In Critical Role, Matt Mercer (the DM if you haven't watched the series) has on several occasions had his npcs (usually a BBG) stab a downed pc to permakill them.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is metagaming on the part of the DM. While the npc would understand that PCs are using magic to bring players back to life, why would they know that attacking a downed individual would permanently kill them. It seems like the inworld response to characters getting up after being "killed" would be to target the healers in the group.
For Mercer, where he clearly crosses the line into metagaming, is that his npc's always know exactly how many times to hit someone to permakill them. When Mollymauk was killed in Season 2, Lorenzo immediately moved on to other actions.
The same thing happened in Episode 33. After stabbing and permakilling Orym, the npc (can't remember her name right now, and trying to avoid spoilers for episode 34, which I haven't seen) moved on and did the same to Fern, and moved on again after permakilling Fern.
What do others think about attacking an unconscious character, is this metagaming?
I am not super familiar with CR compared to many - and have really only watched Season 3.
I would rather say that i would consider it completely contrary to metagaming. The idea that an opponent simply moves on with their attacks in the split second someone drops down unconscious is one of the biggest kindnesses of virtually all DM's.
No opponents who ram their blade deeper into their foein a world where they know that an opponent can be back and alive in a split second?
No warrirors decapitating their enemies lifting it in triumph to truly underline a victory?
No frothing beasts who literally starts eating the unfortunate adventurer or tearing off limbs from the food source?
Yes it might sound grim, but I would actually argue that the meta-gaming aspect is in NOT attacking downed players much more in general.
In Critical Role, Matt Mercer (the DM if you haven't watched the series) has on several occasions had his npcs (usually a BBG) stab a downed pc to permakill them.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is metagaming on the part of the DM. While the npc would understand that PCs are using magic to bring players back to life, why would they know that attacking a downed individual would permanently kill them. It seems like the inworld response to characters getting up after being "killed" would be to target the healers in the group.
For Mercer, where he clearly crosses the line into metagaming, is that his npc's always know exactly how many times to hit someone to permakill them. When Mollymauk was killed in Season 2, Lorenzo immediately moved on to other actions.
The same thing happened in Episode 33. After stabbing and permakilling Orym, the npc (can't remember her name right now, and trying to avoid spoilers for episode 34, which I haven't seen) moved on and did the same to Fern, and moved on again after permakilling Fern.
What do others think about attacking an unconscious character, is this metagaming?
I do it when it makes sense, which is if they are fighting an intelligent enemy for whom the best action is to do this and by that I mean. The enemy is not a creature acting on instinct alone. The enemy is not in combat with 2 characters when one goes down. The enemy does not have another character within it's movement who is unengaged or engaged but looks like they are winning that fight easily, the enemies allies are not below half health (bleeding profusely) or prone etc. The enemy would end their movement unengaged if they didn't use their spare attacks. The enemy has no movement left and spare attacks free. An area effect spell or attack (breath weapon) can get both upright characters and characters who are making death saving throws.
Enemies with range attacks like Bows will only shoot at downed characters if they have seen the party heal them and bring them back up and there is no better target to shoot at.
In each of the fights you described the actions taken by Matt where not meta gaming.
When he killed Molly he was making a point, that was his personality, one of his had been killed so he killed one of there's, he actually says that in character. He was about fear, control, threats and killing one of the party but letting the rest live fed into that, they would go and spread word making him more fearful.
In campaign 3 the party heal up a couple of characters that the bad guy has taken out once already, she is clever, and ruthless so she says as she stabs one of the downed ones that has already been healed and popped up something like "lets make sure you stay down".
both these situations are "good kills" they make sense in the moment, are logical and most importantly fit into the mentality of the NPC.
My players know that my enemies, based on the conditions above will stab at downed enemies, they know that if I am casting a fireball then I will place it to get characters that are on death saving throws, even if that means me positioning it to put the main target on one edge. This means that tactically they know they can't simply wait until a character goes down to heal them, they have to try and keep hit points topped up through the fight. It takes away one of the most irritating things about DnD combat and, also makes them think about things like leaving a character isolated on the battlefield.
