If I am in an adventure and come across skeletons and know everything about them , am I metagaming for knowing?
Yes. I suppose if you wanted to split hairs, you're only metagaming if you act on that knowledge. But, yes, anything you know from events that happened outside the game is by definition metagaming.
[Scenario snipped]Would you consider that metagaming? Also would you have let the whole battle played out, checked the mosnter post battle and then have to retro the entire battle?
Yes, I would consider that metagaming. I also note that "metagaming" is a label, not a value judgment -- not all metagaming is bad, but upsetting the GM, even when you're correct, is almost always bad.
It sounds like the GM would have preferred to have you not look up the monster in the first place. Barring that, he (obviously) would have preferred you didn't raise the issue at the table. One possibility, of course, is that the GM was using a customized monster, in which case it doesn't matter what's written in the books.
A more tactful way of handling it would have been to ask "Two points of ability drain at level 3? That seems high; are you sure you're using the right monster abillities? Would you mind checking?" and letting the GM make the call.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Metagaming is when you make gameplay decisions based on things outside of gameplay.
In competitive games, this often refers to using your knowledge of what strategies other people are likely to bring to an event to inform your decision of what to play yourself, and even what play to make during a game based on having seen your opponent make a play that is typical of a given strategy. In such games, metagaming is considered a fundamental skill of the game.
In roleplaying games, the dividing line tends to be "in-character knowledge" versus "player knowledge". Any time the character does something based on something that the player knows, that's "metagaming". This could be choosing to use a different weapon than normal without having gained in-character information to prompt such a decision; or choosing to explore an area they would have no real interest in because the player wants to make sure to get all the loot/XP; or in many cases, even continuing to adventure once the cash available from selling all their gear would allow them to live in luxury the rest of their lives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This forum is metagaming. :D
Just a small note (which requires complicity from the GM): playing a high Intelligence character can sometimes be a challenge (most of us aren't Int 20+) so sometimes metagaming can be used to represent the increased mental faculties of the character compared to the player.
But most times what you know or figure out is not what your character knows or figures out.
|
There is also the huge issue that skills in Pathfinder do a really bad job of capturing what a character should actually know.
Its very basic knowledge to know "if its bony, use a bludgeoning weapon".
Especially if the character has actually fought skeletons.
Some metagaming is absolutely a good thing. Too much is absolutely a bad thing. Deciding where the line is is the interesting thing
If I am in an adventure and come across skeletons and know everything about them from running a game before, am I metagaming for knowing?
Some advice on this please.
~Binary
The problem with labeling anything "Metagaming" is that you have to really be able to differentiate between a player's knowledge versus a character's knowledge. It is more difficult than people realize, the reason I say this is knowing what is considered "common" knowledge in a campaign world.
Is that something you could have roleplayed? Then it wouldn't have been "metagaming" in the stark definition of "using outside game knowledge".
Say your character grew up in an area where an undead horde rose up from the graveyard and the city guard had to put it down. Since you lived through it or were raised on stories of it there is a chance you would know that blunt weapons work better on skeletons.
There are things that a character could know just because they grew up in a fantasy world where undead, orcs, and dragons are real. Discuss it with the GM and see whether you can work out a baseline of knowledge for all characters. Should you expect to know everything about them? No, but you should have some level of familiarity with them. Just as you may have some knowledge of Bald Eagles it may not be detailed enough for you to know their exact behaviours but you should be able to point one out.
Or your character could be smart enough to know that a blunt force is more catastrophic to bones than a sharp point. Anyone should be able to deduce this especially if you've broken a bone.
As for looking up something in a DM-only book (all monster books are DM only at my table) I would have been unhappy with you and most likely would have penalized you in future for looking something up at the table. Saying something about the difficulty of the creature for your level should have been enough without flipping through a book in the middle of combat.
Look at it like this. An actor playing a character in a movie knows things the character does not. For the sake of this example let's say the actor is free to do as he wants instead of following a script, but he is still supposed to stay in character.
