Like are we talking player's whos character have never encountered a (insert monster, preferably with a resistance/ immunity) but who know enough not to use (resistance/ immunity type of damage). IE: "I've never met a Devil, but i think i'll avoid using fireball (despite it being my highest damage spell)... for 'reasons'"
Or are we talking more "I know all the stats of every (monster(s)) and will proceed to piss and moan when they don't go down after taking EXACTLY X amount of damage (X= the suggested amount of life for the creature).
Both exemple are metagaming. Metagaming exist whenever a player uses or rely on his or her real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances. It can be about anything in game, monsters, place, magic items, lore etc.
The golden rule is if you,re not sure if your character should know an info that you know, just ask the DM! (in private if it's sensitive info)
Honestly, metagaming isn't what's wrong. What's wrong is when they're (or you're) doing something that detracts from the fun. You're trying to encourage a suspension of disbelief and to engage with the game fully; metagaming itself is more a symptom than an illness in and of itself. I say that, because sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Arguing with a player because they've instantly gone for a fire attack on a Troll even though their character has no prior knowledge of the Troll's weakness is probably worse than just letting them metagame. If the players aren't naturally roleplaying, then either they don't understand how to roleplay or they're just not immersed - and their metagaming is a symptom the lack of immersion, rather than the disease itself. Metagaming can also be positive; I (and any player worth their salt) will shape decisions my character makes in order to help the DM out. I still have freedom to choose.etc, but I'll also help direct the story so we don't sabotage the game either.
I'm also wary of accusations of metagaming. For example, I didn't know that there was something about Fireball that meant you shouldn't use it against devils. I still wouldn't have used it, because devils are from Hell and its hot there...so it makes sense I want to use a cold spell. That's just knowledge that is a reasonable deduction and therefore my character, who is equally knowledgeable/ignorant of the details of devils as I am, could well deduce.
Metagaming is using knowledge that a character would not have to influence decisions or to manipulate game mechanics. However, not all metagaming is bad, not all bad metagaming is worth battling, and not all bad metagaming worth battling is solved by dealing with it directly rather than tackling the circumstances that caused it to arise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
As a player, I like to ask "what do I/we know about [x]," which allows the group as a whole to:
Set boundaries as to our knowledge,
Decide our next course of action, and
Give the DM to tell us more about this cool monster they've introduced, and if your DM likes injecting rumours into the world,
Worldbuild.
What I as a player (as opposed to player character) know might be vastly different from game-to-game. Pathfinder: Kingmaker, for instance, deals with this quite well: it's common knowledge, or at least a rumour, that trolls are normally weak to fire, but this time they're not. Your quest is to find out why. As it turns out, they have a brand that makes them immune to fire and they can only be defeated by acid or other means of preventing them from regenerating. But in this campaign, nope, they're normal trolls, call 1-800-GOTREK.
As a DM, however, I ask the players "how does your character know this?" If they read it in a book, I might give it to them. It's perfectly reasonable that they came across a tome, or heard a rumour, or saw a play that dealt with the subject. If they keep saying that though, it might be time to throw in "this doesn't work like the book suggested," and then after that discussing boundaries regarding what they've read. I'm also confident in the dice's fairness: they're the ultimate decider whether or not that knowledge is going to do anything meaningful in that turn.
Furthermore, depending on action economy, I might say "eh, in this world it's known that so-and-so is vulnerable to this." Combat goes on long enough without Mother May I; roll the dice and blow that thing away. I would hate for someone to use an action, realise it's not that effective a use, and then have to wait too long to do something useful. While I am of the school of "that's the game," I do empathise with those whose sole purpose was to tick a box and sit twiddling their thumbs.
All of this said, I concur with Linklite: sometimes it's just not worth getting aggrevated about. If it's a problem, let it slide for now and discuss it at the end of the game or before the next one.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
It can also be about sensitive lore important in your game. It reminds me a FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign i was running back in the 90's and as the party was in Waterdeep, which didn't have any thieve's guild officially, but as they were going in Undermountain 3rd level to a place called Skull Port which featured one gang called Xanathar's Guild when one player told everyone that it was a Beholder and that they had to be cautious so it could suppress magic. I said dude, your character don't know this , it's a secretive organization from the Underdark and a monster which you never heard of before! But it was too late, the secret was revealed and mystery busted.
Like was mentioned it’s info the player knows that the character wouldn’t know.
But these characters actually live in this world so some things may be common knowledge, like trolls vulnerable to fire since trolls can be in many locations around the world, or taught in children stories/songs. Or like was mentioned above, can be deduced relatively easily, with the fireball in the hells example.
