I AM A METAGAMER! And I love being me.
I have been playing for a few decades now and I started out as a role player but over the years I got tired of being left in the dirt by guys that could and did build better characters.
I learned everything I could and became the best metagamer I could be. My characters can go toe-to-toe with any monster (reasonable CR applies) and can be better at anything that anyone else tries to do. I get along great now with my group because we all play that way.
When the monk can flying jump kick Trough a wall of iron or the cleric takes lvls in succubus for the charisma bonus leaving my character no choice but to embrace the Monster of Legend template to maintain power lvl.
The big thing is we all had fun. We all enjoyed games like that and had a blast walking over the canned adventure that was 3 power lvls ahead of us. We were like 9th or 10th lvl. and taking down ancient gold dragons like they were nothing. BTW the gold dragon makes a most excellent zombie for those of you who have never tried it.
I will sum up by saying Power Gaming means exploring EVERTHING D&D has to offer.
While your examples #1 and #3 are good examples of objectionable meta-gaming, I would call #2 just plain "cheating".
Yes, it would be cheating if he were right :-)
Unfortunately this player only thinks he knows how modules work, so his remarks are usually wrong. He believes in a sort of standard structure for modules. I guess he has not read any of the Paizo adventures.
While your examples #1 and #3 are good examples of objectionable meta-gaming, I would call #2 just plain "cheating".Yes, it would be cheating if he were right :-)
Unfortunately this player only thinks he knows how modules work, so his remarks are usually wrong. He believes in a sort of standard structure for modules. I guess he has not read any of the Paizo adventures.
Oh...I thought he had actually read the particular module in question. Making guesses as to what places/objects might be trapped (based on prior D&D experiences) is indeed metagaming, and I admit that I've been guilty of it in the past. "You're going to touch that crown that's lying on a table out in the open? I'll be hiding around the corner, thanks..." =)
Oh...I thought he had actually read the particular module in question. Making guesses as to what places/objects might be trapped (based on prior D&D experiences) is indeed metagaming, and I admit that I've been guilty of it in the past. "You're going to touch that crown that's lying on a table out in the open? I'll be hiding around the corner, thanks..." =)
Certain amount of caution is understandable, if the player characters operate in a world where traps are commonplace :)
And acting like this in a real world is kind of fun too.
"If we were in a D&D module/horror movie/something now that would be such a bad idea".
Unfortunately this player only thinks he knows how modules work, so his remarks are usually wrong. He believes in a sort of standard structure for modules. I guess he has not read any of the Paizo adventures.Oh...I thought he had actually read the particular module in question. Making guesses as to what places/objects might be trapped (based on prior D&D experiences) is indeed metagaming, and I admit that I've been guilty of it in the past. "You're going to touch that crown that's lying on a table out in the open? I'll be hiding around the corner, thanks..." =)
I am not so sure that's so bad as metgaming goes - that's like going from general knowledge (call it "tale tropes") to guess that a crown might be cursed, since all three crowns one has heard the legends from by a bard were cursed. And how would it be bad if one said "in such dungeons, there's always a pitfall here, my uncle told me enough, and we saw enough of them so far"?
I have a question on how do you control or limit Metagamers?Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be safe.
HA! I roll my "absorb nuclear material" save then use the energy from it to mutate into a new and more powerful form!
Bwahahaha!
|
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.
This is where I miss the Second edition frequency clasifications. In 2e, each monster had a classification of common, uncommon, unique, etc... Now applying the 2e thing to 3e, a PC doesnt need to have specific knowledge skills to know all about the creature, he could still figure out what the creature is based on its frequency rating....
I am not so sure that's so bad as metgaming goes - that's like going from general knowledge (call it "tale tropes") to guess that a crown might be cursed, since all three crowns one has heard the legends from by a bard were cursed. And how would it be bad if one said "in such dungeons, there's always a pitfall here, my uncle told me enough, and we saw enough of them so far"?
No, it is not so bad. I would not mind if he would say it like in the example above. It is just the way he says it, that makes it metagaming.
I believe that Hogarth raised a critical point on the last page: when is "metagaming" actually "reasonable in-world knowledge"? There are indeed times when players try to pull in knowledge that they have no business with, but more typically, it's something like this exchange, which I personally feel crosses the line from "preventing metagaming" to "enforcing idiocy":
The thing is, a genius-level lifelong professional wizard probably has a damn good idea that lightning bolts, while flashy, are useless against any opponents more powerful than a bunch of stupid gnolls who let themselves get lined up in a row.
There comes a time when cries of "stop metagaming!" are actually cries of "I demand that you play your 18-Int character like he's dumber than dirt, and has lived most of his life in some parallel universe with different natural laws, because he's not allowed to know how things work in this one!"
Yeah my general opinion is that if it is a spell you know, you know the details about it too...
Though in my opinion it would be "Why waste time only getting one person with hold person with a save for nothing effect, when I can take stinking cloud hit a group, have a chance to affect them each round, and have nice side effects from the spell too?"
|
There comes a time when cries of "stop metagaming!" are actually cries of "I demand that you play your 18-Int character like he's dumber than dirt, and has lived most of his life in some parallel universe with different natural laws, because he's not allowed to know how things work in this one!"
