headstrong, impulsive, quick to anger, and ready to fight over the slightest provocation. I can certainly imagine Wes the D&D character attempting to throw down against something much bigger or tougher than he is.

But, when I think about Wes the actual person, I can't imagine him running headlong to face down a balor, should the earth crack open and one rise from the fiery fissure. I've seen Wes start fights with dudes bigger than him, but I've also seen him hold his temper against a group of five dudes bigger than him. Wes the person is all of the things that I used to describe Wes the Fighter, but even he isn't going to heedlessly throw his life away.

And that's what's really relevant to us as role-players. We're not just piloting a set of statistics with some broad character traits around a grid. When we role-play, what we're doing is imagining a person, a complete person with complex motivations, goals, and ideas, and making decisions as if we were that person. Now, the term "metagaming" comes up -- and is, in my opinion, not the correct term -- when we act "out of character"; that is, making decisions in the game based on non-character knowledge or acting counter to the motivations or alignment we've allegedly established for the character due to tactical advantage, self-preservation, or some other player-centric reason. But I would argue that a character who always tries to make the optimum tactical decision is a much more believable character than someone who heedlessly throws their life away rushing headlong into danger. Similarly, a character who is normally described as brave, noble, selfless, and honorable is still perfectly capable of deciding to run away or retreat from an obviously superior foe. After all, there's no honor in dying senselessly, and if your sacrifice does nothing to truly help anyone else, it's hardly in-character to go through with it.

Self-preservation is one of the most ingrained and instinctual behaviors of any human being, no matter what personality traits they may have otherwise. The need to survive, to avoid death is hard-wired into our very DNA, built and refined by literally millions of years of evolution. Regardless of how cowardly or brave you may describe your character in the game, there are always going to be situations in which you can reasonably act opposite to those definitions. The act of self-sacrifice, the willingness to lay down one's own life in service of some greater cause, is something that no human being (or elf, or dwarf, or weird, homebrew cat-person) is going to enter into lightly, and the circumstances for facing the bleak eternity of oblivion head-on should be dire, indeed.

So, in short, yes, be willing to go against whatever personality traits you've written down. "My character is honorable and doesn't back down from a fight" is a trait, a suggestion, a generalization; not an edict handed down by the gods on lighting-chiseled stone. Let the event make your character more nuanced and complex, and be willing to question your character's stated motivations and traits.

This is arguably the greatest post I've read on this site.

[Safety Sword]

Generally speaking, no, I won't compromise my character's behavior for purely OOC knowledge. That stated, I also don't play flat characters, and at least a hint of self preservation is there in even the most selfless of them. My paladin might insist on being the last one out, but he is damn well getting out.

No plan survives contact with an angry Adult red dragon.

[Barbarian Horde]

I stopped playing with people who make weeaboo character's that are shounen characters. CR don't usually exist in these games.

Oh wait off topic...
Meta gaming in inevitable. Rather when a player has magic knowledge of something he shouldn't. As a DM just call him out on it. How do you know we are in trouble? As for limiting this problem. You can ask to DM to force players to keep their sentences to only on their turn as a free action. Instead of the barbarian asking on the clerics turn "I need healing I think Im die next turn." After just being hit by the npc. Breaking the immersion I guess.

[Daishain]

No plan survives contact with an angry Adult red dragon.
Few plans survive contact with even the weakest of enemies, but yeah, big red is particularly disruptive.

[JellyPooga]

This is arguably the greatest post I've read on this site.

I would tend to agree with ZX6Rob and he makes a fair point. Sometimes the fight is obviously not winnable and even the most crazed fool would think twice about throwing away their life.

However, making the real-world comparison between a dude, or even a bunch of dudes and a Balor in a blank-room scenario is one thing, but (1) we don't often roleplay in blank-room scenarios and (2) Balors don't really exist.