Some may be obvious meta gaming. Others may be more subtle. But as long as it’s not ruining the fun I don’t think it is a huge deal. But should probably be avoided. Depends on the table. I know when I played AD&D in the 80’s we probably metagamed like crazy but we were all teenagers and had no clue what metagaming was. But we had lots of fun.
I define player metagaming as “using information only available at the player level to influence decisions at the character level.”
The above posters all do a good job discussing player metagaming - but it is worth noting that DMs can metagame also.
For DMs, who are required to use a degree of meta information to design encounters which can challenge the party, I use a slightly different rule - “using information only available at the DM level to influence the decisions made by NPCs within the bounds of actual play” If you are a DM, you can use meta information to set the stage for the session—you should be designing encounters and story points that play to the specific party you have.
What becomes a problem is when NPCs rely upon meta information they as folks living in the world would not know. For example, if they fail their insight check to to know a character is lying, a DM should not play the NPC in a way reflecting the DM’s personal knowledge of the player’s lie.
The single most egregious example of unacceptable DM metagaming I can think of occurred in the final boss fight of Critical Role’s Campaign One. Putting the example in spoilers for those who might be watching it/watching the animated show and not wish the ending spoiled:
Prior to the final boss fight, one of the party members, Scanlan, gained the tools they needed to kill the BBEG. While still in a safe are the BBEG could not look into (the domain of another god), they the ability to hide the power Scanlan had been given—but they needed to stay within a certain radius of one another to keep Scanlan’s secret weapon hidden.
For a session and a half, the party worked incredibly hard to successfully stay in that same radius. They moved slowly, acknowledging the decision to move slowly would kill hundreds in a city they loved, but deciding the secrecy was more important as it would save more lives long term. This was a decision the party reached with great anguish, and was clearly a very emotional decision for the players.
And they had to sacrifice solving certain problems they say they wanted to - often solutions to challenges on the road to the BBEG were proposed, only to be discarded when it was realised it could risk staying in the radius.
There was great effort in keeping Scanlan’s critical importance secret…. And not one iota of it mattered - the DM had the BBEG zero in on Scanlan. The DM targeted based on meta information the party sacrificed to ensure would not be in the BBEG’s hands, and thus the DM rendered all the sacrifices and careful decisions of the prior six or so hours of gameplay moot through metagaming.
It's true for DMs too they shoudln't metagame and have NPCs and monsters use infos unknown to them all but the DM. It's especially despicable when it relates to PCs features, spells, feats and is used to specially counter them.
Like in everything, D&D fair play is essential from both sides of the table.
A common exemple of DM metagaming PC's Polearm Master or Sentinel feat by purposefully having NPCs and monsters avoiding triggerging their respective reaction attack when first encountered and with no way to know the PCs have such features. Purposefully raising the DCs of Passive Perception or Investigation to specifically counter the Observant feat fits the bill too.
I think anyone who watches my group's game stream might pick up any time I say something along the lines of "How much does my character know about X?", which is basically me admitting that I have metagame knowledge about a subject and I want to check to see if I can allow that to affect my characters' decisions. Usually our DM just gives me a relevant check (usually History, sometimes Nature or Arcana). It can be hard to force myself to make suboptimal decisions when I know something my character doesn't, but I also feel like it makes the roleplay more engaging.
I do something similar. I will nominate a check that's relevant to the topic, then agree with the DM a DC and roll. If I fail, I don't do that action, if I pass, then I invent a specific reason why my character would know it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Like was mentioned it’s info the player knows that the character wouldn’t know.
But these characters actually live in this world so some things may be common knowledge, like trolls vulnerable to fire since trolls can be in many locations around the world, or taught in children stories/songs. Or like was mentioned above, can be deduced relatively easily, with the fireball in the hells example.
I think this is an important part, and a good reason to make checks. If you live in a world with these creatures, it’s reasonable to think you’ll know some things about them. Like, I’ve never seen an alligator outside of a zoo, but I know I can rub its belly to make it go to sleep. (How I get to its belly is a different question.)
So for the more common creatures, or more spectacular one, it seems reasonable that even commoners would know things. Adventurers, whose life would depend on knowing these things, would know them even better.
On the DM "going meta", I'm thinking of that Justice League run where it turned out Batman had a file of strategies on how to take down every member of the Justice League ... I'd say a DM should be allowed to have such a DM as Batman moment in their game _once_, but having a BBEG that invested to dedicated crime computer resources to develop a stratagem tailored to the PC's party should be exceptional.
