Meta gaming is never the players fault

[stoutstien]

Back story, new table at local game store that needed a dm so I volunteered. Four players, two off which are completely new to table top and two with a few years of experience. Ages ranging from 14 to 25(other than my old butt.)
Started out great with a smooth session that covered the basic concepts of the game and everyone was having fun. Then one of the more experienced players brought up meta gaming and how its so evil and vile that if you do it the dice will fly of the table and eat your unmentionables.
I intervened and said metagaming it's just the the relationship between the real life in the game and has no actual impact. I want players to make good decisions based on the information they have.
At this point he started listing a million and one scenarios that meta can ruin, none of which were beyond a player reading a head in published material.
This is the first time I've ever had a player so adamantly hate meta. How would you handle it.?

Sorry poor formatting on phone.

[Unoriginal]

Metagaming is sometime the player's fault.

As for how to handle this player, just say "ok, but it's really not an issue in my game, so there is no reason to get angry about it. Now let's play". If they insist on advocating against metagaming rather than playing, tell them to leave because it's a RPG session, not a "how bad metagaming is" session.


That said, metagaming is not "the relationship between the real life in the game", it's when people are trying to game the meta (aka what is beyond the game), as the name indicates.

Reading the published module in advance so you can avoid traps and build your character specifically to beat some monsters is definitively bad form.

[sophontteks]

Yeah, cute but many players just refuse to play their character, even when everyone else is. And you know what, when they are removed from the game, the problem goes away.

[GlenSmash!]

My players and I never talk about Metagaming. I hope they never hear the word.

What we do talk about is fun. If someone is playing in a way that makes it less fun for the rest of the table, which might include exploiting Player knowledge, we talk about it.

When I first started with 5e I expected to have to DM so I read the first chapter of Lost Mines of Phandelver. When one of my friends volunteered to DM I handed him the adventure and told him how far I read.

I knew that using that knowledge could make the game less fun for the other players, so I took a back seat that session, let them make the decisions and just shot my bow and swung my sword.

We still remember it as our favorite D&D session, maybe just because it was the first, but also because LMoP is great, and there were some cool surprises that I could have ruined but didn't.

Still I don't see something wrong with a player having their character attack a Troll with fire, even if it's the first Troll we encountered. I wouldn't even ask them to justify it.

[Maelynn]

I'm not a fan of metagaming, but it happens so easily that it's hard to cull completely.

A bit of metagaming here and there should be okay. Like players knowing how to harm a specific enemy, as described above, or knowing how to solve a puzzle even though their characters have 9 INT.

However, if they start using knowledge their characters can't possibly know, that's where I draw the line. The Druid having a chat in Sylvan with a Dryad, after which the Barbarian asks about something she said that he couldn't have known because he doesn't speak the language. Or the Paladin grabbing the Rogue's hidden weapon right after the player described where he hid it when the rest was in the other room.

As a player I've done this on rare occasions only, also because my group isn't the kind to do this, but as a DM of my own party I intend to stop them right there and ask, "so tell me... how does your character know this?". If they're not able to answer the question, then it's metagaming and they can't proceed. If they can come up with a plausible answer, though, then I might be persuaded to allow it. But it had better be a good answer.

[mephnick]

A lot of bitter older players bring their baggage into a new group and ruin the experience for newer players. I've seen it first hand multiple times. New players are in awe at how fun and open this new hobby is, really get into it, and then some nerd walks in and starts complaining about all the things that could go wrong in the hobby, even if they aren't present at the table. Railroading! Metagaming! (while shouting out the names and stats of every monster they see to prove their knowledge of course, ruining the discovery for everyone else), Balance! Optimization! Let me show you all the reasons your new hobby could suck!

New players don't give a **** about any of that, they're just having fun rolling dice and pretending to be an elf. So shut the **** up.

[Honest Tiefling]

Metagaming is sometime the player's fault.

Unless people have broken into the player's house and forced them to read the adventure ahead of time, I think there's a few cases where it is in fact, their fault.


That said, metagaming is not "the relationship between the real life in the game", it's when people are trying to game the meta (aka what is beyond the game), as the name indicates.

Yeah, this is what people usually mean by metagaming, so the information that the players have doesn't always match up to what the characters have. So there are times where it is bad and some where it is good. I'm going to say that metagaming for group cohesion is probably one of the better examples of when it is good, but that is still usually the player's fault even if it leads to a good thing.

[smcmike]

I don’t think it’s a very useful concept. Lots of different things can get labeled “metagaming,” and they can all get addressed when they come up without categorizing them as such. Lumping things together as metagaming draws battle lines and makes communication harder.