I feel like there is going to be a visible and notable difference between someone who is dying and someone who is dead.
0HP doesn't mean you are dead, it means you're mostly dead, and as we know...
Your character is on the floor coughing up blood or black gunk, and out of the fight - their fight now is one to stop the bleeding control the madness that's destroying their mind, or any other flavourful way you want to imagine them entirely detached from what is going on around them because they might die in the next 18 seconds.
Seeing a PC on the floor coughing is going to be enough for most intelligent enemies, or ones within range, to hit them again until they stop twitching - depending on how badly they want them dead. the BBEG is going to want them very dead, so stabbing them until they stop moving, breathing, coughing, and otherwise giving signs of mostly-death is not metagaming. Characters reduced to 0HP who stabilise by making death saves don't come back to life - they never actually died!
Smart and deadly enemies will always go for the double-tap. Unless they have something to gain from the PCs remaining alive.
As pre the rules I set my enemies I think it is a bit more nuanced then that, if an enemy has 2 characters on him then that 2nd 3rd or 4th attack will be aimed at the other character instead because they are a more immediate threat, if the are looking at a barbarian 10 feet away from them charging at them they will move forward to engage that threat, if there mate is looking beat up and needs a hand they will move into a flanking position and take a stab at that character, but, if they look around and those conditions are not happening, or, if they have just seen the downed character eviserate 3 of there fellow enemies, then yes, they will take the time to stab.
I played as a player once with a DM who would purposely move enemies away from the downed character even if they had no one else to move into combat with to use the extra attacks, or they would just "forget" to use the extra attacks if the enemy had no more movement. I found it really frustrating as a player and pretty quickly dropped out of that game because I felt the sense of risk and threat was removed, but, on the other hand it makes no sense for that clever assasin to use an attack on the downed character when there is a bigger threat approaching.
What do others think about attacking an unconscious character, is this metagaming?
As much as I dislike being on record agreeing with Mercer, this is not meta gaming, unless there's some indication that he only does this to characters whose players are getting under his skin.
There are many different types of enemies in D&D, some of which will totally take the time to slit your throat. Or start munching on you before you actually die.
On the other hand, there are definitely situations in which an enemy normally would have finished off a dying character, but for whatever reason did not (e.g. the city watch is alerted and the assassin flees).
I'm a critter, and a DM. And I didn't for a second think Matt Mercer was meta gaming that night.
Now, I think OP is over thinking the rules. Hey, we've all done that. Aside from just how one envisions what 0 hit points / unconsciousness really means or looks like, I think the real defining thing to keep in mind is intent. Some of the posts above point this out - what's the NPCs intent? What if it's an owlbear? If you keep in mind, as a DM, the intent of the creature/NPC attacking the player character, then you know what it will do when the character is downed to 0 hit points.
A murderous NPC will definitely come and run ya through, as Matt Mercer's NPC did. Because that's what that NPC wanted to do, kill everyone (well, you know). An owlbear might just move on after knocking a character unconscious. I don't think owlbears eat people? And so on. imho :)
In a world where healing magic is fairly commonplace, why would an aware enemy miss the chance to make sure his opponent won’t just stand up and stab him in the back? If I am fighting a group of spell-slingers, I am going to make sure that will not happen. I cannot for the life of me see why someone more familiar of this than I am would do anything differently.
Generally speaking, I think this is more of a stylistic choice based on what kind of game one wants to play. I personally do not target downed characters, but that is because my players get really attached to their characters, and forcing a death when there were other options would lose me party members.
That said, there are plenty of instances where Matt Mercer does metagame - his behavior in the final boss fight for Vox Machina was unacceptable. He is on the record saying that he doesn’t think it counts as meta gaming when the DM does it, and he often does make decisions about who to target, including downed players, based more on meta knowledge than on how the NPCs would reasonably act.
