[Any] Metagaming?

[Rhiannon87]

Something has come up recently in one of our games that has me a bit confused. Our DM-- a great guy who's running an awesomely fun, if high-stress game-- has recently accused us, the players, of metagaming.

The first accusation was kind of indirect; he was complaining that he needed to come up with a villain the party couldn't metagame. I took this to be a reference to the last big villain we fought, a bounty hunter who we killed with some clever use of spells, a pendant that granted fire immunity, and a necklace of fireballs. As I'm the player who came up with the plan, I don't feel like this was metagaming... the character is highly paranoid, had gotten some scary information about the bounty hunter, and had a few days of down time to come up with a plan. The DM seems to disagree.

The second time came during game. We'd just fled Waterdeep, narrowly avoiding arrest for crimes we haven't committed. The DM said that while we were walking, we heard horses coming up fast behind us. Again, keep in mind, we've been on the run for months, hunted by assassins and bounty hunters. So we get off the road, and one of the players suggests that he get into disguise while the rest of us hide in our treasure chest (with extradimensional space). We agree that this sounds like a good plan; the DM goes "way to metagame it, guys." We remind him of the being hunted/chased from the city thing; he says "that was hours ago." So we say oh, we didn't know how much time had passed, we'll just... hide in the underbrush and wait for the horses to pass. It's very clearly a patrol sweep going by, and they appear to be looking for people, so we retreat into the woods and set up camp.

From where I'm standing, neither instance really seems to be metagaming. The DM has complained about us doing that before, but I've usually felt like we're behaving in character and using knowledge they'd have. I plan on trying to talk to the DM at some point to try and figure out what his definition of metagaming is, but in the meantime, do you guys think that either of these instances were metagaming? How would you define it? And how, as players, do you avoid it?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

"Hey, remember those cops that chased us while we knocked over that liquor store two hours ago? Think that could be them?"

"Nah, bro, no way! That was like ages ago!"

[Ent]

Unless you were just paging through magic items looking for a "plan", no.

[Rhiannon87]

Unless you were just paging through magic items looking for a "plan", no.

I was looking at our general inventory, realized we had the fire-proof pendant and the necklace of fireballs, and had what I thought to be a brilliant insight. The party also thought it was pretty cool. The DM seemed to disagree somewhat.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Unless you hadn't been told that the items were fireproof/fire causing and simply found that out through your books, then it's not metagaming.

[mikeejimbo]

Are you playing a character who tends to forget what's in their pockets?

[Hawriel]

So you narrowly escape town guards who try to arrest you. After having a history of being hunted by peaple who wanted to do you harm. So when you hear a number of horses moving fast coming up behind you, you deside to hide. Yeah total metagaming.

[Ent]

I was looking at our general inventory, realized we had the fire-proof pendant and the necklace of fireballs, and had what I thought to be a brilliant insight. The party also thought it was pretty cool. The DM seemed to disagree somewhat.

No that's just being resourceful.

[averagejoe]

I would guess that he's upset that you easily bypassed/avoided what he had planned to be difficult encounters, and so is acting out his frustration on you guys, blaming you instead of taking responsibility. I really can't see how either of those is metagaming at all.

[valadil]

I was looking at our general inventory, realized we had the fire-proof pendant and the necklace of fireballs, and had what I thought to be a brilliant insight. The party also thought it was pretty cool. The DM seemed to disagree somewhat.

I'm still not sure what part of that could be considered metagaming. As far as I'm aware, surviving fire is the point of anything with fire proofing. If you saw the GM's notes and learned that the enemy was vulnerable to fire and then came up with this plan, that would be metagaming.

I think your GM doesn't know what metagaming is.

[Haven]

I'm not sure what exactly happened in the first one--I'm guessing you went out to confront the bounty hunter wearing the pendant and then used a spell to shatter all the beads in the necklace at once? If I were DMing, I would have only allowed the pendant and the necklace in the game (or really, just the pendant on its own) on the assumption that a player would one day put them together like that.
Anyway, that doesn't sound like metagaming at all.

Neither is the second one. I mean, why would you only continue to be worried about pursuit immediately afterwards? And why would he give the clue "you hear horses coming up behind you" if he didn't intend to allow you to work out that clue?