Agreed.
Though in my opinion it would be "Why waste time only getting one person with hold person with a save for nothing effect, when I can take stinking cloud hit a group, have a chance to affect them each round, and have nice side effects from the spell too?"
Raising that spell to 3rd level in 3.0 was at least a step in the right direction...
I'm going on Paizo and asking everyone for mean things I can do to you now!"
Srsly. What are the boards for if not this?
Or rather, "I'm going on Paizo and looking for a bunch of yes men to agree with me in how wrong you are playing so I can feel vindicated."
Which, I, myself, am guilty of.
Chatting between players during combat is metagaming.
Calling out current hit points is metagaming.
Discussing game mechanics during combat is metagaming.
And all of these examples of metagaming should be allowed during play.
Metagaming occurs when there is a gap between player knowledge and character knowledge. Knowing that trolls regenerate and must be killed with fire/acid because you saw a troll in a previous campaign even though your character has never seen one is metagaming, and this is an example of bad metagaming - made all the worse because an in-game resolution exists for this problem (knowledge checks). But knowing your own hit points and those of other characters in your party (and other similar mechanics) is good metagaming because it helps solve an entirely separate problem inherent in fantasy games: the gap between character knowledge and player knowledge.
Worried about metagaming screwing with the perceived "realism" of your game? You've got bigger things to worry about - if "realism" is your concern, how "realistic" is it that a group of adventurers who spend nearly every waking hour in each others' company, train for practically every free hour they can manage, and orchestrate effective tactics and strategies ahead of time (because their very lives depend on it) are unable to work in a tactically effective manner on the battlefield because the invisible hands-in-the-sky that control them aren't allowed to carry out the player analogue of their extensive planning and training by discussing the situation between each other. Your characters live, eat, sleep and breathe adventuring. Your players do it for four hours a week. Where do you think the real knowledge gap exists?
Stop real metagaming: knowledge of the adventure your character doesn't possess, knowledge of the monsters your character doesn't possess, etc.
|
...Metagaming occurs when there is a gap between player knowledge and character knowledge...
I love the way you put that!
Answering the original question: prevent as much "bad" metagaming as you can, and allow what "good" metagaming you and the players think is reasonable. When the information gap is a player knowing less than their character, I allow a knowledge roll. When a player knows more than their character, I discourage using the information.
You can discourage this and prevent many problems by setting some ground rules. I explain at the beginning of the game session that all talking is in-character, unless someone indicates they are speaking out of character. NPCs respond to the players' conversations, so when an NPC hears, "just come back and steal it later," or, "you shoot your wand at the one with the axe, and I will rush the healer," they respond accordingly. Of course I am talking about experienced players here, because I would allow plenty of leeway for inexperienced players and even players who are unfamiliar with a particular class. Whatever I do, I try to focus on the roleplay and gameplay to make the rules, rolls, and mechanics as invisible as they can be, so the players can get caught up in the story. Reiterating that goal and making sure the players are aware of what is "good" vs. "bad" metagaming at the beginning of a session can go a long way. Explain that using knowledge of the adventure or monsters or other players a character doesn't possess could really disrupt the gameplay. That is "bad" metagaming.
There are also limits to combat talking and the time players should take, because one combat could go on for a long time. Try to keep combat chat and planning to a minimum. If there is a lot of talk during combat, especially if someone is taking quite a while to decide on their action when it must be a reaction or at least a quick response in-character, I remind the other characters that they can always bark orders or requests in-character - speaking is a free action... Usually, this makes for some memorable game sessions, because if all goes well, the players really get into it. If a player is still undecided, I tell them they are holding action until they decide what to do and move on to the next in the initiative order. If they're inexperienced, I may run through a few options, or someone else at the table may do that for them if I need to move the game along to the next in the initiative order. This is a great way for players to learn more about their characters' capabilities, so I wouldn't "disallow" in-combat chat. Minimize within reason, and talk to the group about what is reasonable...
If after all of your discussion you think the "bad" metagaming continues to be a problem, don't let it go unchallenged. Let the players know immediately why it's a problem, tell them not to do it, give them an example of another approach that would be acceptable, and move back into the game as soon as possible. If they do it again, tell them they will not fare well against NPCs that know almost everything about each of them, and if they STILL persist, I would ask them what they want out of the game, because your goals for the session and their approach are not working out. I would strongly suggest that vs. blindsiding them with an altered NPC or monster, so they understand what you want them to do and why...
After re-reading through some of the previous posts, there are many great suggestions in this thread, and my post is re-hashing some of it. Bottom line, talk to the players about "bad" metagaming in advance, and make sure you let them know what is "good" vs. "bad"...
Yeah my general opinion is that if it is a spell you know, you know the details about it too...
Though in my opinion it would be "Why waste time only getting one person with hold person with a save for nothing effect, when I can take stinking cloud hit a group, have a chance to affect them each round, and have nice side effects from the spell too?"
This would be the point where I would allow metagaming too: discussing the mechanics of spells the character has (or arguably spells in general, at least if the character has nice spellcraft skill...)
