Once again, @theAngryDM writes a good article on Metagaming.
Some of the points I liked are:
-A properly designed challenge removes the power of meta gaming entirely.
-What roles training and popular culture play in an Adventurer's knowledge.
-Thought Policing is decidedly less fun than Playing the Game.
-Fully informed players can make meaningful decisions to act, and don't have to play a secondary guessing-game versus their DM.
And, for those who were upset with some of Angry's absolutist position from his last article, he kindly notes in the concluding lines, that he's not telling you how to run your game or what's objectively right or wrong.
Im not posting this to beat a dead horse or to fight in the meta-wars. I'm posting because this is a part 2, to our discussions on the merits of the MetaGame. Read it and let me know what you think!
Edit: You already know where I stand on the issue (and probably where folks like Orethalion, Iserith, & Emerikol land on it too). So I'm particularly interested in what some of our lurkers think. I know you tend to read and reflect instead of engaging, but how about it - what do You think?
Not to beat a dead horse with the trolls-and-fire example, but given the CR/XP value of trolls, I had wondered (previous to reading this blog entry) how PCs would gain the experience to make trolls a level appropriate challenge without having heard about their vulnerability to fire. I agree with theAngryDM that there's more to character knowledge that the mechanical function of ability scores, but I always thought that the various monster types by knowledge skill was a weak point of 3.5; I guess I've just never felt a need to differentiate between player and character knowledge as a DM.
I just hope we don't start sorting posters here into intelligent people vs "pretty dumb people who can spout out plenty of useless information," 'cause I'm pretty sure I'd end up with the fuzzy end of that lollipop. 
Having a player recite all information on migo along with their exact weak points, demystifying a creature that has never been seen on this world before might not impact AngryDM's game, but it would impact my enjoyment of exploration and discovery as a player as it would essentially be nonexistent. It might not impact the challenge, but it does impact people's enjoyment.
I will admit I stopped reading when he ranted at a player as I don't typically enjoy with such aggressive and high strung people.
With regards to knowing information about monsters, I really wish there was a common to very rare scale. I mean I create that scale in my homebrewed world, and that makes it easy. Everyone(100%) knows about the common beasties, the uncommon ones are known well by the majority(about 75%) of the populace, rare ones would probably be closer to 50/50 which I chalk up to traveling merchants and adventures sharing their close encounter stories, and the very rare ones are known in detail only by a few(<25%), though their existence may be known by many through campfire and bedtime stories.
So trolls? Yeah, generally in my world people would know about trolls. They might be uncommon to a certain area, but would be common enough in the world writ-large that people would know to use fire. And like the story from the article about the cube, the adventurer bends down, touches the ground and a memory of her father telling a story of some monster flashes into their mind, and bam, knowledge gained. A little RP can go a long way 
If I'm really on the fence as to whether a monster should be known to a party of trained adventures, I'd get them to roll d%, or d20, maybe with advantage depending on race and class.
JohnLynch wrote:
I've always thought that there needs to be, somewhere in the DMG, a section that delineates how much your *character* should know by level, based on both your own experience and stuff you've picked up from talking to other adventurers. You could even vary this by class to a certain extent - you'd expect Bards to know a lot because that's their shtick, Clerics and Paladins you'd expect to be well-versed in the undead, Wizards in extraplanar and elemental creatures since they must study them as part of their magical education, Fighters in humanoids, since that's the kind of creatures that engage in large-scale warfare, and Rangers and Barbs the various wilderness beasties.
That way, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing, ignorant characters vs. experienced players.
I usually play it like this: if I don't want the PCs to know everything about the monsters already, I change things up. Trolls live in a tropical area, and fire doesn't stop their regen, cold does. I make things specific to the world they are playing in if I design that world. If it's a campaign setting like FR, I think most would already know troll weakness, and I only vary things when I want an unusual encounter.
in all cases, I alert the players to the fact that I might be changing monster stats in the campaign before I actually do so.
edit: as far as character knowledge and meta gaming go, I really don't care and it doesn't bother me if they use things they know to be true, and I figure their pcs knowledge is = to their own of the game world. Any lore skill is also a measure of what their character would know, and I will feed them that knowledge if the player doesn't appear to exhibit it.
Lore skills should supplement player knowledge, not replace it. A new or casual player might not know trolls are vulnerable to fire, hence a lore roll could help them out. Parsing what a character knows and doesn't know is a needless distraction. I'm very liberal with character knowledge on the assumption that the PCs, when not adventuring, are actually interacting with the world. They have a broad base of knowledge about current events, VIPs, notable legends, monsters, artifacts, etc. even without lore rolls.
DMs who want to add mystery to their monsters are free to create their own. It's so easy to do that complaining about players knowing to use fire against trolls just seems like an outgrowth of laziness or a lack of imagination.
I feel like this is an article that the designers of World of Warcraft read. As I recall (I haven't played in many years) the various raids of the game always had some silly gimmicks. Invariably, if you walked into the fight without prior knowledge of how to do it, you would fail. By studing the fight out of game (aka metagaming), getting all the neccessary information, your group would probably succeed in killing a new boss within 1-9 attempts, depending on how hard the particular boss was and how inept your worst players were.
Of course, the designers of the game were sort of stuck. If the designed the fights to be balanced for players with no metagaming knowledge, they would be trivially easy for any group that did metagame, so they were forced to balance around the metagamers.
It seems like this article by AngryDM is saying to just give up and build your game on the assumption of metagaming. Of course, a side effect is that if your players don't choose to metagame, they are screwed- he even touches on this aspect, when he talks about how the party would have been wandering the dungeon for hours and hours looking for some corpses if a player didn't use his knowledge of gelatinous cubes.
I've made that arguement before. Sure, you can blaance your game around metagaming and cheating, but then if you play it with honest players it'll essentially be impossible. On the other hand, if you design your adventure around secrets that are actually secret, if someone does find a way to cheat and read the entire thing before you run it all your danger and difficulty evaporates.
Anyway, I also sense thaty AngryDM isn't really sure what metagaming is. He goes on and on about pop culture, common knowledge, training, skils, and how they sensibly explain how a character would know certain metagaming things. I agree completely with his analysis of that, but the real conclusion should be that that stuff is not metagaming, not that that stuff is metagaming but it's okay. If there is a valid reason for a character to know something, it's not metagaming!
The test would be removal of player knowledge. If the player didn't know anything, would you answer him honestly if he asked if his character knows something? If the answer is yes, then it's not metagaming information.
D&D Newbie "does my rogue think he can sneak attack the iron construct?" DM: "no, your rogue realizes he can't see any weak spots or vital organs to target" Thats fine. A player who had the same information through past game experiences on another character isn't exactly metagaming if he uses it on a new character, in such a case.
D&D Newbie "does my character know the location of the secret hidden vault of ancient magics, and the combination to open it, and the best time to do this without being caught by guards?" DM: "uh no, nice try though" In this case, a player who knew this information (because he read the module, or played it previously on another character) is simply a filthy cheater metagamer, and there is no valid excuse or reasonable explanation for his character to have such knowledge.
I think the article misses the actual damaging form of metagaming, while focuing on the mostly harmelss side of it (which isn't even technicaly metgaming).