Generally speaking, I think this is more of a stylistic choice based on what kind of game one wants to play. I personally do not target downed characters, but that is because my players get really attached to their characters, and forcing a death when there were other options would lose me party members.
That said, there are plenty of instances where Matt Mercer does metagame - his behavior in the final boss fight for Vox Machina was unacceptable. He is on the record saying that he doesn’t think it counts as meta gaming when the DM does it, and he often does make decisions about who to target, including downed players, based more on meta knowledge than on how the NPCs would reasonably act.
I believe it is also worth noting that Mercer is not only a DM, but also an entertainer for hundreds of thousands of viewers. He has to make decisions as an entertainer that just are not best practices as a DM. He is fortunate to have a table of players who understand this and roll (lol) with it. I can easily see how some players at other tables would have a problem with some of his choices were he to apply them there.
Generally speaking, I think this is more of a stylistic choice based on what kind of game one wants to play. I personally do not target downed characters, but that is because my players get really attached to their characters, and forcing a death when there were other options would lose me party members.
That said, there are plenty of instances where Matt Mercer does metagame - his behavior in the final boss fight for Vox Machina was unacceptable. He is on the record saying that he doesn’t think it counts as meta gaming when the DM does it, and he often does make decisions about who to target, including downed players, based more on meta knowledge than on how the NPCs would reasonably act.
I believe it is also worth noting that Mercer is not only a DM, but also an entertainer for hundreds of thousands of viewers. He has to make decisions as an entertainer that just are not best practices as a DM. He is fortunate to have a table of players who understand this and roll (lol) with it. I can easily see how some players at other tables would have a problem with some of his choices were he to apply them there.
While true, I think there is a limit to that necessity—and undermining the past 3 sessions worth of player decisions (and thus some 12 hours of viewer time) because you can’t help but metagame in your boss fight crosses a line I do not think “entertainment value” justifies crossing.
Generally speaking, I think this is more of a stylistic choice based on what kind of game one wants to play. I personally do not target downed characters, but that is because my players get really attached to their characters, and forcing a death when there were other options would lose me party members.
That said, there are plenty of instances where Matt Mercer does metagame - his behavior in the final boss fight for Vox Machina was unacceptable. He is on the record saying that he doesn’t think it counts as meta gaming when the DM does it, and he often does make decisions about who to target, including downed players, based more on meta knowledge than on how the NPCs would reasonably act.
I believe it is also worth noting that Mercer is not only a DM, but also an entertainer for hundreds of thousands of viewers. He has to make decisions as an entertainer that just are not best practices as a DM. He is fortunate to have a table of players who understand this and roll (lol) with it. I can easily see how some players at other tables would have a problem with some of his choices were he to apply them there.
While true, I think there is a limit to that necessity—and undermining the past 3 sessions worth of player decisions (and thus some 12 hours of viewer time) because you can’t help but metagame in your boss fight crosses a line I do not think “entertainment value” justifies crossing.
I cannot argue with this point and if anything, it definitely supports my implied message that DMs in real life should not strive to DM like Mercer. For one, a DM in real life only has to entertain their players. For another, his choices like the one above would likely lead to strife at a normal table and may not be justified as “content”. I say this as a person who came to D&D specifically because of CR.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with most of the folks in this thread.
In a world where magic is a well-known thing, including healing magic, any sufficiently powerful intelligent being will absolutely know to "finish the job" when encountering adventurers. When a player falls unconscious, they don't just pass out, lying still like they are dead. They gasp for air, blood gurgling from their mouth. They moan in pain. And anyone as experienced as the people fighting in the above situations assuredly knows a dead creature from an unconscious one. So yes, of course when facing multiple enemies, especially those with magically abilities, ensuring that any opponent that is downed stays out of the fight is a smart tactic. It's also demoralizing for the enemies and can persuade a more tactical group to perhaps make emotionally charged mistakes.
