Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rickenbacker 01-04-05, 08:43 AM	Not new here, but likely missed out on previous discussion. I know one way is to just say "Your character wouldn't know that!" But then what? Any 'smoother', more effective ways to handle it? Thanks!
CzarGarrett 01-04-05, 08:47 AM	Instead of saying "Your character doesn't know that" try "How does your character know that?" If your character has been taking notes and all, and previously encountered the creature, OR heard stories about the creature, then I might allow the information. Worst case scenario- take them aside after the game and tell them to stop.
Rancorpit 01-04-05, 09:55 AM	This definitely isn't what I would do, but my DM once made a house rule: "If someone metagames, I will roll a d20. If the result is 20, the metagamer's character will lose his head." Needless to say, he actually rolled that 20 once, causing the group's Rogue/Assassin to spontaneously lose his head while he was in a safe place waiting for the rest of us to come back from a shopping trip. The player in question has mostly kept his mouth shut thereafter :D
General Dorsey 01-04-05, 10:03 AM	The first thing you need to do is define metagming as far as it applies to your group. Everyone will have a slightly different take on it. Next, I wouldn't simply assume that the characters don't know something. There are many things that people know unrelated to their professions (an example, Janet Reno had a degree in Chemistry yet she was the Attorney General under Clinton). I'm sure that everyone can think of at least 100 things that don't relate to their jobs that they know. In our games, we came up with this house rule: General Knowledge: A character may make a general knowledge check (d20 + character level + Intelligence modifier) to see whether he knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, noteworthy places, monsters, or whatever the DM approves. Note that this information may not be immediately useful (unlike a Knowledge check where the information is always useful). If the character is a bard he may add his bard levels as well (this is in addition to his character level). Bards with 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (history) gain a +2 bonus on this check. This check can only be used once per situation. If you don’t know anything about the subject, then you simply don’t know. There are no retries. A successful general knowledge check will not reveal the powers of a magic item but may give a hint as to its general function. A character may not take 10 or take 20 on this check; this sort of knowledge is essentially random. DC Type of Knowledge 15 Common, known by at least a substantial minority drinking; common legends of the local population. 25 Uncommon but available, known by only a few people legends. 30 Obscure, known by few, hard to come by. 35 Extremely obscure, known by very few, possibly forgotten by most who once knew it, possibly known only by those who don’t understand the significance of the knowledge. 15+ HD To know one piece of information about a monster (HD, one extraordinary special ability, etc.) 20 + HD To know two pieces of information about a monster or one supernatural or spell-like ability. DC +5 To learn one more piece of information. The reason I chose HD over CR is to keep it consistent with the Knowledge checks. I was trying to keep the amount of House Rules and changes minimized. What I did was take the Bardic Knowledge check and modify it slightly. Essentially, everyone gets bardic knowledge, but bards add their class level to their character level meaning that a 3rd level bard is adding +6 to this check instead of the +3 any other character would add. So far this has worked wonderfully for us. We have had no problems or need to change it since its implementation 6 months ago.
Valdar 01-04-05, 11:34 AM	This definitely isn't what I would do, but my DM once made a house rule: "If someone metagames, I will roll a d20. If the result is 20, the metagamer's character will lose his head." Needless to say, he actually rolled that 20 once, causing the group's Rogue/Assassin to spontaneously lose his head while he was in a safe place waiting for the rest of us to come back from a shopping trip. The player in question has mostly kept his mouth shut thereafter :D Yeah, this is about what it would take to get habitual metagamers to stop it. I think most players metagame not out of laziness, but out of a need to appear intelligent- they'll use every bit of information to try to appear "on top of it", even if it's knowledge they either have because they know it's a game, or because they memorized the monster manual. My method of dealing with metagaming isn't that good, but it's the best I've come up with so far. Just change things so that any meta-game knowledge that the player uses turns out to be false information. This can be tough to do sometimes, and can derail the game, but if people are metagaming, the game is pretty much derailed already.
Board_Rider 01-04-05, 12:08 PM	Well everyone metagames from time to time to get the ball rolling so to speak. How could you not metagame an 8 INT? Thats difficult. However if the problem is persistent make something so irresistably metagamingish that the person(s) involved bite at it. Then flip the script on them putting the PC(s) in a bind that will make them wish that they investegated a bit further before they so quickly pressed forward.
Thoronmir 01-04-05, 12:27 PM	If I were a vengeful DM, I’d decree that any PC who uses a player’s knowledge is also stuck with that player’s stats … the player’s, not his character’s. I’ve spent time at D&D tables for 25 years and I just haven’t seen too many Olympic caliber athletes tossing polyhedron dice. Though, I might have made a passable Fighter when I was playing football in college (of course, that was twenty years ago … funny how I’m the same height and weight but my bulk seems to have shifted dramatically since then :raincloud ). Thankfully, I am a benevolent DM. A player who metagames an encounter receives no XP for the encounter. In other contexts, I just try to ensure that no one benefits from metagaming in my campaign … whatever that takes. However, metagaming has never been a significant problem in my games. My players are good about segregating player knowledge from PC knowledge … and they even police themselves.
