|
Hello everyone :)
I have a question on how do you control or limit Metagamers? And as far as a GM-DMG what rules should you have in place when combat has initiated so they can not chit chat and talk to each other for a minute or two on what is the best strategy against their foes.. and how they use prior game knowledge against them, even if they are starting out at 1st level.
Thanks.
|
Hello everyone :)
I have a question on how do you control or limit Metagamers? And as far as a GM-DMG what rules should you have in place when combat has initiated so they can not chit chat and talk to each other for a minute or two on what is the best strategy against their foes.. and how they use prior game knowledge against them, even if they are starting out at 1st level.
Thanks.
Well, I'm sure it differs from group to group. I've been in groups where the DM expected his players to use metagame knowledge to survive (I hated it, mind you).
That said, when it comes to players taking long turns I give them time limits (a minute or so is more than enough; I've found) and if they run out of time I typically have their character just take a full-defense action for that round.. Of course, before I institute a time limit I'll bring it up to the group first (something akin to "c'mon guys, hurry it up" often works wonders for speeding play). Barring spellcasters, it really shouldn't take a player more than ten or twenty seconds to decide what they're doing in any given round, especially if they're paying attention to what their friends are doing.
When it comes to using out-of-character knowledge against enemies and whatnot, I often find myself changing things around a bit (trolls' regeneration being nullified by cold damage instead of fire damage, for example). If you don't want to do it this way, you can always dock them experience points (CR does stand for challenge rating, after all, and if a fight isn't challenge due to players abusing out-of-character knowledge, well, that's grounds for some XP loss). If worse comes to worse, you can always use the Diablo RPG method and simply double the enemies hit points, attack rolls, and damage; I did this once, and I don't think I ever had trouble with that group again (they'd agreed to me getting on them about metagaming beforehand, of course - at least they admitted they had a problem :p ).
EDIT: Also! Welcome to the boards; Lilith should be around eventually with some e-cookies for you. : )
|
|
Hello everyone :)
I have a question on how do you control or limit Metagamers? And as far as a GM-DMG what rules should you have in place when combat has initiated so they can not chit chat and talk to each other for a minute or two on what is the best strategy against their foes.. and how they use prior game knowledge against them, even if they are starting out at 1st level.
Thanks.
Well, I'm sure it differs from group to group. I've been in groups where the DM expected his players to use metagame knowledge to survive (I hated it, mind you).
That said, when it comes to players taking long turns I give them time limits (a minute or so is more than enough; I've found) and if they run out of time I typically have their character just take a full-defense action for that round.. Of course, before I institute a time limit I'll bring it up to the group first (something akin to "c'mon guys, hurry it up" often works wonders for speeding play). Barring spellcasters, it really shouldn't take a player more than ten or twenty seconds to decide what they're doing in any given round, especially if they're paying attention to what their friends are doing.
When it comes to using out-of-character knowledge against enemies and whatnot, I often find myself changing things around a bit (trolls' regeneration being nullified by cold damage instead of fire damage, for example). If you don't want to do it this way, you can always dock them experience points (CR does stand for challenge rating, after all, and if a fight isn't challenge due to players abusing out-of-character knowledge, well, that's grounds for some XP loss). If worse comes to worse, you can always use the Diablo RPG method and simply double the enemies hit points, attack rolls, and damage; I did this once, and I don't think I ever had trouble with that group again (they'd agreed to me getting on them about metagaming beforehand, of course - at least they admitted they had a problem :p ).
EDIT: Also! Welcome to the boards;...
LOL that is wonderful.. I was totaly laughing at the last part because that would come as a dreadful shock to our group. :) Our group has been playing for the past 12 years so I think Pathfinder is a great change for us. I do agree that if some of the party are distracted by their laptops or whatever and not paying attention; it does agro our DM who likes flow and storytelling to keep it from being just a hack in slash, he does not like repeating things, and it has been a little frustrating as of late because of some distractions and some of the party taking way too much time to figure out what spell to use or where to move on our tactiles. :) thanks for the insight
Thanks, its nice to be here.. :) I am a Night Owl so I was just browsing the boards.
My players usually would roll an int check (or I make them roll) to check if their character know something they do. Tactical advice I don't worry about, it's actually more in character for many adventurers, especially those wiht a high intelligence or experience, if they are not limited to the tactical skills their players can bring to bear in a few seconds. So, I'd prefer it if the players confer prior to moving, instead of having characters making blatant mistakes they'd not do.
Do you dock people xp as well if they play their genius characters as dumb in combat? "Hey, Al, you've got a level 10 fighter with Int 15. You made too many mistakes in this combat, missing out on the best moves, so I am docking you xp since you broke character!"
