Question about Metagaming

[Talakeal]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

[The Insanity]

I would change the monster's stats to something else.
Besides, why are players even looking at a Monster Manual? That's for DM eyes only.

[Anymage]

Besides, why are players even looking at a Monster Manual? That's for DM eyes only.

In the abstract, players can reasonably want to know the lore behind various D&D critters, and might well want to have DMG/MM if they might want to run a game themselves. Although in practice, book diving at the table is particularly bad form.

Personally speaking, having dealt with book diving players, I've developed a habit of refluffing liberally and am pretty open that anything that I have not specifically said is not yet set in stone. And that I will cheerfully change lore or minor monster statistics if I see anyone going through a book or their phone.

[GloatingSwine]

Take the book off them.

If it's theirs give it back at the end of the session.

You can't stop a player knowing things, but getting the book out and stopping play for everyone to gawk at it is bad for the game.

[Mechalich]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

Whether or not a player recognizes a monster based on a description should be irrelevant, because it matters not one whit to the character if their player possesses that knowledge. This is one of those cases, probably the most common case, where enforcing player/character separation is essential.

If the characters have never seen a monster before, there is still a chance they might recognize the monster from a glimpse and even understand many of its abilities - and in D&D there are provisions in the skill system for this. In theory a character with a sufficiently high result on a knowledge check could conceivably know everything in a monster's MM entry. Of course, that information isn't shared. Whatever one character knows has to be communicated, in play, to the other characters. So even if one character might conceivably be allowed to play an encounter out with the MM entry as an open reference no other character gets to do that unless they've made an equally comprehensive knowledge check.

Now, to be fair, maintaining player/character separation with regard to things like monster stats can be hard. People remember things about certain monsters and just intuitively pass that knowledge onto their characters (often about immunities, or DR, or similar sort of things), and its the GMs responsibility to police actions and step in at times to say 'your character doesn't necessarily know that, make a skill check to see if they do.'

Also, more broadly, no one should be passing around any book at a table save for the purpose of rules clarifications, and effort should be taken to minimize this; notably by making it clear that players are responsible for knowing how the character's abilities work without needing to constantly look them up.

[GloatingSwine]

Now, to be fair, maintaining player/character separation with regard to things like monster stats can be hard. People remember things about certain monsters and just intuitively pass that knowledge onto their characters (often about immunities, or DR, or similar sort of things), and its the GMs responsibility to police actions and step in at times to say 'your character doesn't necessarily know that, make a skill check to see if they do.'

Trying to police the contents of your players' brains is not a recipe for happy players and a fun session (and is just as much metagaming as them using the knowledge they have as players). Don't rely on player ignorance to make the encounter challenging in the first place.

[animorte]

Yes, at that moment I would have modified something on the spot (or maybe the model I have was different all along) without saying that to anybody (done it before). Everybody gets that gleam of knowledge and combat prep going, but then we roll initiative.

“Woah but it says here the thing isn't immune to fire!?”

“But the average HP of this thing is only 68, it should be dead by now!?”

I’m ok with a person knowing it and trying to work in that knowledge, but there’s no reason that every character should be expected to know every single detail about any given enemy. I’ve also had skill checks on knowledge/survival rolled to determine how much (if any) of the stat block I improvise…

I made comments on another thread about this a couple months ago. People have a serious issue with immersion. There’s no logical reason to assume that any of your characters have ever even heard about this thing, and even if you have, that doesn’t mean that every single one is expected to be the same. Just like our PC classes. Just because you have a Cleric (or insert any class) in every campaign doesn’t mean each one will have the same subclass/weapons/background/feats.

[Vahnavoi]

90% of time I don't bat an eyelid, because the equivalent of "Monster Manual" in my games is meant to represent a body of information that is available to the player characters. If a player correctly infers information from a description and uses an information resource that I've given them, they aren't metagaming. They're just gaming.

So what about the other 10% of time?