Karnos wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
TheAngryDM wrote:
TheAngryDM wrote:
I agree with the author of the article. Our PCs live in their world. Not only that, but they are adventurers, pursuing insanely dangerous "career" in their world. Those people who "live" in most settings will logically have some knowledge of many, many monsters, unique or highly unusual monsters being exceptions.
We are playing in the Realms, at present. (Just started 5E!) We have a Paladin, an outlander Cleric of the Triad, a knight Fighter of Waterdeep, a Fey Pact Warlock who grew up in the High Forest, and a Sun Elf Wizard. That group, in the Realms (especially in the Sword Coast North), is going to know that fighting trolls requires fire, or that smashing skeletons with hammers is better than smashing them with daggers (common sense?).
If we were in another setting, I'd expect the same, based upon that world's story. In Eberron, Brelish soldiers have been fighting monstrous enemies, such as trolls, on their western border for decades. Those same monsters eventually appeared in the Last War as contracted mercenaries, so the soldiers of the other nations can likely say the same. I could repeat this with the same logic concerning undead and Karrnath's legions. In Eberron, the Last War touched everyone in some way. There are a lot of veterans, and every nation was at war. Basic monster knowledge is probably pretty common.
I could repeat this same logic for many, many settings; any, really, in which monsters are a relatively common threat, rather than mysterious. Adventurers may not know everything there is to know about Beholders, but they likely know facing one means fighting an intelligent foe who will shoot magic from its eyes. More "common" foes like trolls, they'll be pretty well equipped to face, knowledge wise.
My two cents.
TheAngryDM wrote:
I like it. Here's a modern day analogy:
If you run into an angry bear, run away. Do NOT threaten it. If it catches you, play dead.
If you run into a mountain lion, try to look really big and threatening. Do NOT act like prey and run away. If it catches you, fight.
I've never had to do either*. But I climb and mountain bike, and that's just something you learn.
If my neck of the woods had animated skeletons and trolls and gelatinous cubes, I'd probably know about them, too.
*Despite all my efforts I've still yet to see a mountain lion in the wilderness, even though there's been on in my neighborhood lately. And the last bear to come into my yard I chased off with an air horn.
P.S. I saw a sign, that I assume was photoshopped, that looked like an official Forest Service sign. You know, letters carved into dark wood and painted white. It said, "Warning: there are bears and mountain lions in the area. Hikers should wear bells and carry pepper spray. It is useful to be able to identify animal scat. Bear scat is in large piles and usually consists of partially digested berries and other plants. Mountain lion scat is smaller and has bells in it and smells like pepper spray."
Lurker here. While I normally am content to merely read many of these forums and reflect on them (as bawylie aptly stated) rather than imposing my own opinion upon others who may very well have stronger ones than mine, I felt compelled by the OP's call for the opinions of some less prominent individuals in these forums.
I agree for the most part with what The AngryDM is talking about. As for what the official definition of metagaming is, I couldn't really tell you. In my games, it's been both knowing that a troll is vulnerable to fire and that the treasure chest is hidden in the secret vault on the northeast end of the dungeon (as per peeking at the DM's map). That being said, it's easy to say that the former is allowable in most games (depending on the disposition of your DM) and the latter is almost never allowed. Instead of going into a longwinded debate on what metagaming means to you, I think The AngryDM is really just using a fair amount of logic and common sense when it comes to nitpicking at the differentiation between player and character knowledge. When calling a player out for metagaming becomes more of a confrontation rather than a gentle reminder, then it's definitely unnecessary in the confines of the game.
On a similar note -- what are your thoughts about character intelligence related to player intelligence? For example: you encounter some sort of riddle or puzzle. Your illiterate half-orc barbarian with an INT of 8 might not be so keen on solving the riddle/puzzle. But the player might know exactly how to solve it. I've encountered this situation several times when my clever players insist on roleplaying unintelligent or unwise characters. Personally, I suspend my disbelief in these scenarios, and allow the half-orc to deftly solve the riddle/puzzle who might otherwise not be able to. This allows for the player to have fun accomplishing something even though his character might not have otherwise. I could've imposed an intelligence check on something like this, but sometimes it makes more sense to keep the dice out of the equation.
Ctenophore718 wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
I think the question should be: As the DM, how would you handle a group of new players?
Take the gelatinous cube example from the article. The DM was hoping one of the players would know about gelatinous cubes and recognize the description of the scoured hallways. Then the players would naturally say, "Hmm...lets see if we can track it down. Maybe it devoured the missing heroes."
But what if the group was all brand new players? Do you add the following to your description of the hallways? "This was caused by a creature called a gelatinous cube - a 10 ft. cube of acidic ooze. They attempt to envelop living creatures and then digest them, leaving just their bones and gear." Or do you simply let them use their own imaginations to explore and ask questions? Maybe they figure it out, and maybe they don't.
When they encounter trolls for the first time, do you say, "These are trolls. They regenerate, but you can stop it by using fire or acid." Or do you let them figure it out?
In my experience, new players don't like to be told what to do. It is boring to play a game like D&D and have every encounter be: "For this monster, you will want to use your [insert special attack or spell that is most effective]."
Ctenophore718 wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ctenophore718 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ctenophore718 wrote:
I'd boot Angry DM from my game so fast he be left outside my door still packing his monster manuals away.
iserith wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orzel wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Foxface wrote:
In the end, Karnos, I think what we call it is kind of immaterial anyway. The only reason I get my knickers in a twist, apart from the fact that that's my schtick is because the TRUE metagame is a useful thing to understand and not at all a negative thing. It helps DMs understand what players are going to expect, how to manage a group, and how people will react to the different ways you might build different games in different systems. I'm annoyed that we've "lost" the word.
Otherwise, it's not really a fight worth having. It just means that when we have real discussions about the real metagame, we have to spend a little more time making sure we're all on the same page first.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
Of course saying 'There is no way your character would know that' is ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as saying that an 8 INT/WIS character should know every detail about a monster (or Forgotten Realms history) that the player can remember or look up with Google.
That's why we have stats for intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. We don't ask the players to lift the couch over their head with you sitting in it to see if they can force open the portcullis, so why do want to let the players encyclopedic knowledge of the game turn his character into Sherlock Holmes?
We have stats and skills for a reason. In my campaign there have been no undead for almost two thousand years. If skeletons suddenly sprung up around the party I would not expect every character to know to take out their hammers. I'd expect the players to know the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge at my table. If they want to role an applicable lore skill to figure out weaknesses they may have heard of in ancient text or a nursery rhyme, then that's great. If they don't recall enough to know about blunt weapons, then a swing with a sword will probably give their character enough real world experience to figure it out.
I often have new players join my game and I don't want them to feel out of place if a veteran at the table brushes them aside to metagame over the story. DM styles will vary greatly, but those at my table know we are playing a shared story and not trying to 'win the game'. Not that my way is the 'right' way to play, it's just the kind of game people will get at my table.
If people think that reading and memorizing the entire Monster Manual should give the character as much knowledge as the player then why can't they read the adventure before playing? It sure would make the game easier when they could already know what's in the next room or who was going to betray them. Either that, or they could just draw a distinction between what they know and what their player would know so they don't ruin the adventure for the other players.