I would not consider it metagaming. If the NPC is unintelligent, like a beast, and first targets the healer and then double-taps them to ensure character death, that might be a bit odd when other characters are still attacking the beast. However with intelligent creatures who know how quickly people can go from "unconscious" to "fighting fit!" it makes sense to FINISH THEM Mortal Kombat style.
In the case of Episode 33 the players kept getting back up and the bad guy was trying to get Imogen to unleash and saw her reaction when someone went down. The Big Bad even said something akin to, "I see I am going about this the wrong way". Heck, he was being pretty lenient in the next episode about getting players back up when they couldn't locate the items they needed to revivify.
Plus, as others have said, the NPC was intelligent and figured taking someone out completely threw out their initial plans of running away and initimidated the party into kind of making a lot of bad decisions.
In Critical Role, Matt Mercer (the DM if you haven't watched the series) has on several occasions had his npcs (usually a BBG) stab a downed pc to permakill them.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is metagaming on the part of the DM. While the npc would understand that PCs are using magic to bring players back to life, why would they know that attacking a downed individual would permanently kill them. It seems like the inworld response to characters getting up after being "killed" would be to target the healers in the group.
For Mercer, where he clearly crosses the line into metagaming, is that his npc's always know exactly how many times to hit someone to permakill them. When Mollymauk was killed in Season 2, Lorenzo immediately moved on to other actions.
The same thing happened in Episode 33. After stabbing and permakilling Orym, the npc (can't remember her name right now, and trying to avoid spoilers for episode 34, which I haven't seen) moved on and did the same to Fern, and moved on again after permakilling Fern.
What do others think about attacking an unconscious character, is this metagaming?
Simple answer is No, it is not metagaming in the least.
Consider the things the NPC KNOWS (not the DM).
1) When a creature is knocked unconscious they are NOT dead.
In terms of mechanics, the DM may optionally use death saves for NPCs if they want, it isn't just a mechanism for PCs. The only reason they don't is that it takes extra time and doesn't add much to a fight. Even a creature that is stabilized through death saves might be finished off in the aftermath of a fight as the victors administer a coup de grace.
This is the reality that the NPCs KNOW. Downed creatures are not necessarily dead. It isn't metagaming, it is in game character knowledge.
2) In many cases, for intelligent opponents, the NPCs are just as aware of healing magic as the characters. They have seen healing magic return unconscious characters to consciousness and essentially full combat effectiveness. They may be weak in terms of being easy to knock back down but they will be able to do as much damage as they could otherwise. This is in-game NPC knowledge. They KNOW how healing works, have likely seen it in action.
3) So, for an intelligent NPC, knowing that downed characters aren't dead yet and that if the opponents have any healing they could be up and fighting again in seconds ... what is the logical, sensible and completely rational decision for NPCs to make under the circumstances? The only way to ensure that a creature does not come back is to make sure that they are dead and not unconscious. This means that the NPC uses some number of attacks on the unconscious creature to try to ensure that they are no longer breathing.
It isn't metagaming in slightest. It is actually a logical result of the things that NPCs and PCs know about the world the characters live in.
The real metagaming is honestly the DMs who never have NPCs attack downed characters even knowing that the party has healers and the characters will be up fighting the next round. That behaviour actually makes little sense most of the time from the perspective of an intelligent in game NPC. This is metagaming because the DM knows that the character will die if the NPC attacks them while down and decides not to do so, not because it is the action the NPC would have decided but because the DM doesn't want the character to die and the players might be upset if the character dies.
TLDR:
NOT attacking unconscious creatures to ensure that they are dead and defeated in a world full of healing magic is the real meta-gaming decision.
P.S.
