Metagaming

[CrazedGoblin]

Mainly for DMs around i guess, but how do you all deal with metagaming in your campaigns?

[Dan_Hemmens]

I encourage it.

[CrazedGoblin]

really, but doesent that ruin the atmosphere of it?

[Dan_Hemmens]

really, but doesent that ruin the atmosphere of it?

No, metagaming is inevitable and ultimately beneficial.

When your players decide to - say - go off and have adventures instead of getting proper jobs like sensible people, they're metagaming. When they fight the monsters instead of running away from them, they're metagaming.

You can't play a game without metagaming, the trick is to avoid doing it in a destructive way that ruins people's fun.

What's the specific issue you're having?

[Starsinger]

I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

[CrazedGoblin]

ok, for example the last session they fought a group of bandits the wizard ran in to the middle of the bandits (as we wizards do ) took a few hits from some guys some of them missed, he then started casting a spell which took a round to cast, it was dance of ruin or something. so he said "right im going to cast dance of ruin" which was a point blank area affect centered around himself which had a large effected area about himself so there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

[CrazedGoblin]

I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

yep, that kind of thing

[Jack Mann]

Indeed. A certain amount of metagaming is necessary for the game to work.

For example, players are expected to know how the rules work, even though their characters don't. They should know how their spells interact, or what feats they need to take in order to qualify for a prestige class.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

Would you rather they said "crap, there's no key for this door. Let's forget all about this adventure and go back home?"

[Gaelbert]

The crazy dance of ruin sounds like it might look dangerous or violent, the party members could think that the wizard is powerful. Don't consider it metagaming. Consider it IC insightfullness.

[Jack Mann]

ok, for example the last session they fought a group of bandits the wizard ran in to the middle of the bandits (as we wizards do ) took a few hits from some guys some of them missed, he then started casting a spell which took a round to cast, it was dance of ruin or something. so he said "right im going to cast dance of ruin" which was a point blank area affect centered around himself which had a large effected area about himself so there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

In character, he told them what he was doing. He told them he was casting Dance of Ruin. Presumably, the wizard has told his comrades what spells he knows and what their basic effects are. Certainly, any smart wizard would let his comrades know these things, so that they can take advantage of the effects his spells have in combat, just as they would tell him what their specialties are in combat ("I can trip enemies using my spiked chain, and keep them from charging past me to hit you." "If someone distracts an enemy, I can get behind them and stab 'em in the kidneys.")

[Dan_Hemmens]

ok, for example the last session they fought a group of bandits the wizard ran in to the middle of the bandits (as we wizards do ) took a few hits from some guys some of them missed, he then started casting a spell which took a round to cast, it was dance of ruin or something. so he said "right im going to cast dance of ruin" which was a point blank area affect centered around himself which had a large effected area about himself so there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

You see, this is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about.

What would be gained by the other players standing there like schmucks and getting hit by an AoE spell? Would it make the game more believable? Would it increase anybody's enjoyment?

The party wizard would have spent the best part of an hour preparing spells that morning. Is it not reasonable to assume that he mentioned to the other party members "by the way guys, I know this spell called 'Dance of Ruin', if you see me doing *this* (makes gestures) I suggest you get the hell out of the way."

This sort of "metagaming" is just the players not wanting to screw themselves over needlessly. D&D combat is challenging enough as it is, without having to justify your every (entirely metagame) combat-time decision "in character."

[Zincorium]

Well, part of the solution is to eliminate the player's idea of "I said it and my character does it, end of story". Demand an explanation for why they're running away, and if they don't have a good one, it doesn't happen, any more than a player can walk through a solid wall simply by stating their character does so. Yes, it can get difficult with immature players. But if you explain to them that they're being unreasonable and they still don't see your point, then there's not much that can be done without ruining everyone's fun.

A second way, which is more subtle, is to quietly reward in character behavior and frustrate metagaming. NPCs will treat a character who behaves unreasonably as a nutcase. Doors will be solidly locked because the the key broke and was thrown out. Stuff like that, which helps verisimilitude and helps players retain a semblance of reason in their actions. Do not declare you are doing this, seriously, that pokes holes in the whole plan. Do not deny it if confronted, though, if someone figures it out, that means they are paying attention to the game.