MrHotter wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Honestly I usually give a run down on things people would know as common knowledge. Things like trolls being weak to fire and acid would be common. In Forgotten Realms for sure since it always seems to be common info even normal people know in novels.\Things like lich phiylacteries *might* not be based on which setting it would be in. So a low magic one where a lich would be very rare, perhaps not.
Aslo going over back grounds of characters would also help determine what each PC knows vs the player.
In high magic campaigns, I would even have professional adventuring schools where they could spend time learning all that kind of stuff as down time.(After all why would you not want to know as much about dangous things as you can when they could one day kill you) Or in the case of 3E in game Monster Manuals they could buy based on creature type(undead, dragon, giants, and outsiders for examples) and when they consult the book they would get a +10 knowledge check equipment bonus. HIgher rolls would give more info. They would roll the die in my "blind roller" cup that I can see and they can't then depending on the roll I would give them the info. Low rolls might be half truths or plane missinformation.
It all depends on the commonality of things in general though.
Karnos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
There's more than one reason to constrain PC knowledge to what the character would actually know, the least of which is clearing the road for easy encounter design (i.e. preventing metagame knowledge from sapping the excitement of an encounter). Verisimilitude (your character really, seriously can't know everything you know; the alternative doesn't even begin to make sense), role-playing (staying in character is part of the game), and plain fun (it's just not fun when someone playing a low-level PC is quoting the MM chapter-and-verse; it turns the game from one of immersion to one of monster/encounter exploitation). The Angry DM is just flat-out wrong here.
Part of the job of the DM is establishing what the PCs know and what they don’t. That extends to and includes stuff like what Angry DM is talking about. His "examples" all work against him. Being instructed in character how to ID a rust monster is the exact opposite of metagaming, for instance. Ultimately, the game isn’t somehow more fun or more coherent when PCs metagame the system. What it does do is allow the DM to take one or two things off their list of jobs as the DM. If that’s how he wants to run his table, that’s up to him. He can be "the Lazy DM" if he wants to be, but I disapprove of his tone when it comes to DMs who don't find it too troublesome to keep up with the whole job. A DM who can deftly maintain the division of knowledge between a PC and a player is not "knowledge police" - they're just doing their job as DM. Plain and simple.
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
My next character, Dubbal Plusgude, cleric and loyal servant of the Onetrueway, will have expertise in the Metagame skill. And he will use it unsparingly to thwart those who would dare follow the dastardly ways of Wrongbadfun.
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Herrozerro wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I like that he gives more credit to the characters, who are actually living in the world and should have more knowledge about what's really going on than is written on the character sheet. Things like level, AC, and vulnerability to critical hits are really things that should be pretty obvious to a battle-trained adventurer.
I don't like how the allowance of non-character knowledge encourages me to spend more time reading through Monster Manuals and adventure modules at home. Issues of immersion and character-knowledge aside, that feels kind of like homework and ruins any potential joy of discovery.
I can't even imagine playing for a DM who would rather let the players waste time wandering in circles, just because nobody had the requisite prior knowledge in order to proceed. That guy seems like a jerk for wasting everyone's time.
Karnos wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
This isn't an issue for me, because in the end what does knowing the monster stats mean?
Should I punish players who, after I told them they'd be going after Lycanthropes wanted to find silver for their weapons? Does saying "how can you possibly know that" lead to anything constructive? After all, some players like feelig smart by knowing this stuff, and honestly if I'm making sure the payer's know what's coming I should be prepared for that reaction.
As to one of the first responses about Migos... I'm not positive but isn't tht a Call of Chuthullu creature? I understand the arguement but that setting is specifically about dealing with things you don't understand and know nothing about... so yeah, allowing that sort of intimate knowledge of a creature would break the feel of the game since the game is predicated on a lack of knowledge unlike D&D which is predicated on a whole different set of premises.
And honestly, I think the best arguement coms from the "Fell's Five" comics I just startd reading.
"I've met Drow before- What I get around. Anyways I know what a Drow is and these aren't Drow"
If you've traveled the world as a merc, there's lot's of things you might run into, lots of little details that you'd pull on to keep your skin in one piece over the years. And if your plans rely on your characters not understanding the threats they are facing.... Your players must really like a difficult challenge
iserith wrote:
Maybe the term "epigaming" for the act of bringing in outside knowledge "on top" of what the PCs would know? (I know, not as appealing or as connotative as metagaming... Stupid English and it's stupid propensity to attach disparate meanings through words through colloquial use!)
I've always been unsatsfied with the notion of "knowledge checks" being assigned to the result of a random roll, regardless of skill or ability modifiers. The random aspect of it just doesn't jibe with the way in which people come to know things, and it leads to situations where, for instance, a player could (as the result of a high roll) recall all the details of the (presumably rare) Slaadi reproductive cycle but (as the result of a low roll) fail to recall that the (presumably common) kobold warren is likely full of traps. People don't just randomly know bits of trivia... They expose themselves in a methodical (if idiosyncratic) fashion to new information that interest them, and remember it. It's possible that your PC's knowlegde could follow the randomly determined pattern dictated by the dice, but after a while it starts straining credibility (IMO). I think this is at the root of the "pop culture" argument... If at any point you have a character know something due to it commonly being known (but dependent on a dice check), it makes it harder to say that the character *doesn't* know some other bit of "common" knowlegde just because they happened to roll poorly.
For me, as a DM, knowledge checks (ie. Int checks using Lore skills) should be used to give the players a bit of information *that could be deduced* from the appearance/mannerisms of a creature (in these cases, the Lore skills are rationalized as giving a base of knowledge to form deductions from). A player might make a check to see if they notice if a creature has a thick hide (high AC), or holds themselves in a way that suggests they can move quickly (high DEX save). This knowlegde can include stuff that newbie players might not realize (skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning) or stuff that I explicitly include for telegraphing purposes (that troll's arm looks newer and less battle worn than the other, while there is a hideous burn scar where one of its ears should be). But things that are just inherent to a creature (kobolds like traps, that ochre jelly splits into two when slashed, etc) are just stuff that I know the players will know or not know going into the encounter. If there is a common bit of "epigame" knowledge, then it's fine if the PCs know it. If one of the PCs has a high "passive" knowledge skill, I'll just go ahead and info dump the party if I think it is something they should know. And if it is something that I truly want to surprise my players with, then I'll surprise them (with the appropriate amount of telegraphing). Any time I can avoid them simply trying to play the game "guess what the DM knows", I'll do so.
iserith wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Sometimes its fun for players to interact and explorer the qualities of a new creature. It was fun finding out the first time that trolls have acid blood and regenerate (even if it induced panic at the time.) I would have been cheated of the experience if a simple die roll had been available to spoil it. So sometimes its fun having creatures that are so new that existing lore is not existent or helpful enough.
However, once that discovery has occurred for a player, pretending to repeat it (even with a new character that couldn't possibly know) is pretty much a hollow experience. I can understand a player, DM or group wanting to focus on making a story more authentic, or to be closer to a true simulation, or whatever, so I can see why someone would want to pretend otherwise or a table might have a rule, but that level of rigor is not fun or even meaningful for everyone.
For many experienced players, it is easier to just 'move along' and let the player narrate how the character knows when the player has recognized the truth. Players actually enjoy being the one to spot such things. So it works a lot better, to not have the lack of knowledge matter to the encounter when you have experienced players (see prior thread about telegraphing.)
