PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Is this metagaming?



Axiol
2018-07-20, 02:26 PM
If you were a DM or another player at the table would you consider this metagaming?

We're in combat.
Sometime before my turn this zombie thing we're fighting made water rush over a bridge with a strong enough current to nearly knock someone off the bridge into the water.
My turn comes up. I'm playing a wizard and the zombie thing is right next to me. I decide the safest place to be is on the other side of the bridge so I begin to move across it. As I move across it the DM informs me that there is standing water on the bridge and so it would be considered rough terrain. I count the spaces and find out that I wouldn't quite be able to make it to the end of the bridge. I decide I don't want to end my turn on the bridge for fear of more water rushing over it so I decide to not even get on the bridge, but instead end my movement just before the bridge and cast a spell instead.

This was deemed "metagaming" by one of the players. The argument was that my character thinks the safest place to be is across the bridge and that it isn't like he stops running just because he is out of movement. The zombie thing and my character both technically act at the same time in the game world, we just break it down into turns. So while me taking my turn would have ended just short of making it across the bridge, in the game world my character would have just kept running. Also that my character doesn't know the zombie thing couldn't make the water rush over the bridge until my character moves his 30 feet or whatever so he shouldn't act as if he did.

Is this metagaming? Should I have just ran for it even though I couldn't make it across the bridge? How do you justify other actions that are broken down into "turns"?

DeTess
2018-07-20, 02:35 PM
It's no more metagaming than using a grid or playing turn-based is. The DnD combat system forces a certain kind of abstraction, and it would be silly to expect people to not play with this abstraction.

Your character is also not using any out-of-game knowledge, you've seen the zombie do his trick once already, after all. If you need to justify it in game, just say that your character noticed the spray of water before, and wants to be sure another one won't be following. That's just common sense after all, especially if you can't swim.

Honest Tiefling
2018-07-20, 02:36 PM
Well...Did your character see the standing water and have reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to run across it? If so, this is not metagaming, this is a nice DM clarifying what player characters would see. Good job, nice DM. I'm more inclined to believe this happened, as your character would not know that the zombie would have to wait enough time to cross.

If your character didn't know about the standing water or had no reason to believe it was rough terrain, a bit, but...Overall, rather harmless. Metagaming happens, as far as this goes it's really minor, so I wouldn't stress about it.

JoeJ
2018-07-20, 02:44 PM
Your character saw that it would be slow going and decided not to risk it. I see no problem there.

It sounds to me, however, that the real issue is another player is telling you that you have to roleplay your character a certain way, and trying to justify it with a scary word. Challenge that player to explain why they think metagaming is BadWrongFun before even getting into whether or not what you did counts as metagaming.

ChamHasNoRoom
2018-07-20, 02:47 PM
Fourthing what others have said. Your character might not be able to count specific squares, but he can notice that he'd have to slowly wade through water rather than sprinting straight across, and decide he doesn't want to be exposed for that long. The end result is basically the same.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-07-20, 02:47 PM
Your character saw that it would be slow going and decided not to risk it. I see no problem there.

It sounds to me, however, that the real issue is another player is telling you that you have to roleplay your character a certain way, and trying to justify it with a scary word. Challenge that player to explain why they think metagaming is BadWrongFun before even getting into whether or not what you did counts as metagaming.
Very much agreed with both of these points.

2D8HP
2018-07-20, 02:54 PM
...Is this metagaming?...


Yes.


Yes it is.


What should you do about it?


Switch to LARP'ing, and use a boffer upside the complainers head!


Sheesh!


I'm increasingly convinced that there isn't enough "meta-gaming" in RPG play.


It's a game played for fun and rule#1 should be:

Don't be a bummer/buzzkill/bringdown.

DeTess
2018-07-20, 03:00 PM
Yes.


Yes it is.


What should you do about it?


Switch to LARP'ing, and use a boffer upside the complainers head!


Sheesh!


I'm increasingly convinced that there isn't enough "meta-gaming" in RPG play.


It's a game played for fun and rule#1 should be:

Don't be a bummer/buzzkill/bringdown.


I don't know where you LARP, but the events I attend have very strict rules regarding not hitting people on the head :P

In all seriousness though, I agree with (the rest) of your post. If what you're doing is meta-gaming, it's something that's caused/encouraged/mandated by the restrictions of the tabletop system, and the only way to fix that is to play in real-time. Anyone trying to start an argument over this is slowing the game down for no good reason.