The opposite of a player trying to force meta is a player maintaining dramatic irony, and those players should be rewarded with inspiration or something if maintenance of said irony leads to folly.
As for "lore checks" or what have you. I think yes, there's in world lore so if a particular monster is a neighboring threat, let's assume the troll for example, folks in the game world would know stuff about how to fight or evade it. Sort of like how people in areas with a bear or mountain lion population IRL know best practices to avoid disturbing them, or the whole punch a shark in the nose thing.
For "unknown" monsters I could see casters trained in the supernatural to have something akin to a "scientific method" that urges caution when spell casting against the unknown, and in default D&D settings I could further see trained casters confronting supernatural or extraplanar beings able to get a sort of hunch over the thing's interaction with the weave, but as a DM I wouldn't impart this on players, I'd simply entertain it if it was articulated.
I usually have PCs make knowledge check at the begining of an encounter to tell them what they know or remember about the monsters, be it some iconic resistance, immunity, traits or actions that could be lore material. It may also help them tactic wise sometimes by knowing what to do or not do or use against them.
But most people aren't Polearm Masters. I'm always for giving DMs the benefit of the doubt what i mean is DMs self-admittedly doing these things to specifically counter the features. ex. i've seen some DM openly saying things like ''the orc will go this way to avoid provoking your Opportunity Attack'' when it never saw the PC doing this move before.
My take on metagaming is this: It's impossible to avoid. Literally. You cannot. So just do it, already.
My counter is that as a GM, I never use anything from the books. Bam. No metagaming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
So for example if I am a level 8 whatever and the gm gives us spiders that bite and disappear. GM shows us a photo of the baddie. I suspect they are phase spiders, IRL I have fought these previously and my PC is relatively experienced. What's wrong with looking in the MM to verify that? Still have to try and kill them.
So for example if I am a level 8 whatever and the gm gives us spiders that bite and disappear. GM shows us a photo of the baddie. I suspect they are phase spiders, IRL I have fought these previously and my PC is relatively experienced. What's wrong with looking in the MM to verify that? Still have to try and kill them.
The real question is, why would you do that instead of waiting until after combat? Reading in the middle of combat is very likely going to subconsciously influence your decisions. Likely not too much on something like a phase spider, which lack resistances or immunities, but it very much could on anything which might resist certain damage types.
Just wait until you are done with combat, and thus do not have the temptation of inserting knowledge beyond what your character knows into the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So how do people generally define meta gaming?
Like are we talking player's whos character have never encountered a (insert monster, preferably with a resistance/ immunity) but who know enough not to use (resistance/ immunity type of damage). IE: "I've never met a Devil, but i think i'll avoid using fireball (despite it being my highest damage spell)... for 'reasons'"
Or are we talking more "I know all the stats of every (monster(s)) and will proceed to piss and moan when they don't go down after taking EXACTLY X amount of damage (X= the suggested amount of life for the creature).
Both exemple are metagaming. Metagaming exist whenever a player uses or rely on his or her real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances. It can be about anything in game, monsters, place, magic items, lore etc.
The golden rule is if you,re not sure if your character should know an info that you know, just ask the DM! (in private if it's sensitive info)
Honestly, metagaming isn't what's wrong. What's wrong is when they're (or you're) doing something that detracts from the fun. You're trying to encourage a suspension of disbelief and to engage with the game fully; metagaming itself is more a symptom than an illness in and of itself. I say that, because sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Arguing with a player because they've instantly gone for a fire attack on a Troll even though their character has no prior knowledge of the Troll's weakness is probably worse than just letting them metagame. If the players aren't naturally roleplaying, then either they don't understand how to roleplay or they're just not immersed - and their metagaming is a symptom the lack of immersion, rather than the disease itself. Metagaming can also be positive; I (and any player worth their salt) will shape decisions my character makes in order to help the DM out. I still have freedom to choose.etc, but I'll also help direct the story so we don't sabotage the game either.
I'm also wary of accusations of metagaming. For example, I didn't know that there was something about Fireball that meant you shouldn't use it against devils. I still wouldn't have used it, because devils are from Hell and its hot there...so it makes sense I want to use a cold spell. That's just knowledge that is a reasonable deduction and therefore my character, who is equally knowledgeable/ignorant of the details of devils as I am, could well deduce.