Yet, its still fun to discover new things. So for experienced players you can often just make up new monsters, or new variants on old monsters.
Wuzzard wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
iserith wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
If you don't plan on being the DM then you shouldn't be reading the Monster Manual. Also, I'm not sure people are aware of how knowledge skills work.
A player's character doesn't have a list of what he knows, what he knows is determined by the dice if he comes up against something he has never been up against. Now you can houserule whatever you like but there is no RAW that supports knowing a creatures strengths and weaknesses.
This type of playing reminds me of playing in a game that is full of specialists and the DM adjusts the encounters to match those specialists perfectly. What's the purpose of specializing in a certain area when your own weaknesses never come up?
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TheAngryDM wrote:
Herrozerro wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
I agree with using a mechanic to neutralize metagame knowledge or at least provide an avenue to use it. A DM can require the players to make an effort, through backgrounds, ability checks, skills and/or spells for knowledge and accept the results. If a player keeps on blurting out details on creatures or magic items because they have access to MM or the DMG, then the topic switches to disruptive players.
bawylie wrote:
TheAngryDM wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
iserith wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I generally allow things like the weaknesses of a troll to be common knowledge. I won't force players to battle sub-optimally because their character hasn't made an appropriate knowledge check. If I really want a creature's weaknesses or tactics to be unknown, I'll either change them or create a new monster (but make it obvious that it's a different type of creature. No arbitrarily switching the troll's weakness to lightning while having it look and act exactly the same).
The metagaming I try to discourage is when the players attempt to game the scenario, or game me. For example: "Well, it's been three rooms since our last encounter, so there's probably one coming up soon..." or "We've had 4 encounters today, so it's probably safe to rest here because the DM wouldn't strain our resources any further." Saying those kinds of things is a surefire way to make the adventure inexplicably harder (inexplicable to your characters, anyway. I'll make damn sure the players know why fate is taking a proverbial dump on them).
In my opinion, the correct, polite and educated approach that helps the game instead of disrupting it, and doesn't necessarily forces you to play Johnny-knows-nothing, is something like that:
- Troll appears. Players never encountered one before.
- Player: "Does my character know they're hurt by fire? Is this common knowledge."
- DM will tell you if in that world or region trolls are common enough that people should know that or not."
The following is also perfectly viable to ask if applicable:
- "But my character comes from the great snowy north where there are more trolls than here."
or
- "But my character has spent a proficiency slot in Knowledge About Trolls (or whatever that is related to it)."
In which case the DM may deem your character knows it beforehand even if otherwise players wouldn't know.
Unless, it was a homebrew with special circumstances, I just assume characters know the basics about pretty much all "iconic" monsters:
Trolls, skellys, zombies, goblins, dragons, gelantinous cubes etc.....It's only when they encounter some rare creature that I might require a check.
That being said, good decription and not mentioning the creature by name can go a long away toward keeping the mystery.
There is a pathfinder module that has an encounter with a gelantinous cube that has a set of glowing magical armor in it. I've run that encounter three different times, and each time the group would panic because they were sure they were about to be obliterated by a death knight.
Its the "metagaming" of outside knowledge that I have problem with. The party is split and one group plays off of knowledge over heard from the other group, acting knowledge because they've read the module, looking up monsters during the game. These are the no-no's at my table.
bawylie wrote:
The question I want to answered is with an experienced group, where the players all know about trolls and fire, the DM knows the players know, and the players know the DM knows the players know:
How many hoops does the DM makes the players jump through before everyone can stop pretending they don't know?
You're gonna have to introduce fire into the scenario at some point. When is introducing fire "natural" when everyone already knows about fire? Doesn't that make any attempt to introduce fire smack of trying to apply metagame knowledge?
"I reach for the flaming brand from the campfire."
"You're just saying that because you know trolls are weak to fire."
Every attempt to add fire will be looked at with suspicion. And not just with trolls and fire. This happens all the time with experienced players who "know" the game of D&D. Are they doing this because the character comes to the conclusion naturally, or are the players conspiring, manipulating, or otherwise cajoling the DM into letting them use their player knowledge to justify their actions?
You can't ever really tell. There's no way to know for certain. You can never truly regain the luster of your "first time". All you have is trust. All you can do is trust your players to not run roughshod over the campaign.
I find it's better to trust that players will find a genre appropriate justification for their character to act on player knowledge, and if the player really wants to recapture that new car smell and recreate their first time, and all the mystery that entailed, they will do their level best to keep their character ignorant for as long as reasonably possible.
All this hand wringing over metagaming is simply not a problem if you play with people you trust.
Unless a monster is unique or has never been encountered/survived it is entirely reasonable for players to know things like trolls are weak against fire. Adventurers seem to spend alot of time in taverns and other places of gathering and when they go there they tell stories. Bards also frequent towns and share stories, many of whoch have an ounce of truth to them. So if players encounter a troll, assuming they can identify what it is (there is no need for a DM to tell the players the name of the beast, only offer a description) then having heard some sorcerer telling the story of how he burned a dozen trolls while the rest of the party was helpless over and over they might get the idea that fire works. Now if no one has encountered the creature then yeah it would be unlikely they would know anything. In campaigns that are full of magic and monsters in which others have been heroes and bards have spread tales, it is a bit disingenuous to assume characters have never heard that bugbears grab people and drow use darkness and poison. Heck armies teach soldiers and priesthoods teach young priests how to survive. Wizards spend years pouring over tomes and Warlocks can just ask the source. If the campaign takes place in a world devoid of past heroes then maybe you should go over this with the players as part of your introduction but even such worlds would have legends of things that go bump in the darkness.
Foxface wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Can't say I'd find that particularly fun. But then I prefer home campaigns rather than adventures and so my enjoyment comes from how the session sits in the entire story rather than as a discrete adventure.
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Kugnar wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I once had a DM "Metagame" me:
I, as a player, had completely forgotten that your standard Tiefling in 3.x/PF had fire resistance 5. In response to this Tiefling making an action, I cast burning hands at him. My DM forced me to make a knowledge roll (because I was playing a Bard) to determine if my character really would have made such an action. Turns out my failing the check actually paid off because it wasn't a Tiefling *gasp*`!
It cuts both ways here. No one is going to probably ever get exactly what they want. Unless they play with the same group from the time they learn to play and there are unspoken, but well known, rules of what OOC information is allowable and what is not .
himrin wrote:
Interesting article by TheAngryDM (TAD). My thoughts on this one:
First, having read a few articles of his, I am at least more prepared to realize some of the vehemence is for effect. Real DM's of Orange County attention getting.
The Gelatinous Cube Incident: Metagaming? *I* think not. I wouldn't want my players to be concerned about what their characters should or shouldn't know based on the information given. Regardless of whether or not John thought it was a G-Cube, the fact is that TAD gave adequate information to the characters and at least one acted reasonably upon it. It is an odd detail, unusual for the setting. Players in my campaign realize that there could be, literally, unlimited possibilities as to its cause, but one thing they'll all agree on, is that it was important. How that want to interpret the data is up to them.