DMThac0
2018-07-20, 03:04 PM
DM: Crossing the bridge is going to be considered rough terrain.
You: Well in that case I'm just going to stop.
Player: Just because the DM gave you information so you could make an informed decision doesn't mean you should! That's meta-gaming, how dare you consider anything but the first thing that came out of your mouth!

---
DM: *to a singular player* You learn that Mr. McBaddy is weak to being stabbed by wooden weapons.
Player: *doesn't say anything to anyone* We need to find Mr. McBaddy I know how to kill him! *Still doesn't say anything*
You: I start to sharpen the nearest stick to stab Mr. McBaddy with.

That could be considered "meta-gaming" as you were never given the information directly. However, many DM's will let it slide due to a generalized acceptance that anything said out loud is typically heard and/or expressed to the whole party.

---
What you did was/is acceptable by 99.99% of players and DMs, the other player should learn the phrase "Play your character not mine".

Anymage
2018-07-20, 03:33 PM
If this were a movie, you could justify only wanting to set foot on the bridge after the water zombie did his thing so you'd have the maximum amount of time before he could give it another go. As is, you're working within one abstraction. That's not the "real roleplayer's" platonic ideal, but it's entirely reasonable.

Also, a certain level of metagaming is in fact a good thing. If your characters table an argument that they would "realistically" keep going at in the name of not dragging the session down, that's a good thing. If you pipe down because you've been hogging the spotlight a bit lately and what to give somebody else a turn, I wish more people would metagame like that. Hell, even acting on OOC knowledge in order to help set up a cool scene or advance the plot are handy. Using OOC knowledge to advance your character's personal position (often synonymous with giving you more spotlight time) is bad form, but that's not the only form of metagaming.

Segev
2018-07-20, 03:34 PM
Yeah, the judgment, translated out of "rounds," that your PC made is, "I am not fast enough to get across that without risking another deluge."

It's not meta-gaming to play the game by the rules it establishes. It's only metagaming to use knowledge that you the player garner without your character being able to know it. Your character is as able to see the distance as you are.

Pleh
2018-07-20, 09:26 PM
In chess, your ability to change strategy on a single move ends "once your fingers leave the piece."

In D&D, the rule tends to be "once the results have been announced."

If the DM says, "you will have rough terrain if you do that," then results haven't been declared. The DM is simply providing relevant information that they think you should have. That is expressly not meta gaming because it is by definition information the DM thinks you deserve before making the decision, implying that the information is obvious to your character.

If the DM says, "As you do this, you experience rough terrain," then it's already done and can only be changed by retcon.

Lunali
2018-07-21, 10:13 AM
Yeah, the judgment, translated out of "rounds," that your PC made is, "I am not fast enough to get across that without risking another deluge."

Or if he still intends to cross but needed to get closer to avoid ending a turn on the bridge, "I'll have to time my crossing carefully to avoid another deluge."

Segev
2018-07-21, 11:38 AM
Or if he still intends to cross but needed to get closer to avoid ending a turn on the bridge, "I'll have to time my crossing carefully to avoid another deluge."

Right! I actually thought of that, and then for some reason didn't write it. Thanks for bringing it up!

Beleriphon
2018-07-21, 12:10 PM
You know what's metagaming, asking questions about games or thinking about games. Man I hate that so much.

In seriousness though, I hate it when another player calls out "metagaming" like making decisions that are useful in the game, about my own character no less. Does that guy want my character to die or be non-helpful? Because I can totally do that if he wants, I mean as a wizard character I could just randomly turn my comrades into newts or drop fireballs on them. Because hey its metagaming to know that my spells might hurt my fellow characters, because I as the player read the rulebook for the game.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/940/777/fa4.png

Reading the rules: that's metagamin'
Talking about the game: that's metgamin'
Using yer brain: that's metagamin'
Fightin' trolls with fire: that's metagamin'
Telling somebody ther' metagamin': that's metagamin'

Pleh
2018-07-21, 02:40 PM
I hate it when another player calls out "metagaming" like making decisions that are useful in the game, about my own character no less.

Actually, this is irrelevant to metagaming and the loss of the correct distinction is where so much of the conversation is hung up.

"Making decisions that are useful in the game, [even] about [one's] own character can accurately describe metagaming as well as not.

It's not the subject of the decision being called into question, but the method. Decisions are based on information. Metagaming happens when decisions are made based on information the player has and the character lacks.

