If the Player knows something about the creature or situation, metagaming is going to happen. That's just how humans work. Even if the Player is trying their best not to meta-game, their knowledge will influence other decisions, even if sub-consciously.
The best you can do - as a GM - is try to set up story elements where metagaming isn't possible - or realize that sometimes Player metagaming creates completely acceptable outcomes,.
I like - and have used - the idea of re-skinning monsters, tweaking monster abilities, or swapping in homebrew monsters into "fantasy ecological niches", and then telling Players the nature of the creatures only insofar as their Characters would know: "You've heard that snarks are raiding the northern caravans ... make an Intelligence roll, and add your proficiency bonus if you're trained in History or Nature, to see what you know about snarks ".
If you're going to run vanilla Kobolds, anyways, then in the list above: #1, #4, and #7 are all things the Character might know. The Player clearly does, so maybe just assume the Character does as well. Accept that metagaming is going to happen, and find in-world, in-story justifications for it.
#2, #5, and #7 are perfectly acceptable tactical choices - no problems there.
#3 is Player cheating - but again, the GM can easily fix this by changing the Adventure around. This is a major flaw in using published adventures verbatim; there's nothing preventing Players from buying and reading the Adventure themselves. If you don't switch it up, and your Players have heard about the module ( or worse, played it under a different GM ), then metagaming is just going to happen. The best way to avoid this is to heavily customize any published module you're running.
As I see it, you've three choices: 1) don't tell the Players that there are Kobolds raiding in the North. Tell them that there are raids going on, but leave a lot of doubt as to the nature of the raiders. Find ways to obscure that it is Kobolds. Maybe leave in clues that it could be Kobolds, and if they Players adopt that as an hypothesis, then they might make a lot of the same tactical choices, but they'll likely make other preparations as well to hedge their bets. 2) Change it so that Kobolds ( and possibly any other Creature that the Players know about ) aren't actually raiding, and feed the Players only the information their Characters know about the Creatures that are conducting the raids. 3) Accept that if you do tell them "it's Kobolds", then you're going to get meta-gaming, and maybe that's OK, if you can find ways to justify it as in-world knowledge.
So either accept it & roll with it, or make it so that it's impossible for the Players to metagame.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
That's such a hard question. It's really all on you as the DM and what you consider common knowledge. For example, if I suddenly came face to face with a vampire, you can be damn sure (after I finish freaking out) that I'd grab some garlic, a cross and try to put a stake through it's black heart. Is that from all my experience fighting vampire? No. It's because it's common knowledge.
I guess I'm lucky that my party are (for the most part) self policing, and every now and then I have to chime in with a "How could you possibly know that". But for the most part, they ask me if their PC would know and I get to make a judgement call.
Tactics are fine. Planning is fine. I reward good planning.
Also, FWIW, I try really hard not to Metagame as DM. Someone else said DM's should, I disagree. One of my best sessions involved the thieves Guild planting people to find out info about the party, even starting a brawl to show who can do what. Then they used that knowledge to set up a great ambush. My players loved it, loved the planning, loved when they realised that they'd been manipulated not by me, but by the NPC's.
I mean, metagaming tactics aren't necessarily bad. It's alright to say "Okay, we should save our powerful spells for the boss encounter." It's alright to say "use fire because we're fighting trolls." I mean, I know to use fire against trolls and trolls don't exist in our world. I also know tactics if I come face-to-face with a mountain lion or a coyote or a bear, and I am not likely to ever need that knowledge. Are you telling me that an adventurer that lives in places where encountering a troll is entirely likely wouldn't have some folklore knowledge that trolls are weak to fire? Of course they would. That's probably the only thing they know about trolls because when civilisation killed its first trolls, they shouted the story far and wide. You might not know what trolls eat, whether they are nocturnal or even where they make their nests/dens/whatever, but you know how they're killed. Playing your character like idiots that don't know how certain monsters are hurt only inflates the difficulty of the encounter and thereby throws off the power balance. Likewise, intuiting information about the dungeon based on your understanding how dungeons work is fine. Players should be smart-- and let's be honest, you aren't your character and you don't know everything you would know if you were. If you are only going off what you imagine your character would know (and let's be clear, it's okay to decide that your character wouldn't know something and behave accordingly) then you are being less effective than they ought to be, if they were a real person. You have only what you are imagining based off the DMs description of what they are imagining. Things are going to get lost in translation. Moreover, the DM might not have the full picture in their head.