One thing that has worked for me in the past is to discuss with the group how destructive meta-gaming is. The example I always gave was that, as a GM, what happens if I start to metagame too? Suddenly all the enemies know where the PCs are at all times (Hide and Move Silently are now useless), they know where the PCs hid their treasure, they know exactly what spells and abilities the PCs have, and what will counter them, and so on and so forth. Generally when you put it that way, most reasonable players will recognize how much meta-gaming can drag down a game.
As far as speeding up combat goes, I've played with a GM who used a 30 second egg-timer to limit players' turns - that seemed to work well. The chatting back and forth is kind of tricky. On one hand, it's a good thing for more experienced gamers to take new players under their wing and help them out. It makes your job as GM much easier. That said, there's definitely a line to be drawn between mentoring and meta-gaming.
Changing up monster stats can work well, but if you want a quicker fix, just change the appearance of the monster enough to confuse them, and never ever use the monster's true name.
For example, if you describe a green-skinned, lanky humanoid with stringy black hair, long claws, and a loping gait, most experienced players will assume troll. (The really clever ones might think green hag - keep an eye on those ones ...)
However, if you keep the troll's stats the same, and describe it as a pale-blue skinned humanoid with curved ram's horns and large spade-like hands, it's unlikely that they'll realize that it's a troll. You can even go a step further -- many mythological creatures had different names depending on region, so if the local villagers refer to the terrible glaborg that makes it impossible to go out after dark, the PCs should have no idea what they're facing.
Just my $0.02,
CR
What helps, is the use of knowledge checks. Players can only tell something about a monster if their character has knowledge (e.g. dungeoneering, nature, the planes) applicable to the monster. He or she can then make a knowledge check, and then I tell the player what his or her character knows. Use this as a strict rule.
I also never tell them the name of the monster (which has already been advised in this thread). I also use a lot of original monsters, and often add templates, character levels etc. This keeps players on their toes.
You can also use player knowledge against them, e.g. use a wolfwere or a jackalwere when they expect a werewolf. Works every time, and your players never metagame again.
One of my players knows a lot about my campaign world that his character does not know, and is always tempted to use that knowledge. So I always create situations which are slightly different than he expects, to keep him on his toes. He always thinks he knows the situation, but usually ends up discovering that he does not.
I also have strict rules about combat: players are forbidden to give other players advise out of game. They can only use their free action in character to shout advice.
What helps, is the use of knowledge checks. Players can only tell something about a monster if their character has knowledge (e.g. dungeoneering, nature, the planes) applicable to the monster. He or she can then make a knowledge check, and then I tell the player what his or her character knows. Use this as a strict rule.
This is a really good point. One thing I'll add is that this is less arduous for the PCs if you, as the GM, periodically call for knowledge checks even if the PC forgets to ask to make them. A couple things that I would suggest is that you let them make untrained checks for "common knowledge" of common creatures, and remember that this is also a great way to get some mileage out of bardic knowledge or similar abilities.
CR
Personally, I think it's the DM's responsibility to make clear what counts as metagame knowledge and what counts as normal in-game knowledge.
For instance, suppose I roll up a 15th level fighter with 8 Int and no ranks in Knowledge (local), and I'm fighting a troll. Can I assume that, as a seasoned (if dumb) adventurer, I know what a troll looks like and that trolls need to be burned in order to be permanently killed? Or is that obscure knowledge that's only available to sages? Similarly, is it "obvious" that a hammer would do a better job at smashing an animated skeleton to pieces than a spear, or do I need religious training to figure it out?
Personally, I like to err on the side of assuming some general knowledge (e.g. just about everyone knows that you need silver to kill werewolves, a stake to the heart to kill a vampire, fire to kill a troll, and blunt weapons to smash a skeleton); I've seen many cases where characters doggedly continue to use a longsword on a horde of skeletons (even though the DM is hinting that it's not very effective) because the player is painstakingly avoiding even the hint of metagame knowledge.
I save the knowledge checks for more unusual creatures; in that case, I would point out that Joe Fighter doesn't know that pseudonatural phrenic ur-rakshasa are allergic to incarnum-infused shurikens (for instance) and assuming otherwise is clear metagaming.
If your players can't give advice or plan in combat, do you forbid players with less tactical savy to play experienced avdenturers or smart characters?
If your players can't give advice or plan in combat, do you forbid players with less tactical savy to play experienced avdenturers or smart characters?
For the record, I don't have any problem with players giving each other the occasional tactical suggestion (especially if it's something the PC would have known). Some people take it too far, though, always trying to tell other players what to do.
Personally, I think it's the DM's responsibility to make clear what counts as metagame knowledge and what counts as normal in-game knowledge.
For instance, suppose I roll up a 15th level fighter with 8 Int and no ranks in Knowledge (local), and I'm fighting a troll. Can I assume that, as a seasoned (if dumb) adventurer, I know what a troll looks like and that trolls need to be burned in order to be permanently killed? Or is that obscure knowledge that's only available to sages? Similarly, is it "obvious" that a hammer would do a better job at smashing an animated skeleton to pieces than a spear, or do I need religious training to figure it out?