I think you should tell the player you understand where he is coming from, but that you haven’t seen many issues with it in the past. Explain that you expect players not to read ahead in published campaigns (if that’s what you are using), and get on with the game. If he has specific objections in the future, try to get him to explain them without relying on a general “metagaming is bad” statement.

[Potato_Priest]

My players and I never talk about Metagaming. I hope they never hear the word.

What we do talk about is fun. If someone is playing in a way that makes it less fun for the rest of the table, which might include exploiting Player knowledge, we talk about it.


I agree with this mindset completely. Metagaming, the use of out-of-character knowledge to make decisions in the game world, is a tool that can be used for good and bad purposes, and the important thing is to worry about whether you're using it to make the game more fun or not.

[Psikerlord]

Metagaming is part of the game. I have no issues with it whatsoever, just roll with it.

[oxybe]

There are a few ways that you can describe metagaming: I generally like to think of it as being how the game itself is played, or at least the circumstances around the play.

In a competitive game that would entail knowing the locaL players and common strategies used, and as such preparing to either play around them, counter them or setup faster then them. In a game like d&d, it would mean understanding how the gm thinks and playing to his preferences to gain an advantage or using that understanding to prepare around the adventure. But it also means making characters who fit the game and campaign world.

But that doesn't mean all metagaming is bad though: most TTRPGs simply don't work without the metagame concession that the party is, well... the party, instead of 4 people in different countries doing entirely different things and don't have a shared goal they're even tangentially working towards. "The social contract" is metagame: it's the "3-stock, Fox-only, no items, Final Destination", the rules set to govern how this game is going to be played between these players this campaign. It may change when a new campaign starts up, or it might stay the same, but it gives everyone an idea what they're in for and a rough idea on what to expect.

Are there people who can abuse the metagame? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a bad tool and understanding how and why it works can and will make you a better player.

[stoutstien]

I've haven't used published material in years and love tweaking npc stats ( how do orges not have a bonus to grapple?) . I see Player on player metagaming as a conflict in play styles not a game issue. Deleting alignments went a long way in preventing it but on the rare occasion I have a player try to steal/kill/ or in anyway try to screw over other player I let them know Im a firm believer in karma.

[A Fat Dragon]

As stated by everybody before, I just want to sum up the situation in one sentence:

There’s a fine line between acceptable Meta-gaming, and unacceptable meta-gaming. (Or, “There’s a difference between using fire against your first troll, and purposefully building your character to counter every trap in an adventure.”)

[RazorChain]

@OP

Just go full grognard, tell him you don't know what this metagame BS is.

When he explains tell him that he's reffering to player information and every player who isn't devoid of a brain should have some and that's ok unless abused. You as a DM can point out when a player is abusing information that the character doesn't have. Now the player in question should focus on managing his player information and allow you to worry about rest.

[SociopathFriend]

To some degree Meta gaming isn't really all that bad of a thing.

An example: In-game each character was pulled aside, along, and had a conversation; the same conversation but a conversation no one else was privy to in-game. The players, knowing this is the same conversation via the meta, do not bother to insist in-game they told one another about it but act like they did.

This saves valuable time and if nobody is upset by it, good, game proceeds without difficulty.

I currently have a DM who takes everyone outside the room every given time they have a 1-on-1 chat with a NPC and it is so time-consuming. I'm fairly convinced people fear meta gaming more than meta gaming has ever actually hurt them.

[Khorne]

My DM absolutely hates metagaming when it comes to monsters skills and abilities. Our main group is a mainly experienced one (some with 5-6 years experience, some with 20) and we all have our books; we know how monsters work and the tricks they have, and this is unacceptable at our table. To avoid us having knowledge of them (trolls to kill with acid damage? Flesh golems that need magic weapons? We can't say we know or she'll be angry, just... work around it) she invented a full array of personalized monsters in our homebrew campaign, so we can't know what they'll be able to do.

It is fun to be surprised and they're well done, but I'd like sometimes to just fight the monsters I read about without being punished for knowing the rules :smallbiggrin:

I guess it is a matter of "what we want from a fight", an immersive experience or a mathematical one, but we try mainly to find a middle ground :smallsmile:

[oxybe]

My DM absolutely hates metagaming when it comes to monsters skills and abilities. Our main group is a mainly experienced one (some with 5-6 years experience, some with 20) and we all have our books; we know how monsters work and the tricks they have, and this is unacceptable at our table. To avoid us having knowledge of them (trolls to kill with acid damage? Flesh golems that need magic weapons? We can't say we know or she'll be angry, just... work around it) she invented a full array of personalized monsters in our homebrew campaign, so we can't know what they'll be able to do.

