I engaged in blatant metagaming. I believe it was justified. Thoughts?

[diplomancer]

So, traveling down a swampy, muddy river in different canoes, our party's attacked by crocodiles. In the middle of the combat, party wizard goes down, a few canoes ahead, underwater, and is very likely going to be bitten and dragged to death by the crocodile the next round.

I'm a Pact of the Chain Celestial Warlock. Even though there's No way my character could know what was going on, I send my sprite familiar, on his initiative, to touch distance of the wizard, and, on my subsequent turn, I cast cure wounds, bringing him back up. Since I couldn't see him, that's the one healing ability that'd work.

Blatant, shameless, metagaming. But I'd hate to have my character die, at a random encounter no less, because a fellow player refused to save me when he could because "muh, metagaming". I believe it's a case of remembering that it might be a role-playing game, but it's still a game.

What would you do?

[Dork_Forge]

So you had no visual or audio contact with what was happening?

I agree with your reasoning, you could easily explain it away in game as well though as sending your sprite to investigate the state of the rest of the party. Then acting appropriately on what you saw.

[diplomancer]

I knew he'd been dragged by the crocodile underwater. But the attack that brought him to 0 HP was underwater.

I like your justification, and it might make sense. But because the water was very murky, the Sprite probably couldn't have seen much (DM was ruling that No one could see underwater properly)

[MrStabby]

I am not sure how the canoe ahead could be within movement distance of your familliar and yet you have "no way" of knowing there was trouble. Out of sight, out of screaming range, no way to hear the splashing... Even the canoe in between you unable to see them or you that canoe to be able to react to their reaction?

I think in that position I would be asking the DM "do I know what is happening? Have I seen something? Heard something worthy of investigation? Can I see the reactions of people in the canoe in front?"

Give the DM every possible reason to give you a chance or a roll to be justified in helping that person. Help the DM to help you to help your team-mate.

[Dork_Forge]

I knew he'd been dragged by the crocodile underwater. But the attack that brought him to 0 HP was underwater.

TBF if the Wizard was underwater with a crocodile in melee I don't think it's much of a metagaming stretch to say they need help.

[Unoriginal]

How does "a wizard getting dragged underwater by crocodiles is going to need healing" constitute metagaming?

[diplomancer]

TBF if the Wizard was underwater with a crocodile in melee I don't think it's much of a metagaming stretch to say they need help.


A very specific type of help; a sprite in touching distance (after using his action to Dash for that), for an emergency cure wounds. I'd also never pulled that trick before, as I have Investment of the Chain Master I usually make my sprite attack.

But I see you guy's point. The chaos of combat "translated" into neat turns and rounds makes some degree of metagaming mostly inevitable.

[MaxWilson]

I knew he'd been dragged by the crocodile underwater. But the attack that brought him to 0 HP was underwater.

I like your justification, and it might make sense. But because the water was very murky, the Sprite probably couldn't have seen much (DM was ruling that No one could see underwater properly)

You could observe the sudden cessation of thrashing activity by the Wizard.

From the thread title, I expected a considerably more blatant act of metagaming, a la "We can trust this NPC because he's powerful enough to TPK us if he's a hostile, and [DM's name] wouldn't TPK us with an uber NPC after only three sessions."

[diplomancer]

About the "thrashing"; wizard was not the only party member in the water (crocodiles had overturned most canoes. At that moment, I was the only party member NOT in the water. So there was a lot of thrashing going on over there. But one more bite from the croc (there were other crocs as well, keeping other party members busy) and goodbye wizard.

So; my character would know that something bad's happening over there, not "wizard is unconscious and about to die".

[Yuki Akuma]

How is "realising the Wizard who just got dragged underwater by a crocodile might need healing" metagaming??

[MaxWilson]

How is "realising the Wizard who just got dragged underwater by a crocodile might need healing" metagaming??

I can believe that it was metagaming (the player DID make a decision based on OOC knowledge about HP), just not that it was a particularly blatant form. It's a mild example of metagaming, and arguably an example of when avoiding metagaming would be more trouble than it's worth. It's about as metagamey as talking to other players during combat to ask what spells they have prepared--unless you're playing a very serious RP-heavy game that's probably not going to undermine anyone's play experience.

