So recently I've been talking to my DM (and my girlfriend since she plays a little bit) about some of my poor metagaming habits at the table, mainly some of this entailing from combat. I don't know if it's my habit of playing computer games all day or I am merely overthinking it. When battle begins your characters are prancing all over the place, getting hits, dishing hits and then calling out one another for healing or a retreat. My question is:
How do you know when to speak in-character or out-of-character?
This could be a rule or a simple thing that you might consider common sense for the character (not the player mind you!). So as the bard, his job is to inspire the party and be the stereotype spell-sing-flinging support of the party. Except ours doesn't but I've been told that to tell him that OOC is considered sorta low tier metagaming. Telling the character he hasn't been singing much is fine except I'll scratch my head and go, "Why would I tell him to do something that his character should remember by instinct?" It's almost like reminding your own cleric in the middle of battle about what a battle healer does.
Character level comes in to question. By what the DMG hints is that from level 1-5 you are expected to save small hamlets, villages and maybe go on a quest to make a name for yourself. 6-10, rescue entire cities from certain destruction; 11-15 would be along the lines of saving entire countries and vast landscapes, then finally leaving us with 16-20 where we're saving entire worlds! To me it makes sense in the level 1-5 margin that my character would remind someone that they didn't use their voice much to sing and inspire us.
Except, when we're about level 10+ why am I expected to ask a cleric in-character why he is using healing word on my waving stump of an arm when he could use a spell to finish off the huge monstrosity that is about to turn us in to bolognese sauce!
How do the rest of you interact at the table when it comes to being in-character and OOC? Please note, I have already spoken to my DM about this thoroughly so I am merely online to hear other opinions. None of this is going to be used as evidence against my table.
Are the other players new? They might either not know, or be forgetting about their abilities.
I’d suggest in character first. It would be reasonable to ask the bard “Hey, that one time you gave me a pep talk and it really helped, could you do that again?” Or to tell the cleric, “I’m fine, dammit, just kill that bastard.”
The line you don’t want to cross is telling people how to play their character, as opposed to making suggestions. And it sounds like you’re aware of that.
Bards don't have to sing to hand out their inspiration dice. Bards don't have to hand out their inspiration dice at all for that matter. There isn't one way to play any character, let alone a bard, and I think you come perilously close to telling someone else how to play their character, which can be rude.
Perhaps you all should have an ooc discussion to talk about what kind of game you're playing together. Some people play for story and don't mind if their character fails at certain things because its in their personality. Some people even don't mind if their characters die, as long as it made sense in character. Other people approach the game as something they're trying to "win" by beating enemies, gaining levels, and getting loot. Neither one is wrong, but they're kind of wrong for each other.
Some people are hardcore about "this is what would actually happen" and don't want ooc discussion happening at the table for either optimizing or narrative reasons and will emphasize, "what would your character do given what they actually know?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'd say 5e for about two years now. We started with Curse of Strahd. I used to play Neverwinter Nights since 2012 so it's hard to forget about old hunting party habits on online servers.
And I'll use those one-liners in the next game. We do live and play locally so we are a good little circle of friends, the only downside is that I keep reading the rules over and over again so I can remember them on the fly. So I can be rather overzealous about it.
I've done mini sessions as a DM with a few people. A few games with D&D and recently with Only War. I'll help them along with their characters and give them advice in what to do but I'll try to keep hand holding to a minimum. So snapping my fingers and going "You could do this!" is kinda just a reaction. I certainly try to make sure to not step on toes.
This is an entirely an OOC thing - if you're playing at a table where people don't mind discussing strategy then you can do that, if that would just annoy people who just want to play their character the way they want, then don't. I don't think it has anything to do with character level, since it's entirely an OOC thing.
Though I would note that saying that "as the bard, his job is to inspire the party and be the stereotype spell-sing-flinging support of the party" isn't necessarily correct. Bards are pretty versatile, and you can make one that fulfills a lot of roles. I can understand why someone wouldn't enjoy you basically saying "No, don't play your character the way YOU want to play them, play your character the way I want you to play them."
Bards don't have to sing to hand out their inspiration dice. Bards don't have to hand out their inspiration dice at all for that matter. There isn't one way to play any character, let alone a bard, and I think you come perilously close to telling someone else how to play their character, which can be rude.