Metagaming continues to be a confounding issue for me because I still don't quite understand the agitation it seems to cause quite a few DMs. As a DM, I narrate the information given, thus I control what can be knowable. Examining the G-Cube above, if I needed that to be one possible "hook" to advancing the story, it's not so much about whether or not the G-Cube was a known entity by players, but that I was offering enough information for characters to act upon accordingly. "Metagaming", in this case, is not on the players but on me. How can they have any preconceived knowledge about anything when everything they get is from me?
You might say, if I give them "troll" they then can access whatever information they know about trolls and that's metagaming because it's not about what the character knows. Actually, I don't honestly buy that line of thinking. Even the use of the word "troll" as a DM is part of the information package I am giving. I, as DM, offered something that I know carries with it meaning. No different than saying "tree" or "cat". Whatever a player imagines that word to mean, it's still on me (the DM) to flesh it out and give it life. It's still only a word until *I* give it in-game meaning. "Troll" is still owned by me and what details it truly offers is up to me to relate with further exposition.
As for whether or not it's incumbent on me to make any alterations to "keep it fresh"... any complaints about how difficult that might be is just excuses to be lazy. I am not judging or pointing fingers, but if I want to use "Troll" as a description and then use the generic stat block for the creature because I don't want to take the few seconds of time it would take to change anything on it (like, oh, the name as one simple example), how can I complain that players are being equally lazy by just using what they know of "troll" and applying it to their character?
I am too lazy to take ownership of an entity in my game, but I expect players to delve into every possible point of knowledge that a character might have ownership of over the 15-150 (or more) years of their lives?
Every Greek Theater Patron: This is well said. To my thinking, it comes down to what I believe characters could or should know about a creature based on common knowledge of the world. When the group encounters "three goblins", a creature common to the campaign world I am using, they should have a good idea of what they are getting into. But even then, I don't assume too much, so I use images (at least for the first meeting) for every creature they encounter so they have some visualization of the imaginary creature.
However, if I say "Shadowscar Kobold", it should pique their interest and have them looking for (perhaps) something that makes that type of kobold different than the ones they've come to know.
Because it's Easier and More Fun: I agree here. Running a table with confrontations is not fun. DMs are best served to take care of their own side of the screen and not the other.
My take... use OOC knowledge as just another tool. If you want players to know that a creature they are about to encounter has regeneration that is only countermeasured by acid & fire, give them "troll." If you want their characters to be uncertain, give them "forest strider". Either way, spend the 30 seconds it would take to describe the creature and combat clues once (if) engaged as to their nature.
And, for me, it's okay to use Knowledge Skills to sometimes fill in (or not) the gaps. I'd prefer not to hamstring a skill selection unless I was simply not using any skills in a randomized manner at all.
Overall Impression of the Post: I thought TAD's intent was pretty good here (even if I don't always agree with the delivery ).
My Opinion: Don't shoot the messenger. Don't shoot the recipient. Shoot the message. If you don't like Metagaming, figure out a way to deliver the information that eliminates the possibility.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
himrin wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
iserith wrote:
TheAngryDM wrote:
Karnos wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Karnos wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
I don't know why I read theads like this. It's so depressing. All this talk about kicking people out of tables, and arguing over rules, and personal attacks on each other. Seriously? Why do you guys even bother to play games if it makes you this angry? Not just angry at the people at your table, but angry at people on the internet who have different opinions?
Gelatinous Cubes, Trolls, etc: if I'm playing with new players it's fun to introduce this stuff and have them slowly figure out how to handle slimy trails and regenerating body parts. If I'm playing with experienced players it's fun to find ways to keep them on their toes, despite what they know. ("Through the howling wind and driving rain, those of you with Darkvision see three massive humanoids lumbering awkwardly across the barren heath toward you...")
I guess I can remember some times in about 1980, when we were in middle school, that we got mad at each other and argued over rules (including whether it's fair to kill the character of somebody who wasn't even there) but we were in middle school.
Sheesh.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Seriously. I'm in agreement with elfcrusher. This is ridiculous.
And by the way, Elfcrusher handles player knowledge correctly in his post. It is nearly pointless trying to recreate the sense of wonder and discovery with an experienced group. They know too much. The DM needs to know his audience, his players. He needs to play to expectations. The players know about trolls and fire? Well, don't make the challenge about discovering trolls are weak to fire...
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Foxface wrote:
iserith wrote:
Foxface wrote:
They're using these knowledge checks bc they *want* the players to have the knowledge (or to test if it's available, maybe).
What I don't really understand is why not simply give the information (directly, or through telegraphing), if they want the players to have it? What's gained by "going through the system"?
For instance, in the kids' game. The kids believed Trolls would turn to stone in the sun, having read the Hobbit or seen the movie. So they came up with a plan to lure a Troll out into a clearing with roast goat and then trap it there until dawn. Not a bad plan. Except trolls don't turn to stone in the sun.
Heres what I did: I added 2 "Mountain Trolls." So it was 2 mountain trolls and one troll. I described them differently. So their plan worked & the 2 mountain trolls turned to stone. But they still had the one regular troll to fight. This one I described as always shielding himself from the cookfire and going way around it. They caught on in 2 rounds, and started throwing flaming logs. One tried pushing the troll into the fire and said he was gonna cook it. The troll screamed in fear, etc.
After, they even tried to memorize the differences between trolls and mountain trolls.
I guess i couldve said, "Naw, kids. In D&D trolls don't turn to stone. They're weak to fire and acid." Or I could've made them roll a check (although I don't feel that would have been fair: I don't believe in using the system against players or using their own ignorance of the game against players). But instead I looked for a way to reward them for their planning and also introduce a challenge (the regular troll as a hink in the very good plan).
iserith wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Very insightful discussion, at least for me. There are very important concepts to consider.
As a DM, I generally prefer that players play as their characters would. Sure, that could mean dumbing some of their knowledge down. Personally, my players and I don't find it unreasonable that sometimes, the things that the players cannot possible know are not left to any checks. In fact, my players find it interesting to role-play some of the first times different characters encounter a monster, even if the role-play knowledge is clearly different from the truth, and they know it.
Iserith, what you describe sounds more like a slippery slope. If any knowledge can be justified, then all knowledge should be justified. What I mean by that is the fact that there is indeed a metagame, and players should agree to its extent. I don't think it's fair for one player to be able to justify all knowledge, while others try to reign their characters in. Also, I don't think that actions should be limited by DMs (definitely agree with you there), like taking a hammer out to beat the skeleton, but there should be other consequences to inappropriate use of knowledge.
From my game, I would like to throw an example out there. One of my player characters, a gnome tinkerer nonetheless, wanted to impress a clan of orcs with a new invention; a compound bow akin to those in the modern age. Because he knew how those bows worked in the modern world, he was able to draw some conclusions in-game, which seemed reasonable, but the catch is that they are reasonable only to those that had the knowledge of all the inventions leading up to it. Or only reasonable to those that can fathom such an invention out of nothingness. Though I did not limit my player in their ambition, the final result was left to a check, and since the character had no basis to start the assumptions about future technology, the check was at horrible disadvantage. The bow did not function as intended and was a complete failure.
