Creative Idea or Metagaming?

[BlackandGold]

Hi Guys!

Because my DM accused me of Metagaming, i like to get a second opinion.

Situation:
After we lost our cleric (stupid CR 6 Monster in an adventure for 4 PCs of Level 4), we decided to try the lair of evil nonetheless. We tried to get out of the guardhouse into the before cleared courtyard. Little sneaky shadow fairies jump out of the bushes and attack us. With a little use of my glitterdust (yes, i`m playing batman. No, i don`t own everything) we managed to get back into said guardhouse and catch our breath. After long thinking we decided to try and run for it. At this point a little argument broke out, because one of the players on the table postulated, that the gm wanted us to stay there. This was in no way logical, we were completely surrounded and i was very afraid of some torches and smoke.

The (IMHO) creative solution:
I had a scroll of fly and our Barbarian was still under the Bulls' Strength Spell of the Priest (3.0, it lasts for hours!). So we tried to load him up with the other two characters, a elf and a rogue, both not very heavyloaded, and we tried to run.

Murphys Hand:
We didn't count on the veeeeeeeeeeery patient shadow feys, which only waited in formation before the door on our escape attempt. 1,5 meters (5 feet) away. Yeah, we smelled something too... So we weaved our way past them, got something like 10 AoO and finally a undead lizard decides to grapple us and succeds. Now we were too heavy and goes down the show.

Our GM decided because of a little protest, that we were imprisoned and now we got out...

But after our last Session, where we had to stand against a Sorcerer 5 and a CR 6 half-dragon (I'm out of scrolls...), with only inconsequential help (try hitting with a +2 bonus (cr1 npc) an AC of 25), we discussed the style of play, which is not so much fun, if you run every time. Or get killed.
I said, i was a little sad, when he didn't acknowledged my idea, which he then ridiculed as silly and bad metagaming. I'm inclined to show him metagaming, but this would be a childish revenge. So foremost i'm looking for some opinion from you.

MfG, BaG

[BRC]

What did he say was metagaming?

[valadil]

Was using fly to escape metagaming? If so I think your DM needs to look up what metagaming actually means - it's using out of game knowledge to influence in game decisions. Your group was in danger and your healer was dead. Your characters feared for their lives and wanted to escape so they took the best chance they could to get away. Metagaming would have been sticking around because the GM wants you to.

[senrath]

Agreed with valadil. Your idea (although not the most creative in the world) was not metagaming. Your DM needs to look up the word, and possibly apologize to you.

[BlackandGold]

In his Opinion Metagaming was looking up the description of fly and the using of the "What can you lift with strength x"-table. The next time i will only do "Fly" and let him figure the rest out.

/edit
Oh, and the creative thing: We were strapping me under the belly of the barbarian (with the spell "shield" to eventually defend us against baddies) and the rogue would be the rider... We players had some very funny moments trying to imagine this setup.

[BRC]

In his Opinion Metagaming was looking up the description of fly and the using of the "What can you lift with strength x"-table. The next time i will only do "Fly" and let him figure the rest out.

That Is far from metagaming, that's your wizard knowing how spells work and your barbarian taking a moment to pick up the Rouge and Elf, taking a step and saying "Bah, They ain't heavy". Heck, a good player SHOULD look up the descriptions of spells they have.

[Squidmaster]

MORBO SAYS: METAGAMING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

seriously though, flying away when the cleric dies isn't metagaming.

[Nohwl]

i always thought metagaming was doing something like looking up the hp of the creatures you are fighting, telling it to everyone, and keeping an approximation of how much hp is left.

[Shishnarfne]

...So, because you took the time to look up the "What can the Barbarian lift" table rather than simply RP'ing the Barbarian attempting to lift the entire party, your DM claimed that you were metagaming? I'd call this a simple attempt to use what you had to get out of a difficult situation.

Staying in the building and waiting for the cavalry to arrive (on the grounds that the DM would never put you in a situation where you're bound to die, probably a bad assumption with this DM) would have been using Metagame logic.

My definition of metagaming is using information based on the fact that you are in a game system to influence your character's action when your character would have no way of knowing that information.

In your case, it is a trivial manner to determine how much weight the barbarian can lift (ask for him to try it), so it would appear reasonable to check this against the weight of the party in the book, although your DM might have been more convinced by in-character experimentation. The simplest metagame logic example in oots is "It's a dungeon, there's always a secret door." I'd say you were using knowledge of the rules that your character could have easily determined in character, which I would call an effective and creative use of resources.

Unfortunately, there are only two really reliable cures for bad DM'ing: leaving the table and taking his place behind the screen. You might need to consider one of these if problems continue.

[BRC]

i always thought metagaming was doing something like looking up the hp of the creatures you are fighting, telling it to everyone, and keeping an approximation of how much hp is left.

Yup, OR identifying somthing as a devil (Versus a demon) without a knowledge check or prior in-character experience against them, then knowing to use your favorite cold-iron greatsword against it.