Well: the basics of roleplaying game for a player is that they're trying to decide what to do, how and why, from the perspective of some character in some situation. There are a few corollaries to this:

1) anything knowable to a character must be knowable to some real entity at the table (game characters are not independent entities, they do not truly know anything)
2) any knowledge meant to be actionable for a character must be knowable by their player (meaning either the player has to already know or have the power to decide what their character knows, or at minimum the game master has to tell them)
3) any knowledge meant to NOT be actionable for a character must either be hidden from a player or they must be informed they cannot use it

Particular rules systems may have opinions on 2) and 3). Modern versions of D&D, for example, gatekeep actionable information behind die rolls: shortly, on a winning roll, you are allowed some actionable information per unit of time, and ONLY the amount of actionable information per unit of time indicated by that roll. The corollary is that on a failed roll, you are NOT allowed to act on that information, nor are you allowed to act on information that you've yet to receive. Players should be aware of this, meaning they should be aware of AND fine with the idea that the roles they are playing in the game sometimes require them to deliberately act more ignorant than they really are. Attempting to bypass the rules, such as by reading and acting on information directly from a non-player resource, is a foul, and the game master has the right to prohibit such course of action.

In practice, trying to be strict on this is more trouble than it's worth, which leads to concept of plausible action: namely, the game master shouldn't care how the player came to know a thing or settled on a course of action, as long as the whats, hows and whys their character actions in the game remain plausible. The game master still reserves the right to challenge any detail of the player's action as well as right to demand that they choose to act differently if said details are found lacking.

For example: a game master describes monsters attacking a camp at night. A player (correctly) guesses the monsters are trolls and has their character pick up a burning torch to fend the monsters off. The game master may well know the player has guessed the monsters are trolls, but there is no reason to proclaim the act a foul: picking up a burning torch is a plausible action to take against a wide variety of monsters and doesn't actually require the character to know they are trolls in particular.

If the player, as their character, says "begone, foul trolls!", then a game master might ask "how or why does your character believe they are trolls?". Again, there are lot of plausible answers to that question that a sane game master would accept; it's only when no plausible answer exists that there's a reason to proclaim it a foul. In practice, I've found players are quick to call each other out on blatantly implausible or out-of-character statements.

In summary: a game master should be as open as possible about what kind of information the players' characters know or don't know, as well as what kind of information the players are allowed to act on or not. Metagaming is only a foul when in contradiction of such statements.

[InvisibleBison]

If the guy has the Monster Manual, I can only assume he's familiar with its contents, which means him looking at it mid-game doesn't really change anything vis-a-vis metagaming or player/character knowledge separation. Sure, looking it up may make him more certain about its written stats, but he had some idea what they were even before hand. Checking the book only changes the magnitude of the issue, it doesn't create it.

So what would I do if I had a player who was using out-of-character knowledge of monster stats to be more effective in combat? Honestly, I don't think I'd do anything. There's no way to eliminate metagaming around out-of-character knowledge, and there's no real reason to prefer "a PC knows something just because their player knows it" to "the player tries to guess how long they should pretend to not know trolls are vulnerable to fire".

Besides, why are players even looking at a Monster Manual? That's for DM eyes only.

What if this person is a player in one game and a DM in another? The notion of players and DMs being separate groups is a false dichotomy.

[Keltest]

What if this person is a player in one game and a DM in another? The notion of players and DMs being separate groups is a false dichotomy.

Even if he is, pulling out the monster manual and passing it around was bad form, period, unless he's the DM for this particular table. Its one thing to be kind of familiar with the statblock and vaguely remember what it does, but actively looking up and sharing a nominally unknown monster's weaknesses and strengths without the in-character knowledge to earn is is pure metagaming and should be shot down.

[Mastikator]

I concur with change the monster's stats and take the monster manual away from them. I'd also tell them that I would have to change the stats because they're not supposed to metagame. I'd also start looking for new players if the current ones can't behave at the table because that was way over the line. It's one thing to know what the monster is, but stopping mid game to show the stats to the other players is outrageous in my opinion. If someone did that in any group I've played with everyone would groan and cringe and call that player a cheater.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't stop a player knowing things, but getting the book out and stopping play for everyone to gawk at it is bad for the game.

Amen. I am not an advocate of book diving in play. Keep your PHB handy, and your notes, and your character sheet, and let's play!

In online play, though, a lot of people make quick references to stuff on D&D Beyond (or other such things) which is sometimes helpful and other times obstructive. As a DM if someone is lore diving during combat I'll mention something. Not in combat doesn't generally matter.

The lore dive is a mixed bag. The characters in the world know the world better than the people playing the game do. I have noticed that most players don't do much prep outside of a game session. Expecting them to be fully up on a full life lived in that world is not realistic.