It is fun to be surprised and they're well done, but I'd like sometimes to just fight the monsters I read about without being punished for knowing the rules :smallbiggrin:

I guess it is a matter of "what we want from a fight", an immersive experience or a mathematical one, but we try mainly to find a middle ground :smallsmile:

Part of that problem is determining if it is out of character to know what a troll, a golem, a wight, or an orc is. How aware of these things the characters are.

There is no ifs, ands or buts in my world regarding Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds, Tieflings, Ogres and several other creatures: they are literally corruptions of sentient creatures now doing the bidding of an ancient, evil deity. You might have never seen one in person, but even kids are taught young to know what these corruptions are and to report to mom, dad, the watch, anyone when they are seen because they are bad news.

There is a known network of freelance mercs, adventurers, that generally go out into the more dangerous areas on requests to either subdue/eradicate, do recon or at least buy time for the armed knights to arrive. As such many adventurers do have rudimentary knowledge of what a troll looks like and how to kill it, the common weaknesses to theriantropes are, that dragons are largely colour coded for their weaknesses, etc...

This is largely because there's only so many times you can fake being surprised at the hulking, green skinned, pig-nosed, burly individual in a loincloth with a roughly made axe.

[JoeJ]

Part of that problem is determining if it is out of character to know what a troll, a golem, a wight, or an orc is. How aware of these things the characters are.

I figure everybody knows about common monstrous threats. Veterans talk about fighting them; parents warn their children; bards tell tales; town criers report the news about them.

I also figure that it's a bad idea to try and force players to pretend not to know what they know. If I did that, then instead of immersing themselves in the fight they'd be metagaming how to arrange to "accidentally" discover whatever it is they're not supposed to know. How does that make the game more fun for anybody? If a player wants to play their character not knowing about monsters, they can. But I can't think of any reason I should try and make them play that way.

(And monsters also know what their vulnerabilities are, so don't expect to find a troll sleeping on a pile of oily rags.)

[RazorChain]

To some degree Meta gaming isn't really all that bad of a thing.

An example: In-game each character was pulled aside, along, and had a conversation; the same conversation but a conversation no one else was privy to in-game. The players, knowing this is the same conversation via the meta, do not bother to insist in-game they told one another about it but act like they did.

This saves valuable time and if nobody is upset by it, good, game proceeds without difficulty.

I currently have a DM who takes everyone outside the room every given time they have a 1-on-1 chat with a NPC and it is so time-consuming. I'm fairly convinced people fear meta gaming more than meta gaming has ever actually hurt them.

This is why I use open play in my games. I got so tired of one and one BS and notepassing that wasn't really accomplishing anything.

In my games players post their character backgrounds online for the whole group and everything is in the open. I'm playing with mature enough players and a solid group that this isn't an issue. When in doubt we stop play, discuss what the characters know and this makes everybody more engaged. The players are invested in eachothers personal quests because they know what's happening.

One PC got dominated by a vampire and worked against the group and everybody just acted like they didnt know. When finally the betrayal was revealed to the rest of the group there were no hard feelings because they knew all along. And they went all out to save their friend from the vampires thrall.

[Unoriginal]

how do orges not have a bonus to grapple?

+4 seems a mighty fine bonus to me. And ogres aren't the most trained fighters around.

But you can freely give NPCs proficiency in skills, so you can just give Athletism to your ogre wrestler, for a total of +6 to STR(Athetism) checks.

[Puke]

On my games it depends on our intel level.

When we want to use player knowledge, we just ask the dm "Does my char knows that Vecna did that ?" or "With my intel and and skill in INSERT RELEVANT SKILL, can I know that this monster is immune to this ?"

Meta is sometimes an issue when the players knows the monsters stats by heart.

But sometimes its really fun because the players KNOWS something and they also know that their chars are not supposed to have the information. Therefore, they sometimes jump into the wolf's mouth knowing its a bad move. Andt they have fun doing such things.

[BBQ Pork]

As stated by everybody before, I just want to sum up the situation in one sentence:

There’s a fine line between acceptable Meta-gaming, and unacceptable meta-gaming. (Or, “There’s a difference between using fire against your first troll, and purposefully building your character to counter every trap in an adventure.”)
Yes, that.

I've been playing since I got the red box, and thankfully, meta-gaming has rarely been a problem.

