Is the DM the ultiamite metagamer?

[Samb]

I had a disscussion with my DnD buddies after I got some flack here for saying non-detection is more or less useless for PCs. The main idea was that I was wrong for making encouters with metagame knowledge. Or rather my encounters could not use metagame knowledge to fight my PCs.

This caused a bit of confusion in me. I, as a DM have access to everything. I know everything of import about the PCs, their strengths, their weaknesses, their background, schooling etc. What can and what can't I do with this info? And how would non-dectection affect that?

I'll start with my idea of metagaming. It is when a player uses knowledge that his PC doesn't have to his advantage. Of course, this is not clear cut, as the opposite could be true, the PC is a lot smarter/knowledgable than the player. This is where things like knowledge checks and scrying come into play. These means allow the player the "legalize" metagame knowledge and convert it into something the PC knows.

Given this personal definition; could a DM even metagame? How much info can the DM use when designing a campaign? IMO a DM is given character sheets to design campaigns around. He will target the player's strengths to let them show off, and target their weaknesses to challenge them. When it is time to catalogue the loot he will give the BSF the heavy armor and give the +CHR/WIS item to the cleric. On occasion he will make the rogue face golems and zombies, or psionic PCs will face someone with the psionic hole feat.

Now the issue of non-dectection is handled by me in this way: My challenging encounter (ie targeting your weaknesses) is the way it is. The most non-dectection will get you is a good scouting report and a surprise round. If my BBEG really needs in game reports on the PCs (which is kind of rare) it will get it through other "legalizing ways".

I brought up said befiefs to my friends (one of whom is our current DM) as well as the hypothetical scrying on an Illithid Slayer (by a high INT psion/wizard) and here was the general concenus:
1) If the BBEG had never encountered of heard of the PCs, he would be flat-footed by the Slayer and have not factored him into his tactics. He will still have the same build but his tactics and equipment will be much less tailored to combat said group. This is a first encounter type of situation.
2) He has been following the PCs for a while but never saw the Slayer. If he scrys while the PCs are in combat then he will see the Slayer blink in and out. He makes his knowledge check and gains in game knowledge of slayers and sends out spies/scouts (with linked equipment) instead. Next encounter he only needs to succeed a spot check to not be flat-footed. He can also tailor his equipment a bit more to further frustrate the PCs. This is more a multiple run in situation (as most BBEGs are).

What would be metagaming: The BBEG with equipment and tactics without prior knowledge check on Slayers or sending spies in.

As you can see, in my eyes converting metagame knowledge to in game knowledge is really easy. I know some of you feel my BBEG even attempting to scry and seeing a PC blink in and out is metagaming, but for me I feel it is very reasonable for a general to want to see the conditions in the front line without being there.

Now if the scryer is dumber than the DM then things would be different. Would the BBEG have the foresight to even bother scrying? Would he be wise enough to act on said knowledge? Prolly not and they should be played as such or it would be metagaming.

tl;dr version:
given all the metagame knowledge and power a DM has, there is no real way a DM can "metagame" hence making non-detection rather less attractive (one surprise round). Even if he did, he could easily justify it assuming the BBEG is just as smart as him.

[valadil]

A GM can't metagame. His NPCs can.

He's intelligent evil though, so he hasn't actually done anything naughty. As the GM you want to challenge this player, so you throw a church inquisitor at them. This is fine. It's the GM's job.

When the inquisitor approaches the party he doesn't know the evil character is evil. He also has no reason to attempt any sort of alignment detection. If the players give him an excuse, have him do detect evil. You're welcome to try to write in such an excuse (maybe everyone who enters the city gate has to be screened).

With higher level spells it gets a little more tricky. You have to figure out why the BBEG is interested in the party. How he realized there was a nondetection spell in effect. How he (thinks he) got around it. Why he went to all this effort. If you can answer all these things, it's no longer metagaming. Note that the PCs don't have to know the answer to these. If they're paranoid enough that you can't find a way to watch them, let them have their privacy.

[Kylarra]

I don't have time to hash out a detailed response just yet, but I probably will later. I want to point out though, that justification of metagaming is a slippery slope defense that should only be applied in moderation. A DM can justify nearly anything with "plausible deniability", that doesn't mean he should.

[Amphetryon]

'Metagaming' is, when referencing the DM, exclusively about those things a DM does that make the game less fun, less challenging, and less immersive. It's consistently using the PCs builds against them, or else ignoring PC strengths.

The DM who makes encounters specifically to make a PC's build useless is metagaming. A DM who does this consistently most likely ends up gaming without a party. A DM's job is facilitating the story the group, as a whole, shows interest in telling/running/playing. This means encounters should be challenging but not impossible, and based on the characters presented as much as on the DM's preconceived backstory.

