During our recent game, one of my players was absent so I NPC'd her character, a Dragonborn Barbarian. The party were in the middle of an encounter with a pair of Water Elementals, which had invaded their boat and had whelmed the Ranger. Now, the Ranger was basically about to drown - I mean, as soon as his turn came around he was literally dead.
It comes around to the Barbarian's turn. I have a moment to consider: the (absent) player of this character is a newbie to D&D. She doesn't fully grasp all the rules although she's great at RP. Oftentimes I'll have to give her encouragement that what she's doing is okay and allowed, but generally she follows the pattern of rage-and-attack.
In this situation, I as the DM know that the Ranger is about to die. By my estimation, the barbarian would likely have been aware of this too and would have wanted to save her friend. As stated under the statblock for the elemental, an ally can attempt to pull someone whelmed by the elemental free. The player, however, almost certainly wouldn't have known this - or even asked if it was possible.
In the situation as it was, I felt it was far more dramatic to explain to the party the thought process of the character and how close to death the Ranger was. Then I made a public roll to determine the barbarian's success (she succeeded). The party won and it makes for a great story and character development...but I can't help but shake the feeling that I was metagaming (which I normally abhor) and had I not been playing the barbarian the ranger would have probably died.
If the player had been playing her character, being as she is new, I would have suggested to her that she with her great barbarian strength might be able to pull her friend out of the water elemental and that it might be a better option then rage attack. I wouldn't see this as meta gaming, but helping the new player with realizing that in the game world there is more options then attack.
New players often look at d&d as a video game, which of course it's far more, with every real life option on the table rather then the few the game gives you. I say well done sir, you made the game better after you explain it to your new player she will grow , and your story goes on with a cool foot note.
I think you did well, I'd say as DM if you play an NPC'd PC by trying to emulate the player's skill level or thought process, rather than just trying to apply the same personality that's been expressed to date, THAT would be DM metagamming.
I have two views on NPCing a missing player and how their actions are handled, it comes down to the players at the table and how well I feel they'd be able to handle the situation.
First is your approach, as DM you take the missing player into your care. In that case you did just fine by my books, even if it was outside the "normal" scope of the player's actions. As was said earlier, you can explain the reasoning behind your actions and use it as a lesson in creative thinking. The drawback is, however, that you have one more thing to take care of as DM. Your conflict about "metagaming" is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in this situation. It's not metagaming, it's playing in such a way that you could save a character and be a team player, that's the point right? If you were a player, you'd know this, you'd use this, is it still a bad thing? You stepped into the role of player, not DM, you chose to use your knowledge to make an educated decision, and it worked.
The second approach, and one that saves a lot of the cognitive dissonance, is to give the missing player's character over to the party. I choose this route more often than not, and I give the characters actions to a group decision. Someone will have the sheet, the group as a whole decides what the character will do, and it makes the players keep all of the agency. It also absolves you from making decisions like you just had to. The DM has a lot to handle already, adding a character sheet and trying to avoid giving the character knowledge that they normally wouldn't have is not easy.
In the end, I think you played it just fine, and your player will have a new bit of knowledge to gain from it.
So here's my after-action dilemma...
During our recent game, one of my players was absent so I NPC'd her character, a Dragonborn Barbarian. The party were in the middle of an encounter with a pair of Water Elementals, which had invaded their boat and had whelmed the Ranger. Now, the Ranger was basically about to drown - I mean, as soon as his turn came around he was literally dead.
It comes around to the Barbarian's turn. I have a moment to consider: the (absent) player of this character is a newbie to D&D. She doesn't fully grasp all the rules although she's great at RP. Oftentimes I'll have to give her encouragement that what she's doing is okay and allowed, but generally she follows the pattern of rage-and-attack.
In this situation, I as the DM know that the Ranger is about to die. By my estimation, the barbarian would likely have been aware of this too and would have wanted to save her friend. As stated under the statblock for the elemental, an ally can attempt to pull someone whelmed by the elemental free. The player, however, almost certainly wouldn't have known this - or even asked if it was possible.
In the situation as it was, I felt it was far more dramatic to explain to the party the thought process of the character and how close to death the Ranger was. Then I made a public roll to determine the barbarian's success (she succeeded). The party won and it makes for a great story and character development...but I can't help but shake the feeling that I was metagaming (which I normally abhor) and had I not been playing the barbarian the ranger would have probably died.
So...what do you have done?
If the player had been playing her character, being as she is new, I would have suggested to her that she with her great barbarian strength might be able to pull her friend out of the water elemental and that it might be a better option then rage attack. I wouldn't see this as meta gaming, but helping the new player with realizing that in the game world there is more options then attack.
New players often look at d&d as a video game, which of course it's far more, with every real life option on the table rather then the few the game gives you. I say well done sir, you made the game better after you explain it to your new player she will grow , and your story goes on with a cool foot note.
I think you did well, I'd say as DM if you play an NPC'd PC by trying to emulate the player's skill level or thought process, rather than just trying to apply the same personality that's been expressed to date, THAT would be DM metagamming.
I have two views on NPCing a missing player and how their actions are handled, it comes down to the players at the table and how well I feel they'd be able to handle the situation.
First is your approach, as DM you take the missing player into your care. In that case you did just fine by my books, even if it was outside the "normal" scope of the player's actions. As was said earlier, you can explain the reasoning behind your actions and use it as a lesson in creative thinking. The drawback is, however, that you have one more thing to take care of as DM. Your conflict about "metagaming" is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in this situation. It's not metagaming, it's playing in such a way that you could save a character and be a team player, that's the point right? If you were a player, you'd know this, you'd use this, is it still a bad thing? You stepped into the role of player, not DM, you chose to use your knowledge to make an educated decision, and it worked.
The second approach, and one that saves a lot of the cognitive dissonance, is to give the missing player's character over to the party. I choose this route more often than not, and I give the characters actions to a group decision. Someone will have the sheet, the group as a whole decides what the character will do, and it makes the players keep all of the agency. It also absolves you from making decisions like you just had to. The DM has a lot to handle already, adding a character sheet and trying to avoid giving the character knowledge that they normally wouldn't have is not easy.
In the end, I think you played it just fine, and your player will have a new bit of knowledge to gain from it.