Personally, I like to err on the side of assuming some general knowledge (e.g. just about everyone knows that you need silver to kill werewolves, a stake to the heart to kill a vampire, fire to kill a troll, and blunt weapons to smash a skeleton).
I agree. The only caveat for me would be that it's also up to the GM to determine what creatures are common in their game world. If trolls are exceedingly rare, it's possible that a 15th level fighter might not know to use fire. However, if they're very common, pretty much any villager would have heard stories about using fire to put down a troll.
Remember though that just because information is widely known in your game world, that doesn't mean that it has to be correct. As a real world example, many people still recommend playing dead in the face of a bear attack. The problem is, that this is only likely to work if the bear is attacking "in defense." If he's attacking in a predatory fashion, playing dead can become being dead.
CR
If your players can't give advice or plan in combat, do you forbid players with less tactical savy to play experienced avdenturers or smart characters?For the record, I don't have any problem with players giving each other the occasional tactical suggestion (especially if it's something the PC would have known). Some people take it too far, though, always trying to tell other players what to do.
Yes, I don't mean one player treating the characters of the other players as chess pieces, I mean stuff like the players saying "ok, DM, time out, we'll need to plan this combat out some. Our characters would, having fought together countless times, and having experienced such battles often, not need that time, but we're not our characters."
I don't see anything wrong with this sort of metagameing if it leads to players staying more IC in actual play, and roleplaying their experienced characters better in the end.
Personally, I think it's the DM's responsibility to make clear what counts as metagame knowledge and what counts as normal in-game knowledge.I agree. The only caveat for me would be that it's also up to the GM to determine what creatures are common in their game world.
Exactly. It's the DM's responsibility to clarify these matters early and often; if he doesn't, that's when the problems start.
I usually give every PC in the group a free action to speak up to one sentence which they can take only after they've already gone in the current round.
Really?
Does this mean that whoever is unlucky enough to go last in the round has to be mute for the entire combat?
The player right before him has to hold his tongue for nerly the entire round, then blurt out whatever he wants to say before the last guy takes his turn?
Nobody can speak before their turn in the round?
I also don't think docking XP is too far of a stretch. The DMG (3.5) specifies in the XP awarding section that if you run an encounter in a circumstance favorable to the PCs you can lower the XP reward for the encounter. I would treat your PCs metagaming about monster knowledge as favorable circumstances and just lower their XP a bit if they use out of character knowledge in their encounters. It's not an end-all solution, but it's a good start.
I totally agree with this.
When I see a clear case of metagaming, when it comes time to hand out rewards I have used the line "well, a group of 4th level PCs should get 1200 XP for this fight, but a group of 4th level PCs with 10th level knowledge skills only gets 600 XP."
They grumble, but they realize they have nobody to blame but themselves.
When I see a clear case of metagaming, when it comes time to hand out rewards I have used the line "well, a group of 4th level PCs should get 1200 XP for this fight, but a group of 4th level PCs with 10th level knowledge skills only gets 600 XP."
They grumble, but they realize they have nobody to blame but themselves.
What about a group of level 4 PCs played by players with level 0 tactical skill? Do they get more exp for having had a greater challenge, or less for not playing their characters correctly (having them act stupider than they should act based on stats)?
Metagaming does take away a lot of the role-play experience for me as well. However, I find it very difficult not to metagame to some degree at high level play, simply because there are too many variables and options going at once.
At lower levels of play however, these mechanics work well for me:
1) I tell players at the outset of a campaign, (and remind them from time-to-time during the campaign) that they should not metagame. This seems to stop a lot of it right off the bat.
2) I have used the XP penalties to great effect on occasion. It is a great deterrent.
3) Time limits also help with the metagaming issue, as well as in other areas of gameplay. This is also especially useful in high level play.
4) My monsters don't always follow the rules (pun intended). This keeps veteran players on their toes when they confront familiar monsters (one of my personal favorites: gargoyles that explode upon being slain).
Also, I feel that is the responsibility of the GM to encourage an atmosphere of "role-playing" and I have used several conventions to bring it about in my groups:
1) I don't let players share character information during play. No shouting out your hit point totals, Strength score, attack bonus...
2) I use a calculator to show the players the result of my rolls (to hit and damage for instance) instead of saying it out loud. I'll type the result on my calculator and say to them: "does this hit you?" and then show them the calculator.
3) If players fall in combat, are turned to stone, or otherwise unable to speak, they generally can't speak as players either. This one's a good tool for keeping suspense in such situations.
4) Having an NPC run by you in the group can help keep players on task and engaged as well. I've found that speaking through the NPC helps to relay rules (and to discourage metagaming in this instance) to my players without overtly saying so.