To address the second point first; as ZX6Rob points out, a crazy fool in real life might well try and take on guys that are, to the outside observer, clearly outside of his weight-class. In a world where weight-classes include the exotic, however, you need to consider what's considered "normal" to that crazy fool; in a world where Orcs and Ogres can be considered in the same light as a rough, tough human, who's to say our crazy fool can make a reasoned judgement when faced with this Balor? After all, that dude on fire could be a Balor, a Wizard using (possibly illusion) magic, an Azer or a many number of things in the "dude on fire" category. Yes, if he's not a knowledgeable person, he might well think twice before leaping into combat, but we cannot assume that he'd have the same response as us when faced with something that, in the real world, would immediately engage the "flight" portion of our "fight or flight" response, because his conception of what's a reasonable threat must, by the fact that he exists in a fantasy world, be very different to our own.

To go back to my first point, regarding blank-room scenarios; as a character, we're adventuring for a reason. Often this is mercenary, especially when it comes to playing the kinds of characters that willingly leap into combat. Often also, the motivation is much grander; save-the-world missions are pretty common campaign fare, for example. Whether or not the character is a crazy fool, the motivation behind engaging a foe must also be taken into consideration. Sure, a crazy-fool might not take on a Dragon single-handed for no reason, but he might do it if he thought he had even an outside chance of winning and the only alternative was the certain death of himself, a loved one or something else dear to his moral outlook, like a city, the world or all of existence (none of which are outside the realms of possibility if we want to talk about fighting Balors or other high-CR critters). Given the choice of having a fighting chance and no chance at all, even the most level-headed an intelligent person would take the fighting chance, let alone someone with a penchant for bucking the odds and who routinely takes on challenges above his pay grade.

Food for thought.

[Malifice]

I would tend to agree with ZX6Rob and he makes a fair point. Sometimes the fight is obviously not winnable and even the most crazed fool would think twice about throwing away their life.

Man Ive thrown a character away playing it a certain way, and I play i to my detriment if it feels naturally. I hold a strict demarcation between what I know and what my character knows.

For example, if Bob the Druid rolls a 1 on his first survival check to naviagate and proceeds to get me lost, then I assume he sucks at navigation, and (depending on the character and our relationship) refuse to follow him again (even though I the player knows he has the best skill bonus). I base my reactions around what my character notices and percieves and not what I the player know is going on.

If the super fighter with awesome stats misses all the time (by virtue of bad rolls) I assume he sucks at fighting and a dude that crits all the time I assume is the greatest bad dude in the world.

I would also baulk at stupid **** like 'taking 20' on search checks on every room we find (because no-one has the patience to meticulously search every room) or looting dead bodies of weapons and loading them tied to my backpack to lug 2 days back to town to sell them at low level, because no sane person would carry 50lbs of steel back to town to hock off for a bit of silver (unless playing an intentionally mercenary and greedy PC). I often had zero money to buy magic items in 3E because I would spend it on women, wine and living a luxurious lifestyle, or giving it to charity or whatever (depending on the character).

I guess it boils down to just playing your character naturally, forget about the numbers and the rolls and let it organically happen in a way that makes sense to that person at the time.

[goto124]

When a character dies, I don't get to play said character ever again, because... well... dead. I can only create a completely different character to play with.

Also, even if they're methods of raising dead, getting killed dramatically increases the chances of staying killed, plus my group members will not be happy to be the ones to rescue a literal deadweight for raising. Especially if it happens frequently.

[JellyPooga]

I guess it boils down to just playing your character naturally, forget about the numbers and the rolls and let it organically happen in a way that makes sense to that person at the time.

Very much so. The ethical idiom of "do what you should, not what you can" applies. The rules are there to facilitate the game, rolls are there to introduce a layer of suspense to the story and both are there to tell us what the characters are capable of. If we abuse the one and ignore the other and concentrate solely on the character we so carefully tried to create, then we miss the point of playing the game and might as well just go write fiction.

As you say, a Fighter that consistently misses in a fight despite having a high attack modifier is not a good fighter; he might be enthusiastic and willing to get stuck in, but that doesn't make him a master swordsman (as demonstrated in ZX6Robs example). Both the player of that character and the players of the characters around him should act and react appropriately to the facts of their existence, not the expectations we have as people sitting around a table playing the game.

[Arial Black]

In real life we like to think that 'we would always do this' or 'we would never do that', but the truth is that the mood we are in has at least as much influence on our decisions.