However, just because not attacking is meta-gaming doesn't mean the DM should have NPCs attack downed characters - as mentioned, players don't generally like it and the DM often doesn't want to see characters die - so in the interest of a fun game, the DM will often not have NPCs attack downed characters. Just because it is the fun choice doesn't change the fact that is it still metagaming to avoid character deaths by not attacking downed opponents.
No. Mercer in both Episode 33 of this campaign and when the NPC killed Mollymauk. He was role playing them. With Mollymauk he continued to needle the guest star's character, "Do you need a lesson here." After killing Molly they left because the message was sent. In the case of episode 33. It felt very much in keeping with the character Matt was running.
In other cases he has enemies move to standing targets. Because that's what they would do.
Monsters or NPCs should have reasons they do what they do and downed PCs is a great time for it.
Of course assassins of course will kill before moving on unless an incoming attack needs to be addressed.
Animalistic monsters should be played like animals. Have you ever seen animals start fighting each other over food. Why not monsters. The group of alligators attacks. When the rogue goes down. Two of the gators start fighting each other, until the second one doesn't want to get killed by his friend so he moves on to another target while the first gator starts to eat the rogue.
Does a crime boss kill one as an example then move on maybe.
On monsters/npcs double tapping. I approve. But If I going to be that evil and the monster INT is <13, I roll a raw d20. If roll not > int, double tap.
It totally made sense for Matt's BigBad to start perma-killing players. It was the most practical and believable outcome for Otohan Thull, a warrior, general, and leader of a group of mercenaries. She was tired of downing a PC only to have a healing spell or ability to pop them back up, Otohan decided a more permanent option was more feasible and wanted to anger Imogen. Story and gameplay wise it was a great decision, it established a Thull as a ruthless evil enemy that the party can expect to come across again and the party got a preview of what to plan for in a future encounter. The fight was a winnable encounter, if they had circled their wagons and worked a little better together they could have defeated or forced her retreat. However, there were some poor tactical decisions and the party panicked when Ashton went down and they scattered instead of focusing on Otohan.
Characters will die, if there were no chance of death it would be a pretty dull game with no risk. Villians have motivations, players interfering in those motivations can and occasionally will get them killed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In Critical Role, Matt Mercer (the DM if you haven't watched the series) has on several occasions had his npcs (usually a BBG) stab a downed pc to permakill them.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is metagaming on the part of the DM. While the npc would understand that PCs are using magic to bring players back to life, why would they know that attacking a downed individual would permanently kill them. It seems like the inworld response to characters getting up after being "killed" would be to target the healers in the group.
For Mercer, where he clearly crosses the line into metagaming, is that his npc's always know exactly how many times to hit someone to permakill them. When Mollymauk was killed in Season 2, Lorenzo immediately moved on to other actions.
The same thing happened in Episode 33. After stabbing and permakilling Orym, the npc (can't remember her name right now, and trying to avoid spoilers for episode 34, which I haven't seen) moved on and did the same to Fern, and moved on again after permakilling Fern.
What do others think about attacking an unconscious character, is this metagaming?
I am not super familiar with CR compared to many - and have really only watched Season 3.
I would rather say that i would consider it completely contrary to metagaming. The idea that an opponent simply moves on with their attacks in the split second someone drops down unconscious is one of the biggest kindnesses of virtually all DM's.
No opponents who ram their blade deeper into their foein a world where they know that an opponent can be back and alive in a split second?
No warrirors decapitating their enemies lifting it in triumph to truly underline a victory?
No frothing beasts who literally starts eating the unfortunate adventurer or tearing off limbs from the food source?
Yes it might sound grim, but I would actually argue that the meta-gaming aspect is in NOT attacking downed players much more in general.
I do it when it makes sense, which is if they are fighting an intelligent enemy for whom the best action is to do this and by that I mean.
The enemy is not a creature acting on instinct alone.
The enemy is not in combat with 2 characters when one goes down.
The enemy does not have another character within it's movement who is unengaged or engaged but looks like they are winning that fight easily, the enemies allies are not below half health (bleeding profusely) or prone etc.