Any situation where all the information relevant to a decision is known to both the player and character equally, can't be metagaming.

Jay R
2018-07-21, 07:15 PM
Yes, it is certainly meta-gaming, in exactly the same sense that expecting the zombies to be D&D-style zombies is metagaming, or expecting the fourth-level caster you face will only use up to level 2 spells.

The rules exist, and they govern all movement and activity. Ignoring them is bad play. considering them is good play, competent tactics, and meta-gaming.

Psyren
2018-07-21, 08:27 PM
...Your character knowing how fast they can run or wade is not metagaming. Most of us have been doing those activities since childhood.

Vaern
2018-07-21, 09:24 PM
Metagaming is using information that your character does not have to make a decision for your character that he would not realistically be able to make.
Your character can see that the bridge is wet. Your character knows that it will slow him down. Your character is aware that the zombie can manipulate the water and cautious that he may fall victim to a second deluge. Your character knows roughly how fast he can move, and he knows he might not make it. And everyone knows that wizards don't swim well, so it would be reasonable for you to be more afraid of the bridge than the zombie.
In summary, your character had all of the information and reasoning he should need to justify his decision not to cross the bridge upon realizing that it is difficult terrain.

WindStruck
2018-07-22, 12:34 AM
Technically is "metagaming" but not in the typical, poor roleplaying sense. You're only acting in this specific way due to constraints in the rules of playing the game yourself.

As everyone else seems to agree, either it's not, or if it is, it doesn't matter. There's been some good "IC reasons" also suggested that you could use to explain your character's behavior.

Tell that punk they are not applying their word correctly.

Luckmann
2018-07-23, 07:48 AM
If you were a DM or another player at the table would you consider this metagaming?

We're in combat.
Sometime before my turn this zombie thing we're fighting made water rush over a bridge with a strong enough current to nearly knock someone off the bridge into the water.
My turn comes up. I'm playing a wizard and the zombie thing is right next to me. I decide the safest place to be is on the other side of the bridge so I begin to move across it. As I move across it the DM informs me that there is standing water on the bridge and so it would be considered rough terrain. I count the spaces and find out that I wouldn't quite be able to make it to the end of the bridge. I decide I don't want to end my turn on the bridge for fear of more water rushing over it so I decide to not even get on the bridge, but instead end my movement just before the bridge and cast a spell instead.

This was deemed "metagaming" by one of the players. The argument was that my character thinks the safest place to be is across the bridge and that it isn't like he stops running just because he is out of movement. The zombie thing and my character both technically act at the same time in the game world, we just break it down into turns. So while me taking my turn would have ended just short of making it across the bridge, in the game world my character would have just kept running. Also that my character doesn't know the zombie thing couldn't make the water rush over the bridge until my character moves his 30 feet or whatever so he shouldn't act as if he did.

Is this metagaming? Should I have just ran for it even though I couldn't make it across the bridge? How do you justify other actions that are broken down into "turns"?
No. Your character saw the water and after a moment of hesitation decided not to risk it, based on precarious terrain and it's own ability (or inability) to move.

Not metagaming. Not by a long shot. Your fellow player is simply wrong.

Kardwill
2018-07-23, 08:27 AM
I'm increasingly convinced that there isn't enough "meta-gaming" in RPG play.
[/indent]
Yup. When a player says he "needs backup" for his "secret meeting" and asks another player who didn't get to do much this session to come with him, that's completely metagaming so that his fellow player can have fun. When I get a telegram saying my weird uncle just died and left me his old mansion in New England, and I decide to go check the house with a few friends rather than asking my lawyer to evaluate and sell it, I metagame so that we can have a game of "Haunted House and Horrors" and not "Boring Business and Bureaucrats". We metagame to keep the group together, to keep the players entertained, to keep the game and the story rolling.

I've heard (and said) "but my character would [insert stuff that destroys the fun of other players or kills the game], so I'll do it!" far too often when I was a teen. Responsible metagame is Good.

JoshuaZ
2018-07-23, 08:37 AM
Yup. When a player says he "needs backup" for his "secret meeting" and asks another player who didn't get to do much this session to come with him, that's completely metagaming so that his fellow player can have fun. When I get a telegram saying my weird uncle just died and left me his old mansion in New England, and I decide to go check the house with a few friends rather than asking my lawyer to evaluate and sell it, I metagame so that we can have a game of "Haunted House and Horrors" and not "Boring Business and Bureaucrats". We metagame to keep the group together, to keep the players entertained, to keep the game and the story rolling.