That is a good point you raise except the one I gave in particular was just an example. I apologize if that was misinterpreted. The bard in my group actually throws out sarcastic snippy one-liners that are meant to get us fight harder so he avoids berating us again! Which unfortunately hasn't quite happened recently. I don't know if it is indeed him not remembering to hand out inspiration or if he is getting tired of the class he is playing as.
Perhaps you all should have an ooc discussion to talk about what kind of game you're playing together. Some people play for story and don't mind if their character fails at certain things because its in their personality. Some people even don't mind if their characters die, as long as it made sense in character. Other people approach the game as something they're trying to "win" by beating enemies, gaining levels, and getting loot. Neither one is wrong, but they're kind of wrong for each other.
We have an assortment of people. Our DM has tried doing a sandbox mix but as a player I feel like my character is very limited by what he can do due to the story-driven contract he has that forces him to do things that the character wouldn't do in the first place. As a gnome my wizard feels a lot of kinship with dwarves and after being told to assassinate one, I made it quite clear I was going to have no part of it from an in-character standpoint; there was a possibility my character would've died with a clear conscience.
We do have one powergamer in the group and two very experienced players who have been going at 5e for a number of years. They play their characters well but one of them tends to swap through characters quite often. Something I've been tempted to do myself but I've gotten quite attached to my transmuting little rock bro.
I know everyone says to play the way you want to play but, that is cliche. Most people want you to play in a way that follows the stereotype attached to your class. If you make a Barbarian, it's more expected that you'll Rage and wade into combat rather than hang back and fire a longbow. You can play your class interestingly and effectively well beyond the stereotype but, when you decide your cleric is going to cast nukes every round instead of any heals when you are the only one who could cast them, prepare to take some guff.
I know everyone says to play the way you want to play but, that is cliche. Most people want you to play in a way that follows the stereotype attached to your class. If you make a Barbarian, it's more expected that you'll Rage and wade into combat rather than hang back and fire a longbow. You can play your class interestingly and effectively well beyond the stereotype but, when you decide your cleric is going to cast nukes every round instead of any heals when you are the only one who could cast them, prepare to take some guff.
Especially if you're playing with people who are more used to WoW or another system that wants its healers to keep the party topped off. I remember coming into D&D thinking that Life Cleric was the only healer because their abilities were the only ones that made healing efficient enough to approach that style. Other classes and other cleric subclasses had the healing spells, but I couldn't imagine them keeping up. Once I realized that the strategy was different, it made much more sense and I realized the value of Healing Word and Goodberry.
Now, I'll explain options to new players in game for the first few battles while trying to leave the options open, maybe explain the new stuff or the mechanics that we haven't faced yet for a few more and then answer questions as needed later. If my character would have a problem with what's going on, I'll have an IC discussion about it.
As a DM I don't want my players telling each other to optimise, they decide what their character does unless there's a big consequence attached. I think pushing this into IC conversation is even more meta-y than just mentioning it OOC, if it is anything too specific.
As a DM I don't want my players telling each other to optimise, they decide what their character does unless there's a big consequence attached. I think pushing this into IC conversation is even more meta-y than just mentioning it OOC, if it is anything too specific.
I mean a quick, "What, no quip? What's wrong, not feeling witty today?" would be in character enough, don't you think?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yeah it’s the difference between “I could use some help” vs “you have two more bardic inspirations you could use!”
And that's the difference between IC and IC meta. "I'm struggling here." leaves plenty of room for interpretation. "Medic!" says I need some healing, but leaves the actual mechanic out. "You have two more uses of Bardic Inspiration you could use." is mentioning mechanics that may or may not be the nomenclature used for the ability in world, is more likely to call out a specific player, and is getting meta by seeing the number of uses the character has left which probably isn't something that a character without that ability probably wouldn't know about and even the high intelligence/high awareness characters would probably be busy trying not to get gutted to track it all.
I'm pretty militant about avoiding IC metagaming as much as possible. I have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of 5e rules, spells, and class features, and I'm a tactical thinker by nature. My character, however, has an intelligence of 10. If acting on or disseminating information would make her seem smarter or well-read, I don't do it. That's my line.