The enemy would end their movement unengaged if they didn't use their spare attacks.
The enemy has no movement left and spare attacks free.
An area effect spell or attack (breath weapon) can get both upright characters and characters who are making death saving throws.
Enemies with range attacks like Bows will only shoot at downed characters if they have seen the party heal them and bring them back up and there is no better target to shoot at.
In each of the fights you described the actions taken by Matt where not meta gaming.
When he killed Molly he was making a point, that was his personality, one of his had been killed so he killed one of there's, he actually says that in character. He was about fear, control, threats and killing one of the party but letting the rest live fed into that, they would go and spread word making him more fearful.
In campaign 3 the party heal up a couple of characters that the bad guy has taken out once already, she is clever, and ruthless so she says as she stabs one of the downed ones that has already been healed and popped up something like "lets make sure you stay down".
both these situations are "good kills" they make sense in the moment, are logical and most importantly fit into the mentality of the NPC.
My players know that my enemies, based on the conditions above will stab at downed enemies, they know that if I am casting a fireball then I will place it to get characters that are on death saving throws, even if that means me positioning it to put the main target on one edge. This means that tactically they know they can't simply wait until a character goes down to heal them, they have to try and keep hit points topped up through the fight. It takes away one of the most irritating things about DnD combat and, also makes them think about things like leaving a character isolated on the battlefield.
I feel like there is going to be a visible and notable difference between someone who is dying and someone who is dead.
0HP doesn't mean you are dead, it means you're mostly dead, and as we know...
Your character is on the floor coughing up blood or black gunk, and out of the fight - their fight now is one to stop the bleeding control the madness that's destroying their mind, or any other flavourful way you want to imagine them entirely detached from what is going on around them because they might die in the next 18 seconds.
Seeing a PC on the floor coughing is going to be enough for most intelligent enemies, or ones within range, to hit them again until they stop twitching - depending on how badly they want them dead. the BBEG is going to want them very dead, so stabbing them until they stop moving, breathing, coughing, and otherwise giving signs of mostly-death is not metagaming. Characters reduced to 0HP who stabilise by making death saves don't come back to life - they never actually died!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Smart and deadly enemies will always go for the double-tap. Unless they have something to gain from the PCs remaining alive.
As pre the rules I set my enemies I think it is a bit more nuanced then that, if an enemy has 2 characters on him then that 2nd 3rd or 4th attack will be aimed at the other character instead because they are a more immediate threat, if the are looking at a barbarian 10 feet away from them charging at them they will move forward to engage that threat, if there mate is looking beat up and needs a hand they will move into a flanking position and take a stab at that character, but, if they look around and those conditions are not happening, or, if they have just seen the downed character eviserate 3 of there fellow enemies, then yes, they will take the time to stab.
I played as a player once with a DM who would purposely move enemies away from the downed character even if they had no one else to move into combat with to use the extra attacks, or they would just "forget" to use the extra attacks if the enemy had no more movement. I found it really frustrating as a player and pretty quickly dropped out of that game because I felt the sense of risk and threat was removed, but, on the other hand it makes no sense for that clever assasin to use an attack on the downed character when there is a bigger threat approaching.
As much as I dislike being on record agreeing with Mercer, this is not meta gaming, unless there's some indication that he only does this to characters whose players are getting under his skin.
There are many different types of enemies in D&D, some of which will totally take the time to slit your throat. Or start munching on you before you actually die.
On the other hand, there are definitely situations in which an enemy normally would have finished off a dying character, but for whatever reason did not (e.g. the city watch is alerted and the assassin flees).
It doesn’t seem any more meta-gaming than players waiting for someone to drop before they use a healing spell.
I'm a critter, and a DM. And I didn't for a second think Matt Mercer was meta gaming that night.