I'm usually an easy-going guy without a huge ego, so I'm likely to move out of your way if you want me to (no matter how big or small you are) just out of good manners.

But if I'm in that kind of mood, and I think you've disrespected me, then you can damn well walk round and I don't care how big (or small) you are.

It's a mistake to think that we are role-playing 'wrong' if we don't have our PCs make the same decisions every single time, because real people don't either.

[smcmike]

In real life we like to think that 'we would always do this' or 'we would never do that', but the truth is that the mood we are in has at least as much influence on our decisions.

I'm usually an easy-going guy without a huge ego, so I'm likely to move out of your way if you want me to (no matter how big or small you are) just out of good manners.

But if I'm in that kind of mood, and I think you've disrespected me, then you can damn well walk round and I don't care how big (or small) you are.

It's a mistake to think that we are role-playing 'wrong' if we don't have our PCs make the same decisions every single time, because real people don't either.

This is a great point. It also raises one of the difficulties in role-playing - small sample size. You don't really play out all the times you politely step aside, or the times you aggressively bump into people and they shrug it off. That stuff is mostly in the character description. Similarly, it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the character that reluctantly charges in to battle and the character that joyfully does so, since the game is often based on the assumption that you will end up charging into battle.

[Demonslayer666]

...
However, would you, the fair denizens of GiantitP, Meta game and go against your characters personality to avoid death? or would you all run headlong into certain doom for the sake of character role-play ?
...
I always say roleplay it based on character knowledge. Death can be a very strong motivator. If they want to die that way, then yes.

My barbarian repeatedly charged headlong into combat with low hitpoints because he never insisted on being healed. He was "fine" (not unconscious). My party members never caught on, and finally it caught up to him: after two lucky crits in a row, away he went.

[DontEatRawHagis]

So recently my character has been put in a couple situations were she might die.

NBD death happens.

However, would you, the fair denizens of GiantitP, Meta game and go against your characters personality to avoid death? or would you all run headlong into certain doom for the sake of character role-play ?


I know what i would do, but i like hearing story's so please share me the stuffs from your adventures regarding the subject at hand.

There is a metagame within my game world of how many times my players break the 4th wall before the smarter BBEGs realize that they are actually trapped inside a game world and wish to try to break into reality.

[dickerson76]

...Self-preservation is one of the most ingrained and instinctual behaviors of any human being, no matter what personality traits they may have otherwise. The need to survive, to avoid death is hard-wired into our very DNA, built and refined by literally millions of years of evolution.

That's why I usually play halflings.

[JellyPooga]

That's why I usually play halflings.

I played a Halfling front-liner in Pathfinder once; truly astronomical AC. It worked really well; he was all up in everyones grill, nettling them just enough to distract them from the squishy casters. He even stopped an Ogre in his tracks with nothing but a sharp blade and a pointed look (read: Ogre tried to Overrun, but my CMD was too high!)

It worked really well, that is, right up until he got critically hit by that same Ogre. I really shouldn't have made Constitution my dump-stat...

[Addaran]

So recently my character has been put in a couple situations were she might die.

NBD death happens.

However, would you, the fair denizens of GiantitP, Meta game and go against your characters personality to avoid death? or would you all run headlong into certain doom for the sake of character role-play ?


I know what i would do, but i like hearing story's so please share me the stuffs from your adventures regarding the subject at hand.

Can you give examples? The people answering have two very different definition of metagaming.

1) Acting contrary to what your character is supposed to be (running away when brave, always fallowing his convictions even if it means death.)
2) Acting on knowledge you shouldn't/couldn't possibly have.


First one isn't really meta-gaming, and real people don't always act perfectly to what characterize them.
I don't have a problem with my paladin running away while a balor his murdering a village if i'm just lvl 1. Or my smart-ass halfling not insult the big red ancient dragon.

Metagaming to save a character, i wouldn't do it.
If I play a dumb lvl 1 barbarian that wants to exterminate all orcs, i won't stop from attacking a lonely goblin just because the player recognize that the goblin is wearing a necklace of fireball.
If my character trust his wife with his life, i won't suddenly be suspicious because i overheard the DM talk (when he though i wasn't there) about how my character's wife is actual a doppelganger in the next session and will kill me when i go to sleep.