I feel like the thread title needs to say "mild" instead of "blatant," because actual blatant metagaming really can spoil fun for a lot of people, if they're expecting a different experience. (Imagine identifying monsters out-of-character, by name and stats, to the other players in a Cthulhu game--makes it hard for the monsters to feel mysterious and spooky.) This isn't that.

[diplomancer]

I can believe that it was metagaming (the player DID make a decision based on OOC knowledge about HP), just not that it was a particularly blatant form. It's a mild example of metagaming, and arguably an example of when avoiding metagaming would be more trouble than it's worth. It's about as metagamey as talking to other players during combat to ask what spells they have prepared--unless you're playing a very serious RP-heavy game that's probably not going to undermine anyone's play experience.

I feel like the thread title needs to say "mild" instead of "blatant," because actual blatant metagaming really can spoil fun for a lot of people, if they're expecting a different experience. (Imagine identifying monsters out-of-character, by name and stats, to the other players in a Cthulhu game--makes it hard for the monsters to feel mysterious and spooky.) This isn't that.

I meant it more in the "completely obvious, conspicuous" meaning of the word, not in the "egregious" meaning. If I'm checking a monster's stats during an online game, that's a worse form of metagaming (it's more properly called cheating), but not as blatant.

The DM (and some of the party) DID call me on it, and my answer was "Yes, but I'm not letting a PC die if I can avoid it", and people were somewhat mollified.

[MaxWilson]

The DM (and some of the party) DID call me on it, and my answer was "Yes, but I'm not letting a PC die if I can avoid it", and people were somewhat mollified.

In that case it sounds like the DM, and some of the party, were in fact expecting information management and overcoming ignorance to be a part of the scenario, so it presumably did undermine part of the play experience for them after all.

Unfortunate that not everybody was on the same page, but oh well, it happens.

[Chronic]

Did it generate any tensions in the game? If it didn't, no problem then.

If it's more of a general question:

Metagaming isn't necessarily bad per se. First because I don't think d&d is made to simulate reality, you are not your character, you play your character. It's like playing a lone wolf/evil character/insufferable idiot. If you truly roleplay them, they tend to become unfun for the rest of the party. So you pretend to be one and act in the best interest of the group. In a way it's meta gaming, but it is also probably the best thing to do in order to enjoy the game as a group.

[tKUUNK]

Good call saving the wizard.

Remember, hit points are a metagame tool we use to convey overall condition / battle-worthiness of the characters. So if YOU knew the wizard was low or zero HP, arguably, your WARLOCK would be able to know it, too. The warlock isn't thinking "zero HP", but he's been in enough fights to have a good sense when things are terribly wrong for one of his pals. Maybe even a supernatural or strong intuitive sense.

Besides, I think there's enough of a "tactical team play element" to D&D that this degree of metagaming is not only accepted but somewhat EXPECTED. Depending on your group of course.

[Composer99]

Almost anything that happens in combat amounts to metagaming simply because of how combat is abstracted in the game.

Even so, "the party wizard is in the river maybe being bit by a giant croc, maybe I should heal them" seems to me to be as close to not metagaming as you can get. Or at least it's mild and 100% (IMO) unobjectionable.

[Mastikator]

I meant it more in the "completely obvious, conspicuous" meaning of the word, not in the "egregious" meaning. If I'm checking a monster's stats during an online game, that's a worse form of metagaming (it's more properly called cheating), but not as blatant.

The DM (and some of the party) DID call me on it, and my answer was "Yes, but I'm not letting a PC die if I can avoid it", and people were somewhat mollified.

Lesson learned: *never help anyone who didn't ask for it. Even if they are going to die.


*unless you specifically need them alive right now, then it can be justified as a selfish act. Which is something people will commend you on.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Lets think about it from your characters perspective. I'm going to make two assumptions, let me know if they're not accurate - Your character knows how frail Wizard is, your character knows how dangerous a crocodile can be.

Those are safe assumptions, though I'll also include a third that makes the entire thing - Your character finds Wizard useful.

Assuming all 3 of these are true, your Warlock seeing Wizard go down under the water with a Crocodile leads to a very logical conclusion of "he's very likely to die if I do nothing" and I'd expect your character to respond in any way he knows how, which would include using a familiar to reach the far off Wizard.