Once he brings real life knowledge into his role that would be similar to metagaming if the character had no way to get this information.
As for monsters doing things they shouldn't do that will vary widely. Sometimes published adventures or GM's will give a monster a special ability that the normal type does not have. Sometimes and I guess this is what you are referring to is a GM breaking the rule. A player questioning that is not metagaming. That is an OOC conversation just like telling someone you are level 9 while discussing the game.
As for the stat drain situation the GM needs to address how mistakes are handled, but pretending the mistake did not take place is the wrong answer IMO, if that is his solution.
I think some people are getting a little confused between metaknowledge and metagaming.
Metaknowledge (most commonly referred to as player knowledge) is knowing how the rules of the game work, knowing specific rules, knowing monster stat blocks, and a whole host of things that you as the person sitting at the table know or are expected to know.
Metagaming is using that knowledge to influence the actions of your character when that character has no reasonable in-world means of having that knowledge.
Metaknowledge is good, and in some cases essential (a GM who doesn't know the capabilities of his players' characters is more likely to fail at encounter design).
Metagaming is at best okay, and sometimes bad (switching to a holy piercing weapon when your farm boy done good meets a Rakshasa for the first time).
The problem with labeling anything "Metagaming" is that you have to really be able to differentiate between a player's knowledge versus a character's knowledge. It is more difficult than people realize, the reason I say this is knowing what is considered "common" knowledge in a campaign world.If I am in an adventure and come across skeletons and know everything about them from running a game before, am I metagaming for knowing?
Some advice on this please.
~Binary
I disagree. Saying you "could have" known something isn't the same as saying you "do" know that, especially when there's an explicit mechanism (Knowledge checks) to cover "common knowledge." And in most cases (i.e., don't dump Intelligence), the checks can be made untrained by taking 10, which means the GM can and should simply tell you that you should be using a club against skeletons if he considers that to be common knowledge.
Is that something you could have roleplayed? Then it wouldn't have been "metagaming" in the stark definition of "using outside game knowledge".
Say your character grew up in an area where an undead horde rose up from the graveyard and the city guard had to put it down. Since you lived through it or were raised on stories of it there is a chance you would know that blunt weapons work better on skeletons.
Well, no. If this is something that you know only by way of a backstory -- especially one you just created on the spur of the moment -- then this should be represented by Knowledge skills, because this is something you know that is not common knowledge, by definition.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, it is completely inappropriate for players to be looking up monsters in books, apps, or online while they're in the middle of a fight against said monsters.
The GM will tell you what you see, and your knowledge skills (or character previous experience) will tell you what you know about it.
Like someone above said, a friendly nudge asking the GM to double check the "Two points of ability drain at level 3? That seems high" is absolutely fine. But looking up the creature to point it out is inappropriate.
On a side note, in my games I very often add templates, class levels, and/or swap out abilities to make sure my players are surprised by monster abilities. (which might lead them to think I'm not reading the stat block correctly) My gaming buddies have been playing DnD for 30+ years, so little from the monster manuals/bestiaries surprises them anymore!
The problem with labeling anything "Metagaming" is that you have to really be able to differentiate between a player's knowledge versus a character's knowledge. It is more difficult than people realize, the reason I say this is knowing what is considered "common" knowledge in a campaign world.If I am in an adventure and come across skeletons and know everything about them from running a game before, am I metagaming for knowing?
Some advice on this please.
~Binary
I disagree. Saying you "could have" known something isn't the same as saying you "do" know that, especially when there's an explicit mechanism (Knowledge checks) to cover "common knowledge." And in most cases (i.e., don't dump Intelligence), the checks can be made untrained by taking 10, which means the GM can and should simply tell you that you should be using a club against skeletons if he considers that to be common knowledge.