Out of character, I'm chatty as all get out. Most of my group is new to D&D, so the more experienced players (and our DM) frequently remind the newbies about their abilities and limitations. My table doesn't strategize too much about combat actions - most of us play martial classes, so it's really just a matter of shooting or slashing the baddies anyway. What I definitely do a lot of is OOC speculation about mysteries and plot twists, and I bring up details and correlations from past sessions a ton. I'm a huge note-taker, and my party tends to review what we've learned OOC to speed things along or ask clarifying questions. The veteran players and the DM are good at compartmentalizing this, so it usually doesn't detract from gameplay. I also happen to play a high wisdom character, and we've got some high-INT characters too, so the OOC insights and connections we make that do make it into RP, we usually chalk up to a combination of PC intuition and brainstorming.
TL;DR - I let my character stats determine my metagaming.
During a session, and especially during combat, those discussions slow the game down and make it drag and become boring. My preference as both a DM and as a player is for the players to discuss PC abilities, tactics, and strategy outside of the few hours we spend playing every week and not discuss them during play time.
We only play for a few hours a week. Our characters spend days, if not weeks, traveling together. They have tons of time to talk, plan, etc. that we don’t have in game and I think that the players should use the time between sessions to have those discussions.
I’ve played with people who agree with me and people who disagree with me by the way. Everyone’s opinions are different but this is my preference because it makes the actual play go faster.
I don't think it's as serious as all that. We're playing a game, not performing an art. We're just goofing around. If you like you're friend and you're not being obnoxious just saying "i could use a heal." isn't gonna break anything.
I think the important thing is: when you're talking to an npc be really clear about what you're ACTUALLY SAYING in character. Because npcs could, should and will remember all those snide quips and snarky jokes.
When it comes to combat, we've already left a perfect simulation of the world for a mechanically focused tactics game, so we should treat it with respect, but acknowledge it's just a game and try not to bust each others chops too much for not being fully "IC". People have knowledge of mechanics and monsters in their brain. As a DM I don't think it's fair to pretend you don't. And your characters LIVE in that WORLD so they should honestly have some of that knowledge anyhow! So I think it's fine to just relax and let some meta slip through. It's gonna be fine. The most important thing is respect, and comradery. Everything else is secondary.
During a session, and especially during combat, those discussions slow the game down and make it drag and become boring.
Preach this. I tend to let a lot of things slide and maybe slide the odd "you could do this..?" in there but I never argue mechanics.
And thank you all for your own input in the matter. It is very nice to see different POVs on this. We've got a session coming up early on in the afternoon so we'll see how it goes if I just subtly point across at one or two things the character might do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So recently I've been talking to my DM (and my girlfriend since she plays a little bit) about some of my poor metagaming habits at the table, mainly some of this entailing from combat. I don't know if it's my habit of playing computer games all day or I am merely overthinking it. When battle begins your characters are prancing all over the place, getting hits, dishing hits and then calling out one another for healing or a retreat. My question is:
How do you know when to speak in-character or out-of-character?
This could be a rule or a simple thing that you might consider common sense for the character (not the player mind you!). So as the bard, his job is to inspire the party and be the stereotype spell-sing-flinging support of the party. Except ours doesn't but I've been told that to tell him that OOC is considered sorta low tier metagaming. Telling the character he hasn't been singing much is fine except I'll scratch my head and go, "Why would I tell him to do something that his character should remember by instinct?" It's almost like reminding your own cleric in the middle of battle about what a battle healer does.
Character level comes in to question. By what the DMG hints is that from level 1-5 you are expected to save small hamlets, villages and maybe go on a quest to make a name for yourself. 6-10, rescue entire cities from certain destruction; 11-15 would be along the lines of saving entire countries and vast landscapes, then finally leaving us with 16-20 where we're saving entire worlds! To me it makes sense in the level 1-5 margin that my character would remind someone that they didn't use their voice much to sing and inspire us.
Except, when we're about level 10+ why am I expected to ask a cleric in-character why he is using healing word on my waving stump of an arm when he could use a spell to finish off the huge monstrosity that is about to turn us in to bolognese sauce!
How do the rest of you interact at the table when it comes to being in-character and OOC? Please note, I have already spoken to my DM about this thoroughly so I am merely online to hear other opinions. None of this is going to be used as evidence against my table.
Are the other players new? They might either not know, or be forgetting about their abilities.
I’d suggest in character first. It would be reasonable to ask the bard “Hey, that one time you gave me a pep talk and it really helped, could you do that again?” Or to tell the cleric, “I’m fine, dammit, just kill that bastard.”
The line you don’t want to cross is telling people how to play their character, as opposed to making suggestions. And it sounds like you’re aware of that.
Bards don't have to sing to hand out their inspiration dice. Bards don't have to hand out their inspiration dice at all for that matter. There isn't one way to play any character, let alone a bard, and I think you come perilously close to telling someone else how to play their character, which can be rude.
Perhaps you all should have an ooc discussion to talk about what kind of game you're playing together. Some people play for story and don't mind if their character fails at certain things because its in their personality. Some people even don't mind if their characters die, as long as it made sense in character. Other people approach the game as something they're trying to "win" by beating enemies, gaining levels, and getting loot. Neither one is wrong, but they're kind of wrong for each other.
Some people are hardcore about "this is what would actually happen" and don't want ooc discussion happening at the table for either optimizing or narrative reasons and will emphasize, "what would your character do given what they actually know?"
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'd say 5e for about two years now. We started with Curse of Strahd. I used to play Neverwinter Nights since 2012 so it's hard to forget about old hunting party habits on online servers.
And I'll use those one-liners in the next game. We do live and play locally so we are a good little circle of friends, the only downside is that I keep reading the rules over and over again so I can remember them on the fly. So I can be rather overzealous about it.
I've done mini sessions as a DM with a few people. A few games with D&D and recently with Only War. I'll help them along with their characters and give them advice in what to do but I'll try to keep hand holding to a minimum. So snapping my fingers and going "You could do this!" is kinda just a reaction. I certainly try to make sure to not step on toes.
This is an entirely an OOC thing - if you're playing at a table where people don't mind discussing strategy then you can do that, if that would just annoy people who just want to play their character the way they want, then don't. I don't think it has anything to do with character level, since it's entirely an OOC thing.
Though I would note that saying that "as the bard, his job is to inspire the party and be the stereotype spell-sing-flinging support of the party" isn't necessarily correct. Bards are pretty versatile, and you can make one that fulfills a lot of roles. I can understand why someone wouldn't enjoy you basically saying "No, don't play your character the way YOU want to play them, play your character the way I want you to play them."
That is a good point you raise except the one I gave in particular was just an example. I apologize if that was misinterpreted. The bard in my group actually throws out sarcastic snippy one-liners that are meant to get us fight harder so he avoids berating us again! Which unfortunately hasn't quite happened recently. I don't know if it is indeed him not remembering to hand out inspiration or if he is getting tired of the class he is playing as.
We have an assortment of people. Our DM has tried doing a sandbox mix but as a player I feel like my character is very limited by what he can do due to the story-driven contract he has that forces him to do things that the character wouldn't do in the first place. As a gnome my wizard feels a lot of kinship with dwarves and after being told to assassinate one, I made it quite clear I was going to have no part of it from an in-character standpoint; there was a possibility my character would've died with a clear conscience.
We do have one powergamer in the group and two very experienced players who have been going at 5e for a number of years. They play their characters well but one of them tends to swap through characters quite often. Something I've been tempted to do myself but I've gotten quite attached to my transmuting little rock bro.
I know everyone says to play the way you want to play but, that is cliche. Most people want you to play in a way that follows the stereotype attached to your class. If you make a Barbarian, it's more expected that you'll Rage and wade into combat rather than hang back and fire a longbow. You can play your class interestingly and effectively well beyond the stereotype but, when you decide your cleric is going to cast nukes every round instead of any heals when you are the only one who could cast them, prepare to take some guff.
Especially if you're playing with people who are more used to WoW or another system that wants its healers to keep the party topped off. I remember coming into D&D thinking that Life Cleric was the only healer because their abilities were the only ones that made healing efficient enough to approach that style. Other classes and other cleric subclasses had the healing spells, but I couldn't imagine them keeping up. Once I realized that the strategy was different, it made much more sense and I realized the value of Healing Word and Goodberry.
Now, I'll explain options to new players in game for the first few battles while trying to leave the options open, maybe explain the new stuff or the mechanics that we haven't faced yet for a few more and then answer questions as needed later. If my character would have a problem with what's going on, I'll have an IC discussion about it.
As a DM I don't want my players telling each other to optimise, they decide what their character does unless there's a big consequence attached. I think pushing this into IC conversation is even more meta-y than just mentioning it OOC, if it is anything too specific.
I mean a quick, "What, no quip? What's wrong, not feeling witty today?" would be in character enough, don't you think?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yeah it’s the difference between “I could use some help” vs “you have two more bardic inspirations you could use!”
And that's the difference between IC and IC meta. "I'm struggling here." leaves plenty of room for interpretation. "Medic!" says I need some healing, but leaves the actual mechanic out. "You have two more uses of Bardic Inspiration you could use." is mentioning mechanics that may or may not be the nomenclature used for the ability in world, is more likely to call out a specific player, and is getting meta by seeing the number of uses the character has left which probably isn't something that a character without that ability probably wouldn't know about and even the high intelligence/high awareness characters would probably be busy trying not to get gutted to track it all.
I'm pretty militant about avoiding IC metagaming as much as possible. I have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of 5e rules, spells, and class features, and I'm a tactical thinker by nature. My character, however, has an intelligence of 10. If acting on or disseminating information would make her seem smarter or well-read, I don't do it. That's my line.
Out of character, I'm chatty as all get out. Most of my group is new to D&D, so the more experienced players (and our DM) frequently remind the newbies about their abilities and limitations. My table doesn't strategize too much about combat actions - most of us play martial classes, so it's really just a matter of shooting or slashing the baddies anyway. What I definitely do a lot of is OOC speculation about mysteries and plot twists, and I bring up details and correlations from past sessions a ton. I'm a huge note-taker, and my party tends to review what we've learned OOC to speed things along or ask clarifying questions. The veteran players and the DM are good at compartmentalizing this, so it usually doesn't detract from gameplay. I also happen to play a high wisdom character, and we've got some high-INT characters too, so the OOC insights and connections we make that do make it into RP, we usually chalk up to a combination of PC intuition and brainstorming.
TL;DR - I let my character stats determine my metagaming.
During a session, and especially during combat, those discussions slow the game down and make it drag and become boring. My preference as both a DM and as a player is for the players to discuss PC abilities, tactics, and strategy outside of the few hours we spend playing every week and not discuss them during play time.
We only play for a few hours a week. Our characters spend days, if not weeks, traveling together. They have tons of time to talk, plan, etc. that we don’t have in game and I think that the players should use the time between sessions to have those discussions.
I’ve played with people who agree with me and people who disagree with me by the way. Everyone’s opinions are different but this is my preference because it makes the actual play go faster.
Professional computer geek
I don't think it's as serious as all that. We're playing a game, not performing an art. We're just goofing around. If you like you're friend and you're not being obnoxious just saying "i could use a heal." isn't gonna break anything.
I think the important thing is: when you're talking to an npc be really clear about what you're ACTUALLY SAYING in character. Because npcs could, should and will remember all those snide quips and snarky jokes.
When it comes to combat, we've already left a perfect simulation of the world for a mechanically focused tactics game, so we should treat it with respect, but acknowledge it's just a game and try not to bust each others chops too much for not being fully "IC". People have knowledge of mechanics and monsters in their brain. As a DM I don't think it's fair to pretend you don't. And your characters LIVE in that WORLD so they should honestly have some of that knowledge anyhow! So I think it's fine to just relax and let some meta slip through. It's gonna be fine. The most important thing is respect, and comradery. Everything else is secondary.
Preach this. I tend to let a lot of things slide and maybe slide the odd "you could do this..?" in there but I never argue mechanics.
And thank you all for your own input in the matter. It is very nice to see different POVs on this. We've got a session coming up early on in the afternoon so we'll see how it goes if I just subtly point across at one or two things the character might do.