Unless there are external factors that would prevent your Warlock from being able to see, they should be alert enough to notice that Wizard has disappeared and that there are signs of a struggle underneath the water by his boat. The only real sticking point from my point of view is whether you were able to see Wizard to direct your Sprite, because if the conditions of the water were murky enough you have a good chance of sending the familiar to the Croc instead.

Long story short, I think your Warlock would have had the general awareness to know Wizard needed help and your response is reasonable. Your method may have been a bit of stretch under these assumptions, but is a lot more likely to be a fair response rather than any sort of meta-gaming given the actual facts you've stated.

[Greywander]

Good call saving the wizard.

Remember, hit points are a metagame tool we use to convey overall condition / battle-worthiness of the characters. So if YOU knew the wizard was low or zero HP, arguably, your WARLOCK would be able to know it, too. The warlock isn't thinking "zero HP", but he's been in enough fights to have a good sense when things are terribly wrong for one of his pals. Maybe even a supernatural or strong intuitive sense.

Besides, I think there's enough of a "tactical team play element" to D&D that this degree of metagaming is not only accepted but somewhat EXPECTED. Depending on your group of course.
I think the issue at hand is that his warlock didn't see the wizard drop to 0 HP. A healthy wizard was dragged underwater by a crocodile, and the warlock sends his familiar down there to assist with healing the wizard. The warlock had no way of knowing the wizard was down, but it's not unreasonable for the warlock to have assumed the wizard would need healing, what with wizards being as squishy as they are.

I generally don't think metagaming like this is an issue. In the last session I played in, we had a new player join us playing a Hexblade warlock. My character is Lawful Good, and the new player's character introduction was him breaking into our newly acquired house. To be fair, he thought it was abandoned, and it pretty much was until a day or two prior, so it wasn't a deliberate attempt at burglary. But when the spooky guy who appears to be in the service of dark powers breaks into your house, that's cause for suspicion. Of course, I know he's supposed to be a party member, so I metagame a little to try and bring things to a point where we can plausibly trust this guy. He rolled really well on a persuasion check, so I just decided that my character thinks he's some kind of ghost hunter (our house is haunted), rather than a servant of darkness.

I feel like plausibility is sufficient to justify metagaming. Your character knew the wizard was in trouble, so sending your familiar to heal him is a plausible response. A stranger breaks into my character's house, but rather than going for the obvious PvP option, I engineered a plausible reason to trust this guy enough to let him stay a while. PvP avoidance is a good reason to metagame, and with a diverse party with diverse motives, it can be easy for two characters to clash on something, so a little metagaming might be necessary to sort such things out without destroying the party. Not letting fellow PCs die is also a good reason to metagame. It just needs to be plausible. If your character doesn't even know that another PC is in danger, they should have no reason to rush to their aid. Buuuut maybe you could come up with a justification to go check in with them, which might get you there in time to Revivify them.

I guess one way to consider it is as if it were a TV show. If you had just watched the same scene unfold in a TV show, would you consider it a plot hole or deus ex machina? Or would it seem like perhaps a lucky coincidence but still logically flow from the events depicted? And honestly? I can just see the scene with the wizard underwater with the crocodiles, and it's almost an exact match of similar scenes that are found everywhere in media. You know, where a character is sinking underwater, and suddenly a hand reaches down to grab them and pull them out? Those kind of scenes.

[Edenbeast]

So, traveling down a swampy, muddy river in different canoes, our party's attacked by crocodiles. In the middle of the combat, party wizard goes down, a few canoes ahead, underwater, and is very likely going to be bitten and dragged to death by the crocodile the next round.

I'm a Pact of the Chain Celestial Warlock. Even though there's No way my character could know what was going on, I send my sprite familiar, on his initiative, to touch distance of the wizard, and, on my subsequent turn, I cast cure wounds, bringing him back up. Since I couldn't see him, that's the one healing ability that'd work.

Blatant, shameless, metagaming. But I'd hate to have my character die, at a random encounter no less, because a fellow player refused to save me when he could because "muh, metagaming". I believe it's a case of remembering that it might be a role-playing game, but it's still a game.

What would you do?