Now, I think OP is over thinking the rules. Hey, we've all done that. Aside from just how one envisions what 0 hit points / unconsciousness really means or looks like, I think the real defining thing to keep in mind is intent. Some of the posts above point this out - what's the NPCs intent? What if it's an owlbear? If you keep in mind, as a DM, the intent of the creature/NPC attacking the player character, then you know what it will do when the character is downed to 0 hit points.
A murderous NPC will definitely come and run ya through, as Matt Mercer's NPC did. Because that's what that NPC wanted to do, kill everyone (well, you know). An owlbear might just move on after knocking a character unconscious. I don't think owlbears eat people? And so on. imho :)
In a world where healing magic is fairly commonplace, why would an aware enemy miss the chance to make sure his opponent won’t just stand up and stab him in the back? If I am fighting a group of spell-slingers, I am going to make sure that will not happen. I cannot for the life of me see why someone more familiar of this than I am would do anything differently.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Generally speaking, I think this is more of a stylistic choice based on what kind of game one wants to play. I personally do not target downed characters, but that is because my players get really attached to their characters, and forcing a death when there were other options would lose me party members.
That said, there are plenty of instances where Matt Mercer does metagame - his behavior in the final boss fight for Vox Machina was unacceptable. He is on the record saying that he doesn’t think it counts as meta gaming when the DM does it, and he often does make decisions about who to target, including downed players, based more on meta knowledge than on how the NPCs would reasonably act.
I believe it is also worth noting that Mercer is not only a DM, but also an entertainer for hundreds of thousands of viewers. He has to make decisions as an entertainer that just are not best practices as a DM. He is fortunate to have a table of players who understand this and roll (lol) with it. I can easily see how some players at other tables would have a problem with some of his choices were he to apply them there.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
While true, I think there is a limit to that necessity—and undermining the past 3 sessions worth of player decisions (and thus some 12 hours of viewer time) because you can’t help but metagame in your boss fight crosses a line I do not think “entertainment value” justifies crossing.
I cannot argue with this point and if anything, it definitely supports my implied message that DMs in real life should not strive to DM like Mercer. For one, a DM in real life only has to entertain their players. For another, his choices like the one above would likely lead to strife at a normal table and may not be justified as “content”. I say this as a person who came to D&D specifically because of CR.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Yeah, I'm going to agree with most of the folks in this thread.
In a world where magic is a well-known thing, including healing magic, any sufficiently powerful intelligent being will absolutely know to "finish the job" when encountering adventurers. When a player falls unconscious, they don't just pass out, lying still like they are dead. They gasp for air, blood gurgling from their mouth. They moan in pain. And anyone as experienced as the people fighting in the above situations assuredly knows a dead creature from an unconscious one. So yes, of course when facing multiple enemies, especially those with magically abilities, ensuring that any opponent that is downed stays out of the fight is a smart tactic. It's also demoralizing for the enemies and can persuade a more tactical group to perhaps make emotionally charged mistakes.
I would not consider it metagaming. If the NPC is unintelligent, like a beast, and first targets the healer and then double-taps them to ensure character death, that might be a bit odd when other characters are still attacking the beast. However with intelligent creatures who know how quickly people can go from "unconscious" to "fighting fit!" it makes sense to FINISH THEM Mortal Kombat style.
In the case of Episode 33 the players kept getting back up and the bad guy was trying to get Imogen to unleash and saw her reaction when someone went down. The Big Bad even said something akin to, "I see I am going about this the wrong way". Heck, he was being pretty lenient in the next episode about getting players back up when they couldn't locate the items they needed to revivify.
Plus, as others have said, the NPC was intelligent and figured taking someone out completely threw out their initial plans of running away and initimidated the party into kind of making a lot of bad decisions.
Simple answer is No, it is not metagaming in the least.
Consider the things the NPC KNOWS (not the DM).
1) When a creature is knocked unconscious they are NOT dead.