I think your DM is annoyed at you in a way that he can only express with the word metagaming, but it's not appropriate. Unless I'm missing something, both of those are completely in-character solutions using in-character knowledge.

[Tukka]

Sounds like your DM is oversensitive to this "problem," unless you're leaving out some important info. Generally metagaming isn't that big of a deal anyway, and aggressively trying to squash it or be hyper-aware of it all times does more to damage immersion and make the game less fun than metagaming itself.

[shadow_archmagi]

Regular Gaming:
Wait a minute, if I fire a lightning spell into the water, it'll zap all of them! Zzzzot!


Meta Gaming:
That yellow glow... wait! I read this in the monster manual. It means it's an Acid Kuriboh. No one touch it or you'll take some serious damage!


Your DM is a silly person.

[Zincorium]

It's only metagaming if you came up with something that would only work in a game, *because* of it being a game. Metagame knowledge, likewise, is knowledge that could not be learned by the character, but only by a player.

Personally, I've never seen a true case of what I'd consider 'metagaming' (even my personal maps/notes don't have 'secret door here' or 'weakness is fire' type stuff written down, so I'm possibly cutting it off at the source).

[Gnaeus]

Metagaming is using out of character information to guide in character actions. Examples of metagaming might be:

(In Dragonlance): Hey, I just found this blue staff! Lets go hit a black dragon with it and then head for icewall to get the dragonlance out of the glacier.

or

I kill the party rogue because he pocketed that gem which he discovered in the dungeon when no one was looking.

Using clever strategies is not metagaming, unless your characters are stupid, or you have some bit of information that the characters lacked (Like if the DM got drunk the night before and told you that the bad guy was scared of fire, or if his roommate got on his computer and emailed you his notes before the game.)

Being paranoid is not metagaming, unless you are playing in some system where you took a flaw that keeps you from doing it.

The grey area is if you have information and you aren't sure if your character would know it or not. You might think that burning the fallen troll is common knowledge, but your DM might think of it as metagaming. This should get a warning. Otherwise, metagaming is cheating, and your DM shouldn't accuse you of it without a better reason than you gave.

[Totally Guy]

I was accused of metagaming by my little brothers yesterday. They must not know what it means either. We were playing a board game and I won with a clever move near the end. I'd apparently used the system to my advantage by being better at the game than they were.

[Rhiannon87]

Unless you hadn't been told that the items were fireproof/fire causing and simply found that out through your books, then it's not metagaming.

Nope, our wizard told us it was via identify, and we'd used the item in a couple instances before. We knew nothing about this bounty hunter, and I just came up with the "omg kill it with fire" plan as something that would cover 90% of things that would hit us. For the other 10% of things that are immune to fire, I had a backup plan. It involved potions of fly and running like sissies.

Are you playing a character who tends to forget what's in their pockets?

I'm playing the party treasurer (since I'm the party treasurer as a player, it's just been decided that my character also carries the Handy Haversack and the money). So, no, not really. There was one time I forgot she had poison in her pockets and then fell down a stone tunnel and poisoned herself... but that's a terribly humiliating story that belongs in the PC Stupidity Thread, not here.

[Jayabalard]

Regular Gaming:
Wait a minute, if I fire a lightning spell into the water, it'll zap all of them! Zzzzot!

It's borderline metagame knowledge (which side of the border and how far from it depends on the game, system, and campaign setting)

[Gnaeus]

I was accused of metagaming by my little brothers yesterday. They must not know what it means either. We were playing a board game and I won with a clever move near the end. I'd apparently used the system to my advantage by being better at the game than they were.

It is nearly impossible to metagame in most boardgames. If you don't have "in character" knowledge, you can't metagame.

[Advance Strat..]

It's borderline metagame knowledge (which side of the border and how far from it depends on the game, system, and campaign setting)

And how is that borderline metagame? Anyone that paid attention during a science class, or heck, watched a couple episodes of pokemon would know that electricity would do that.

[Dhavaer]

And how is that borderline metagame? Anyone that paid attention during a science class, or heck, watched a couple episodes of pokemon would know that electricity would do that.

But D&D doesn't have pokemon, and probably doesn't have science classes.

[Gnaeus]

The borderline part is that in the typical fantasy game, the Characters never attended science class, and never heard of Pokemon. Those things are player knowledge.