I think on one hand there's nothing wrong here. Maybe he shouted for help, so your character was aware of it. You seem to feel guilty about it, and I agree you could have "ignored" it out of realism, maybe. Talking of realism, and this is probably more your DM's fault: muddy river, multiple crocodiles, dragged under water. In such a situation it's very hard to locate the victim, and it's a crocodile's strategy to keep hold of it's prey and drag it down, unless they're all very hungry and the prey is torn to pieces. But that comes down to preference, I like gritty and brutal. Then again, a good DM should allow for second chances, so maybe your party's wizard was just lucky, due to some divine guidance... Yours is a celestial warlock, so good role playing then :)

[Addaran]

I don't think it was that much of metagaming. The wizard was underwater and crocodiles grappled with their mouth so damage for sure. The fact you choose the wizard specifically cause he was at 0 hp ( and i'm assuming if it was the fighter who got to 0 cause of a crit, you would have healed him) was a bit metagamy in your decision. Ultimately it depends on your group and the expectation. Combat as sport beer and pretzle? Super realistic? Group storytelling wher you really don't want character deaths?

As Greywanderer said, some metagame is almost always expected, at least for trusting the party and new characters, or resolving disagreement if there's a clear no PVP rule.

The only thing you could have done differently is when people seemed unhappy ( mollyfied?) With your decision, was say: oh, if you guys think it's metagaming, i'll switch my action to defend/ ready an attack on the first crocs i see.

[RSP]

How did the Sprite know where the Wizard currently was under the water? Once they were dragged under water, did the Wizard just stay right under the surface at the exact spot the were pulled under?

If the DM ruled there was no seeing in the water, I’d be more concerned with that aspect of metagaming (knowing the exact location of a PC that you shouldn’t have), than of sending the Sprite over in the first place.

[Segev]

Yeah, even if your metagame reason involved knowing the wizard was at 0 hp, would you really have changed your behavior if all you knew was the wizard was dragged under and could be dying? Would the wizard being at 1 hp have changed your behavior?

This was totally reasonable behavior in character, as long as you don't think "eh, the wizard can take the crocodile, under water, and doesn't need healing" is a reasonable expectation of the wizard's 'gator-wrestling prowess.

[DwarfFighter]

What would you do?

If it were me that wizard would be croc food.

OK, to be fair I would make every effort to find an in-game justification to learn the current state of a dying team-mate.

-DF

[Waterdeep Merch]

Metagaming is only bad if it hurts the game. I don't believe saving your friend hurts the game. If the table really needs that level of verisimilitude, offer a simple explanation for how you might have known after the fact. Maybe you saw that spot in the water go red, or you were worried and sent your familiar just in case and happened to be right? This isn't the same thing as making a decision that your character wouldn't in a million years just to bypass a puzzle or get around an NPC, this is ensuring that everyone at the table can continue playing together. You did the right thing.

[Lokishade]

You know, IRL, some people had random ideas of doing something outlandish without even knowing why, only to realize moments later what an impact it had (or could have had if they did not act on it) on a situation they were totally unaware of.

[Trafalgar]

So, traveling down a swampy, muddy river in different canoes, our party's attacked by crocodiles. In the middle of the combat, party wizard goes down, a few canoes ahead, underwater, and is very likely going to be bitten and dragged to death by the crocodile the next round.

I'm a Pact of the Chain Celestial Warlock. Even though there's No way my character could know what was going on, I send my sprite familiar, on his initiative, to touch distance of the wizard, and, on my subsequent turn, I cast cure wounds, bringing him back up. Since I couldn't see him, that's the one healing ability that'd work.

Blatant, shameless, metagaming. But I'd hate to have my character die, at a random encounter no less, because a fellow player refused to save me when he could because "muh, metagaming". I believe it's a case of remembering that it might be a role-playing game, but it's still a game.

What would you do?
I don't think its metagaming. The wizard made a noise when the canoe overturned and you sent your sprite to see what's going on. That's reasonable.

The DM could have countered that the sprite couldn't see the wizard under the muddy water. Or that Sprite swimming movement is much smaller than their flying movement and couldn't reach the wizard in time. Or that the sprite looks so much like a large, tasty fly that it is immediately attacked by an otherwise harmless fish in the water. Or require a perception check before you order the Sprite to move.