While some info is gated under lore/history/arcana/whathaveyou checks, sometimes it's better for them to do a brief lore / rules dive ... Outside of Combat.

Last night one of our players was mumbling around about whether or not to throw a dagger, and she asked about the range. (rather than look in her PHB). It took me a couple of seconds to post the 20/60 in the chat (fellow player, not DM) and off we went. Some players cannot be bothered to know the details; in that case overburdening the DM with taking care of them seems unfair.
I also had to remind a few folks how Sacred flame worked so that play would continue. (DM sent me a PM thanking me for helping).

Each table needs to find their sweet spot in this regard.

[Quertus]

Sigh. So, the answer differs slightly depending upon where on the “Bizarro World” spectrum you live.

In Rainbows and “it’s so fluffy I’m gonna die” unicorns land, where I apparently came from, you can talk to your players like reasonable adults, explain that roleplaying is good, metagaming is of the Dark Side, and only have to worry about things like “My Guy” becoming the path to sainthood.

In full-on Bizarro World, metagaming shouldn’t just be assumed, it should actively be encouraged and enabled, by printing out and handing out all the monster stat blocks the moment that the monster is first described.

Irl, things are a bit trickier.

Irl, there’s joy in the known, and joy in the unknown, and the techniques for enabling and fostering each differ. Know your players, and build the skills to foster both - in the same game, or even the same encounter. It’s like the irl skill of being able to be in a conversation with a group that includes both those who believe in Santa Clause, and those who don’t, or those who think <political figure of your choice> is awesome and those who think they’re Hitler.

Irl, there’s “what the players know”, and “what the characters know”, and the techniques for resolving (or ignoring) each type of imbalance differ. If you’re gonna care, err on the side of making sure that the players know at least as much as their characters (see also “recap”, “Rule of Three”).

As to the answer to the question that was asked? The answer is “mu”. If I were GM at Talakeal’s table, I would never find myself in that situation. I would be handing out stat cards for anything that was recognizable; on those really rare occasions when they encounter something like a Snergleflerp (secretly a Snergleflerp golem, possessed by the spirit of a Snergleflerp gardener), the players, characters, rule books, and mythology / RPG sections of the local library would all be equally clueless.

[Satinavian]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

I would have politely asked to not do so if there was indeed reading going on. I might have encouraged a look a the picture however. And my players would have respected my wish. Usually such a situation doesn't even happen in te first place without me having to do or say something.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Trying to police the contents of your players' brains is not a recipe for happy players and a fun session (and is just as much metagaming as them using the knowledge they have as players). Don't rely on player ignorance to make the encounter challenging in the first place.

This, oh so very this!

I've made it a rule that I don't make a rule about it. Players can know things. It's one of the few benefits experienced players have over inexperienced ones. They know things, how things work. You can't stop them from knowing things.

Now, I'd say pulling out a book in the midst of the action is just wrong. Responding to that by changing the statblock on the fly is dubious, as it feels kinda DM vs player(s). And if the players get that vibe, your game may be done.

In the end, you as DM are in charge of making sure everyone has fun. Take it up with the player out of session and tell them what you expect in the future. I don't blame you for not covering this in session zero.

[GloatingSwine]

Changing the statblock might work with some groups, but you could just bump 1-2 numbers up a point or so and say "this looks like an unusually large and powerful version of X"*.

(But not if this is the group with Bob in because that's the rest of the evening then).


*An easy way to make slightly easier or stronger variants of monsters would be handy in general.

[False God]

I generally ask my players not to pull books out at the table ahead of time. Players should know their class, their spells, their summons well enough to not need the book around for ease-of-play reasons. If they have questions, they can ask me or the co-DM.

If a player knows what this monster is, I give them the option to make a appropriate skill-check for their character to also know this information, and then convey what the player knows to the other players. Unless I'm running an isekai-style game where the player's brain is in the PC's body and then the player is free to share what they know, but not go book diving(unless you were summoned to another world with your cell phone).

If/when people start pulling out books, I politely ask them to stop, and if they refuse, to leave.

[Composer99]

What I would do as DM depends on the following:

(1) How much time is the player using up to show off the creature? A quick glance is probably fine, but taking up too much time and slowing the pace of the game is inconsiderate.