In terms of mechanics, the DM may optionally use death saves for NPCs if they want, it isn't just a mechanism for PCs. The only reason they don't is that it takes extra time and doesn't add much to a fight. Even a creature that is stabilized through death saves might be finished off in the aftermath of a fight as the victors administer a coup de grace.
This is the reality that the NPCs KNOW. Downed creatures are not necessarily dead. It isn't metagaming, it is in game character knowledge.
2) In many cases, for intelligent opponents, the NPCs are just as aware of healing magic as the characters. They have seen healing magic return unconscious characters to consciousness and essentially full combat effectiveness. They may be weak in terms of being easy to knock back down but they will be able to do as much damage as they could otherwise. This is in-game NPC knowledge. They KNOW how healing works, have likely seen it in action.
3) So, for an intelligent NPC, knowing that downed characters aren't dead yet and that if the opponents have any healing they could be up and fighting again in seconds ... what is the logical, sensible and completely rational decision for NPCs to make under the circumstances? The only way to ensure that a creature does not come back is to make sure that they are dead and not unconscious. This means that the NPC uses some number of attacks on the unconscious creature to try to ensure that they are no longer breathing.
It isn't metagaming in slightest. It is actually a logical result of the things that NPCs and PCs know about the world the characters live in.
The real metagaming is honestly the DMs who never have NPCs attack downed characters even knowing that the party has healers and the characters will be up fighting the next round. That behaviour actually makes little sense most of the time from the perspective of an intelligent in game NPC. This is metagaming because the DM knows that the character will die if the NPC attacks them while down and decides not to do so, not because it is the action the NPC would have decided but because the DM doesn't want the character to die and the players might be upset if the character dies.
TLDR:
NOT attacking unconscious creatures to ensure that they are dead and defeated in a world full of healing magic is the real meta-gaming decision.
P.S.
However, just because not attacking is meta-gaming doesn't mean the DM should have NPCs attack downed characters - as mentioned, players don't generally like it and the DM often doesn't want to see characters die - so in the interest of a fun game, the DM will often not have NPCs attack downed characters. Just because it is the fun choice doesn't change the fact that is it still metagaming to avoid character deaths by not attacking downed opponents.
No. Mercer in both Episode 33 of this campaign and when the NPC killed Mollymauk. He was role playing them. With Mollymauk he continued to needle the guest star's character, "Do you need a lesson here." After killing Molly they left because the message was sent. In the case of episode 33. It felt very much in keeping with the character Matt was running.
In other cases he has enemies move to standing targets. Because that's what they would do.
Monsters or NPCs should have reasons they do what they do and downed PCs is a great time for it.
Of course assassins of course will kill before moving on unless an incoming attack needs to be addressed.
Animalistic monsters should be played like animals. Have you ever seen animals start fighting each other over food. Why not monsters. The group of alligators attacks. When the rogue goes down. Two of the gators start fighting each other, until the second one doesn't want to get killed by his friend so he moves on to another target while the first gator starts to eat the rogue.
Does a crime boss kill one as an example then move on maybe.
On monsters/npcs double tapping. I approve. But If I going to be that evil and the monster INT is <13, I roll a raw d20. If roll not > int, double tap.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
It totally made sense for Matt's BigBad to start perma-killing players. It was the most practical and believable outcome for Otohan Thull, a warrior, general, and leader of a group of mercenaries. She was tired of downing a PC only to have a healing spell or ability to pop them back up, Otohan decided a more permanent option was more feasible and wanted to anger Imogen. Story and gameplay wise it was a great decision, it established a Thull as a ruthless evil enemy that the party can expect to come across again and the party got a preview of what to plan for in a future encounter. The fight was a winnable encounter, if they had circled their wagons and worked a little better together they could have defeated or forced her retreat. However, there were some poor tactical decisions and the party panicked when Ashton went down and they scattered instead of focusing on Otohan.
Characters will die, if there were no chance of death it would be a pretty dull game with no risk. Villians have motivations, players interfering in those motivations can and occasionally will get them killed.