Again, what when not metagaming breaks immersion and character? What if people need to metagame to adequately portray a character because they are not up to the task themselves?
If you want to play a veteran fighter and war leader, for example, are you allowed to take 5 minutes to plan the reaction to an ambush with your group, while your character does react in the blink of an eye?
Metagaming is inherent to DnD. You simply can’t forget knowledge of previous adventures, particularly monsters’ weaknesses and strengths, as the former allowed you to win the day, and the latter either killed you or made it very tough to survive.
What to do then? XP penalties and bonuses is the simplest form of regulation.
It boils down to good roleplay to ignore as much as possible of this information. Which should then be rewarded accordingly by the DM.
Likewise, a int/wis dumped stat barbarian that keeps shouting tactical advice to players is very poorly played character, and would result in XP penalties at my table.
On the other hand, since it’s simply impossible to roleplay a int 28 wizard, it’s part of the DM’s job to acknowledge that and provide hints to the player, through uncalled knowledge rolls or otherwise.
Who hasn’t provided divine intervention to a cleric in dire needs to give him a chance to avoid a TPK, because it would have been a terrible event storywise ?
A good (role) player has stories where his/her character HAD to do some stupid/heroic deeds that resulted in his death. That’s simply how the game works, unless said player keeps playing paranoiac xenophobic isolationist. Which then begs to be asked, why does he/she adventures?
So yeah, XP penalties to those who use metagame knowledge without proper in game justifications, rewards for those who ignore such info even if it leads them to near death experiences, and DM’s intervention to help run the characters the way they are meant to be.
my 2cp
|
The knowledge checks are definitely a good idea, one that I use often. How does one, however, limit the amount of information a character who succeeded his knowledge check share with his allies? For instance, if a bard who successfully "Knowledges" (I'm using it as a verb now, sorry) some obscure monster, as DM, I'd say, OK, you know such and such about the monster (hit die, weaknesses, etc.). Do you limit the bard to only one sentence (as a free action) to divulge one or maybe two pieces of information to the rest of the party? This would also mean that the DM would have to secretly divulge the information about said monster to the bard player.
Again, what when not metagaming breaks immersion and character? What if people need to metagame to adequately portray a character because they are not up to the task themselves?
If you want to play a veteran fighter and war leader, for example, are you allowed to take 5 minutes to plan the reaction to an ambush with your group, while your character does react in the blink of an eye?
I agree. It seems like the players who try to not use metagame knowledge end up playing characters that just aren't very believable. I think it is easier to just give up knowledge that one player has about monsters, than try to get them to play dumb. And tactics on the ground for a veeran of many battles would probably be better than 5 minutes of planning by a bunch of gamers. So I never have needed to penalize metagaming.
I would advise against turning a simple « shouting during a fight” into a “carefully worded wish” in-order-to-give-all-relevant-info-in-a-single-sentence”.
Just let the player reveal the info “during the round”, even if it’s not his turn to act. I really hate the “it’s not your initiative, you can’t talk” way of doin’ things. Then, again, knowledge checks should/could, IMO, be called anytime asked for/relevant.
|
The other thing that really needs to be considered is the age of your players.
I'm currently running a game for the son of two of my best friends, as well as 3 of his friends ... were talking 9-12 years of age if memory serves. I do have one of my friends (the dad) also as a player to act as the 'voice of reason' ... to a point.
We did have one issue of metagaming last session, and it was quickly called out. Surprisingly, the kids had less of a problem running without the metaknowledge that had just been fed out than some adult groups for whom I have run games.
Meta gaming will always be an issue, and knowledge checks are a good option, reducing XP for an encounter is a good option (but you do need to inform the players that the XP amount is reduced because of it or the impact can be lost).
But what it boils down to is the equivalent of a judge informing a jury to disregard information they had just heard. One just has to hope the players have enough respect for the DM to acknowledge it and continue playing as if the info had not been given to them.
My take on metagame knowledge and how I deal with it:
I have no problem with players talking during the game - as long as it isn't too much.
I'm okay with "no, move one step further, so we can flank" If they're absconding into the War Room for half an hour, I might not be okay with it.
I'm okay with "not the fireball, we already know they're immune to fire". I understand that the players aren't their characters, so they might forget things their characters wouldn't - though there will be trouble if you overdo this.
If someone rolls a knowledge check and gets some info, I allow him freemediate (i.e. it's a free action and he can do it outside of his turn) communication, as long as it isn't too much.
I also allow them identifying enemies' character classes by things like gear and actions (but I won't guarantee that I always play by the "rules". I.e. the guy with light armour and two daggers might just be a weird cleric)
There's also some stuff I consider general knowledge, which means every character knows it. No need for skill ranks, no need for skill checks. That might be stuff like "trolls don't like fire" and telling a goblin from a kobold. I'll mention what is general knowledge when the need arises.