Metagaming to me is when a player uses information that they ... couldn't possible have. Okay, wait, but how is that different? Here I mean, as the DM, I just told one character one thing and there is no way this could possibly deduced by another player and they act on it. Maybe I told one player that they are possessed and the second casts a restoration spell, without having a reason to. Or if one player is in a different area completely and is told the key is the eyes of the statue and the second player, without having been communicated this decides to mess with the statue's eyes. That's harmful behaviour. Knowing that undead are weak to radiant? Not really.
So let's take an example using some of the stuff up top.
The players have been told in town that if they take the north road, they better be ready in case they are attacked by Kobolds. Kobolds have been heard to attack caravans on the north road. The players thank the well intended advice and state they will be leaving on the north road in the morning.
1) OOC, one character says, "Hey, that's no big deal as long as we cover the distance where the Kobolds are during the day. We can cover 20 miles on average in a day so if the Kobolds are within that distance we'll be past them before we stop to make camp. Kobolds don't like sunlight."
The party sets out and they make good progress on a poor quality road. However, they begin seeing signs of previous raids where torn up carts, animal bones, arrow shafts bleached by weeks in the sun occasionally litter the side of the road. By early evening you find a good spot to camp for the evening. It is a wide spot on the mountain pass with a trickle of a creek you can use for water. The mountains provide shelter from the wind but there is nothing for your mule to eat so you feed him from the rations you brought, rough oats.
2) OOC, a character says, "I'm not sure we have covered all the ground where the Kobolds are. We might be attacked tonight."
3) OOC, another character says, "I heard about this campaign from others and the DM attacks the party with Kobolds on this road to start a story element."
4) OOC, another character says, "Well, Kobolds have settlements where they typically worship a dragon. Usually the dragon is present and demands tribute."
5) OOC, the first character says, "Let's get ready by taking a short rest during dinner. This will allow us to ready things in advance of their attack."
6) A paladin character says (in character), "I should take the last watch. This will allow me to put my armor on when I wake up."
7) Another player says (in character), "I ready my spells. I am going to be ready to cast an illusion so that if we are attacked by Kobolds I can make a dragon appear that will distract and confuse the Kobolds. If that happens, remember that it will be more effective if we're not attacking. So try to shelter and hide and lets see if that will work."
8) … more IC and OOC discussion about who takes which watch.
All of this happens (statement by statement) before the DM can say, "Hold on, wait right there." So what does the DM say after each remark if anything? I don't want to tell you what I would say before I hear what you think.
The only bit which is bad is is this one: "I heard about this campaign from others and the DM attacks the party with Kobolds on this road to start a story element." Reading ahead in the campaign is a jerk move by the players.
Then again, the DM already gave them that information, basically, in the very first paragraph - "The players have been told in town that if they take the north road, they better be ready in case they are attacked by Kobolds. Kobolds have been heard to attack caravans on the north road. "
So there's nothing here worth interrupting the players for.
I imagine that characters get some tutelage in adventuring before they take that first bold step.
I agree. Adventurers talk to each other. They stop on the road and exchange hints. They gossip over ales in the tavern.
I put the decision on the player. If they ask me, "Does my character know that trolls are vulnerable to fire?" then my answer is, "It's your dam character. You decide and tell me."
I don't see "fires are vulnerable to acid" and "hit skeletons with clubs" as metagaming.
Metagaming is when the players see Tomb of Annihilation in my bag and all concindentally create characters with Survival proficiency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If the Player knows something about the creature or situation, metagaming is going to happen. That's just how humans work. Even if the Player is trying their best not to meta-game, their knowledge will influence other decisions, even if sub-consciously.
The best you can do - as a GM - is try to set up story elements where metagaming isn't possible - or realize that sometimes Player metagaming creates completely acceptable outcomes,.
I like - and have used - the idea of re-skinning monsters, tweaking monster abilities, or swapping in homebrew monsters into "fantasy ecological niches", and then telling Players the nature of the creatures only insofar as their Characters would know: "You've heard that snarks are raiding the northern caravans ... make an Intelligence roll, and add your proficiency bonus if you're trained in History or Nature, to see what you know about snarks ".
If you're going to run vanilla Kobolds, anyways, then in the list above: #1, #4, and #7 are all things the Character might know. The Player clearly does, so maybe just assume the Character does as well. Accept that metagaming is going to happen, and find in-world, in-story justifications for it.
#2, #5, and #7 are perfectly acceptable tactical choices - no problems there.
#3 is Player cheating - but again, the GM can easily fix this by changing the Adventure around. This is a major flaw in using published adventures verbatim; there's nothing preventing Players from buying and reading the Adventure themselves. If you don't switch it up, and your Players have heard about the module ( or worse, played it under a different GM ), then metagaming is just going to happen. The best way to avoid this is to heavily customize any published module you're running.