Now imagine if I would have allowed the player to simply do as they pleased and justify it all. Any and all inventions from the modern era could be brought into D&D world of fantasy. The only real justification that would be required is the fact that the gnome is a tinkerer and he is naturally coming to these assumptions about sciences that he knows as a player. That is a slippery slope. If you let one thing go, then where do you draw the line? I think such activity places an unnecessary strain on the DM, who should also be enjoying the game. I don't know about you, but I don't have my monsters act as though they know everything about player characters. Sometimes, I play my monsters fairly stupid, like provoking opportunity attacks. It's all in the flavor of the monster and I don't find it a shallow experience trying to dumb my monsters to a level that is represented by their intelligence/wisdom. This fosters more of a DM on the side of the party mentality. If I was to use all the stats and abilities of the player characeters and have them get exploited by even the lowliest of life-forms, my players would say that I am going specifically on a mission to kill them, and if I did that in such a manner, they would be right.
Now before anybody says that it would be awesome to bring all those inventions into the world of D&D, that is not the point. The point is that if you straight up let characters make seemingly uninformed decisions in-game based on out-of-game knowledge, too many things stand to be unraveled. I agree though, DM cannot police the thoughts and cannot call for a check on actions that cannot fail. This is what makes this such a two-sided issue with me.
Guess it's up to finding middle ground for everyone. Keeping the right amound of characeter knowledge. As the players play more and more D&D, they slowly memorize all the monsters. By the time they are veteran players, they might know information that is clearly only available to certain priviledged individuals (lore-wise). Starting at level 1 in a small town in the middle of nowhere, such isoteric knowledge should likely not be already in characters' minds, even if the players' possess it.
But just like Elfcrusher stated, it is a bit sad that too many people would rather kick someone out quickly then consider other possibilities, being too angry.
Foxface wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Let's not throw fuel on the fire.
Theres a lot of good discussion going on that's worth having.
bawylie wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
DMYeg wrote:
The problem with creating a thread in a discussion forum but only wanting responses from people who by their nature rarely if ever respond is it doesn't really engender a discussion. It seems best suited for the types of comments you get in a blog where discussions (actual dialogue) are short if at all present.
it can also be interpreted as dropping a flame bomb and stepping back to watch the inevitable flame war. You can keep trying this approach, although I don't even know if I'm the target audience your looking for a response from. I know I've never discussed this issue before on these forums, but I may post too regularly to be invited into this discussion.
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
As I've said I prefer not to see out of character knowledge used in game as it can (and has) ruined my enjoyment when someone spilled the beans because "that was old hat 14 years ago." (I began playing in 2008). I'm curious what everyone thinks is good etiquette at mixed tables like I described as we've gotten a lot of responses to what happens when everyone knows something, but no- one has weighed in as to what happens when there's non uniform experiences. Does the know it all always spill the beans? To me that's not a fun game. What about when everyone except 1 player knows the "secret"?
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Personal attacks are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
I run with a mature group of experienced players so telegraphing anything but the most rare or unheard of monsters would be pointless. I don't ask them to play dumb either, hey we're going to the troll forest today might want to bring a little extra oil for burning them. I am not a huge fan of gimmick defenses or achilies heel defenses. but sometimes I do hit them with the fire troll who heals when burning, thus they will be burning when found and that should be enough of a hint. My players are also well aware that if their is some odd beast about asking at the local tavern might get you what knowledge you need espically after a few rounds are purchased. I also have a hint number of beast they know never to mess with, if they ask how many orcs are down there and I say oh about 50, they know that a frontal assault will end badly. That is the hint it's time to do some recon or find a way around.
DMYeg wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
DMYeg wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
bawylie wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Grand_Theft_Otto wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bawylie wrote:
I agree with Orethalion and others that a player using prior knowledge of a published adventure goes against the spirit of the game. Oddly enough it doesn't go against the rules of the game, though. This has never happened to me--I haven't run a published adventure since 2e maybe (I think I did one of the Dungeon Magazine ones). If I was playing in a game where a fellow player pulled out a copy of the adventure and consulted it during play, I'd probably be more than happy to exploit his knowledge just for a lark (bonus points if the PC pulls out a copy of the adventure--that would be awesome!).
I agree that knowledge of monster attributes and vulnerabilities are a minor issue that can easily be ignored and are often dealt of with in-game solutions anyway (lore rolls, helpful rumors, knowledgeable NPCs, circumstances of the combat, etc). Like the original article, I have ZERO problem with this sort of OOC knowledge. The DM should be up front with how they would like to handle this, particularly with veteran players. Flexibility and open communication is advised, as always.
I agree that using OOC can backfire, as with the case of the fire trolls or alterations to a published adventure. I think this is a perfectly acceptable risk to using OOC knowledge. It's only OOC knowledge if it's actually knowledge.
I agree that the rules give the DM the role of staging the game and resolving actions. This technically includes determining what a PC knows, but certainly not what a player knows or what a PC or player decides to do. That is entirely in the purview of the player. Also, while a DM has authority over what a PC knows using such power to force ignorance on the character is as rude as a player exploiting OOC knowledge.
Ultimately, the validity of OOC knowledge is a playstyle issue. Forbidding OOC knowledge in a tongue-in-cheek beer and pretzels game would ruin the fun: "Let's go back to that death trap that wiped out our last party and see if we can regain our stuff!"
BecDeCorbin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
Ragnar has 1 level of fighter. Despite his low int, he's proficient in every weapon.
Back in fighter school they taught him blades were for blood-letting and blunt weapons were for breaking bones.
Ragnar notices the skeleton doesn't have much blood going on. But it still has bones. He's not the smartest fighter ever, but damnit, he's got this.
Later, Ragnar meets a gelatinous cube. Having neither blood to let nor bones to break, the GC poses a delicate conundrum. Ragnar decides to poke it with a stick from as great a distance as possible until he figures out what to do.
Gor'bless'im.
Tongue-in-cheek edit:
DM: "You didn't mention fighter school in your background. GTFO my house!"
bawylie wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Foxface wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Foxface wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I'd use fire against a strawman.
bawylie wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Karnos wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
YW! I'll try to name things more provocatively.
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Personally, I don't see the virtue in calling for checks on information that's observable. That's part of why I telegraph.
Ultimately, it comes down to me putting everything on the table. It's on my agenda.
Okay, so I got to page 5 before I just couldn't read any further. I'm going to say some things, put forth my arguments on what I've read so far and hope that things got better in the last two pages, because yeesh.
So firstly, I do not consider using knowledge of monster weaknesses to be "metagaming". I've always been told metagaming is a terrible thing, but it has been limited to "I read the module before we started" (which is dirty cheating in my humble opinion) and "we've been through 4 fights already, the DM won't attack us again so soon" which is just plain silly to say out loud, beause then I'm almost certainly going to attack you again.
So, that being said there are, in my opinion three levels of "monster knowledge"
In "painfully obvious" I put things like the skeleton example that has been bandied about. I do not need any fancy justification for pulling a hammer or mace against a skeleton. A skeleton is a creature made of bones, a bludgeoning weapon is one that is designed to crush bones, while a piercing or slashing weapon is meant to cause damage to soft, squishy meaty things, like organs or flesh, that a skeleton doesn't have. Telling me my character would have no way of knowing a weapon designed to crush bone would be very effective against a pile of bones is similiar to me to being told I can't possibly know a creature made of dry sticks and moss is vulnerable to fire.