[CrazedGoblin]

ok i hear what you are saying but they didnt have any idea what it would do

[Starsinger]

The best way to make deliberate attempts to stop idiotic metagaming (i.e. "there's obviously something there, since the DM asked for a spot check... so I'm gonna take 20 on a search check" despite the character failing the spot check.) Is to start asking for spot checks at random, whether there's anything to spot or not.

Likewise, if you decide keys are locked in chests or something, roll for it, give the illusion that it's based on chance.

[Amphimir Míriel]

I think he was referring to something akin to, "The key do the door must be around here somewhere, the DM would never make a door without a key."

That is actually more of a case of "Chekhov's Gun" than serious metagaming... I believe it is perfectly fine to assume there is a hidden key if the players encounter a locked door that they can't break down... Some plot devices are entertaining, even if they are a bit obvious.

I believe the original poster was referring to character knowledge v.s. player knowledge...

For example, a friend of mine used to tell the story of a gaming campaign he had, where all of the players (except for one) were D&D newbies... the party had encountered a Troll for the first time, and before the first die was rolled, the non-newbie player started to give a long lecture to the other players about troll regeneration and how to get around it...

Things like that spoil the fun for everyone...

[Dan_Hemmens]

ok i hear what you are saying but they didnt have any idea what it would do

At the risk of sounding confrontational: what gives you the right to say that?

Unless you literally roleplay through the PCs lives 24/7 in real time (which would be very, very boring) you have no way to know precisely what the PCs would or would not know, and I (and several others here) have pointed out that it makes absolute sense for people to know about the effects of spells their long-term traveling companions are capable of casting.

Too many DMs seem to work on the idea that PCs are never allowed to know anything that gives them an in-character advantage unless they've paid points for it or found it out during uptime. This is stupid. All it does is slow the game down. A lot.

Do you really want to force your players to sit around the table while the guy playing the Wizard describes the contents of the Spell Compendium to the rest of the party "in character"?

[Dan_Hemmens]

For example, a friend of mine used to tell the story of a gaming campaign he had, where all of the players (except for one) were D&D newbies... the party had encountered a Troll for the first time, and before the first die is rolled, the non-newbie player started to give a lecture to the other players about troll regeneration and how to get around it...

Things like that spoil the fun for everyone...

I seriously don't get this.

How is getting your character ripped apart because your GM won't let you use fire against it because you "wouldn't know about it in-character" fun by anybody's definition?

[prufock]

I have no problem with thinking in metagame terms, but I do have a problem with playing in metagame terms.

Thinking metagame examples:
- character creation and planning
- tactical organization
- OOC chat that doesn't directly affect the game

Playing metagame examples:
- OOC roleplaying
- tactical advice between characters who shouldn't be able to communicate
- using knowledge of rules to personal advantage when the character shouldn't have such knowledge (MM stats, for instance)

How I handle it depends on the type of game. In rich, deep-character-building games, I apply an experience penalty to blantant metagaming. In casual games, such as the two I currently run, I'm a lot more lenient, just reminding players that "You can't do that."

Do you have a specific situation in mind?

[Jack_Simth]

Couple of different ways, depending on my mood at the time, and the nature of the violation.

1) Enfore Knoweledge checks, or "Yeah, you know that, but your character doesn't." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
For instance, if an Int-8 Barbarian with no Knoweledge(Religion) decides to switch from his +1 Greatsword to a mundane greatclub against a human skeleton, without someone with Knoweledge(Religion) mentioning that it's needed, veto the action or apply an XP penalty. A human skeleton is only a DC 11 check to know something useful ... but that's not one you can make untrained (DC 10 is the untrained limit). Simply asking for the appropriet Knoweledge check will go a long ways towards getting rid of this type of metagaming.