What I do consider metagaming is stuff like: "He's an ogre, I know those guys have 29 hp, you did 27, so he's only got 2 left. Only use two magic missiles on him" or "that's creature X, my MM says they have this sort of regeneration or that sort of damage reduction."
I'll also look for suspicious behaviour (i.e. someone whose character knowing nothing of an enemy creature but takes steps that look a lot like they were tailored to that enemy, like death ward when you meet a bodak)
If I find metagame knowledge, I'll warn the player. After that, I'll show them the error of their ways by giving them a taste of their own medicine.
One the same vein, I do think everyone should play all their ability scores. There's some leeway in the mental stats, but not that much. If you play a fighter with cha 8 and without ranks in diplomacy, you won't be able to talk your way into every treasure vault - even if you, the player, have a silver tongue. I'll filter your words through the character's mouth.
I do the latter mainly because people like to use stuff like int and cha as dump stats but then ignore that they're supposed to be stupid and shy.
Deliberately make a 'troll' a dragon in disguise and see where metagaming get them then!
[evil DM laugh]MWUHAHAHAHAHA![/evil DM laugh]
What about a group of level 4 PCs played by players with level 0 tactical skill? Do they get more exp for having had a greater challenge, or less for not playing their characters correctly (having them act stupider than they should act based on stats)?When I see a clear case of metagaming, when it comes time to hand out rewards I have used the line "well, a group of 4th level PCs should get 1200 XP for this fight, but a group of 4th level PCs with 10th level knowledge skills only gets 600 XP."
They grumble, but they realize they have nobody to blame but themselves.
That is self correcting.
4 PCs take on a CR4 encounter and get CR4 XP for it. If they can't handle the fight because they lack technical skills, I help them learn the rules. "Hey, if you move there, you'll help your rogue buddy get flanking so he can sneak attack." General stuff their characters would know, and general rules more experienced players would know.
I had a 3.5 group like that just a couple years ago. 3 of the 4 players had never played D&D (two of them hand never roleplayed any game system) and the one who had played D&D was 10 years out of practice and had never seen 3rd edition.
Because I am the balancing factor in helping them overcome the challenge, I do the metagaming for them. But then I don't penalize me for helping them, nor do I penalize them. Instead, the penalty, if you call it one, comes in the fact that 4PCs vs. 2 ogres becomes a 3-hour fight.
But they learn. Eventually. And they have fun. Immediately. So it's all good.
Deliberately make a 'troll' a dragon in disguise and see where metagaming get them then!
[evil DM laugh]MWUHAHAHAHAHA![/evil DM laugh]
I once put pony kegs of blasting powder into the abdominal cavities of a number of mummies in a lost tomb.
The metagaming players saw the mummies, immediately attacked with fire, and had a very explosive surprise.
The other thing that really needs to be considered is the age of your players.
This is the crux of it right there.
If everyone in the group is a D&D veteran, then I don't care if they metagame. If everyone is OK with it, then metagame away. It's their play time, too.
In that case, I'll throw them curve balls (like exploding mummies or fire breathing blue dragons - how's that protection from lighting working for you?).
It's when we have new players (it's not so much the age, but the newness to the game, and to roleplaying that counts).
My current group has 3 long-time veteran players, one borderline veteran (a few years), and two new players who just started roleplaying within the last year.
I don't want the veterans saying "hey, these trolls regenerate unless you burn them" because that ruins it for the new players.
I advise the vets to let the new players have the joy of discovering the wacky world of D&D without getting a tourguide along the way, explaining every magic trick and taking the fun and mystery and magic out of the game.
I only had to mention it once. The vets all agreed, and they try hard to act surprise when the troll stands back up after we killed it.
But of course, they still offer tactical advice, especially to the rogue who, at 4th level right now, still forgets to maneuver for the sneak attack.
|
|
If your players can't give advice or plan in combat, do you forbid players with less tactical savy to play experienced avdenturers or smart characters?For the record, I don't have any problem with players giving each other the occasional tactical suggestion (especially if it's something the PC would have known). Some people take it too far, though, always trying to tell other players what to do.
As far as I know our DMG has allowed too much conversation in combat, being friends forever probably has something to do with that, but lately it takes too long to do combat sometimes. Our group for the most part is very experienced except for a couple of us girls in the group, I myself try to always have spells at the ready, and research them when we are not engaged, however the DMG allows of course spell casters to refresh if they are unsure of the spells perameters.
I actually think if some people in the group paid more attention to the story line and stopped being distracted by their laptops etc, there would be less need to metagame their character, and actually act and play the charachter they built in the first place... so maybe my question is changing from how do you stop metagamers, but how to get them more in touch with their charachters and properly role play them.
As an amatuer actress its easy for me.. :)
|
|
The other thing that really needs to be considered is the age of your players.This is the crux of it right there.
If everyone in the group is a D&D veteran, then I don't care if they metagame. If everyone is OK with it, then metagame away. It's their play time, too.