If the Ranger has loaded up on dragon-slaying abilities and the DM willfully ignores this by never including a Dragon, he's metagaming. A DM who willfully negates a Slayer's shtick entirely is also metagaming.

My 2cp.

[Optimystik]

"Less attractive" is a vague term to use in your conclusion. Exactly what option(s) is Nondetection less attractive than? What alternatives does a PC who has access to nondetection have? Is the Big Bad the only enemy from whom the PC gains benefits for hiding? Is Slayer the only method of gaining nondetection that you're considering?

A cost-benefit analysis requires both - a benefit and a cost. Your premise is that the benefit to Nondetection is minor for a PC, because the DM has the tools to circumvent it - but further discussion needs a cost too, or at least a manageable list of alternatives.

[Yora]

The gms main job is to make the adventure and campaign fun for everyone involved. This means rewarding their good ideas and punishing their really stupid mistakes, while still balancing it to make it not too easy so it gets boring, and not too hard it gets frustrating.
If it helps to achieve this goal, everything can and should be done by the gm.

[Zeta Kai]

Yes, yes s/he is. And that's okay, as long as everyone's having fun.

Next question, please.

[druid91]

Well, it really does depend on what level of security the characters have. It all depends on how reasonable that the Dm makes it sound. Are you facing friend computer the paranoid Epic wizard? or that random noble of the local walled city?

Also you assume a something with your slayer scenario they might not be blinking in and out of view. While some things require you lose your focus not all do, my psionic were-cat never did.

[Pluto]

Yes, the DM metagames. Yes, it is useful and beneficial to the game.

No, that doesn't mean that every NPC should know every obscure quirk of every class feature that the PC's have ever taken.

[valadil]

The DM who makes encounters specifically to make a PC's build useless is metagaming.

Yes, but a GM should also challenge the party and make the player weaknesses relevant.

I'll step outside of D&D for a moment. Other games include flaws, some of which are phobias. By buying a phobia, a PC gets extra character points elsewhere.

I'm of the opinion that phobias have to come up in game. If they don't, they're just free points.

I don't see how exploiting other weaknesses in a build is any different. When characters are min maxed, they exploit the advantages gained every single session. If you fail to include the weakness, your character is optimized for free.

(I'm just going to start using Superman terminology because it's easier to write).

I don't advocate using your PC's kryptonite every session of course. That just makes things boring. But if you gained super strength by having that weakness, kryptonite should come up at least once.

A GM who includes kryptonite is metagaming a little. That's not a bad thing though. I think this is where it's allowed or even encouraged. Now, if Lex Luthor shows up with kryptonite then you're in danger of going too far. Why? Because the GM transferred his knowledge of kryptonite to an NPC who had no reasonable way to gain that knowledge.

[Amphetryon]

challenge the party =/= make the PC's build useless.

[Akal Saris]

Well, if I were a PC in your game who relied on stealth (maybe an archer rogue), but every important fight negated my stealth because the NPCs had huge spot checks/true seeing/blindsight, I'd be pretty frustrated.

Challenging the PCs doesn't always mean negating their class abilities. Your BBEG could easily prepare a fight that you make challenging for the entire party without knowing that the slayer exists, for example. Likewise, maybe you'll throw undead at the rogue now and then, but most rogues probably aren't actually going to be the stars of combat anyways, so why punish them?

I metagame all the time as a DM, but only in the sense that I design encounters that I believe will be fun and interesting for my PCs. Usually I try to include elements that will let a PC "shine" in the encounter rather than elements that negate the main schtick of a PC's build.

And it's been years since I had a BBEG actually scry on a PC to learn their weaknesses. Doing it just once, though, was enough to scare the PCs and make them all buy cloaks of nondetection, so I rewarded them by later revealing in-game that the BBEG was frustrated because he couldn't track down the PCs as they foiled his various plans. That didn't have a significant impact on how I designed the encounters, but it gave the PCs a feeling of having 1-upped the boss.

[FishAreWet]

The DM should metagame. He shouldn't send predominantly undead against a party of Scouts, Rogues and Ninjas. Nor should he send predominantly undead against Servants of Pelor. A DM must metagame to keep encounters balanced.

But what about Nondetection/Track? As you said, these are often useless because if the DM wants something to be found... it is. Be it the party or the trail of the BBEG. Is this good DMing? It's preferable to not have to fall back on it but sometimes I think it's necessary.

[quiet1mi]

I commonly have my BBRG wizard's and Clerics have slots left "open" to replace with whatever works best...