2) Custom Monsters, or "Sure, MOST skeletons are susceptible to Bludgeoning damage...." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
Same situation as above; it is well within the DM's right to make custom monsters, or to tweak existing monsters. When the Barbarian swaps weapons without knowing in character that it's a good idea, tweak the critter. DR X/Bludgeoning vs. DR X/Slashing isn't usually a game balance issue. Knoweledge checks are. If anyone at the table happens to have the appropriet knoweledge skill, ask that person to make the appropriet roll (at the normal DC) to find out how you changed the critter (but don't mention that you changed the critter).

3) Deliberately break the Law of Conservation of Detail, or "Too much information." (metagaming type: Instantly knowing what's important)
Your players enter a room. Roll a die and describe three things in detail, even if none of them are important to the plot. If one thing is important to the plot, roll a d3 and describe the important thing in that location on the list. So the ink spilled on the letter that's the actual clue to the murder might be the first, second, or third thing in the room you describe - and you don't know in advance which order you'll use. So if you roll a 2, you might describe the fallen bookcase with scattered books, then the inkwell on an unfinished letter, then the torn tapestry of an ancient battle. If you only describe one thing in the room, that's usually what they'll go after first. If you describe one thing over the others, that's usually what they'll go after first. You need to keep things roughly even to keep the players exploring the game world, rather than just zipping to the "important bits".

There's more, easily applied as they come up.

Edit: Do note that some of these don't apply if the character has encountered that type of beasty before. If the Barbarian has already faced off against a few skeletons, and noticed that the sword doesn't seem to be working well, then switching makes sense, even without Knoweledge(Religion).

[Wraithy]

there were about 2 or three party members in the area of affect and somehow they decided to drop what they were doing and run out of the area.

they had no spellcraft.
they had never seen the spell before.

in my own defence I only moved out of the area after he began casting, and I appologise deeply for moving out of the area. but that spell ended up doing 39 damage! I have 18 hit points. I am aware that this is not an excuse, but sadly even if one person in the group metagames, we are all effected on a certain level. once again sorry. I tried to move out of the area as naturally as possible, so unlike our party monk danadith (queer name, interpret queer however you wish) who just randomly moved out of the area, I killed the person I was engageing and ran off to save our useless resident binder ("i have a vestiege that gives me +20 to heal checks" and you still can't fight). once again sorry, i did my best, but the metagameing was too strong.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Couple of different ways, depending on my mood at the time, and the nature of the violation.

1) Enfore Knoweledge checks, or "Yeah, you know that, but your character doesn't." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
For instance, if an Int-8 Barbarian with no Knoweledge(Religion) decides to switch from his +1 Greatsword to a mundane greatclub against a human skeleton, without someone with Knoweledge(Religion) mentioning that it's needed, veto the action or apply an XP penalty. A human skeleton is only a DC 11 check to know something useful ... but that's not one you can make untrained (DC 10 is the untrained limit). Simply asking for the appropriet Knoweledge check will go a long ways towards getting rid of this type of metagaming.

So an experienced warrior, who has spent most of his life whacking things with weapons, isn't allowed to know that an edged weapon is a bad choice against a skeleton because he isn't a trained theologian?

2) Custom Monsters, or "Sure, MOST skeletons are susceptible to Bludgeoning damage...." (Metagaming type: Combat tactics)
Same situation as above; it is well within the DM's right to make custom monsters, or to tweak existing monsters. When the Barbarian swaps weapons without knowing in character that it's a good idea, tweak the critter. DR X/Bludgeoning vs. DR X/Slashing isn't usually a game balance issue. Knoweledge checks are. If anyone at the table happens to have the appropriet knoweledge skill, ask that person to make the appropriet roll (at the normal DC) to find out how you changed the critter (but don't mention that you changed the critter).

You do realise that the reason skeletons are weak do bludgeoning damage is because slashing and piercing weapons rely on cutting flesh and puncturing organs, neither of which a skeleton possesses.

Do you honestly think that the correct "in character" response for an Int 8 Barbarian, faced with a horde of skeletons, is to say "Ooh, Thog will stab skeletons in their squishy bellies with Thog's spear. Thog not think for one second that maybe trying to stab a skeleton is completely futile, because Thog not study comparative religions at Barbarian School."