A few tools:
1) Asking "Would your character know that?"
2) Sometimes you pull people aside for conversations, sometimes you just hand them a note (That you wrote before the session started, so as not to disrupt the flow of the game). Sometimes you hand everybody a note and a couple of them just read "Nod and put this note away".
3) If you're going to run a module, feel free to tell them up front "I'm going to run a game based on this module." (As a DM, you can and sometimes should make tweaks to a module.) If players are buying the same module to try to "win", and they are ruining the feel of the game by knowing things the characters really shouldn't, then you change things as needed.

There's some level of Metagaming that's okay. The characters would know the weaknesses of common or uncommon monsters. Or rare but legendary ones. They would know where the towns in their country are. If they're adventurers, they're more likely than most to have looked at maps of foreign lands out of curiosity.

As a DM, it's up to you to run your game, for the fun of the group.

[DMThac0]

I have explained to my players that meta-gaming doesn't exist.

Scenario: The group walks into a cave, you describe a large two-headed brute carrying a tree trunk for a weapon with some large bone protruding from it. The two heads are arguing over whether to eat a boar that's on the floor crushed, or go out and find the one head squishes that are ruining the hunting in the area.

Experienced Player: *thinks to self oh it's an Ettin* "Hey guys, that thing looks mean. I think we should get out of here, there's no way we'll be able to handle it."

They clearly know about the creature. Instead of calling it out, they use their knowledge to tell the group that it might not be a good idea to engage it in combat.



Experienced Player: *thinks to self oh it's an Ettin* "Hey guys, that thing looks mean. I think we should get out of here, there's no way we'll be able to handle it."

They clearly know about the creature. Instead of calling it out, they use their meta-game knowledge to tell the group that it might not be a good idea to engage it in combat.


Depending on the position of the DM they're going to call out Meta-Gaming or not. This is a situation of a Good DM vs Bad DM. Does it really matter that they player knew it was an Ettin? Did it hurt the game because they decided to tell the party not to engage? Is the DM upset because the combat was supposed to be important in some way? Nothing in this scenario could be considered meta-gaming, unless you insert that word into the interpretation.

-------------------

Scenario: *Everyone is present at the table* The group is hanging out in a swanky mansion, a couple players have wandered off. The Ranger decides a particular silver tea set looked pretty and decided it was better off in their posession than the current owner, so steals it. Later that evening the group is appraoched by the local authorities and asked if they know anything about a theft at the swanky mansion.

Group *We know that player did it.* Paladin "I don't know anything about it." Druid "What was stolen?" Ranger "I was with the lord of the house." Wizard "Scary! We were in there with a burglar?"
Clearly the group knows what happened. When they respond, they do so in a way that matches their character's personalities.

Group *We know the player did it* Paladin "I don't know anything about it." Druid "The Ranger has a shady background, maybe he did it." Ranger "I was with the lord of the house." Wizard "Scary! We were in there with a burglar?"
Clearly the group knows what happened. When they respond, they do so in a way that matches their character's personalities.
Clearly the group knows what happened. When they respond, they do so in a way that matches their character's personalities. The Druid uses meta-gaming to implicate the Ranger.

Group *We know the player did it* Paladin "I don't know anything about it." Druid "The Ranger did it, he's a thief." Ranger "I was with the lord of the house." Wizard "Scary! We were in there with a burglar?"
Clearly the group knows what happened. When they respond, they do so in a way that matches their character's personalities.
Clearly the group knows what happened. When they respond, they do so in a way that matches their character's personalities. The Druid uses meta-gaming to tell the guards the Ranger is guilty.

Depending on the position of the players and DM, we have another possible meta-gaming situation. Is the Druid in the wrong for pointing a finger at the Ranger? Is the group wrong for feigning ignorance? Does the way the Druid implicates the Ranger change whether it's meta-gaming?

-------------------
You know too much about D&D since you've been playing and DMing since the 1st edition, you're meta-gaming! That line has been said to me before.

Meta-gaming is a catch all term in today's D&D. Players don't meta-game, they use information, any information and they use it to win. If it's on TV, radio, comic books, the back of a cereal box or something you let slip as a DM, the players know it. There is no possible way their characters don't know it.

The goal is to teach your players to understand how to use that information in a way that keeps the game fun for everyone.

[stoutstien]

But isn't acting like you don't know something that your character shouldn't metagaming? It like if someone asked you not to think about zebras. Can you stop thinking about them on command?

[Pelle]

But isn't acting like you don't know something that your character shouldn't metagaming? It like if someone asked you not to think about zebras. Can you stop thinking about them on command?