In that case, I'll throw them curve balls (like exploding mummies or fire breathing blue dragons - how's that protection from lighting working for you?).
It's when we have new players (it's not so much the age, but the newness to the game, and to roleplaying that counts).
My current group has 3 long-time veteran players, one borderline veteran (a few years), and two new players who just started roleplaying within the last year.
I don't want the veterans saying "hey, these trolls regenerate unless you burn them" because that ruins it for the new players.
I advise the vets to let the new players have the joy of discovering the wacky world of D&D without getting a tourguide along the way, explaining every magic trick and taking the fun and mystery and magic out of the game.
I only had to mention it once. The vets all agreed, and they try hard to act surprise when the troll stands back up after we killed it.
But of course, they still offer tactical advice, especially to the rogue who, at 4th level right now, still forgets to maneuver for the sneak attack.
That may be our issue. We have two new players as of a year ago, one gets distracted by her laptop and PCGEN..etc, and the other is new and I help her out alot, the other two males are 20+ year vetrans.. I got into it about 10 years ago by a friend who loves roleplaying and renacting.. for me its an escape to become a Fantasy Queen of Death.. LOL I love it, I just wish one of the vetrans to rolepaly their character more and some advice for the DMG to stop all the distractions without being a stickler or rude to a couple people.
Again, what when not metagaming breaks immersion and character? What if people need to metagame to adequately portray a character because they are not up to the task themselves?
If you want to play a veteran fighter and war leader, for example, are you allowed to take 5 minutes to plan the reaction to an ambush with your group, while your character does react in the blink of an eye?
This would be the part where meta-gaming in my experience is allowed in moderation; also when inexperienced players play more experienced characters, other players and DM can give suggestions what might be a good spell to cast or such because the character would probably know that.
Otherwise metagaming has rarely been a problem, those who have done it usually either get rid of the bad habit or look for a different group, because most of the players also make a division between in-character and out-of-character and some are real sticklers ("I as a player know this is bloody stupid but this is what my character would do" is a phrase which has been uttered more than once).
And several players also do plan the tactics well before when possible, sometimes leading into quite odd gaming sessions where not much actually happens and players/characters just discuss how something should be done. And in ambushes or such unexpected situations characters can make rash decisions which in retrospect will not come off as good ones.
Understandably this gaming style is definitely not for everyone but as said, metagaming is rarely a problem and sometimes it leads to interesting roleplaying situations (it is not unknown for players to withhold information from each other, or even lie, and sometimes there are "ooh, I wish they would have known that thing I didn't tell them then" scenes...)
|
|
Again, what when not metagaming breaks immersion and character? What if people need to metagame to adequately portray a character because they are not up to the task themselves?
If you want to play a veteran fighter and war leader, for example, are you allowed to take 5 minutes to plan the reaction to an ambush with your group, while your character does react in the blink of an eye?
This would be the part where meta-gaming in my experience is allowed in moderation; also when inexperienced players play more experienced characters, other players and DM can give suggestions what might be a good spell to cast or such because the character would probably know that.
Otherwise metagaming has rarely been a problem, those who have done it usually either get rid of the bad habit or look for a different group, because most of the players also make a division between in-character and out-of-character and some are real sticklers ("I as a player know this is bloody stupid but this is what my character would do" is a phrase which has been uttered more than once).
And several players also do plan the tactics well before when possible, sometimes leading into quite odd gaming sessions where not much actually happens and players/characters just discuss how something should be done. And in ambushes or such unexpected situations characters can make rash decisions which in retrospect will not come off as good ones.Understandably this gaming style is definitely not for everyone but as said, metagaming is rarely a problem and sometimes it leads to interesting roleplaying situations (it is not unknown for players to withhold information from each other, or even lie, and sometimes there are "ooh, I wish they would have known that thing I didn't tell them then" scenes...)
Exactly, I guess myself and the DM are looking for more roleplaying out of our Vetran players, I think this would speed up our sessions abit and also make for more enthusiastic playing... I can totaly understand everyone wanting to be the best, and why not your heroes in a Fantasy world, I just hate when play comes to almost a complete standstill because of indecisviness or players not roleplaying and doing things not even close to their Alignment, I can understand Inteligence because I will be the first to admit.. I do not have a 20 Intel.. LOL
Anyways thanks for the input. :)
Good input.. Well its time maybe I took control and slapped some sense in them.. LOL hehehe :)Deliberately make a 'troll' a dragon in disguise and see where metagaming get them then!
[evil DM laugh]MWUHAHAHAHAHA![/evil DM laugh]
I strongly suggest against this. Players never learn the lesson you are trying to teach them by screwing them over this way. It just creates a player vs. GM mentality which may be why they are metagaming to begin with.