After all I cannot replicate the intelligence or wisdom of 26-30...

[valadil]

Well, if I were a PC in your game who relied on stealth (maybe an archer rogue), but every important fight negated my stealth because the NPCs had huge spot checks/true seeing/blindsight, I'd be pretty frustrated.

It's become apparent to me that there are two kinds of metagaming against PCs. You can exploit their weaknesses and you can negate their advantages. I'm firmly in favor of #1. Less sure about #2. It's probably something I'd use once per PC, just to make them think about how to handle themselves without a crutch, but more than that is mean.

[jiriku]

Samb, I would argue that, to the contrary, it's the DM's job to metagame, but not like you think.

Players should not metagame to overcome challenges. It's the intent of the rules that characters should use their own abilities to solve problems.

DMs should metagame, but to create challenges. DM metagaming around the character's strengths and weaknesses, whatever they may be, is A-OK if used to create fun and enjoyable games.

If one of my players takes illithid slayer, i'll consider it my job as the DM to a) include mind flayers as opponents, and b) make sure he knows that there are points where the mind flayers would have ambushed him, but they didn't because they couldn't find him. In fact, the more he crows about his nondetection aura, the more I'm going to showcase how the bad guys are losing opportunities to harm him because of his nondetection. My player is obviously excited about his ability and it's my job as the DM to metagame around that ability in a way that creates fun.

However, what I'll never, never, ever do is have every foe he faces have some uncanny contingency in place that allows them to find him whenever they want to, thus making his nondetection useless. That's just as lame and weak as having every adventure site covered in an anti-teleportation field from level 11 onwards. The DM code of honor requires that you do not metagame in order to make player abilities worthless.

[erikun]

A GM can't metagame. His NPCs can.

This, pretty much. Metagaming is using out-of-character knowledge, which certainly doesn't apply when we're not even talking about a character.

As for what a DM should do: They should we working on challanging their players. Part of this means looking at the PCs capabilities and throwing encounters at them that challange their abilities. Part of this means looking at the unique abilities of each PC and adding hurdles to make those abilities seem significant.

Yes, part of that involves having NPCs who are capable of knowing the unknowable or dispelling the undispellable. Not all the NPCs, but just as the DM shouldn't throw encounters at the party that are always immune to whatever the PCs are using, the DM shouldn't throw encounters at the party that are always vulnerable to the PCs tactics. I mean, "reasonably speaking", people who are becoming powerful enough to challange the world are more likely to run into someone who is smarter, faster, and stronger than they are.

[Akal Saris]

It's become apparent to me that there are two kinds of metagaming against PCs. You can exploit their weaknesses and you can negate their advantages. I'm firmly in favor of #1. Less sure about #2. It's probably something I'd use once per PC, just to make them think about how to handle themselves without a crutch, but more than that is mean.

I'll add a 3rd kind: Playing to your PC's Strengths. If a band of ogres would normally be too powerful for your PCs, but you know that your PCs have smite evil, lots of will-targeting spells, and a ranger who hates giants, then you can target your PC's strengths and throw powerful creatures at them that they will still be able to fight, and in doing so give them the opportunity to use their class features.

DMs should metagame, but to create challenges. DM metagaming around the character's strengths and weaknesses, whatever they may be, is A-OK if used to create fun and enjoyable games.

If one of my players takes illithid slayer, i'll consider it my job as the DM to a) include mind flayers as opponents, and b) make sure he knows that there are points where the mind flayers would have ambushed him, but they didn't because they couldn't find him. In fact, the more he crows about his nondetection aura, the more I'm going to showcase how the bad guys are losing opportunities to harm him because of his nondetection. My player is obviously excited about his ability and it's my job as the DM to metagame around that ability in a way that creates fun.

My view exactly.

[Rixx]

I had a thread on this a while back. General consensus was that a bit of DM metagaming to better the experience of the players was a good thing, and that abilities like Favored Enemy or Nondetection should be useful at least sometimes.

[Optimystik]

If one of my players takes illithid slayer, i'll consider it my job as the DM to a) include mind flayers as opponents, and b) make sure he knows that there are points where the mind flayers would have ambushed him, but they didn't because they couldn't find him. In fact, the more he crows about his nondetection aura, the more I'm going to showcase how the bad guys are losing opportunities to harm him because of his nondetection. My player is obviously excited about his ability and it's my job as the DM to metagame around that ability in a way that creates fun.

However, what I'll never, never, ever do is have every foe he faces have some uncanny contingency in place that allows them to find him whenever they want to, thus making his nondetection useless. That's just as lame and weak as having every adventure site covered in an anti-teleportation field from level 11 onwards. The DM code of honor requires that you do not metagame in order to make player abilities worthless.