Under "common knowledge" I put things like Dragons have different breath weapons depending on their color. Trolls regernerate unlessthey are hit with fire or acid. Werewolves need to killed with silver. These are things anyone who has played DnD for any length of time knows, but the characters might not necceserarily know. However, unless the players agree before-hand there is no good reason for me to deny them this knowledge. As has been pointed out, you can't rediscover something like this you can pretend, sure, but everyone is just sitting around, waiting for the "aha" moment so they can use the knowledge they already have. And a second problem with some of this stuff? Trolls are a perfect example, they don't die unless you use fire or acid. You can beat them with normal weapons, but anybody who has this knowledge knows the trolls are just a little wait away from coming back to life and attacking the party again unless they use fire or acid to finish the job. That means by denying the players the ability to use the knowledge they have then you are forcing them into a incredible dangerous position against their will. You have taken away their ability to win, until you feel they have earned the right to learn what they already know. A few people have said their groups have played for decades and love pretnedning not to know things, but how many have camped near to Troll bodies that haven't been burned, allowing you to have the Troll attack them again while they sleep? How many times do they have to "kill" the trolls before they are allowed to use fire?
I don't see the challenge in forcing the players into a situation they know to avoid. Knowing fire is needed to kill Trolls does make them easier, because they are impossbile to get rid of until you do that. Now you need to find a way to make them a challenge even though they are no longer immortal beasts of death.
My third tier is highly specific things or creatures that are unusual or unique to the game. Players can't know the specific weapon needed to kill Lolth, or that the Demon lord that started Lycanthropy can only be killed by a blade forged under the light of a full moon after it has been dipped in virgin blood. This is stuff the players need to go and research, or make an adventure out of to learn. What's the difference between this tier and the previous one? These are generally specific, single entities, or a limited number of creatures. They have a population that might not even hit double digits, or be something that isn't so common and ubiquitous that people just know it off the top of their head. If you want to make a common creature like a troll or skeleton into this kind of creature then you need to tell your players this first off, and even then don't be surprised or upset if they slip because they don't want to have there character do something obviously deadly.
MrHotter wrote:
"I know my DM frequently customizes monsters, and changes them from the MM so no player has an undue advantage, so I'm going to invest in the Monster Lore skill!"
Isn't that, like, literally metagaming?
Foxface wrote:
Foxface wrote:
BecDeCorbin wrote:
DM: A slavering humanoid figure bounds into the clearing. It has the head of a wolf and it's jaws drip with saliva as it tilts its head up to howl at the full moon.
Player: Uh oh, a werewolf. Quick grab that silver knife we found.
DM: You've never encountered werewolves so you need to roll a Nature check to know about werewolves and silver.
Player: I haven't? Ok,
All players fail their check.
Scenario 1
Player: I stab it with my sword then when that doesn't work I try my torch then when that doesn't work I try splashing it with holy water then when that doesn't work I throw acid at it....
DM: After two rounds you find that the silver dagger you found causes it great pain.
Scenario 2
Player: I stab it with my sword then when that doesn't work I try my torch then when that doesn't work I try splashing it with holy water then when that doesn't work I throw acid at it....
DM: Stop metagaming. You have no reason to suspect anything will work better than your sword.
Player: Sorry. Um, after I see that my first sword swing doesn't work I frantically try to rack my brain to figure out what I missed.
DM: Ok, next round you can roll another Nature check.
Player succeeds next round.
DM: You remember hearing that creatures like this are called werewolves and can be harmed only with silver.
Scenario 3
Player: I stab it with my sword then when that doesn't work I try my torch then when that doesn't work I try splashing it with holy water then when that doesn't work I throw acid at it....
DM: Stop metagaming. You have no reason to suspect anything will work better than your sword.
Player: Sorry. Um, after I see that my first sword swing doesn't work I frantically try to rack my brain to figure out what I missed.
DM: Sorry, you failed the check, so you don't know anything about this monster.
Player: Ok, I yell out, "We can't hurt it! Everybody run!"
DM: After fleeing the beast you make it back to town by morning. Johann the cleric seemed to satiate it's hunger so the rest of you escaped.
Player: Ok, we look for any information we can find about that thing. Do we meet up with Craig's new character?
Scenario 4
Player: I stab it with my sword then when that doesn't work I try my torch then when that doesn't work I try splashing it with holy water then when that doesn't work I throw acid at it....
DM: Stop metagaming. You have no reason to suspect anything will work better than your sword.
Player: Sorry. Um, after I see that my first sword swing doesn't work I frantically try to rack my brain to figure out what I missed.
DM: Sorry, you failed the check, so you don't know anything about this monster.
Player: Ok, I yell out, "We can't hurt it! Everybody run!"
DM: I'm serious, your character has no reason to think they "failed" any "roll". They don't know they can't win.
Several rounds later.
DM: Hmm, I really expected one of you to make that roll. Well, you can all make new characters, I'm going to stretch my legs.
Which of these is playing/DMing correctly to avoid metagaming? If none, please share what would happen at your table?
I think metagaming is inevitable and if a player reads the MM and knows all about monsters, cool, at least he's keen! Wish I haf more players like him. I agree with the article that its not worth " fighting" and such knowledge is easily explained. In fact it might even allow some awesome RPing if given the chance to explain where the pc learnt the info, creating a tidbit of the pcs history that was previously unknown.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Kulland wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
This has been a fascinating discussion. I must admit that my stance game/player knowledge has really been clarified thanks to all the examples, philosophies, and even strawmen that appeared in this thread.
I believe that my next campaign will be much more in the vein of Gygax/Arneson where I'm engaging and challenging the players without worrying about drawing a line between them and their characters.
Thanks to all on both (all three? six? 
) sides of the discussion!
Zappy wrote:
This thread outlines why it's very important to ask new players what they think about metagaming.
Me: "What do you think about metagaming?"
Player: "What's that?"
Me: "Welcome aboard."
iserith wrote:
Kulland wrote:
Kulland wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
We've all run Caves of Chaos right? Keep on the Borderlands.
We still run those things. I'm not convinced knowing the layout and monsters obviates the challenge. It's helpful, but it's never been game-breakingly helpful.
At best, it's like "Watch out for the medusa." But I've been placing petrified stuff near there anyway, basically saying "watch out for the medusa." Idk.
Recently my wife came home from the store, having gone to get something to make for dinner. She came into my office all excited, bragging that she was inspired to make something new we never really have. And that I wouldn't be able to guess in a million years.
I literally looked her in the eyes and responded with, "stir fry?"
She looked back at me for a long second as if her brain got disconnected temporarily. Then she just shook her head and asked how I could possibly have known that.
It was a total guess out of left field.
Sometimes guessing works out.
True story.
"Before you can eat dinner, make a check to see if you know anything about Asian foods."
Natural 20! Pass the soy sauce...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
I don't have a problem with players that know general capabilities of monsters, such as trolls being vulnerable to fire, that you use silver to fight werewolves, or that gelatinous cubes roam hallways in dungeons. I don't really consider that to be metagaming and I don't see how that is ever much of a problem in a game.
The kind of metagaming that is problematic is when a player is using intimate knowledge of a monster's stats to defeat it. "Oh, that's a <insert monster>, the mage needs to cast <x> spell because it only has a +2 to save vs that effect." or "it's taken 47 points of damage and at most it will only have 51 hit points so don't blow any more major attacks on it" or "I need to back off, that creature will do about 30 points of damage on average on a hit and I'm down to 27."