Kind of, yes. If your DM tells you what is behind the door, but your character don't know, it's impossible to exclude that you are affected by the knowledge, no matter if you open the door or not. You can try to pretend you don't know and act accordingly, but it's difficult to be 100% impartial.

So what?

[DMThac0]

You see a strange equine looking creature, it's white with black stripes, or maybe black with white stripes, either way you've never seen this type of creature before.

There you have it. The DM has front loaded the "you don't know this" bit inside the description of an animal that almost everyone will know. You're teaching your players to use their knowledge of "it's a zebra" but also play it off like this is a strange new horse type animal.

---

A situation I just had in my current game:

Me: "You see a strange box, shaped almost like a house. On one side it's flat, no marking except for a small latch that when you open it shows the box is hollow. On either of the thinner sides you see two small door like spaces, there are miniature tracks on it like the type you'd see mine cars on which meet in the middle of the front of the box. The front of the box features a circle painted on it, there are numbers around the edge of the circle. Two arrow shapes are pointing to different numbers, one of the arrows smaller than the other. From the bottom you see two small holes evenly spaced, opened to the hollow inside."

Player 1: "I wonder what this is? Why is it hollow? Do the numbers mean anything?"

Two other players: "What did you find? There's nothing in this desk."

Player 4: "Oh that's a cuckoo clock!"

Me: to player 4: "I'm not sure you know what a clock is, they've not been invented publicly yet."

Players 5 & 6: "What is this clock thing you're talking about?"

Player 4: to me: "Oh, I suppose you're right." in game: "It's just what I'd call this thing if I were to give it a name..."
----

I knew they would figure out what I was explaining, how could they not. I hoped they'd stay in the "oh this is strange" mind frame, but the one player didn't. Rather than get mad at the player for calling out something they knew, I simply reminded them to stay in the fantasy setting. With that reminder, two other players helped out by playing off the faux pas and poking fun at it. There is no meta-gaming, it's learning how to use the information in a way that makes the game fun for everyone.

[stoutstien]

So what?

I guess thats my point. I feel it's the dms job to make the encounter interesting regardless of player knowledge. Not the players job to track what they know they know but not know but know I know that they know.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I only worry about meta-gaming in the following circumstances:

* A player is trying to get involved with something his or her character can't perceive (because they're in another area/out-of-sight/etc) but that they heard the DM talking to another player about. Things like "I loot the chest!...you're in another room."

* A player using knowledge that it's a game to make decisions. Things like "the DM wouldn't send that against us, so..." Those are a problem because they cause friction when those expectations aren't met. I killed a character because of this--the guy thought that (despite my "the world is not leveled for you" comments in session 0) everything was there balanced for us, so let's go kill that Dire Yeti (CR 9) alone, at level 2. He got munched and learned his lesson.

[smcmike]

* A player is trying to get involved with something his or her character can't perceive (because they're in another area/out-of-sight/etc) but that they heard the DM talking to another player about. Things like "I loot the chest!...you're in another room."

This is a valid problem, but usually easily addressed, and I’m not really sure that “metagaming” is the best label for it.



* A player using knowledge that it's a game to make decisions. Things like "the DM wouldn't send that against us, so..." Those are a problem because they cause friction when those expectations aren't met. I killed a character because of this--the guy thought that (despite my "the world is not leveled for you" comments in session 0) everything was there balanced for us, so let's go kill that Dire Yeti (CR 9) alone, at level 2. He got munched and learned his lesson.

This is a more complex problem, and gets closer to my definition of metagaming. The real problem here, though, isn’t that the player was metagaming, it’s that he was metagaming poorly. He misread the DM, and got his character killed. Trying to read the DM isn’t wrong, though!

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a valid problem, but usually easily addressed, and I’m not really sure that “metagaming” is the best label for it.


Yeah, it vaguely fits but isn't "true" metagaming.



This is a more complex problem, and gets closer to my definition of metagaming. The real problem here, though, isn’t that the player was metagaming, it’s that he was metagaming poorly. He misread the DM, and got his character killed. Trying to read the DM isn’t wrong, though!

Making assumptions about in-fiction things based on the fact that it's a game rubs me the wrong way. It's a relatively easy fix, but...

So I guess the moral is that I don't really care about metagaming except in the "don't read the adventure ahead of time" sense. I'm playing PotA currently, and although I don't know the details I know enough to get a sense of who are the bad guys so I'm trying to not act based on that information. And that's hard enough. If I'd read it....

[smcmike]

Making assumptions about in-fiction things based on the fact that it's a game rubs me the wrong way. It's a relatively easy fix, but...