Well, no. If this is something that you know only by way of a backstory -- especially one you just created on the spur of the moment -- then this should be represented by Knowledge skills, because this is something you know that is not common knowledge, by definition.
Is that something you could have roleplayed? Then it wouldn't have been "metagaming" in the stark definition of "using outside game knowledge".
Say your character grew up in an area where an undead horde rose up from the graveyard and the city guard had to put it down. Since you lived through it or were raised on stories of it there is a chance you would know that blunt weapons work better on skeletons.
Yeah, well I lean toward roleplaying not "rollplaying". So what if there is a mechanic for it? If a player comes up with a ROLEPLAYING explanation for it I will run with it before I revert to just chucking dice. If we just chuck dice at the table there is no need for an imagination. Might as well just run everything by the book without any thought or individualization.
Back in Basic D&D we had to fill in the gaps and felt that coming up with an in character explanation - even if it is part of a new back history - was preferable to just throwing more dice. <Shrug> To each their own.
Metagaming is essentially any decision that uses "out of character" knowledge (be it system mechanics, prior gaming experience with other characters, the tendencies of the GM/other players, etc.). In other words, playing the game as a game (i.e., to "win") above playing a character.
Of course, not all metagaming is bad and, to an extent, a certain amount of metagaming is unavoidable (for instance, when choosing what type of character to play to complement other characters and/or to provide specific capabilities to the party). The amount of "acceptable" metagaming depends on the expectations of the group and how immersive they want to get.
Specifically, common things like "use blunt weapons against skeletons" are hard to segregate into in-character or out of character knowledge (IMO). Because skeletons are so prevalent in stories, etc., it's hard to say "No Knowledge (Religion)? You can't switch from rapier to club." There is so much that people learn and retain that can't be captured in the skill system.
Looking things up in play, then interrupting the session, is a bit of a faux pas. You should have waited until a break in the flow (the end of combat) to point out the apparent error; I say apparent, because you don't know exactly what the GM was doing (there may be something else going on than a mistake).
As a player, it's sometimes hard to hold back on that. Of course, it can turn into something fun later. When encountering skeletons for the first time, my barbarian resorted to her greataxe. And ... well, it seemed to work quite well (barring some party position issues), so she's likely to do the same later on, right?
But yes, while some game knowledge would be out of the hands of a character, some should be known. A cleric should know just what's effected by his channel energy feature, for example; that'd be in one of his early sessions. A monk and a fighter could chat about various martial art forms. It's fair for a GM to say 'OK, you're from land X at social status Y, here's what you'd know; as this class with those skills, you should know this', and it's fair to ask your GM if you're crossing the line.
if you are acting on knowledge you know as a player that your character has no way of knowing with the resources, background and history of that character to give that character an advantage over the opposition, then yes, you are metagaming. but at the same time, people coordinating their characters together, in the same room, is also metagaming, but it isn't bad metagaming. metagaming isn't always a bad thing, the weakness of skeletons to blunt objects or trolls to fire and acid is common knowledge because it is common sense. when you strike something hard with something blunt, it staggers and ruptures, matters not whether an animated skeleton or a knight in plate, at the same time, for stopping a trolls regeneration with fire or acid, it is well known that cauterizing the wound both prevents infection and prevents unwanted harmful growths. metagaming can generally also be a good thing for coordinating parties in a railroad.
Metagaming is when you use knowledge that your character has no way of knowing
Whether from system knowledge or just player experience .
Look up information about monsters or gear and the like to use at the table is just plain cheating , i ban all books from the table except core rules if someone wants to look up anything not in CRB then they ask in first what it is they are after then i let them use the book they require i never allow players to look at any of the monster manuals at the table
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were the GM in question, this wouldn't be an issue of metagaming, but rather a lack of trust.
It doesn't matter if I'm running the monster incorrectly, if the players are second guessing the running of the game and looking things up, then clearly they don't trust me to run the game properly.