Isn't there a middle ground between these two extremes though? A player's nondetection should definitely be relevant, but it shouldn't be a silver bullet.

Using your example of the mindflayers - I agree, there should be times when he escapes a dangerous ambush due to his ability. But I wouldn't want him using Cerebral Blind as a crutch, either - he should have to rely on mundane stealth and cunning every bit as much as his class feature to avoid being found out, because a flayer hive should have more ways to spot an enemy than relying on psionic sweeps.

[Ruinix]

DM metagameing is the wors sh!t about all in a rol game with friends. cause its to damn close of the jerk DM and some times is a bit of both.


how to NOT metagame and screw players chars and builds and use their weakness in ur benefit? easy...

take a story, desing bosses and capitains and dont get too far frome there for minions.

done. then ur players have some encounters with that kind of mobs and they adjust to that, of course ur bosses can adjust too, but no DM metagameing for change build or nothing, just a bit adjust in "avancement"

for example. the campaing begin at lev 5. u plan the PCs reach the final boss at lev 9-10.

so start the campaing with the boss on lev 6-7 and then advance him and adjust IF AND ONLY IF YOUR BOSS HAVE ANY WAY OF RETRIEVE INFO FROM THE PCs PARTY, if not, just advance the boss to the target level in normal way without exploit any PC weakness in a intentional way lke psionic hole.

[druid91]

DM metagameing is the wors sh!t about all in a rol game with friends. cause its to damn close of the jerk DM and some times is a bit of both.


how to NOT metagame and screw players chars and builds and use their weakness in ur benefit? easy...

take a story, desing bosses and capitains and dont get too far frome there for minions.

done. then ur players have some encounters with that kind of mobs and they adjust to that, of course ur bosses can adjust too, but no DM metagameing for change build or nothing, just a bit adjust in "avancement"

for example. the campaing begin at lev 5. u plan the PCs reach the final boss at lev 9-10.

so start the campaing with the boss on lev 6-7 and then advance him and adjust IF AND ONLY IF YOUR BOSS HAVE ANY WAY OF RETRIEVE INFO FROM THE PCs PARTY, if not, just advance the boss to the target level in normal way without exploit any PC weakness in a intentional way lke psionic hole.

Part of what he is saying is that the Dm could simply rule all the time that the Boss has a way of gaining intel on the party. I mean is it that hard for the Dm to say "the wizard scries the minions you were just fighting he now knows who you are and how you fight."

[Gnaeus]

A big portion of why metagaming is bad, whether by players or DMs, is that it shatters the illusion of reality into tiny pieces. When a player uses out of game knowledge that his character wouldn't have, whether that means exploiting the weakness of a monster his character never heard of, or sailing across Krynn to find the dungeon where the player knows that the dragonlance is hidden, or building a cannon with the player's knowledge of metallurgy and ballistics, it makes the illusion that your game is a self-contained realistic world into a joke.

Now, if the NPC had reason and ability to scry on PCs, or if the PCs are famous and the NPC had motive and opportunity to hear all about their fights, the NPC SHOULD have counters in place. If the NPC is highly intelligent, they should have counters in place against tactics that are dangerous to them. If the NPC is superhumanly smarter than the DM, it is reasonable to give them some otherwise unobtainable knowledge, Sherlock Holmes style (I smelled your components, and saw the stains on your fingers, so I knew that you liked to cast X. or I am familiar with all the normal wind patterns in my cavern, so when I felt a breeze I knew that someone had disturbed them). All of those are things which benefit the realism of the world, and are not metagaming.

If all (or an unreasonable number) of your encounters are designed to short circuit PC builds, or if monsters use your knowledge in a way which could not reasonably be available to them, it is just as bad as if the PCs do it, and for the same reasons.

[The Cat Goddess]

Simple stuff...

The Mind Flayer leadership takes note of the fact that many of their people just aren't reporting in. They're getting slaughtered and only minor information is available.

So, they start ordering their people to bring around more unusual minions... things with Blindsight & Tremorsense, for example.

If word gets back that some Wizard is throwing Magic Missles & Force Orbs like crazy, the Bad Guys are justified in passing out scrolls of Force Ward.

[BlckDv]

I actually make notes after any noteworthy PC activity... a fight, visit to a bar, etc. Who did they interact with, what "clues" did they leave (bloodstains, arrows, left stuff in an inn when they fled), what might be mentioned in casual conversation after they leave?

This way if at a later date I realize an NPC would have taken an interest in or investigated PCs, I have a basis for retroactively deciding what he is likely to already know about them based on where and when he would have gone looking.