Metagaming is using knowledge that a character would not have to influence decisions or to manipulate game mechanics. However, not all metagaming is bad, not all bad metagaming is worth battling, and not all bad metagaming worth battling is solved by dealing with it directly rather than tackling the circumstances that caused it to arise.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
As a player, I like to ask "what do I/we know about [x]," which allows the group as a whole to:
What I as a player (as opposed to player character) know might be vastly different from game-to-game. Pathfinder: Kingmaker, for instance, deals with this quite well: it's common knowledge, or at least a rumour, that trolls are normally weak to fire, but this time they're not. Your quest is to find out why. As it turns out, they have a brand that makes them immune to fire and they can only be defeated by acid or other means of preventing them from regenerating. But in this campaign, nope, they're normal trolls, call 1-800-GOTREK.
As a DM, however, I ask the players "how does your character know this?" If they read it in a book, I might give it to them. It's perfectly reasonable that they came across a tome, or heard a rumour, or saw a play that dealt with the subject. If they keep saying that though, it might be time to throw in "this doesn't work like the book suggested," and then after that discussing boundaries regarding what they've read. I'm also confident in the dice's fairness: they're the ultimate decider whether or not that knowledge is going to do anything meaningful in that turn.
Furthermore, depending on action economy, I might say "eh, in this world it's known that so-and-so is vulnerable to this." Combat goes on long enough without Mother May I; roll the dice and blow that thing away. I would hate for someone to use an action, realise it's not that effective a use, and then have to wait too long to do something useful. While I am of the school of "that's the game," I do empathise with those whose sole purpose was to tick a box and sit twiddling their thumbs.
All of this said, I concur with Linklite: sometimes it's just not worth getting aggrevated about. If it's a problem, let it slide for now and discuss it at the end of the game or before the next one.
Also, here's a helpful guide to metagaming:
Credit to Thieves Can't for the above comic.
PS: see also "this is a mimic because Eldritch Blast can only target creatures."
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
It can also be about sensitive lore important in your game. It reminds me a FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign i was running back in the 90's and as the party was in Waterdeep, which didn't have any thieve's guild officially, but as they were going in Undermountain 3rd level to a place called Skull Port which featured one gang called Xanathar's Guild when one player told everyone that it was a Beholder and that they had to be cautious so it could suppress magic. I said dude, your character don't know this , it's a secretive organization from the Underdark and a monster which you never heard of before! But it was too late, the secret was revealed and mystery busted.
Like was mentioned it’s info the player knows that the character wouldn’t know.
But these characters actually live in this world so some things may be common knowledge, like trolls vulnerable to fire since trolls can be in many locations around the world, or taught in children stories/songs. Or like was mentioned above, can be deduced relatively easily, with the fireball in the hells example.
Some may be obvious meta gaming. Others may be more subtle. But as long as it’s not ruining the fun I don’t think it is a huge deal. But should probably be avoided. Depends on the table. I know when I played AD&D in the 80’s we probably metagamed like crazy but we were all teenagers and had no clue what metagaming was. But we had lots of fun.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I define player metagaming as “using information only available at the player level to influence decisions at the character level.”
The above posters all do a good job discussing player metagaming - but it is worth noting that DMs can metagame also.
For DMs, who are required to use a degree of meta information to design encounters which can challenge the party, I use a slightly different rule - “using information only available at the DM level to influence the decisions made by NPCs within the bounds of actual play” If you are a DM, you can use meta information to set the stage for the session—you should be designing encounters and story points that play to the specific party you have.
What becomes a problem is when NPCs rely upon meta information they as folks living in the world would not know. For example, if they fail their insight check to to know a character is lying, a DM should not play the NPC in a way reflecting the DM’s personal knowledge of the player’s lie.
The single most egregious example of unacceptable DM metagaming I can think of occurred in the final boss fight of Critical Role’s Campaign One. Putting the example in spoilers for those who might be watching it/watching the animated show and not wish the ending spoiled:
Prior to the final boss fight, one of the party members, Scanlan, gained the tools they needed to kill the BBEG. While still in a safe are the BBEG could not look into (the domain of another god), they the ability to hide the power Scanlan had been given—but they needed to stay within a certain radius of one another to keep Scanlan’s secret weapon hidden.
For a session and a half, the party worked incredibly hard to successfully stay in that same radius. They moved slowly, acknowledging the decision to move slowly would kill hundreds in a city they loved, but deciding the secrecy was more important as it would save more lives long term. This was a decision the party reached with great anguish, and was clearly a very emotional decision for the players.
And they had to sacrifice solving certain problems they say they wanted to - often solutions to challenges on the road to the BBEG were proposed, only to be discarded when it was realised it could risk staying in the radius.