Ninjas!

[mikeejimbo]

And how is that borderline metagame? Anyone that paid attention during a science class, or heck, watched a couple episodes of pokemon would know that electricity would do that.

But neither science classes nor Pokemon exist in some settings.

Double ninjas!

[MCerberus]

Although someone that can shoot lightning with any regularity might notice a reaction with water.

[AslanCross]

No that's just being resourceful.

This. I've had metagaming in my party before, and this isn't it. If anything I'm actually happy when my PCs use the resources I give them, because I always make sure that the magic items I give them have potential for weird and creative solutions to problems.

I think your DM may be suffering from burnout, and that he's tired of you walking all over his plans. As you've mentioned, it is a high-stress game.

It might be a good idea for you guys to talk to him and ask for if he doesn't appreciate his plans getting frustrated. The game shouldn't disintegrate into a DM vs player conflict.

[Yuki Akuma]

Fun fact: zapping the water (or the pile of copper coins) to zap everyone in it wouldn't really work very well because water and copper are such good conductors. The electricity would travel through the water and spread out harmlessly, pretty much.

[Gralamin]

Fun fact: zapping the water (or the pile of copper coins) to zap everyone in it wouldn't really work very well because water and copper are such good conductors. The electricity would travel through the water and spread out harmlessly, pretty much.

Water is actually an extremely poor conductor. Its all the waste materials, salts, and other objects in water that make it conductive.

[Yuki Akuma]

Water is actually an extremely poor conductor. Its all the waste materials, salts, and other objects in water that make it conductive.

Yes yes, pure distilled water is an insulator and you need to let it ionise (such as, say... subjecting it to electricity for a while) or put impurities into it.

Pure distilled wtaer never occurs in nature so I fail to see why this is a concern. :P

[VirOath]

The grey area is if you have information and you aren't sure if your character would know it or not. You might think that burning the fallen troll is common knowledge, but your DM might think of it as metagaming. This should get a warning. Otherwise, metagaming is cheating, and your DM shouldn't accuse you of it without a better reason than you gave.

The easy way of know is if the start of the encounter is:

"You hear a thunderous smash to the north, a tree splinters as something massive is pushing it down. You see the Troll Bearing down on you, raising his club to strike."

That gives the impression that you know enough about a monster to know it's name at a glace, then you should know some general information on it. Nothing like it's total HP, but what would be common weapons against it.

But if it was described as "A huge humanoid frame, it's face having a thick brow and an elongated nose that reaches his chin. The foul stench from it is almost sickening." Then it would be safe to assume that your character doesn't know.

Even then, Knowledge checks can provide insight, and you only have to make them once. And even lacking that, if you see the wounds healing on what you are attacking before your eyes, you are going to change tactics.

And somewhere on every successful adventurers list is "Burn it with fire!" And "Drop it in a Vat of Acid." And the -if all else fails- "Shove it through a portal to the negative/positive energy (Or any other) plane!"


But some DMs are really sensitive to thinking things are metagaming when they aren't. I mean, against skeletons, my fighter wasn't allowed to change to a warhammer for 5 rounds because "How would you know skeletons took less damage from slashing weapons?"

How about "It's common sense, why use a flesh rending weapon on something that is all bones?!" In an undead heavy campaign too. After an undeath wave hit the land, making them a common occurrence.


Edit:

And to the Water + electricity = Borderline Metagaming comment, it isn't. Three common classes that get the ability to do that. Wizard, Sorc, and Druid.

Wizards study magic and the world. They LEARNED magic from 'science' class. Int is a requirement. Magic to them is literally formula's and measured. Saying that they wouldn't know is very far fetched. Most have the skill, knowledge arcana as well.

Sorcs are all about creativity. Magic is a natural part of them and many seek to explore this part of them, learning how to use it was a fighter learns to use a sword. Saying that they had no clue how lightning and water would react is like saying that the fighter had no idea he could shield bash or do a backhand swing of a sword, or make more than one attack a round when he reached 6th level.

And druids... If you are going to tell me that a druid has no idea how a part of nature will react to a part of nature, then... /sigh, Wild fire in the forest FFS.

[Sewercop]

I do not see any metagaming in what you have written.
Just creative use of gear.
You should be applauded for a good idea in a stressful situation.