So I guess the moral is that I don't really care about metagaming except in the "don't read the adventure ahead of time" sense. I'm playing PotA currently, and although I don't know the details I know enough to get a sense of who are the bad guys so I'm trying to not act based on that information. And that's hard enough. If I'd read it....

Sure, reading the adventure is a red line, but it’s impossible to avoid some assumptions about in-fiction things based on the fact that it’s a game. The game runs on assumptions! One is the most basic assumptions of the game is that characters will frequently run into problems that they are able to solve through combat. A DM can subvert this expectation with the occasional overly difficult monster, but throwing players into a world with no level-appropriate combat encounters would bad form, right?

[DMThac0]

* A player using knowledge that it's a game to make decisions. Things like "the DM wouldn't send that against us, so..." Those are a problem because they cause friction when those expectations aren't met. I killed a character because of this--the guy thought that (despite my "the world is not leveled for you" comments in session 0) everything was there balanced for us, so let's go kill that Dire Yeti (CR 9) alone, at level 2. He got munched and learned his lesson.


This is a more complex problem, and gets closer to my definition of metagaming. The real problem here, though, isn’t that the player was metagaming, it’s that he was metagaming poorly. He misread the DM, and got his character killed. Trying to read the DM isn’t wrong, though!

I just recently dealt with this as well. I don't feel it's meta-gaming either, as much as it is a player misunderstanding the information. We all base our actions off of assumptions made by precedents set in previous/similar situations.

All we can do is give them the information, they will use it as they see fit. If they make a poor assumption and something bad happens because "The DM wouldn't do that", it's on them. We can't dictate how they will incorporate the information into their decision making process, however we can guide them by having consistency. In PheonixPhyre's case, consistency was upheld by the player getting munched on. To smcmike's point of view, I say "I'm the DM, I don't know anything". As a DM we only tell the story, trying to anticipate a DM's actions is like trying to understand quantum states, or Schrodinger's cat.

[Pelle]

I guess thats my point. I feel it's the dms job to make the encounter interesting regardless of player knowledge. Not the players job to track what they know they know but not know but know I know that they know.

Yes and no. If the players know, they know, you can't avoid it. "Meta-gaming" is just "meta-gaming", it's not inherently good or bad. The question is what is the best at the table.

The problem with "meta-gaming" is that it can feel less immersive. You can always make up a reason for why your character would do something, independent of the knowledge you have as a player. Too much though, and it starts to feel too coincidental/unlikely. Like when a GM arrange for the PCs too "randomly" bump into an important NPC out in the wilderness, or "randomly" finding a Raise Dead scroll right just after a PC death. Sure, it could logically happen in the fiction, but if it feels too unlikely...

But what are the alternatives?

One session I had, most of the pcs were hiding in a pocket dimension, while two were out scouting. There was no in-game reason to engage the characters hiding, and for the scouts it was logical to keep scouting. The end result though, was that the whole session went by with only two persons playing. The scouts could have metagamed, and returned to the party so the rest could play. Or, the persons hiding could have metagamed and decided that their characters were bored, and went looking for the others. It's the players' responsibility to play their characters in a way that is enjoyable for everyone, whether that is influenced by player knowledge or not.

It's up to the players and group to judge what is best.

[sophontteks]

I don't feel like any of the above is metagaming. Specific little nitpicks about what a character may or may noy know isn't a big deal either way.

A real metagamer however...
-Didn't fill in their background, ignores choices made.
-Will not engage with NPCs.
-Does not react to the environment.
-Tries to abuse the turn-based system at every opportunity.
-Makes their character do ridiculous things in hopes of gaining some mechanical benefit.
-Breaks everyone elses immersion through silly antics while they are trying to roleplay.
-Reads the campaign ahead of time. Fights DM over differences.
-Reacts to every roll as if it means there is an encounter.
-Fights DM over rules with extreme bias towards their character.

I'm down with the hunch belief that players may act upon some OOC information. But someone who is metagaming insinuates to me not a specific instance but a continuous problem that drives their behavior in the game.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, reading the adventure is a red line, but it’s impossible to avoid some assumptions about in-fiction things based on the fact that it’s a game. The game runs on assumptions! One is the most basic assumptions of the game is that characters will frequently run into problems that they are able to solve through combat. A DM can subvert this expectation with the occasional overly difficult monster, but throwing players into a world with no level-appropriate combat encounters would bad form, right?

(I think you're being sarcastic here but I will answer seriously anyway.)