Talk to your players. Express your concerns and try to find out the reason they are metagaming. Then try to find a mutually beneficial solution. You are trying to immerse yourself into a role. They may just want to stretch their tactical muscle.
|
|
I usually give every PC in the group a free action to speak up to one sentence which they can take only after they've already gone in the current round.Really?
Does this mean that whoever is unlucky enough to go last in the round has to be mute for the entire combat?
The player right before him has to hold his tongue for nerly the entire round, then blurt out whatever he wants to say before the last guy takes his turn?
Nobody can speak before their turn in the round?
I also don't think docking XP is too far of a stretch. The DMG (3.5) specifies in the XP awarding section that if you run an encounter in a circumstance favorable to the PCs you can lower the XP reward for the encounter. I would treat your PCs metagaming about monster knowledge as favorable circumstances and just lower their XP a bit if they use out of character knowledge in their encounters. It's not an end-all solution, but it's a good start.I totally agree with this.
When I see a clear case of metagaming, when it comes time to hand out rewards I have used the line "well, a group of 4th level PCs should get 1200 XP for this fight, but a group of 4th level PCs with 10th level knowledge skills only gets 600 XP."
They grumble, but they realize they have nobody to blame but themselves.
In the first round, yeah, no one should speak before their turn. The first round initiative indicates when you can react to what is going on, and they're only six second rounds, not one minute rounds like the old days.
After that, whatever.
I had a GM running us now for some 18 years. We each have over 25 years playing D&D some closer to 30 years. It is assumed we have pervious knowledge, there's no way around that. But to allow outside knowledge to get in is a tough thing.
The players try and play dumb about things their character shouldn't know. But its tough to expect a character to put himself in a bad situation knowingly. I recall killing a vampire, well I should say staking one. I never killed it, I the player knew full well I needed to cut the head off and fill the mouth with holy wafers but the character had no such information. So he staked it and left, robbing the place as he went.
That vampire was a thorn in my side for many adventures to come. Was fun, gave me a sort of arch-enemy. But tough to get a player to purposely step into.
As for talking at the table, some it fine, but let people play their own charaters. Don't allow a player to be pushed into doing something some other player wants. I do recall a druid going to dispell a gyph once getting jumped by the players at the table, we all knew it was a bad idea, not sure why he didn't but when the players said he was going to dispell it we literally were grabbing him from all over to stop him. The DM ruled since the players reacted so strongly he was certain the characters would too. (many of the glyphs we had found in the dwarven mine so far had been put into place to hold back demons, and well without checking we didn't want to bring one down.)
The best you can do is encourage players to play their character by giving rewards to those who play them right. Sometimes extra XP, sometimes a story line that you know they will enjoy.
The best you can do is encourage players to play their character by giving rewards to those who play them right.
Play their own characters right? Does it mean it is possible to play a character wrong? LOL, but I am facing other people who think I'm playing my kobold wrong. It's not my fault the acolyte didn't know Sjach wasn't a demon. And now everyone thinks he commited an chaotic nongood act. I tried to explain he was testing the acolyte, but a paladin knocked him out...
In order to discourage metagaming, I sometimes "tweak" the description of a monster so the players aren't sure what it is at first glance.
"A man-sized figure scuttles through the shadows. It dodges around elusively, but its skin hangs off it in loose folds, as if it were sized for a much larger creature. Filthy strips of cloth wind around its arms and legs, each covered in mystical runes..."
It might just be an orc who went on a crash diet because its sorcerer master ordered it to lose weight, but who knows?
I suggest you start using the older Monster Manuals, or the newer ones. What will your metagamers do when they get ambushed by an astral stalker or a zezir(both from MM3)?
|
|
I suggest you start using the older Monster Manuals, or the newer ones. What will your metagamers do when they get ambushed by an astral stalker or a zezir(both from MM3)?
off the top of my head I'll...
Astral stalker I'll cast freedom of movement from poison or try to damage its cha to lower the saves, ac, touch ac.
And for zezir protection from fire?
The best you can do is encourage players to play their character by giving rewards to those who play them right.Play their own characters right? Does it mean it is possible to play a character wrong? LOL, but I am facing other people who think I'm playing my kobold wrong. It's not my fault the acolyte didn't know Sjach wasn't a demon. And now everyone thinks he commited an chaotic nongood act. I tried to explain he was testing the acolyte, but a paladin knocked him out...
DM speaking
Yeah the paladin didn't knock you out, the fighter guard with the paladin knocked you out. You went from just grabbing a level in monk to "Let's go mess with the acolyte" Please note which characters you took with you to do this too -- Not the paladin (LG) or witchhunter (hexblade) (LN) -- No you took the Dragon Shaman (CE) and the Abyssal Sorcerer (CN). Then when told to "Stop talking" by the rightful city guard you continued to talk... which proceeded to lead to you being quieted.