(2) To what extent do other players at the table value maintaining an imagined separation between their own knowledge and what they take their characters' knowledge to be? And to what extent do I as DM/GM value the table writ large maintaining this separation? The more that people at the table value establishing such a separation, the less patience I'll have for such book-diving.

(3) To what extent do players at the table prefer immersion in the fiction over engaging with the mechanics - to the extent that they perceive there to be a conflict between the two? And to what extent do I as DM/GM value the table writ large experience immersion in the fiction over engaging with the mechanics - to the extent that I perceive there to be a conflict between the two? The more players I know who have such preference, and the stronger I know that preference to be, the less patience I'll have with such book-diving.

(4) Is the game we're playing one that emphasises mystery and confronting the unknown? The more that's true, the less patience I'll have for book-diving.

(5) Is the game we're playing one that emphasises what you might call Gygaxian "skilled play"? The more that's true, the less expectation there is for an imagined separation between player and character knowledge.

Personally, as regards (2) or (3), I'm not terribly concerned about such things myself, but if any of my players were really bothered by metagaming-style behaviours, I'd certainly want to tamp down on it. (1) is a consideration at all times, of course. (4) and (5) are going to depend on the game system and the specifics of the campaign/adventure/module.

[Thrudd]

I would have said "no monster manual or D&D wiki at the table, please." Of course, it's fine that players recognize a monster and remember something about them, even blurt it out to the other players, you shouldn't expect to prevent that when you're using published material with experienced players. But a hard line needs to be drawn with actually looking up statblocks.

I suppose some tables could have a culture where this is acceptable, and the manual is treated as a resource for players to strategize. In this case, I imagine you'd be treating the game in a much more competitive, battle-game manner - if players have access to all the details of their opponent's abilities, you can ramp up the challenge with tactics, free to play as though the monsters have knowledge of their characters' abilities as well.

[animorte]

if players have access to all the details of their opponent's abilities, you can ramp up the challenge with tactics, free to play as though the monsters have knowledge of their characters' abilities as well.

I’ve done this before as well. “You guys have gotten pretty popular around here and word travels. A notable amount of individuals are starting to learn what you’re capable of and attempting to prepare themselves. It’s only natural.”

[kyoryu]

It's kind of a jerk move, and I'd probably raise an eyebrow, but at the end of the day I probably wouldn't care.

My view is that if knowing the monster stats trivializes an encounter, it's a garbage encounter. And nothing irritates me more than playing the game of "oh, I know the stats, but my player shouldn't, so I have to do deliberately dumb things until the GM has decided I know enough to play smart."

[Easy e]

I would not care, because it is their choice about how they want to play the game. If it is not spoiling anyone's fun, than it is not going to spoil mine; because I am the GM and I can make the rules whatever I want anyway.

That said, I would have turned the spotlight at whoever had the book on them at any one time, so no one really had much time more than to glance at it, because they were too busy doing stuff at the table; like deciding how to respond when they saw X, or have to tell me their AC to avoid an attack, or move the monster so they have to decide to take an opportunity attack, etc. The book would eventually get set down along the path, and not picked up again as everyone was forced to move on.

I do the same thing with people who take out their phones. There is no rule about no phones at the table. I suddenly just change scenes to them, ask them a question, or move the spotlight. One of a GM's most powerful tools is their ability to set the pace and flow of the game. You can always move the spotlight to who ever, where ever, and when ever you want; regardless of Initiative order or anything else going on.

However, it is seriously bad form, but I would not bother raising the subject with Talakael's group as it would be more trouble than it was worth. LOL

[gbaji]

I always try to run games with a separation between player knowledge and character knowledge. Obviously, it's pretty much impossible to police what a player knows inside their own head, and yeah, some players are better at roleplaying their characters based on what their character would know than others. Also, I've noticed a strong tendency that when it's an action/decision point rather than color RP, player will tend to manifest their knowledge pretty significantly. Honestly though, there's not a lot you can do about that as a GM. The character that uses his primary +x weapon all the time (cause it does the most damage) magically decides to draw a secondary weapon that has a fire damage effect just coincidentally when fighting a monster that takes extra damage to fire? Eh. It happens.