Well, that's why all weird uncles also always leave a trust where the money only goes to the heir if they check the house out. Of course, this can lead to other issues. If the trust was set up years ago and the weird uncle was himself the trustee, depending on how the trust is phrased and the jurisdiction, the new trustee may have an obligation to investigate if the trust was sufficiently diversified. But if all potential beneficiaries waive that, or if the trust was carefully written to avoid those issues, this may not apply.

Also, directly selling the mansion itself now could have some tax implications that one will need to consider. On the other hand, if the mansion is itself worth enough, then it may need to be sold to pay the estate tax.

Also, in some locations (not most of New England but for example Puerto Rico), heirs need to physically show up, and all heirs need to be present simultaneously for the transfer of many forms of real estate.

Business and Bureaucrats is a fun game!

More helpful comment: Yeah, not all metagaming bad and metagaming that keeps a party together is good. Metagaming that deals with minor issues of the abstractions created by the rules aren't an issue either.

Also, I'm not a lawyer, and if you inherit a strange, potentially haunted house from an uncle, please don't take any of this as legal advice.

JMAP94
2018-07-23, 09:19 AM
I would not consider that metagaming by any sense of the word.

The turn based combat is supposed to be representative of an actual battle, in an actual battle, if you see this long bridge that's tough to cross,, and your character is a 90 year old wizard who can barely walk, and your character considers that trying to cross the bridge would leave him too exposed or not give him a tactical position, then he can decide not to cross it.

If your character was a super ninja with a movement speed of like 500, then he might have more faith in his capabilities to cross the bridge than a 90 year old wizard.

Jay R
2018-07-23, 10:09 AM
Making the decision not to cross a 35 foot-bridge but being willing to cross a 30-foot bridge, because you know that you can cross the 30 foot bridge in six seconds, and also know that your enemy will take another shot in six seconds, is meta-gaming, in the sense of making decisions based on the game mechanics. So is catching two people 35 feet across in a 20-foot-radius fireball, but not trying the same when they are 45 feet apart.

It's also based on the meta-design that no bridges on the grid are 32½ feet long.

But these game-mechanic-related decisions based on the precise measurements provided by the grid are necessary to model the judgment calls being made by the characters.

It's not quite what would happen if the situation were real, in which case the enemy might strike five seconds later, or seven, or in which you can't eyeball the exact radius that a fireball might cover.

But it is good tactics, and good play.

Segev
2018-07-23, 10:45 AM
My take-away from this thread, now, is that I should run a game where the PCs are a group of lawyers and estate appraisers hired to appraise and sell the weird old uncle's probably-haunted house.

JoshuaZ
2018-07-23, 02:40 PM
My take-away from this thread, now, is that I should run a game where the PCs are a group of lawyers and estate appraisers hired to appraise and sell the weird old uncle's probably-haunted house.

I would play this game. Also if someone wants to write an urban fantasy series involving a group of lawyers who routinely deal with strange inheritances from mysterious relatives, I will definitely read it.

Segev
2018-07-23, 04:04 PM
I would play this game. Also if someone wants to write an urban fantasy series involving a group of lawyers who routinely deal with strange inheritances from mysterious relatives, I will definitely read it.

That is, honestly, an even better idea! :smallbiggrin:

Malimar
2018-07-23, 04:57 PM
At its heart, this seems to be an exchange of the form:
"I do X."
"Your character would know that X is a bad idea."
"Oh, in that case I don't do X."
Because it's correcting your (i.e., metagame) idea with character (i.e., not metagame) knowledge, this is in fact the opposite of metagaming.

Segev
2018-07-23, 05:01 PM
At its heart, this seems to be an exchange of the form:
"I do X."
"Your character would know that X is a bad idea."
"Oh, in that case I don't do X."
Because it's correcting your (i.e., metagame) idea with character (i.e., not metagame) knowledge, this is in fact the opposite of metagaming.

This is a very good way of putting it. It's not metagaming to realize that it's too far to make it safely because you'd have to wade through heavy water-flow. It was incorrectly assuming the bridge was clear-walking that would have led to poor decision-making. Your character knows it's not clear-walking, which is why the DM warned you. Since you, as player, aren't THERE and can't see it.

Quertus
2018-07-23, 05:04 PM
I suppose I'll chime in on the "it's not metagaming" side of things. Your character had the necessary information to judge the circumstances, and to attempt to time or belay their crossing.