Because if magic were a real-world force there would be people who would study it as a science and notice effects modeled with things like saving throws. They would dress it up differently but the basis would be the same ("this effect is often resisted by strong-willed individuals while lesser minds fall under it with ease").Same goes for magic items and monsters the characters are familiar with: players are allowed to use mechanic terms about those even when their characters would use different terms...
Another form of "bad" metagaming is when one or more (experienced) players try to dictate group tactics to other (novice) players. Even (and from my experience especially) when the players in question don't have a problem with that. I've seen this happening and in every case it prevented the players from really understanding and using the capabilities of their chars, thus becoming even more dependent on the metagamers help with each level. (Yea, I must admit I'm guilty of that crime too.)
Even worse is when one player has his character perform a perfectly reasonable action, and another self-proclaimed "tactical expert" tries to browbeat him out of it. I've had that one happen to me a couple of times...
"I cast Wall of Fire."
"Wall of Fire = FAIL. It's a trap!! DO NOT WANT"
|
|
Like Luna and some others have said, our table uses the Knowledge skills to give out tidbits on how to handle certain creatures. In fact, it's to the point now that when combat starts with some new creature, someone at the table almost invariably asks "What knowledge do we need to roll on?"
Bardic Knowledge works as a sub for all of them as well...not enough people play Bards at my table so I throw that out as a bone. If you don't have that issue, you might wish to have Bardic Knowledge work at a -2 or 3 since it would have that much versatility.
The better they roll, the more I tell them. As others have said, there are a few basic truths that almost every adventurer would know. Trolls regenerate unless burned. Skeletons don't get hurt much by piercing. Red dragons breathe fire. But beyond that, they'd better have either fought these creatures before IN THIS CAMPAIGN, or else they'd better be rolling before I hear ANY of that sort of talk like "Hit them with Cold damage!"
As for the other non-monster meta-gaming, I am a little bit more lax about allowing SOME tactical combat discussions. If one players suggests to the other that they 5-foot-adjust so the barbarian can charge next round, that doesn't chap my khakis much, as long as they keep it relatively simple and to a minimum. If the mage is having trouble deciding what to cast, and somebody across the table gives ideas, I probably shouldn't allow that, but I do. This thread has pointed out to me that maybe I should. Problem is that now that I've run this same table with this same group for 2+ years, there have been certain expectations set. I'm not sure it's worth rocking the boat over. Maybe next time I run a game... :)
Yeah my general opinion is that if it is a spell you know, you know the details about it too...
Though in my opinion it would be "Why waste time only getting one person with hold person with a save for nothing effect, when I can take stinking cloud hit a group, have a chance to affect them each round, and have nice side effects from the spell too?"
This would be the point where I would allow metagaming too: discussing the mechanics of spells the character has (or arguably spells in general, at least if the character has nice spellcraft skill...)
Because if magic were a real-world force there would be people who would study it as a science and notice effects modeled with things like saving throws. They would dress it up differently but the basis would be the same ("this effect is often resisted by strong-willed individuals while lesser minds fall under it with ease").Same goes for magic items and monsters the characters are familiar with: players are allowed to use mechanic terms about those even when their characters would use different terms...
Heck I can just see some wizard now sitting down with the spell equivalent of a Desktop Computer running "Save throw analysis" programs for each of his spells, when a illusion chimes in with "Are you being watched? Stop those pesky Diviners now with our patented Lead Tents!"
Just to be nuked by his conjured Avoral "firewall".Another form of "bad" metagaming is when one or more (experienced) players try to dictate group tactics to other (novice) players. Even (and from my experience especially) when the players in question don't have a problem with that. I've seen this happening and in every case it prevented the players from really understanding and using the capabilities of their chars, thus becoming even more dependent on the metagamers help with each level. (Yea, I must admit I'm guilty of that crime too.)Even worse is when one player has his character perform a perfectly reasonable action, and another self-proclaimed "tactical expert" tries to browbeat him out of it. I've had that one happen to me a couple of times...
"I cast Wall of Fire."
"Wall of Fire = FAIL. It's a trap!! DO NOT WANT"
Which is funny because Wall of Fire has tons of great tactical uses...
Heck I can just see some wizard now sitting down with the spell equivalent of a Desktop Computer running "Save throw analysis" programs for each of his spells, when a illusion chimes in with "Are you being watched? Stop those pesky Diviners now with our patented Lead Tents!"
Just to be nuked by his conjured Avoral "firewall".
And that's where summoning spells also come in handy: KD50 tests! Somewhere there is a mage who can give pretty accurate estimations how many of each direct damage spells it takes to kill various common summoned critters...
|
|
And that's where summoning spells also come in handy: KD50 tests! Somewhere there is a mage who can give pretty accurate estimations how many of each direct damage spells it takes to kill various common summoned critters...Heck I can just see some wizard now sitting down with the spell equivalent of a Desktop Computer running "Save throw analysis" programs for each of his spells, when a illusion chimes in with "Are you being watched? Stop those pesky Diviners now with our patented Lead Tents!"
Just to be nuked by his conjured Avoral "firewall".
Only a few... if aimed at the person who summoned them! :)