[smcmike]

2) Acting on knowledge you shouldn't/couldn't possibly have.

Metagaming to save a character, i wouldn't do it.
If I play a dumb lvl 1 barbarian that wants to exterminate all orcs, i won't stop from attacking a lonely goblin just because the player recognize that the goblin is wearing a necklace of fireball.
If my character trust his wife with his life, i won't suddenly be suspicious because i overheard the DM talk (when he though i wasn't there) about how my character's wife is actual a doppelganger in the next session and will kill me when i go to sleep.

Even this is not always clear cut. It isn't always clear how precisely a character should be able to know his own abilities. Can my barbarian take on that ogre by himself? I'm pretty sure there's no way he could do so a month ago, when this campaign started...

[JellyPooga]

Even this is not always clear cut. It isn't always clear how precisely a character should be able to know his own abilities. Can my barbarian take on that ogre by himself? I'm pretty sure there's no way he could do so a month ago, when this campaign started...

Agreed. Where do you draw the line between what you, the player, know and what you, the character, know?

I've read the Monster Manual, so I will recognise a description of an Orc or a Gnoll quite easily and know their relative threat level to my character. Even low-level characters probably have similar knowledge. What about when it comes to the difference between an Ogre, a Troll and an Oni? As a player, I know the difference, but does my character? Throwing down against an Ogre as a level 3 character with no specialist gear might get me killed, but I've got a fighting chance. Doing the same against a Troll will almost certainly get me killed and up against the Oni, I've almost no chance at all. How well does my Barbarian know his giants and given his personality, should I avoid the Troll or the Oni fight based on my metagame knowledge?

I say no. My Barbarian isn't stupid, he just doesn't recognise that the fight he's getting into is beyond his capabilities, even though I, the Player, do.

[Addaran]

Even this is not always clear cut. It isn't always clear how precisely a character should be able to know his own abilities. Can my barbarian take on that ogre by himself? I'm pretty sure there's no way he could do so a month ago, when this campaign started...

Yeah, it's not clear-cut and you have to more or less guess what your character would think.
It's metagaming when your character use knowledge he absolutely can't have though. A good rule of thumb is to not suddenly do something you never done before, just because the player know. If you always trust Kiram to do a guard shift during the night, why would you not this time and cast detect magic, just because the DM made him roll a wisdom save while his character was sleeping and your character noticed absolutely nothing different.

[RickAllison]

I'm running into this metagame knowledge with my Spelljammer-shenanigans wizard. The way I've been running it is with Int checks (he has every proficiency for those) to see if he knows them from a book, else he tends to confuse them with random creatures from other worlds. Basically, I let him have mass stores of knowledge that would normally be unfair. However, the knowledge he has is relevant to Eberron, Dark Sun, etc., and useless for the actual campaign!

I'm waiting for us to meet the Tarrasque! "It must be a scaly carnivorous Tyrannohamstersaurus! Charge!!!"

Edit: Basically, he is Wrong Genre-Savvy.

[Safety Sword]

Stuff.

There is a secondary issue. You might not know what you think you know.

PC: I can take that scrawny jerk with one arm tied behind my back.

DM: Streaks of lightning destroy over confident fighter.


I have and will maintain that it's OK to ask for checks to see if a character know something. However, there are some checks that are just impossible to make. But make them anyway, it confuses your players into less metagaming.

[RickAllison]

There is a secondary issue. You might not know what you think you know.

PC: I can take that scrawny jerk with one arm tied behind my back.

DM: Streaks of lightning destroy over confident fighter.


I have and will maintain that it's OK to ask for checks to see if a character know something. However, there are some checks that are just impossible to make. But make them anyway, it confuses your players into less metagaming.

This happened in a campaign I'm in!! Not to me, but we have an on-off player who came with an evil warlock. When a few travelers laugh at his patron (through this and other hints, we knew they were powerful), he ended up attacking one with Eldritch Blast. One turns into an Ancient Silver Dragon, breath weapon, the warlock was instantly killed.