As I see it, you've three choices: 1) don't tell the Players that there are Kobolds raiding in the North. Tell them that there are raids going on, but leave a lot of doubt as to the nature of the raiders. Find ways to obscure that it is Kobolds. Maybe leave in clues that it could be Kobolds, and if they Players adopt that as an hypothesis, then they might make a lot of the same tactical choices, but they'll likely make other preparations as well to hedge their bets. 2) Change it so that Kobolds ( and possibly any other Creature that the Players know about ) aren't actually raiding, and feed the Players only the information their Characters know about the Creatures that are conducting the raids. 3) Accept that if you do tell them "it's Kobolds", then you're going to get meta-gaming, and maybe that's OK, if you can find ways to justify it as in-world knowledge.
So either accept it & roll with it, or make it so that it's impossible for the Players to metagame.
In all cases, it's up to the GM.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
That's such a hard question. It's really all on you as the DM and what you consider common knowledge. For example, if I suddenly came face to face with a vampire, you can be damn sure (after I finish freaking out) that I'd grab some garlic, a cross and try to put a stake through it's black heart. Is that from all my experience fighting vampire? No. It's because it's common knowledge.
I guess I'm lucky that my party are (for the most part) self policing, and every now and then I have to chime in with a "How could you possibly know that". But for the most part, they ask me if their PC would know and I get to make a judgement call.
Tactics are fine. Planning is fine. I reward good planning.
Also, FWIW, I try really hard not to Metagame as DM. Someone else said DM's should, I disagree. One of my best sessions involved the thieves Guild planting people to find out info about the party, even starting a brawl to show who can do what. Then they used that knowledge to set up a great ambush. My players loved it, loved the planning, loved when they realised that they'd been manipulated not by me, but by the NPC's.
I mean, metagaming tactics aren't necessarily bad. It's alright to say "Okay, we should save our powerful spells for the boss encounter." It's alright to say "use fire because we're fighting trolls." I mean, I know to use fire against trolls and trolls don't exist in our world. I also know tactics if I come face-to-face with a mountain lion or a coyote or a bear, and I am not likely to ever need that knowledge. Are you telling me that an adventurer that lives in places where encountering a troll is entirely likely wouldn't have some folklore knowledge that trolls are weak to fire? Of course they would. That's probably the only thing they know about trolls because when civilisation killed its first trolls, they shouted the story far and wide. You might not know what trolls eat, whether they are nocturnal or even where they make their nests/dens/whatever, but you know how they're killed. Playing your character like idiots that don't know how certain monsters are hurt only inflates the difficulty of the encounter and thereby throws off the power balance. Likewise, intuiting information about the dungeon based on your understanding how dungeons work is fine. Players should be smart-- and let's be honest, you aren't your character and you don't know everything you would know if you were. If you are only going off what you imagine your character would know (and let's be clear, it's okay to decide that your character wouldn't know something and behave accordingly) then you are being less effective than they ought to be, if they were a real person. You have only what you are imagining based off the DMs description of what they are imagining. Things are going to get lost in translation. Moreover, the DM might not have the full picture in their head.
Metagaming to me is when a player uses information that they ... couldn't possible have. Okay, wait, but how is that different? Here I mean, as the DM, I just told one character one thing and there is no way this could possibly deduced by another player and they act on it. Maybe I told one player that they are possessed and the second casts a restoration spell, without having a reason to. Or if one player is in a different area completely and is told the key is the eyes of the statue and the second player, without having been communicated this decides to mess with the statue's eyes. That's harmful behaviour. Knowing that undead are weak to radiant? Not really.
The only bit which is bad is is this one: "I heard about this campaign from others and the DM attacks the party with Kobolds on this road to start a story element." Reading ahead in the campaign is a jerk move by the players.
Then again, the DM already gave them that information, basically, in the very first paragraph - "The players have been told in town that if they take the north road, they better be ready in case they are attacked by Kobolds. Kobolds have been heard to attack caravans on the north road. "
So there's nothing here worth interrupting the players for.
I agree. Adventurers talk to each other. They stop on the road and exchange hints. They gossip over ales in the tavern.
I put the decision on the player. If they ask me, "Does my character know that trolls are vulnerable to fire?" then my answer is, "It's your dam character. You decide and tell me."
I don't see "fires are vulnerable to acid" and "hit skeletons with clubs" as metagaming.
Metagaming is when the players see Tomb of Annihilation in my bag and all concindentally create characters with Survival proficiency.