Looking up the statblock of a creature during play? Way out of bounds IMO. If the player feels the need to do that, it's because he knows what the monster *is*, but doesn't necessarily remember all the details. That's going a step beyond "gee, I remember that these things are vulnerable to fire", and into "I need to know everything about it" territory.

I'll also point out that as a GM, if you are even semi firm about character vs player knowledge, the rules have to also work in reverse. If a character should know something about a creature they encounter (due to lore rolls, or having encountered them personally before), then you have to tell them things about the creature. The characters live their lives 24/7, the player lives the character's lives a few hours a week (maybe). You cannot be the GM that tells your players they can't look stuff up but *also* insist that "if you didn't think of it, then your character didn't".

That's also out of bounds.

Personally, I try to avoid being in situations where knowing the stats of a creature really matter that much. It's a problem that's more inherent to D&D (and similar) type games where there are generic monsters to be fought, and knowing the odd particulars of that monster matter a lot. I suppose that's always the case with non-intelligent monsters/animals, but once you get into any creature that is intelligent and can use tools, and can learn magic, skills, feats, whatever, the encounter should vary much more based on those things. A fight with the Orc priest of <whatever> (and followers) vs the Drow priest of <whatever2> (and followers) should vary more about who <whatever> is, and what special skills, items, spells, etc they're going to pit against you than that one group is Orcs and one group Drow.

[NichG]

If I'm using something from a publically available source or with existing strong cultural identity, I'm doing so because I want people to recognize it. So if the players go book diving on hearing a description, great I guess! It can be a bit of a problem if I'm expecting to lean on e.g. the mythological resonance but not the specific D&D stats, whereas the players assume the reverse. But that's a self-correcting problem...

If I need something the PCs can't just automatically recognize, I'll just make a new thing entirely.

[icefractal]

While usually it doesn't matter whether the players have meta-knowledge (in that it wouldn't make the fight boring), I do think actually pulling out and passing around the MM is bad form.

If it happened, I'd probably just say something like "and your characters know all this?" with a raised eyebrow. And in every group I've run for, people would put it away. But if they didn't, I wouldn't change the state for that fight (because if the players are belligerent then doing so would start a pissing match), I'd just use more homebrew and reskinned stuff going forward.

[Pex]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

Taken the book away and tell the player not to do it again.

[The Insanity]

What if this person is a player in one game and a DM in another? The notion of players and DMs being separate groups is a false dichotomy.

It's irrelevant what they are outside of Talakeal's game. There they are players.

[MoiMagnus]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

It depends what kind of campaign I'm running. Depending on the campaign, I might:

1. Object because I don't like peoples reading books at the middle of the game. It kills the pacing of the session. This applies to games that are fast paced, not the campaigns where the players are gonna take ages to craft strategies and tactics.
2. Object because I don't want players using meta-informations. In those campaigns I usually homebrew monsters quite a lot, but sometimes I don't. In any case I'd probably get back my Monster Manual since that's either a spoiler or a waste of time. Additionally, there is kind of an implicit rule IMO that if the GM avoids to say the actual name of the creature, then you're not supposed to look at its abilities: if that was acceptable, they would have dropped the name at one point to ease your search.
3. Be fine with it since it means that I won't need to answer additional questions about what the monster look like and how it behaves. And it's not hard to justify it in-universe. You said "that the player characters had never seen before", but how much is that a fact? PCs, or relatives of the PCs, might have encountered one before.

[gbaji]

I think there's also a big factor of the game system you are playing as well. In many games (and definitely in D&D), there are specific character skills that allow them to identify and know things about creatures/monsters/whatever that they encounter. If there is some sort of knowledge abilities in game and available to PCs that provides this information, but you as a GM allow the players to look stuff up, then you are effectively nullifying the reason for these skills existing. This is especially important in game systems (which is pretty much all of them), in which there is some sort of opportunity cost to having one skill/feat/whatever on the character sheet instead of another.

Obviously, you can never erase what's inside a players head to enforce them acting only on character knowledge (muahahah. That would be an evil genius thing to create though). So it's not ever going to be perfect. But yeah, I think prohibiting players from actually looking up source books about the things they are fighting is a perfectly reasonable position for a GM to take. I'm honestly scratching my head trying to think of any legitimate reason why any player would have a problem with this.

[Tanarii]

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

I'd have reminded them the table rule is no books or devices at the table.