[senrath]

In his Opinion Metagaming was looking up the description of fly and the using of the "What can you lift with strength x"-table. The next time i will only do "Fly" and let him figure the rest out.

/edit
Oh, and the creative thing: We were strapping me under the belly of the barbarian (with the spell "shield" to eventually defend us against baddies) and the rogue would be the rider... We players had some very funny moments trying to imagine this setup.

Ah, that is creative. And yes, it isn't metagaming. What Nohwl posted as an example is. Metagaming is using knowledge that you, as a person, had, but your character had no access to. Such as a character with no adventuring experience or a background to explain it knowing exactly what spell had just been cast.

[BlackandGold]

The funny thing is: He wanted us to stay in that guardhouse, because the cavalry, which were some lizardfolk, should arrive. No logical reason for that were made, said lizardfolk were to frigthened to go near the temple four hours ago...

@Shishnarfne
I DM myself a lot. Because of a little too much time and the high density of Roleplayers in my area, i have five different rounds at the moment. Most of them only play once in a month or more seldom. in one i have given the dm-hat over for a few months, in the other i will gm soon.

@senrath
Yeah. But I'm playing a sun elf with Int 20 and a spellcraft +14 / Knowl. arcana +12 check. So yes, I have the Background to know my spells

[drengnikrafe]

If you really want to make sure there are no more poorly planned accusations like that, just roll a knowledge check on it. I'm almost sure that, unless your DM is a total jerk (which he may well be...), it can't be more then a DC 10 to realize whether or not "that pretty buff guy would be able to carry us"...

Personally, though, I think it's creativity. I've seen metagaming, it's me standing there saying "Can I see your character sheets? I want to see who has the best will save for the trap I believe is being planned while I sleep. My 6 WIS, 5 INT character could easily come up with a plan to best this trap he's never seen before while he's napping, and tell the rest of the party before he wakes up..."
Okay, that's probably a bit extreme, and maybe not even right, but you get my point (I hope)

[FinalJustice]

At this point a little argument broke out, because one of the players on the table postulated, that the gm wanted us to stay there. This was in no way logical, we were completely surrounded and i was very afraid of some torches and smoke.

*Emphasis Mine*

Now THIS is metagaming.

[SamTheCleric]

I agree, the PC stating that they were only there because the GM wanted them to be there is outside the scope of the game itself. If it was an argument between the player and the GM, then that is a different matter entirely...

[BlackandGold]

@finaljustice
Yup, I agree. That was our Reason to ignore it completely.

@samthecleric
It was the Player, not the Character, who postulated it. Didn't i formulate it clear enough? Honest Question, like it says in my profile, i'm no native Speaker...

[Prometheus]

It wouldn't be metagaming to take a little time to observe how much the barbarian can carry, after the fly spell was cast, and still be bale to manuever well. Also looking up any information in the player's guide isn't metagaming,

[SamTheCleric]

@samthecleric
It was the Player, not the Character, who postulated it. Didn't i formulate it clear enough? Honest Question, like it says in my profile, i'm no native Speaker...

In the end, what you guys did was not metagaming at all... it was creative thinking. The DM was railroading you guys and didn't want you to spoil his triumphant victory.

Too bad. Smart Players.

[Xuincherguixe]

It was a practical, and reasonable idea.

Believing that you should stay there, because that's what the DM wants I would say is. That kind of metagaming may not be such a bad thing, because it's a bit easier on the DM.

[TheThan]

In my game one of my players figured out the amount of hit points a group of monsters had, based on the amount of damage the party was dealing to them (he was off by one point too low).
He’s done the same thing with armor class…

“ Ok my low damage roll did 5 points of damage and it’s still standing, last round I dealt 7 damage to the last guy and killed it, so it has to have 6 or 7 HP.”

That’s meta-gaming.

What you did was more or less self-preservation. Besides a wizard should know what his spells do, and most people should know what the maximum amount of weight they can lift is (at least approximately).

[FinalJustice]

You can't stop him from thinking, and a seasoned warrior may be able to figure the resilience of his enemies. Buuut, if he yelled this at the table, yeah, he metagamed to boot

[Chronos]

“ Ok my low damage roll did 5 points of damage and it’s still standing, last round I dealt 7 damage to the last guy and killed it, so it has to have 6 or 7 HP.”

On the other hand, saying "Well, one of those guys died to a single sword blow, and another one was just very badly injured, so most of them are probably just about as tough as one sword-blow" wouldn't be metagaming, and is almost as good, information-wise.

[TheThan]

yeah, it wouldn't have bothered me if he stated it like that, or just kept the information to himself, but he told everyone else...
*sigh*

[Mut]

I agree with the folks above -- as you've described it, you weren't metagaming at all (if anything, the opposite). There was one thing that caught my eye, though:

I had a scroll of fly and our Barbarian was still under the Bulls' Strength Spell of the Priest (3.0, it lasts for hours!). So we tried to load him up with the other two characters, a elf and a rogue, both not very heavyloaded, and we tried to run.