Things like that is what I call true metagaming.
You don't let a character ignore the combat system and instantly kill a dragon, even if the player has a flimsy RP explanation about how his character knows the exact weak spot and fires an arrow directly through the dragons's eye to the brain. Or do you?"
- I sure do! Especially when they've scouted out the dragon's weak point, acquired the legendary arrow, and set up a plan to bait the dragon and strike. We don't have to run combat to kill something. We can find another way to kill.
"You don't let a character have any and every magic item or treasure they desire through no effort at all, even if the player has a flimsy RP explanation about how his character had a mighty emperor-sorcerer grandfather who died and left all of his treasure to the character. Or do you?"
-Why not? As long as they're adventuring, I can write a fun and challenging game. No matter what items they have. (Jaysus, if I can deal with "Wish" I can deal with rich). If they just want tons of treasure and immediately retire, well, whatever. Next character, make one that will adventure and we'll have a fun and challenging game.
"But apparently, some do let a character bypass any and all mysteries or secrets or puzzles, even if the player has a terrible implausible RP explanation, because for some reason sharing information between player and character is a sacred law of your game and you must allow it. (Even though past editions strictly prohibited sharing of information.)"
-It's not that I MUST allow it. It's that it's totally and completely unimportant to me. It doesn't change my game, it doesn't make it easier. Oh, and I could give a glowing turd what other editions strictly prohibit - the rules serve Me.
Share info between player and character. I don't need to rely on my players' ignorance to beat them. In fact, I refuse to use their ignorance against them. When I DM "You'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed..." After that, use whatever advantage you can get, because, God help you, I play to win.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Bawylie wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Beldak Serpenthelm wrote:
Karnos wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Sorry if you felt like it was an attack on you. Too often people come to this forum with the position of "this is the right way and if you do it differently your doing it the wrong way." Sometimes they'll try to argue that the rules support their way and don't support any other way as a means to try to gain credibility.
We've seen plenty of examples in this thread alone from both sides. Sometimes they'll couch it as "that's not D&D" or "your ruining the enjoyment of your players." If people instead took the stance "this isn't fun for some tables" (e.g. Monster lore checks for an entire table that had the monster manual memorised) rather than "that's just not fun" we'd probably get much more civil discussions.
I was trying to say "let's dial down the inflammatory remarks and instead treat each other as human beings who are capable of assessing what's fun for their table".
Sorry that it didn't come out like that.
MrHotter wrote:
thehobb wrote:
bawylie wrote:
It's impressive when they buy-in, engage, play the game, and win.
Its not impressive when they skip things - that's just communicating that they're not interested in engaging or playing that particular scenario.
Regarding reading the module - you're getting the NPC stats, map, plot (if there's one to be had), etc. If you're motivated to play the game, you'll play the game. Perhaps you'll to simply find and kill the BBEG the first chance you get (in other words, maybe you just want to skip playing) - ok, you do that. Or maybe you decide, even though you have all the answers, that it'll be fun to play out anyway.
A bit like watching Star Wars again. No less fun, even though you know Luke blows up the Death Star.
As many here have said, "It's about the journey, not the destination." If you want the answers, you may have them. If you don't want to play, and just skip to the end, you may do that (I'm never gonna force you into something you don't want to do). But if you want to play, you'll play. And I'll see to it that play is as fun and challenging as possible, which I can do independent of whether you know the plot.
So let's look at one. Here's the open question. "Can the PCs rescue Mademoiselle DeFluer from the Vampire Baron Ulhster before she's killed or turned? I'll tell you where everything is, if you want to know. I can give you everything about vampires if you ask. Of course, you could also play the game and find that info out too. It'll be there. You're gonna get the info anyway, so what do I care how?
What i DO care is what you do and how you do it. That's where the fun and challenge lies. The MetaGaming thing is a side issue. All you get from it is what I'm already giving. So you say what you want to do, and how, and then I tell you about whatever obstacles I created that might impede your plan.
The smarter, more thorough you are, probably the better chances you have of beating me. I hope you do.
Check out the Seahorse Run thread for a well designed set piece encounter. Good encounter. Everything telegraphed. Nothing you can get by meta gaming that isn't actually available by playing.
iserith wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread. I'm at Gen Con so I've been busy.
I want to make a few comments.
1. I think metagaming is bad. In all the senses I've seen it mentioned. IF, your game is primarily about exploration and discovery like mine.
2. It is very hard for players to avoid metagaming if the DM doesn't help out. This is why I change up my monsters and don't give out names. I don't consider monster knowledge as common except for what I'd consider the truly common monsters like an orc.
3. Reading the module goes way beyond metagaming. It's cheating in my opinion unless it's something you did in the past before the campaign. Cheating is something friendships end over. Metagaming is not. Metagaming is just something some people part ways over when it comes to game play. I think a player is honor bound to tell the DM he has been through an adventure before. I think most of the time it's best to just skip that adventure.
4. If you have really old hands in your group then being creative is a must.
Emerikol. wrote:
Not Emerikol, however for me it's not the act of reading a module that's the problem. It's reading the module and then lying about it. If a DM says "has anyone read this module?" And you say no you have outright lied. If reading a module in your group is acceptable, than you won't need to lie about it.
I trust the people I game with to tell the truth.
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
I'm with JohnLynch. I just want to have players that are honest about their exposure to an adventure. I'll always inform players if I plan on using (even modified) a published adventure so that any prior exposure is known. If they purposely deceive me in their response, then their intent and integrity come into question.
I then have to guard against character sheet alterations, dice cheating, etc. Not fun for me at all. And, honestly, not fun for other players most the time.
When a player lets me know they are familiar with the adventure, then we can have a good discussion on how we want to handle it going forward. Normally, I like to tinker with plot, encounter (combative and otherwise), and design anyway, but it's always nice to have an understanding of and trust with my friends who join me at the table. So when they say they'll not use advanced knowledge to their advantage, I'll have complete faith in their sincerity. That gives me the option of being lazy (and sometimes, it's nice to not have to work at it so hard) and running something as is.
Fortunately for me, it's been literally decades since I had any sort of confrontation with a player as such. I've made dozens of new friends on- and off-line through D&D and am happy to say that I find that the vast majority of players are only interested in having fun. Very few are so concerned with "success" as to go to any length that might be dubious in intent.
Emerikol. wrote:
Sure, I think we can all agree that someone who is intentionally deceptive isn't someone you want as a player.
Or as a DM.
Thats different, though, than Metagaming. This example is ALSO meta gaming, but it's the deceit here that's the big offender for me.
So when I do run a published adventure, I start by giving its history (if it's older and has one), and asking if anyone's been through it. Then I hand it over and tell them "Most of it I've left unchanged, although updated for this new edition. Also, a lot of the fights, traps, and some circumstances are not gonna be as written - they were fine in 19NN, but they're crap now."
And then we're off.
A good one I remember in respect to knowing certain things was actually a Bard, who'd use checks to see if they remembered any songs or stories about heroes who defeated a monster, and in what manner
Course it doesn't apply to trolls because c'mon, your character probably heard a story about knight Whosit defeating one with fire when they were a kid
ShadeRaven wrote:
Dane_McArdy wrote:
Dane_McArdy wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote: