Is there any way for the PC’s to say they want to take on monsters or threats simply because they want to get to the next level up, without it being meta gaming? So, if there is a particular monster that your character is seeking revenge against, but you not at a level where the party would stand a chance against it, how would the characters say they need to level up before focusing on getting the monster?
I would say something like this, "I would like to get my vengeance on <insert monster here>, but I feel we don't have enough skill and endurance to defeat it without great physical harm to ourselves or even death. My companions, I suggest we train, work hard, and fight more and more difficult monsters until we hone our skills enough that we're stronger and able to tackle the <insert monster here>! Who's with me?"
Just like in the mundane world, I would think. You wouldn’t send a high school team onto the court against an NBA one. You would send the players to training camps, play in travel leagues, send them to colleges with strong programs, then assemble the best. So your wizard would study and practice and learn more powerful spells. Your swashbuckler might have a set of experiences and training like this:
Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti’s Defense against me, ah? Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain. Inigo: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro? Man in Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don’t you? Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa… which I have.
Having a general appreciation of differences in capabilities isn't meta, it's the characters making comparative observations about the setting. They won't know that an adult dragon has a CR in the mid-teens, but they know slaying a dragon is a challenge that only skilled, learned mages and seasoned warriors are able to face, this level 5 party isn't near that stage yet, and that the solution is to improve their skills, broaden their knowledge, etc. by gaining more experience.
It is interesting to think about how characters in-universe understand the in-game mechanics. Like... even just the idea of characters openly identifying themselves as their class doesn't fully make sense. Like... if you're a Wizard or Cleric or something like that, sure... but if you're a Ranger do you identify yourself overtly as a "ranger" within the logic of the world, or do you just consider yourself a warrior with some nature-based magical powers? Do Warlocks think of themselves as belonging to specific, known subclasses, or do you just identify yourself as a "Warlock of (Patron)", and whether that patron is a fiend or an archfey or whatever is just a technicality?
Broadly speaking I think a setting can justify having general terms for all the classes that manifest some degree of magic as a baseline feature, as that's a very clear identifier. Rangers are warriors that use nature/primal magic while Paladins are warriors who use divine magic. Whether or not a subclass is recognized in-universe as a formal specialization or not is probably more of a subjective worldbuilding question. Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians are probably the ones who people couldn't necessarily break into corresponding discrete grouping in-universe; they're all some form of weapon-based combatant and lack overt distinguishing traits.
I would say something like “I don’t think we’re good/powerful enough yet to take that on. Let’s get some practice and hone our skills further, become stronger fighters before we take that on.”
It is interesting to think about how characters in-universe understand the in-game mechanics. Like... even just the idea of characters openly identifying themselves as their class doesn't fully make sense. Like... if you're a Wizard or Cleric or something like that, sure... but if you're a Ranger do you identify yourself overtly as a "ranger" within the logic of the world, or do you just consider yourself a warrior with some nature-based magical powers? Do Warlocks think of themselves as belonging to specific, known subclasses, or do you just identify yourself as a "Warlock of (Patron)", and whether that patron is a fiend or an archfey or whatever is just a technicality?
It really depends on the campaign, but it's always sort of been ingrained in the game's DNA. I mean, AD&D gave you a new title every time you leveled up (and many of those are now class/subclass names in 5e). Someone could in-game identify themselves as a 'champion', and it would actually tell you exactly what level they were as a fighter
In 5e, I don't think your character calling themselves a 'ranger' is inherently metagaming, even in a generic D&D fantasy sort of setting like FR -- it would be like someone in real life calling themselves a doctor, even if they had a more precise specialty
And then you have stuff like Fantasy High in Dimension 20, where the characters actually attend 'barbarian class' and that kind of thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
but if you're a Ranger do you identify yourself overtly as a "ranger" within the logic of the world, or do you just consider yourself a warrior with some nature-based magical powers?
They probably just call themselves a ranger. The term isn't based on attack style. It just means somebody who explores various terrains and is prepared for them. It's a real world term.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Is there any way for the PC’s to say they want to take on monsters or threats simply because they want to get to the next level up, without it being meta gaming? So, if there is a particular monster that your character is seeking revenge against, but you not at a level where the party would stand a chance against it, how would the characters say they need to level up before focusing on getting the monster?
Old school would call that side questing. DM discretion on limit of PC universal knowledge should be addressed as of session 0, never a bad thing players get hungry for more, just feed them snacks from time to time.( sprinkle means of extra XP gain in ways as to still fit into the overall narrative . )
Personally this is part of the reason I prefer playing milestone over XP anymore; the idea of actively farming XP is a bit more video-gamey than I enjoy in a TTRPG. Doesn't mean there won't be side quests, but it helps keep the engagement on the story, not just checking off objectives for XP. Just a personal take, both systems have pro's and con's.
A little different then first post but fits under the level up metagaming Topic title. Is the metagaming that happens when people multi-class. Oh if I take 2 levels of this class and 4 levels of this class I will be able to do x, y, and z. While leaving the dungeon going to the swamp a guy all of a sudden knows how to cast shield, or pick locks and speak in thieves cant, or have a deal with a patron. But to know they get something at level two is metagaming.
Now, I get if the player says, every time we camp, I am going to practice picking locks, or I am going to have the wizard show me how to cast this spell. But players rarely do such things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is there any way for the PC’s to say they want to take on monsters or threats simply because they want to get to the next level up, without it being meta gaming?
So, if there is a particular monster that your character is seeking revenge against, but you not at a level where the party would stand a chance against it, how would the characters say they need to level up before focusing on getting the monster?
I would say something like this, "I would like to get my vengeance on <insert monster here>, but I feel we don't have enough skill and endurance to defeat it without great physical harm to ourselves or even death. My companions, I suggest we train, work hard, and fight more and more difficult monsters until we hone our skills enough that we're stronger and able to tackle the <insert monster here>! Who's with me?"
Just like in the mundane world, I would think. You wouldn’t send a high school team onto the court against an NBA one. You would send the players to training camps, play in travel leagues, send them to colleges with strong programs, then assemble the best. So your wizard would study and practice and learn more powerful spells. Your swashbuckler might have a set of experiences and training like this:
Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti’s Defense against me, ah?
Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro?
Man in Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don’t you?
Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa… which I have.
Having a general appreciation of differences in capabilities isn't meta, it's the characters making comparative observations about the setting. They won't know that an adult dragon has a CR in the mid-teens, but they know slaying a dragon is a challenge that only skilled, learned mages and seasoned warriors are able to face, this level 5 party isn't near that stage yet, and that the solution is to improve their skills, broaden their knowledge, etc. by gaining more experience.
It is interesting to think about how characters in-universe understand the in-game mechanics. Like... even just the idea of characters openly identifying themselves as their class doesn't fully make sense. Like... if you're a Wizard or Cleric or something like that, sure... but if you're a Ranger do you identify yourself overtly as a "ranger" within the logic of the world, or do you just consider yourself a warrior with some nature-based magical powers? Do Warlocks think of themselves as belonging to specific, known subclasses, or do you just identify yourself as a "Warlock of (Patron)", and whether that patron is a fiend or an archfey or whatever is just a technicality?
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Broadly speaking I think a setting can justify having general terms for all the classes that manifest some degree of magic as a baseline feature, as that's a very clear identifier. Rangers are warriors that use nature/primal magic while Paladins are warriors who use divine magic. Whether or not a subclass is recognized in-universe as a formal specialization or not is probably more of a subjective worldbuilding question. Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians are probably the ones who people couldn't necessarily break into corresponding discrete grouping in-universe; they're all some form of weapon-based combatant and lack overt distinguishing traits.
I would say something like “I don’t think we’re good/powerful enough yet to take that on. Let’s get some practice and hone our skills further, become stronger fighters before we take that on.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It really depends on the campaign, but it's always sort of been ingrained in the game's DNA. I mean, AD&D gave you a new title every time you leveled up (and many of those are now class/subclass names in 5e). Someone could in-game identify themselves as a 'champion', and it would actually tell you exactly what level they were as a fighter
In 5e, I don't think your character calling themselves a 'ranger' is inherently metagaming, even in a generic D&D fantasy sort of setting like FR -- it would be like someone in real life calling themselves a doctor, even if they had a more precise specialty
And then you have stuff like Fantasy High in Dimension 20, where the characters actually attend 'barbarian class' and that kind of thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
They probably just call themselves a ranger. The term isn't based on attack style. It just means somebody who explores various terrains and is prepared for them. It's a real world term.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Old school would call that side questing. DM discretion on limit of PC universal knowledge should be addressed as of session 0, never a bad thing players get hungry for more, just feed them snacks from time to time.( sprinkle means of extra XP gain in ways as to still fit into the overall narrative . )
Personally this is part of the reason I prefer playing milestone over XP anymore; the idea of actively farming XP is a bit more video-gamey than I enjoy in a TTRPG. Doesn't mean there won't be side quests, but it helps keep the engagement on the story, not just checking off objectives for XP. Just a personal take, both systems have pro's and con's.
A little different then first post but fits under the level up metagaming Topic title. Is the metagaming that happens when people multi-class. Oh if I take 2 levels of this class and 4 levels of this class I will be able to do x, y, and z. While leaving the dungeon going to the swamp a guy all of a sudden knows how to cast shield, or pick locks and speak in thieves cant, or have a deal with a patron. But to know they get something at level two is metagaming.
Now, I get if the player says, every time we camp, I am going to practice picking locks, or I am going to have the wizard show me how to cast this spell. But players rarely do such things.