3) Deliberately break the Law of Conservation of Detail, or "Too much information." (metagaming type: Instantly knowing what's important)
Your players enter a room. Roll a die and describe three things in detail, even if none of them are important to the plot. If one thing is important to the plot, roll a d3 and describe the important thing in that location on the list. So the ink spilled on the letter that's the actual clue to the murder might be the first, second, or third thing in the room you describe - and you don't know in advance which order you'll use. So if you roll a 2, you might describe the fallen bookcase with scattered books, then the inkwell on an unfinished letter, then the torn tapestry of an ancient battle. If you only describe one thing in the room, that's usually what they'll go after first. If you describe one thing over the others, that's usually what they'll go after first. You need to keep things roughly even to keep the players exploring the game world, rather than just zipping to the "important bits".

Because the *last* thing you want players to do is to actually follow the plot. I mean, if they don't waste time looking at completely pointless bits of scenery, how are they ever going to appreciate the *effort* you put into your worldbuilding.

[Dan_Hemmens]

in my own defence I only moved out of the area after he began casting, and I appologise deeply for moving out of the area. but that spell ended up doing 39 damage! I have 18 hit points.

But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

[Tor the Fallen]

The best way to make deliberate attempts to stop idiotic metagaming (i.e. "there's obviously something there, since the DM asked for a spot check... so I'm gonna take 20 on a search check" despite the character failing the spot check.) Is to start asking for spot checks at random, whether there's anything to spot or not.

Likewise, if you decide keys are locked in chests or something, roll for it, give the illusion that it's based on chance.

Or just roll spot, listen, and other such checks for them.

[GoblinJTHM]

But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

if I adhered to my GMs interpretation of my character I'd be in a circular padded room playing a dolly or have shot myself in the head a LOOOONG time ago.

[CrazedGoblin]

At the risk of sounding confrontational: what gives you the right to say that?

Unless you literally roleplay through the PCs lives 24/7 in real time (which would be very, very boring) you have no way to know precisely what the PCs would or would not know, and I (and several others here) have pointed out that it makes absolute sense for people to know about the effects of spells their long-term traveling companions are capable of casting.

Too many DMs seem to work on the idea that PCs are never allowed to know anything that gives them an in-character advantage unless they've paid points for it or found it out during uptime. This is stupid. All it does is slow the game down. A lot.

Do you really want to force your players to sit around the table while the guy playing the Wizard describes the contents of the Spell Compendium to the rest of the party "in character"?

if i don't know that the players characters know something that could turn the tide of a battle then they don't know it, thats why i ask for a backstory from each of them so i know what their characters do or don't know

[Dan_Hemmens]

Or just roll spot, listen, and other such checks for them.

Or just let them do it. Because that will let them find the things that you only created in the first place in *order* that they would find them.

I'm really, really confused by a lot of this. It seems like some people's ideal game is one in which the PCs sit around doing nothing because they wouldn't know, in character, that they were characters in a roleplaying game. Where they never actually find out what the plot is, because they're not looking for it, where they just go about their daily lives, doing pointless mundane tasks, while you sit back, bored out your skulls, but safe in the knowledge that you aren't using any out of character knowledge.

[Ali]

"But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do."


I think that if a character did stand there and take it, the DM might reward his/her character by fudging the roll and letting him live, barely. That's what I would do if I was the DM.

[Scrubbed]

[Wraithy]

But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

actually i would be mildly pissed off at best, luckily I have plenty of knowledges and even spellcraft, so next time (while he's casting the spell) I can do a check and, regarding the result: take it like a man, or run like a little b*tch

[CrazedGoblin]

But wouldn't it have improved the *atmosphere* so much if you'd stood there and taken it.

I mean, sure, your character would have been dead. But you'd have know that he died while adhering *strictly* to your GM's interpretation of your character's knowledge.

Because remember, your GM knows your character better than you do.

do you have a problem with playing a fair game or something, all i said was that they had no experiance with this wizard and his spells, which was not in their backstory or their experiances over the last sessions.