It's up to the DM to tell you what your character can and can't perceive.

[Ertwin]

Just chalk it up to pure luck that the Sprite managed to be in the right place at the right time, and move on.

Metagaming can be attributed to gut instincts, and luck as excuses.

As you said, it's a game first, and a little metagaming to ensure everyone is still having fun is not a problem.

[Duff]

I'm with the consensus. You're good

[nickl_2000]

Did anyone give you a funny look? Did anyone say anything? Because if neither of those happened, then you are worrying about a problem that doesn't actually exist.

[KorvinStarmast]

...but it's still a game.

What would you do?What you did.

TBF if the Wizard was underwater with a crocodile in melee I don't think it's much of a metagaming stretch to say they need help. Yep.

How does "a wizard getting dragged underwater by crocodiles is going to need healing" constitute metagaming? It doesn't, as far as I can tell, but I can see some DM's asking the player why they did that.

[Kurt Kurageous]

If you were playing at my table, I would not have even noticed.

You see, your character is your avatar. It's you, if you were a half-elf with a demigod who wants to do things and needs a sock puppet. If you know something, don't bother with the internal debate about it. You know it. I probably know it as your DM, and it may be part of my encounter, or I may jst add what you added into it. All fun, all fair.

Fact is, knowing stuff is the only thing you have as a result of playing the game as long as you have. Juts have fun, all right? There's no metagaming police monitoring this thread or metagaming NSA that is going to point a satellite at you.

[Addaran]

If you were playing at my table, I would not have even noticed.

You see, your character is your avatar. It's you, if you were a half-elf with a demigod who wants to do things and needs a sock puppet. If you know something, don't bother with the internal debate about it. You know it. I probably know it as your DM, and it may be part of my encounter, or I may jst add what you added into it. All fun, all fair.

Fact is, knowing stuff is the only thing you have as a result of playing the game as long as you have. Juts have fun, all right? There's no metagaming police monitoring this thread or metagaming NSA that is going to point a satellite at you.

If that's how your table like to play, that's good. But the "your characters know everything you know" is exactly metagaming and a lot of people will find it off putting.

Like if the rogue goes to scout and 3 rooms away, how of sight he triggers a silence trap and receive an arrow in the throat, start rolling death saves. It doesn't make any sense for the monk to rush foward with a healing potion.
Or in the most extreme case, a player who read/played the module already and opens all the chest without traps right away but insist the rogue checks the one he knows are trapped.

[MaxWilson]

Did anyone give you a funny look? Did anyone say anything? Because if neither of those happened, then you are worrying about a problem that doesn't actually exist.

Yes, they did:


The DM (and some of the party) DID call me on it, and my answer was "Yes, but I'm not letting a PC die if I can avoid it", and people were somewhat mollified.

"Somewhat" apparently means there was still some disgruntlement but everyone moved on, leaving diplomancer feeling conflicted, hence the desire to use the Internet for resolving those conflicted feelings.

[Valmark]

So, traveling down a swampy, muddy river in different canoes, our party's attacked by crocodiles. In the middle of the combat, party wizard goes down, a few canoes ahead, underwater, and is very likely going to be bitten and dragged to death by the crocodile the next round.

I'm a Pact of the Chain Celestial Warlock. Even though there's No way my character could know what was going on, I send my sprite familiar, on his initiative, to touch distance of the wizard, and, on my subsequent turn, I cast cure wounds, bringing him back up. Since I couldn't see him, that's the one healing ability that'd work.

Blatant, shameless, metagaming. But I'd hate to have my character die, at a random encounter no less, because a fellow player refused to save me when he could because "muh, metagaming". I believe it's a case of remembering that it might be a role-playing game, but it's still a game.

What would you do?

Would you have done differently if the wizard was only heavily wounded?

I feel like if the squishiest (presumably) character gets dragged underwater by crocodiles you're allowed to panic and heal them. There is reasonable enough reasons to think that isn't just hardcore snorkeling for them.

That said, while I dislike metagaming... Losing characters, PCs and non, is way, way worst. I'd have done that too in a heartbeat and yours was a good call as far as I'm concerned.

And in general my policy is that in stressful situations metagame doesn't matter- save your buddies. Or hostages. Or whatever you have to save.