This isn't metagaming, but it is pushing the boundaries of the spell.

My take is that Fly was intended to let one character fly, carrying his gear with him. In the spell description the amount he can carry aloft is expressed in terms of the his maximum load -- I'd guess the reason it's written this way rather than allowing the spell to lift x amount of weight is to make life easier for the players and ensure nobody has to leave half their kit behind. It's a bit illogical that the same spell could lift more if the character's strength is buffed. (Not that magic is always logical, but anyway.) Possibly that's what the DM was getting at -- your solution depended on a exploiting a literal but counter-intuitive reading of how the spell works.

All that said, I woulda allowed it -- it really is a clever, creative use of the spell, and thinking outside the box like that should be rewarded, not smacked down. But it would only have worked once.

[Aquillion]

All that said, I woulda allowed it -- it really is a clever, creative use of the spell, and thinking outside the box like that should be rewarded, not smacked down. But it would only have worked once.

How would it only work once? After that, the laws of reality rewrite themselves so the spell doesn't work that way anymore?

[skywalker]

I agree with everyone, you were not meta-gaming.

That being said, perhaps, knowing that he would prefer you stay in the building, you could've stayed in the building, because while we only have your side of the story, it seems to me as though you tried to do what your characters thought was best, in spite of you(the player) knowing the DM had something planned. I don't think you meta-gamed by looking up fly(how could you use spells without looking them up?!), but I do think you meta-gamed by deciding there was cavalry coming.

The difference is, I think acting(or not acting, in this case) on that knowledge would have been good meta-gaming. If you know the DM has something planned, it might be better to stick around(even if it is a bit far-fetched for your characters) and let him have his moment of glory. You are in a cooperative storytelling situation, you need to cooperate with your DM as much as possible.

From the tone of your posts, it would seem to me that you and your DM have a bit of an adversarial relationship. Which I'm not chastising you for, but perhaps you should examine this, because perhaps you're trying to screw him instead of cooperating in the story he has planned for you. Being a DM yourself, perhaps you understand, recognize, and reject this opinion, but I would take a look at it.

Then again, he could just be a ****. I got labelled a meta-gamer once after making the off-hand joke "Well, someone has the fiendish template" about an owlbear with brimstone eyes and horns. It had horns! And my character was a paladin!

[Breaw]

How would it only work once? After that, the laws of reality rewrite themselves so the spell doesn't work that way anymore?

I think he was implying that it would have worked once because DMs don't like their plans being sidestepped all the time. As such, he would avoid situations that could be 'solved' by keeping the buffed up barbarian flying with the rest of the party in tow.

That or you just implement a house rule as to clarify what exactly the spell does. Any reasonable group of players will see if something is out of whack, an ability is situationally too strong, or a combination proves to be too effective to be fun. Like I said, sidestepping everything the DM throws at you (with the same strategy every time) won't be fun for anyone.

DMs ruling against viable plans because they didn't see it coming is childish. DMs not taking action to circumvent plans that turn out to be a bit too effective (in future encounters) for balance is silly.

[BlackandGold]

@skywalker
Maybe. A Point of our last After-Session-Discussion was the growing adversity between GM an Players. I made this Point... But it sometimes seems to me, that he likes Railroading a little too much and I'm inclined to rebel against that. Probably that's bad in a bought adventure, but i've GMed such one also and you shouldn't get to attached to them. BTW, its "Cormyr, Tearing of the Weave".
And to the Point of "Staying there" and good Metagaming: One Player suggested it, because he knew our GM for a very long time. I asked the GM about that, and he was ...angry. And I only did ask, "why should this player get the idea". So no, he wanted, that we decided without "good metagaming".

@mut
OK, i understand it. But if it didn't work with the bull's strength, we just would have left belongings behind. Yeah, even the magical breastplate...

@all
I thank you for your answers! Some of you gave me a little insight on the viewpoint of my gm, but mostly it seems, that i was from my personal viewpoint (which is after all the one portrayed in the starting post) right in being annoyed over being called an Metagamer.

[raygungothic]

Sounds to me like a neat use of your limited resources. I will join the chorus saying that is not metagaming. If my players did that I would totally let them get away with it - it's a cool image and resourceful thinking - in fact, I'd be pretty pleased.

I don't really feel that the DM should expect you to "stay on the plot" too much. A bit of "going along with things" is frequently a good idea if you're going to have an adventure at all, but you have to have choice about how you approach any given situation - and running away is a perfectly valid choice. It seems to be a popular style at the moment to expect players to be able to kill their way through the vast majority of encounters, but it wasn't always and really needn't be.

[mostlyharmful]

Running away in the face of overwhealming opposition is never metagaming. Doing so intelligently when you've got a wizard in the party is likewise not metagaming, and you'd know that the Barb could carry you both with the fly spell... It'd be metagaming not to run (or in this case fly) llike hell just because you knew the DM wanted you to stay and slug it out.