Not necessarily. You could go old-school and let players choose their own difficulty by e.g. picking what level of the megadungeon they descend to. The monsters wind up being appropriate for that region of the dungeon, but they're only "level-appropriate [for the PCs]" if the PCs chose a level of the dungeon that matches their own level. Very confident or well-equipped or skilled or greedy players can spelunk dungeon levels that exceed their character level. You can even invent in-character reasons (e.g. ambient mana levels) why monsters of similar power levels tend to congregate in the same area. Then, no metagaming need occur in order to grant a standard D&D experience.

You can come at it from the other angle too, and grant the PCs some way to know in-character what the approximate power level is of a given monster or location. In the past I've used gimmicks like telepathic birds (stolen from Brandon Sanderson's stories) that show you visions of your own possible deaths (more dead corpses of yourself = more danger level = higher "difficulty" in D&D terms) or weird stones that change color in the presence of danger. It is then up to the players to respond appropriately to the threat based on in-character information.

So, whether you're running wilderness-style or dungeon-style adventures, you can avoid forcing players into metagaming and still have a good experience. But, IMO, metagaming is also a problem DMs shouldn't worry about. Players may choose to avoid metagaming if it enhances their fun--a player may voluntarily choose to use a spell on an undead wight that he expects to be useless because undead are usually immune to that type of spell in this campaign, but his PC doesn't know that yet, and he wants to stay in character. But if a player has more fun engaging with the game as a game, e.g. giving the answer to a sphinx's riddle because he wants to see what treasure he will get, even though his PC probably wouldn't know the answer to that riddle--if that is what the player chooses to do, a DM has no business objecting.

Metagaming is none of the DM's business. Players run PCs. DMs run everything else. Why a given player is choosing to run a PC a given way is the player's concern, not the DM's. The DM should just keep running the game and the gameworld.


One session I had, most of the pcs were hiding in a pocket dimension, while two were out scouting. There was no in-game reason to engage the characters hiding, and for the scouts it was logical to keep scouting. The end result though, was that the whole session went by with only two persons playing. The scouts could have metagamed, and returned to the party so the rest could play. Or, the persons hiding could have metagamed and decided that their characters were bored, and went looking for the others. It's the players' responsibility to play their characters in a way that is enjoyable for everyone, whether that is influenced by player knowledge or not.

It's up to the players and group to judge what is best.

+1. Agreed.

[smcmike]

(I think you're being sarcastic here but I will answer seriously anyway.)

I wasn’t being sarcastic, but your serious answer suggests that perhaps I wasn’t being clear, either.

I’m not suggesting that a world must be stocked exclusively with level-appropriate challenges. That would be boring, and feel fake. I’m stating that a world should be constructed so the players have access to solvable combat encounters. None of your counter-examples suggest otherwise.

If the players can choose their own difficulty, that is a metagame concept, an agreement between the players and the DM regarding the expected difficulty level.

You suggest that this can be explained by in-game reasoning, but I don’t find that particularly convincing. Let’s say your players are given your choose-your-own-difficulty megadungeon. They choose an easy level, because they are feeling lazy. You drop a dragon on them, and they die. Have you done anything wrong? If so, what? It’s not like the logic of the world (which you set) is really going to prohibit the intrusion of a dragon into the easy level of the dungeon. Dragons go where they like. So this isn’t really about in-world logic at all. It’s about player expectation, which is most certainly your business.

[strangebloke]

@OP

Just go full grognard, tell him you don't know what this metagame BS is.

When he explains tell him that he's reffering to player information and every player who isn't devoid of a brain should have some and that's ok unless abused. You as a DM can point out when a player is abusing information that the character doesn't have. Now the player in question should focus on managing his player information and allow you to worry about rest.

AMEN.

When a player abuses knowledge his character shouldn't or can't have, it's always completely obvious.

"I walk into the inn, carve the symbol for 'horse' in the table on the far right and then wait in a corner."
"Sure you do."
"No strange visitor appears?"
*throws the book at him*

Meta-game knowledge is mostly bad because having it ruins the dramatic tension in the game. Knowing that your patron is a devil in disguise OoC but not in character is frustrating.

[MaxWilson]

You suggest that this can be explained by in-game reasoning, but I don’t find that particularly convincing. Let’s say your players are given your choose-your-own-difficulty megadungeon. They choose an easy level, because they are feeling lazy. You drop a dragon on them, and they die. Have you done anything wrong? If so, what? It’s not like the logic of the world (which you set) is really going to prohibit the intrusion of a dragon into the easy level of the dungeon. Dragons go where they like. So this isn’t really about in-world logic at all. It’s about player expectation, which is most certainly your business.