Yes. Yes it is.

Why do you feel this way?


Switch to LARP'ing, and use a boffer upside the complainers head!


I don't know where you LARP, but the events I attend have very strict rules regarding not hitting people on the head :P

When I played (& observed), there were rules for head armor. Striking the head was a tactic of choice for some players.


I'm increasingly convinced that there isn't enough "meta-gaming" in RPG play.


I've heard (and said) "but my character would [insert stuff that destroys the fun of other players or kills the game], so I'll do it!" far too often when I was a teen. Responsible metagame is Good.

Agreed.

Kardwill
2018-07-24, 03:23 AM
My take-away from this thread, now, is that I should run a game where the PCs are a group of lawyers and estate appraisers hired to appraise and sell the weird old uncle's probably-haunted house.

Can you imagine the activities of a real estate agency in 1920' Massachusetts?

"Err, boss, I was reading my contract, and I had a question... What is the "weird uncle combat bonus"?
- Shut up and grab the elephant gun. An old widow just died in Arkham, and there's appraising to be done!"

I'd play that ^^

16bearswutIdo
2018-07-24, 07:26 AM
DM: Crossing the bridge is going to be considered rough terrain.
You: Well in that case I'm just going to stop.
Player: Just because the DM gave you information so you could make an informed decision doesn't mean you should! That's meta-gaming, how dare you consider anything but the first thing that came out of your mouth!

What you did was/is acceptable by 99.99% of players and DMs, the other player should learn the phrase "Play your character not mine".

This. I can't even imagine playing in a group where the DM tells you information and you're not expected to be able to act on that information.

MrStabby
2018-07-24, 08:34 AM
I would play this game. Also if someone wants to write an urban fantasy series involving a group of lawyers who routinely deal with strange inheritances from mysterious relatives, I will definitely read it.

I would also be well up for reading that. The interaction of esoteric areas of inheritance law across different jurisdictions, proving that the alleged deceased is in fact dead/identifying the dead, dealing with the haunted house, curse or murderer sounds like a really fun series of novels


At its heart, this seems to be an exchange of the form:
"I do X."
"Your character would know that X is a bad idea."
"Oh, in that case I don't do X."
Because it's correcting your (i.e., metagame) idea with character (i.e., not metagame) knowledge, this is in fact the opposite of metagaming.

Yeah, nice summary.

There might be an exception if it were "as you begin to cross you find the water is deeper than you first expected" - but that is just about the timing of the information.

Andor13
2018-07-24, 11:34 AM
I would play this game. Also if someone wants to write an urban fantasy series involving a group of lawyers who routinely deal with strange inheritances from mysterious relatives, I will definitely read it.

Now I'm picturing a DIY channel reality series about a group that buys, cleanses and refurbishes haunted houses.

"Well, we were going to put down carpet, but the walls keep bleeding, so we're going to go with a nice, easy to clean, tile."

Beleriphon
2018-07-24, 02:12 PM
Now I'm picturing a DIY channel reality series about a group that buys, cleanses and refurbishes haunted houses.

"Well, we were going to put down carpet, but the walls keep bleeding, so we're going to go with a nice, easy to clean, tile."

Don't forget interior furnishings that compliment the colour of bleeding walls, but are also soft and squishy when wielded by poltergeists.

JoshuaZ
2018-07-24, 05:51 PM
Now I'm picturing a DIY channel reality series about a group that buys, cleanses and refurbishes haunted houses.

"Well, we were going to put down carpet, but the walls keep bleeding, so we're going to go with a nice, easy to clean, tile."

"This house is haunted by an old man who died when he fell down the stairs. We're not sure why his spirit hasn't moved on. But we'll tell potential buyers it is the ghost of a serial killer. Much more chic."

Mr Beer
2018-07-24, 08:37 PM
It's either not metagaming or not problematic metagaming, squares and terrain rules are an abstraction of real life, understanding how the abstraction works is just also an abstraction of understanding the real world *looks at bad terrain and distance* 'I won't make it'.

Players who call this kind of non-issue out are the exact kind of people who take pride in being absolutely useless or even counterproductive in tactical situations because 'they don't metagame'.

'Oh yeah I fireballed the goblins when you were running in because *I* don't metagame. I heard you tell the DM, you didn't tell my character though!' *sips Mountain Dew, strokes neckbeard smugly*