There was great effort in keeping Scanlan’s critical importance secret…. And not one iota of it mattered - the DM had the BBEG zero in on Scanlan. The DM targeted based on meta information the party sacrificed to ensure would not be in the BBEG’s hands, and thus the DM rendered all the sacrifices and careful decisions of the prior six or so hours of gameplay moot through metagaming.
It's true for DMs too they shoudln't metagame and have NPCs and monsters use infos unknown to them all but the DM. It's especially despicable when it relates to PCs features, spells, feats and is used to specially counter them.
Like in everything, D&D fair play is essential from both sides of the table.
A common exemple of DM metagaming PC's Polearm Master or Sentinel feat by purposefully having NPCs and monsters avoiding triggerging their respective reaction attack when first encountered and with no way to know the PCs have such features. Purposefully raising the DCs of Passive Perception or Investigation to specifically counter the Observant feat fits the bill too.
I think anyone who watches my group's game stream might pick up any time I say something along the lines of "How much does my character know about X?", which is basically me admitting that I have metagame knowledge about a subject and I want to check to see if I can allow that to affect my characters' decisions. Usually our DM just gives me a relevant check (usually History, sometimes Nature or Arcana). It can be hard to force myself to make suboptimal decisions when I know something my character doesn't, but I also feel like it makes the roleplay more engaging.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I do something similar. I will nominate a check that's relevant to the topic, then agree with the DM a DC and roll. If I fail, I don't do that action, if I pass, then I invent a specific reason why my character would know it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think this is an important part, and a good reason to make checks. If you live in a world with these creatures, it’s reasonable to think you’ll know some things about them. Like, I’ve never seen an alligator outside of a zoo, but I know I can rub its belly to make it go to sleep. (How I get to its belly is a different question.)
So for the more common creatures, or more spectacular one, it seems reasonable that even commoners would know things. Adventurers, whose life would depend on knowing these things, would know them even better.
On the DM "going meta", I'm thinking of that Justice League run where it turned out Batman had a file of strategies on how to take down every member of the Justice League ... I'd say a DM should be allowed to have such a DM as Batman moment in their game _once_, but having a BBEG that invested to dedicated crime computer resources to develop a stratagem tailored to the PC's party should be exceptional.
The opposite of a player trying to force meta is a player maintaining dramatic irony, and those players should be rewarded with inspiration or something if maintenance of said irony leads to folly.
As for "lore checks" or what have you. I think yes, there's in world lore so if a particular monster is a neighboring threat, let's assume the troll for example, folks in the game world would know stuff about how to fight or evade it. Sort of like how people in areas with a bear or mountain lion population IRL know best practices to avoid disturbing them, or the whole punch a shark in the nose thing.
For "unknown" monsters I could see casters trained in the supernatural to have something akin to a "scientific method" that urges caution when spell casting against the unknown, and in default D&D settings I could further see trained casters confronting supernatural or extraplanar beings able to get a sort of hunch over the thing's interaction with the weave, but as a DM I wouldn't impart this on players, I'd simply entertain it if it was articulated.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I usually have PCs make knowledge check at the begining of an encounter to tell them what they know or remember about the monsters, be it some iconic resistance, immunity, traits or actions that could be lore material. It may also help them tactic wise sometimes by knowing what to do or not do or use against them.
But most people aren't Polearm Masters. I'm always for giving DMs the benefit of the doubt what i mean is DMs self-admittedly doing these things to specifically counter the features. ex. i've seen some DM openly saying things like ''the orc will go this way to avoid provoking your Opportunity Attack'' when it never saw the PC doing this move before.
Almost nobody makes Opportuniry Attacks upon entering their reach, but when leaving them instead so iIt shoudn't be expected by most.
Th point is more than DMs should not metagame by giving knowledge tto their monsters that they shouldnt know.
Unless the BBEG is Batman.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My take on metagaming is this: It's impossible to avoid. Literally. You cannot. So just do it, already.
My counter is that as a GM, I never use anything from the books. Bam. No metagaming.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
So for example if I am a level 8 whatever and the gm gives us spiders that bite and disappear. GM shows us a photo of the baddie. I suspect they are phase spiders, IRL I have fought these previously and my PC is relatively experienced. What's wrong with looking in the MM to verify that? Still have to try and kill them.
The real question is, why would you do that instead of waiting until after combat? Reading in the middle of combat is very likely going to subconsciously influence your decisions. Likely not too much on something like a phase spider, which lack resistances or immunities, but it very much could on anything which might resist certain damage types.
Just wait until you are done with combat, and thus do not have the temptation of inserting knowledge beyond what your character knows into the game.