Orcboss 01-04-05, 12:48 PM	Typically, my players go "appropriately stupid" for their characters. On the other hand, I try to be a little lenient in metagaming. PCs are supposed to be bigger, faster, and/or smarter than other people. Metagaming is one way a player can get an extra leg up, without actually having an 18 Int or Wis himself. That said, if it gets too out of hand, just have the bad guys use metagaming on the PCs. For example, the first round in the BBEG's lair, have them bombarded by targeted dispels. After all, everybody knows adventurers load up on buff spells before the last room.
Echo35 01-04-05, 01:03 PM	It also helps (DM speaking here) if you tell them nothing they wouldn't know. Once a party I was Dming was fighting a Will O' Wisp (they have spell immunity to most thiings). One character was a druid and tried calling lightning down on it. I made him roll hit and damage, eventhough it was immune to it. Little things like that help greatly.
LukiLoki 01-04-05, 01:39 PM	The problem I have is not so much player knowledge vs. PC knowledge; my players are veterans and they understand how to play around that. But what seems to happen all the time in combat is the constant "table talk", whereby the six-second round becomes a ten minute cabinet meeting on the tactics the next PC should employ. What's worse is that, frequently, those whose PCs are elsewhere/unconscious/unable to speak for whatever reason are the worst offenders. Being bored, I suppose, it's difficult to remain a spectator, but really, it gets on my nerves. When it gets really out of hand, I have no problem just telling the player whose turn it is that he has 10 seconds or whatever to decide what to do. But sometimes it's pretty much constant, and I end up sounding like a tyrant and forcing the players into bad decisions if I put my foot down too hard. How do others deal with this aspect of the metagame?
Thoronmir 01-04-05, 02:03 PM	A few of my house rules when I DM: If your PC can’t react (isn’t there, is unconscious, etc.), the player can’t comment on the game. The player is free to engage in amusing banter, recite limericks, or discuss his ingrown toenail, but he has to keep quiet about whatever is going on in-game. Yes, players get bored, but I don’t care. I will shout down a player who continually breaks this rule. A Round is six seconds. Talking is a Free Action. You can speak any time during the Round (I know some DMs who only let you speak when it’s your turn to act). However, whatever you have to say is limited to six seconds. It takes longer than that to call a play in the NFL … good luck devising a comprehensive strategy to beat that Dragon in such limited time. Once your PC has exhausted his six seconds of dialog, he has to wait until the start of the next round to speak again. Though, truth be told, I only really clock players who try to abuse the system (see below). ALL STRATEGY DISCUSSIONS MUST TAKE PLACE IN-CHARACTER. I don’t care if Bob knows more about Wizard spells than anyone alive, if his character doesn’t and/or his character isn’t there to give advice, then Bob can’t help Ted pick what spell to cast. Players are free to engage in such conversations before or after the session. As a player, I follow these rules, regardless how the rest of the party is playing. I ignore advice given OOC. If I’m unconscious, I usually leave the room (get some air, get a drink, stretch my legs). My PCs usually have tactical skill, so I do make strategic suggestions (i.e. commands) during battles, but my instructions are brief (less than six seconds) and based only on what my PC knows and can see. Typical examples are my archer shouting at the Fighter not to block my line of fire or my Rogue asking a PC to move behind an enemy so we can flank it.
Board_Rider 01-04-05, 02:11 PM	You know Luki I know exactly how you feel on both fronts. I haven't found a way either other than sounding like a fun nazi and tyrant. I have thought of ways...even to go as far as a stopwatch...but never implemented them. However, if the thinking about how to proceed in combat goes on for too long or happens all of the time I begin the whole 3....2...1...bit. That works sometimes. As far as the combat strategy stuff, and dead PC's Players being loud/talkative, well I am stumped there too. Although one time I got so frustrated I went out and had a smoke, came back and read the Magic of Faerun. Really. When the players finally calmed down and looked at me saying "Well, whats happening?" I reply, "Well I am reading and you guys are talking. Since you were not interested when I was, well I am not interested when you are." Sounds kind of pouty when you read it, but when in action, the players kinda get the point. For a short time anyway. It always depends on the calibur of players at your table. Honestly though I couldnt really care. It's their gametime and if all they want to accomplish is one encounter for the night,great. But seeing as how we have begun the "round-robin" DM thing again we are pretty polite in each game because we all know the frustration of too talkative/disruptive players.
Cantankerous 01-04-05, 04:16 PM	The problem I have is not so much player knowledge vs. PC knowledge; my players are veterans and they understand how to play around that. But what seems to happen all the time in combat is the constant "table talk", whereby the six-second round becomes a ten minute cabinet meeting on the tactics the next PC should employ. What's worse is that, frequently, those whose PCs are elsewhere/unconscious/unable to speak for whatever reason are the worst offenders. Being bored, I suppose, it's difficult to remain a spectator, but really, it gets on my nerves. When it gets really out of hand, I have no problem just telling the player whose turn it is that he has 10 seconds or whatever to decide what to do. But sometimes it's pretty much constant, and I end up sounding like a tyrant and forcing the players into bad decisions if I put my foot down too hard. How do others deal with this aspect of the metagame? Twelve year old house rule from a game with similiarly short combat rounds: Once initiatives are determined and the time for declaration of action begins each PC must begin IMMEDIATELY describing said actions, or after more than ten seconds of inaction he forfeits his ability to take ANY offensive actions for the round. He may still go fully defensive, cast any defensive or utility spells in his repetoire, disengage from combat, move in any acceptable manner or whatever, but in brief combat situations hestitation is tatamount to failure and is treated thus. Really, the round is six seconds long, just six seconds, dithering about will not ever be rewarded. Now while it is true that the character knows his abilities infinitely better than the player does, the player is the controlling animus and MUST be able to react in a reasonable amount of time. He must have a decent idea of the capabilities of his character. Period. Also, I have always enforced the reasonable expectations rule on my PC and my NPCs alike. If they can say it in under six seconds, they can, if conscious and capable of it and if they have the necessary knowledge of it, give advice. If they do it otherwise, they get no Exp for the Encounter. But...I do not dither either. I set up an encounter so that I can tell the PCs exactly what they perceive as happening and still run my NPCs by the same manner, no more than ten seconds of inaction or they are defensive for the round. I think this is reasonable too. If I can keep track of the abilities of my numerous NPCs, the players can certainly be expected to do the same for their single character. Doing this, as either a player or a DM is easily enough accomplished by simple preparedness. If you have to fall back on the old "I hit him with my aaaaaaaxe" once in a while because you are caught short of brilliant strategems, then so be it. If you have to (in character) hesitiate for a round to get your bearings, so be it, all well and good. It makes encounters flow INFINITELY more smoothly. Our average round takes us about two to three minutes to run from beginning to end. So a fifteen round fight usually takes about half an hour. In groups that don't do this I've seen the average fifteen round fight from mid to high level groups take half an evening. How unutterably boring THAT is! If the fighter gets stunned for three rounds and is temporarily out of it, he might have to sit for ten minutes MAXIMUM in our game. If you've got symposiums on tactics going on every round, no wonder the guy is getting bored. Isshia
siege72 01-04-05, 04:46 PM	Not new here, but likely missed out on previous discussion. I know one way is to just say "Your character wouldn't know that!" But then what? Any 'smoother', more effective ways to handle it? One GM I game with implemented a "card" system. If players want to metagame or say something helpful out of character, we put down the "green" side of the card. To make a snide remark or say something rude, we use the "red" side of the card. Anyone who doesn't follow the system gets their XP reduced, sometimes by half. It's been fairly successful.
evangelion1010 01-05-05, 12:06 AM	To some extent metagaming during combat enhances the realism of the gameplay. Like having some average player try to roleplay someone of 26 intelligence, who grew up in the campaign setting, and has traveled and interacted with untold adventurers and creatures - is relativly impossible. There's no way the player is able to think that intelligently, and connect all the years of accumulated knowledge and small facts together to create a big picture. In combat, very few people have trained with the tactics used... The character's however have an intelligence of 16+ when it comes to combat, at least they should if they're adventures (or they're incredibly gifted to make up for it.) They would know from months of training how to maximize the oppertunities on the battlefield. The fighter would know not to provide cover to the person he's fighting if there was a ranger in the group. The fighter would also know how to effectivly team up with the rogue, the wizard the right spells to cast for a situation, etc. The problem is with inexperianced players playing anything but 1-3rd level charcters, and unless you've had 2-3 years of consistent gaming experiance, with a good DM and other players, high level characters are nearly impossible - at higher levels, the characters have probably known each other for 2-3 years in game time, and have gone through countless combats together, being able to work seemlessly. They have an almost telepathic ability to know what the other is doing on the battlefield. The rogue and perhaps even the fighter can identify spells the wizard or cleric frequently cast. (I know when the wizard says X words/gets that tone of voice/makes those motions, theres a ball of fire...) The fighter and rogue have probably practiced flanking maneuvers, the rogue and wizard evasion techniques, the cleric knows exactly when to heal... and probably much more advanced fighting techniques than that. (perhaps even a sort of playbook) You can either allow the players some slack when determining the best course of action, since their character would know instinctivly what to do, or you can make numbers that indicate how well the players communicate with each other. Make it 1d20+rank+int or wis mod. Long time friends would have high ranks between each other, where as the two players that don't get along well have a low rank. A high skill check means the players can communicate a good amount of detail (1-2 minutes of OOC) to each other. It encourages the party to be good friends (helping elminate player conflicts), and provides what i feel is a realistic way of explaining the excessive OOC conversation.
Cantankerous 01-05-05, 03:11 AM	In combat, very few people have trained with the tactics used... The character's however have an intelligence of 16+ when it comes to combat, at least they should if they're adventures (or they're incredibly gifted to make up for it.) They would know from months of training how to maximize the oppertunities on the battlefield. The fighter would know not to provide cover to the person he's fighting if there was a ranger in the group. The fighter would also know how to effectivly team up with the rogue, the wizard the right spells to cast for a situation, etc. The problem is with inexperianced players playing anything but 1-3rd level charcters, and unless you've had 2-3 years of consistent gaming experiance, with a good DM and other players, high level characters are nearly impossible - at higher levels, the characters have probably known each other for 2-3 years in game time, and have gone through countless combats together, being able to work seemlessly. They have an almost telepathic ability to know what the other is doing on the battlefield. The rogue and perhaps even the fighter can identify spells the wizard or cleric frequently cast. (I know when the wizard says X words/gets that tone of voice/makes those motions, theres a ball of fire...) The fighter and rogue have probably practiced flanking maneuvers, the rogue and wizard evasion techniques, the cleric knows exactly when to heal... and probably much more advanced fighting techniques than that. (perhaps even a sort of playbook) You can either allow the players some slack when determining the best course of action, since their character would know instinctivly what to do, or you can make numbers that indicate how well the players communicate with each other. Make it 1d20+rank+int or wis mod. Long time friends would have high ranks between each other, where as the two players that don't get along well have a low rank. A high skill check means the players can communicate a good amount of detail (1-2 minutes of OOC) to each other. It encourages the party to be good friends (helping elminate player conflicts), and provides what i feel is a realistic way of explaining the excessive OOC conversation. There are a few problems with this aside from the obvious one, that role playing stats of any variety that are so far beyond the human ability are difficult to even properly envision. One is the non-spell caster who recognizes anything much of what the Wizard is doing. Now, after x amount of time Fighter A is going to recognize when the Wizard in the party throws a spell that he has thrown countless times before yes, but simply because the spell is the same in essence does not mean that it's triggering will be even similiar when cast by another Wizard... especially one from a different culture. The Spellcraft skill is NECESSARY to have any idea of what a caster you don't know is casting. Otherwise it's merely a best guess situation which should be wrong more often (by far) than it is right. It's like martial arts stances: irregardless of the movie "The Karate Kid II", there are MANY different attacks that come out of the Crane Stance, although the stance may be nearly the same to the eye of the diletante from one person to the next. Now, for someone REALLY knowledgeable, they might be able to tell whether a jump kick or a hand technique (and even which type of hand technique) is coming from the SPECIFIC way in which the person is holding their stance, or at least what is "most likely" to be coming, but not always even then. Thus the roll aspect. Otherwise all that you've brought up can be (and would have to be) communicated quickly. The players already have enough advantages over the situation without giving them unlimited time if what you are working towards is reasonability (since realism has no place in a fantasy game anyway). The players aren't in mortal danger. They don't have their blood pounding in their ears, their adrenaline isn't smashing it's way through their system, they don't have the pain of the wounds their characters are getting and so on. All of these and mayn more factors like them are more than compensation enough for time spent working together, neh? Isshia
Thoronmir 01-05-05, 10:37 AM	Well, I can see that the type of campaigns one plays can affect this issue. In our games, PCs are not just thrown together under the assumption that we’ve fought side-by-side before. The degree of familiarity described by some posters is actually earned in our game. As players, we learn each other’s tactics and, yes, over time we evolve into a smooth-running machine. But we prefer to roleplay that process. In our campaigns, the players expect to be asked, “How does your PC know that?” Oddly enough, that question will come as often from other players as from the DM. If my Ranger has earned half a dozen levels with the Wizard, I’d expect to be able to recognize the incantations for most of his frequently cast spells … not to say that I’d be able to recognize another Wizard casting the same spell. But after a few levels of witnessing the phrase “Hocus pocus” precede Fred’s Fireball, I think I’m smart enough (INT 12) to know to duck the next time I hear Fred mumble “Hocus pocus.” In truth, OOC knowledge just isn’t a major problem in our games. We play D&D, in part, to achieve that “suspension of disbelief” without which D&D degrades into a board game. I’m not interested in using my OOC knowledge to help my PC (or the party). This will sound harsher than I mean it to, but that kind of metagaming is cheating … you’re cheating yourself, your DM, and the other players out of the immersive experience D&D ought to be.