I addressed this in passing, but to elaborate: you can set it up so that dragons do not intrude into the easy levels because e.g. the mana levels are too low and it will kill them. That's what makes the easy levels easy--monsters with powerful mana dependencies wither and die there.

[smcmike]

I addressed this in passing, but to elaborate: you can set it up so that dragons do not intrude into the easy levels because e.g. the mana levels are too low and it will kill them. That's what makes the easy levels easy--monsters with powerful mana dependencies wither and die there.

Yes, sure, you could do that. You can do anything. You are the DM.

Let’s say you don’t. Have you done the players wrong when you kill them with that dragon?

[MaxWilson]

Yes, sure, you could do that. You can do anything. You are the DM.

Let’s say you don’t. Have you done the players wrong when you kill them with that dragon?

Why didn't you? Was it because you deliberately constructed a choose-your-own-average-but-not-guaranteed-difficulty dungeon? If so, and if that's what the players were expecting, then no you haven't done anything wrong, you did exactly what the players and the DM were intending to do.

If you build something that works in unintended and undesirable ways, then what you did wrong was build the wrong thing.

Your basic problem here is that you're asserting that building fun adventures and encounters requires metagaming, and you're trying to exclude from discussion any way to build fun encounters without metagaming. ("Let's say you don't.") Yes, if you exclude all fun adventures not based on metagaming from discussion, fun adventures necessarily involve metagaming. QED?

[strangebloke]

Why didn't you? Was it because you deliberately constructed a choose-your-own-average-but-not-guaranteed-difficulty dungeon? If so, and if that's what the players were expecting, then no you haven't done anything wrong, you did exactly what the players and the DM were intending to do.

If you build something that works in unintended and undesirable ways, then what you did wrong was build the wrong thing.

Your basic problem here is that you're asserting that building fun adventures and encounters requires metagaming, and you're trying to exclude from discussion any way to build fun encounters without metagaming. ("Let's say you don't.") Yes, if you exclude all fun adventures not based on metagaming from discussion, fun adventures necessarily involve metagaming. QED?

I know I'm on your ignore list, but this is a misrepresentation of his argument. You're getting lost in the weeds of specific examples.

Games have genres. Different games have different genres. Playing a genre-savvy character is meta-gaming, but is not game breaking.

If we're playing a light-hearted, disney-esque adventure, and I come across a chest in a ten-by-ten room filled with skeletons, I'm busting it open. The skeletons are just there for effect.

If I do the same thing in Tomb of Annihilation, I deserve what's coming to me.

"Metagaming" in these instances is fine.

[smcmike]

Why didn't you? Was it because you deliberately constructed a choose-your-own-average-but-not-guaranteed-difficulty dungeon? If so, and if that's what the players were expecting,then no you haven't done anything wrong, you did exactly what the players and the DM were intending to do.


You agree that a DM must take player expectations into account. This is the level on which the metagame that I am interested in takes place.

The DM and the players are in a constant process of setting and testing expectations, which can be thought of as a negotiation. When Phoenix kills a character who assumes the DM wouldn’t give them a monster they couldn’t beat, that is a method of adjusting that player’s expectation. When a player comes up with a whacky out-of-the-box plan, they are testing the limits of what the DM will accommodate. The DM’s response sends a signal - shut it down and the player may come to expect that every challenge can only be defeated by straight-forward combat. Allow it, and expect increasingly whacky plans, for better or for worse.



Your basic problem here is that you're asserting that building fun adventures and encounters requires metagaming, and you're trying to exclude from discussion any way to build fun encounters without metagaming. ("Let's say you don't.") Yes, if you exclude all fun adventures not based on metagaming from discussion, fun adventures necessarily involve metagaming. QED?

Your basic problem is that you are ignoring what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that if you build an adventure to be fun, the players will expect it to be fun, and will rely upon that expectation, whether you like it or not. I’m not saying that a DM must think of things in these terms for it to be fun.

[Theodoxus]

I've haven't used published material in years and love tweaking npc stats ( how do orges not have a bonus to grapple?) . I see Player on player metagaming as a conflict in play styles not a game issue. Deleting alignments went a long way in preventing it but on the rare occasion I have a player try to steal/kill/ or in anyway try to screw over other player I let them know Im a firm believer in karma.

There are lots of things I like about AL, and a few things I can't stand - but this, this is probably the best thing I've stolen from AL in general. No PVP. No loot hogging. All loot is tabulated at the end of the session and split evenly. Magic Items are on a Need before Greed basis.

It's not even karma, it's just codified into the Law of the Land, like Gravity and Taxes.