Then again, I don't usually use a "BBEG", I just have notes about several NPCs and their plans and motives, and the more the PCs interact with them, the more fleshed out they become. In time they may delve deep enough to end up confronting major forces like demon lords or dark gods, or they may end up thwarting a devout follower of a good power with really twisted ideals.

[Shademan]

what i would say if my players says I'm metagaming: SILENCE! I AM YOUR GOD!

but I reckon you might have a point there...

[The Big Dice]

There's a difference between metagaming and using the metagame to enhance the gaming experience.

What I mean is, metagaming can be described as using out of character knowledge to affect thing in character. It's a hard thing to pin down, but when the GM regularly designs encounters specifically to counter character abilities, or tends to refine encounters on the fly to counter player plans, it's a reasonable assumption to think that the GM is metagaming against the players.

Using the metagame is a different kettle of fish. That's when encounters, sessions and campaigns are designed to let the characters do their thing. Maybe not to the point where characters always win, but in a way that means the players can feel good about choosing the options they do.

[TheThan]

I believe that metagaming is an intrinsic part of being a DM. As a DM it is your job to know the capabilities and strengths of each player character at your table. This knowledge is used to provide entertaining and challenging encounters, as well as entertaining stories for your players. You know what sorts of spells they have, what sorts of magic items they have, and what they need. Basically you know what the party’s strengths and weakness are (and probably know them better than the players themselves). Using that knowledge is not only a powerful tool in your DMs toolbox its also necessary in order for you to make appropriate encounters and give out appropriate wealth and experience. But most importantly it’s necessary for you to make the game fun.

Imagine for instance you join someone’s campaign, you’re level one and you’ve received your first quest. Something simple like the mayor’s daughter has gone missing, you must find her. So you go out adventuring and discover a cave. You hear faint whimpering and figure this is where the mayor’s daughter went. So you enter the cave and find the girl, you also find a beholder in the cave and it promptly kills your entire 1st level party.

Now your upset, the game is over, you’ve have one session, one encounter and didn’t even completely one single quest. So you ask the DM why he put a beholder in a 1st level adventure. The Dm responds with “I didn’t know you couldn’t handle one”. Most people would be very upset and in a bit of disbelief that the DM didn’t know a 1st level party couldn’t handle fighting such a higher level monster. But the DM didn’t metagame, and accidentally killed the party with a monster that was too powerful for them to fight.

If the Ranger has loaded up on dragon-slaying abilities and the DM willfully ignores this by never including a Dragon, he's metagaming. A DM who willfully negates a Slayer's shtick entirely is also metagaming.

My 2cp.

Also note that ranger [I]forces[/I[ the DM to metagame. The Dm knows what the ranger’s favored enemies are, so in order for the ranger to get some use out of his class features, the Dm has to throw those enemies at him. Even if the rangers’ favored enemy does not feature heavily in the campaign setting, or campaign, the Dm now must accommodate the ranger player in order for him to have functioning class features. Its not really the Dm’s or the player’s fault, its just an example of very bad class design (I could go on and on here, but I wont).

[Samb]

On DMing styles:
As long as the rules/fluff are consistent and everyone is having fun, then you are okay.

That being said, there is no "right" way to make a campaign. A DM could be a killer DM or a pushover, or more realistically somewhere in between.

How would a killer DM deal with a ranger that specializes in dragons? That party will either be decimated by a dragon well beyond the PC's ability, or they never see a dragon.

How would a push over deal with this ranger? The ranger starts his career killing dragon eggs and ends up slaying greater wyrms.

How would a moderate DM deal with it? The ranger will shine when fighting dragons, and be respectable against other encounters. This is how I deal who players who take a more specialized role. Another thing to consider is that maybe not everyone in your party might not like to fight one type all the time. A DM needs to cater to the rest of the party, and not just the specialist.



Why would a BBEG scry the PCs? The same reason PCs would scry their enemies, to gain information, tactical advantage etc. So you don't go in blind and anticipate upcoming problems. A challenging encounter will be hard no matter what, an opponent with prior knowledge will just be even more difficult (+1-2 on CR).

The Heroes of Horror uses the same mechanic, in that the more info you have on the encounter, the easier it.

Just a clarification: non-detection is less useful for a PC compared to a NPC. An NPC that cannot be scyed is far better because the PC don't even have metagame knowledge of their opponent.

[Pluto]

Just a clarification: non-detection is less useful for a PC compared to a NPC. An NPC that cannot be scyed is far better because the PC don't even have metagame knowledge of their opponent.

And why does the BBEG have metagame knowledge of the player characters again?