Also you didn't "Test" the acolyte -- You snuck up behind him, with wings, tail, and claws fully exposed tapped him on the shoulder (at night) and said "Boo! Yes I am a demon." (By the way an out and out lie)
With no reason to disbelieve you, and plenty of evidence to support your proclamation, the acolyte response was naturally panic, the guards that came did what they were supposed to do when confronted with a menace (Please note you aren't dead for claiming to be a demon, while looking like one) and subdued you.
You where charged with Disturbing the Peace, Causing mischief and general Mayhem, and Resisting Arrest...
NONE of which are LAWFUL activities (maybe AWFUL activities though...)
Now granted you lost your hat of disguise, but you got those funds back (minus your legal fees).
Finally let's consider that you are correct -- everyone considers what you to did to be non-lawful, and not a test of the acolyte, but a romp through the lands of chaos for your own personal amusement.
I recommend being strict with starting ability scores. It is difficult to go overboard optimizing a character with moderate scores. This makes the challenges more challenging and fun all around.
|
|
I recommend being strict with starting ability scores. It is difficult to go overboard optimizing a character with moderate scores. This makes the challenges more challenging and fun all around.
That is not always the case, as the two of the three most powerful classes in D&D 3.5 only need one good attribute, and cleric could skirt by with one good attribute. Some classes are also only really playable with a good set of attribute.
|
You where charged with Disturbing the Peace, Causing mischief and general Mayhem, and Resisting Arrest...
I'll admit to general mischief and disturbing the peace. But I in no way caused mayhem. I also did not resist aresst, the tanglefoot bags just didn't stick. I also don't remember being read any rights... Show you just how good a paladin is doesn't it?
The knowledge checks are definitely a good idea, one that I use often. How does one, however, limit the amount of information a character who succeeded his knowledge check share with his allies? For instance, if a bard who successfully "Knowledges" (I'm using it as a verb now, sorry) some obscure monster, as DM, I'd say, OK, you know such and such about the monster (hit die, weaknesses, etc.). Do you limit the bard to only one sentence (as a free action) to divulge one or maybe two pieces of information to the rest of the party? This would also mean that the DM would have to secretly divulge the information about said monster to the bard player.
This is something my PCs have decided to solve themselves: when it is the character's turn the character shouts something in his free action. E.g. "Use blunt weapons!" I have never introduced this as a rule, it is just something they have come up with on their own. It is nice to see how creative they are in inventing short comments to warn the others.
The players try and play dumb about things their character shouldn't know. But its tough to expect a character to put himself in a bad situation knowingly. I recall killing a vampire, well I should say staking one. I never killed it, I the player knew full well I needed to cut the head off and fill the mouth with holy wafers but the character had no such information. So he staked it and left, robbing the place as he went.
In this case I would have given the character a knowledge check with a reasonable DC, especially if he was a cleric or paladin. He could then act on the information.
The way I deal with metagaming is more or less the same as KaeYoss deals with it. I do not have a problem with adventurers (especially when they are high level) knowing that trolls regenerate and can be beaten by fire. What I do have problems with, is incidents like the following (which actually happened in my campaign):
1) A player who is constantly letting his character roll for knowledge (history) checks in order to know things that the player knows from a previous campaign, but that the character could not possibly know. The events from the previous campaign occured more than 150 years before the current campaign, and these events are largely secret and hushed up, and certainly not official history. Moreover the new character comes from a totally different country and culture than the country in which the events occured.
2) A player saying things like: "There is obviously a trap there. There always is a trap in such and such a location, because it is a published adventure."
3) Players meddling so much with other (especially more inexperienced) players that combat slows down to a crawl.
These situations I solve with more or less strict rules about not interfering with other characters during combat, and with introducing traps, events etc. in the adventures that are just a little different than the players expect.
2) A player saying things like: "There is obviously a trap there. There always is a trap in such and such a location, because it is a published adventure."
While your examples #1 and #3 are good examples of objectionable meta-gaming, I would call #2 just plain "cheating".
*waves at the new person posting on the boards, leaves fresh cookies*
Welcome!
I'll admit to general mischief and disturbing the peace. But I in no way caused mayhem. I also did not resist aresst, the tanglefoot bags just didn't stick. I also don't remember being read any rights... Show you just how good a paladin is doesn't it?You where charged with Disturbing the Peace, Causing mischief and general Mayhem, and Resisting Arrest...
You dodged the bags and resisted their effects, The alcolyte wouldn't have screamed so loudly if you did not cause that reaction (at night) you did not obey an officer of the law when he gave you direct orders, that's resistance.
No where in the laws of spalar does it say you have to be read your rights... I should know I wrote them.
Beyond those little issues, the paladin's goodness is irrelevant in this case, we are talking about lawfulness. Also you don't have to be 'good' at being a paladin to be a paladin, after all someone has to make the good look good by sucking in comparison (Oh, hello Detroit Lions).