The fact is, even though you may have been right about the stats, you didn't know for certain that the monster wasn't a special kind of monster who actually did that level of damage. Instead, you thought "the GM is wrong, and I'll prove it."
That's not really a constructive impulse, even though you may have been trying to help.
The best thing to do in this situation is wait until the encounter is over, and at an appropriate time that is not disruptive, ask about the creature. Most GMs are okay with sharing detailed information after the scene. At that point, it would be okay to raise your suspicions that things were too challenging, and look up the monster with the GM and talk about how that power should be executed.
That would prevent you from interrupting the game. It would also seem less like an attempt to correct the GM, and it would probably get the results you actually wanted.
I trust GMs to do their best, but not to be perfect. I know I'm not.
That's all I require, honestly.
I wouldn't react with hostility to this lack of trust, more like disappointment. Interrupting the game, as a separate issue, might result in hostility depending on how egregious it was. But I try to stay cool about such things.
In any case, I broach these topics because it seems like metagaming isn't the only issue in the OP's scenarios. Teasing apart the different interactions can be important if he wants to get resolution.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the act of "looking up a monster" in any books while playing a PC should be a no-no. That's just my opinion though.
Metagaming is when you make gameplay decisions based on things outside of gameplay.
In competitive games, this often refers to using your knowledge of what strategies other people are likely to bring to an event to inform your decision of what to play yourself, and even what play to make during a game based on having seen your opponent make a play that is typical of a given strategy. In such games, metagaming is considered a fundamental skill of the game.
In roleplaying games, the dividing line tends to be "in-character knowledge" versus "player knowledge". Any time the character does something based on something that the player knows, that's "metagaming". This could be choosing to use a different weapon than normal without having gained in-character information to prompt such a decision;
I agree with this portion...
or choosing to explore an area they would have no real interest in because the player wants to make sure to get all the loot/XP; or in many cases, even continuing to adventure once the cash available from selling all their gear would allow them to live in luxury the rest of their lives.
But not these two examples. Finding a tunnel branch or portion of the woods that you haven't explored and then exploring it for the loot shouldn't be considered "metagaming" simply because the player has not acted on out-of-game knowledge (using the reason you gave...). If the player "knows" there is an NPC or loot that would help end an section of the adventure faster (but the character does not), then it could be considered metagaming.
By the same token, completing an adventure (even if it is for the loot) shouldn't be considered metagaming.
See, I look at it from the other end: How would I react if after a long frustrating combat that should have been a cakewalk, but ended in a TPK, one of the players looked at a book and said "Yeah, I thought so, but didn't want to interrupt. It's not supposed to drain on every attack. That's why it all went wrong."
What would you think of what was suggested earlier in that scenario: Asking "Two points of ability drain at level 3? That seems high; are you sure you're using the right monster abilities? Would you mind checking?" and letting the GM make the call.
I'm not sure whether it would be better to ask up front? Or check yourself to make sure before interrupting? Might depend on how sure I was of the monster's stats without looking at the book.
That's exactly the part I expect them to trust me with. Will I get every rule exactly right? No. But will I see a TPK coming and perhaps question if things are going a little too well for the NPCs? Absolutely.
Now, I know not every GM does this! And not every GM can be trusted on this level. But the people I choose to play with know me, and should trust me on this level. All groups should be aspiring to this level of trust.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I trust GMs to do their best, but not to be perfect. I know I'm not.That's all I require, honestly.
I wouldn't react with hostility to this lack of trust, more like disappointment. Interrupting the game, as a separate issue, might result in hostility depending on how egregious it was. But I try to stay cool about such things.
In any case, I broach these topics because it seems like metagaming isn't the only issue in the OP's scenarios. Teasing apart the different interactions can be important if he wants to get resolution.
See, I look at it from the other end: How would I react if after a long frustrating combat that should have been a cakewalk, but ended in a TPK, one of the players looked at a book and said "Yeah, I thought so, but didn't want to interrupt. It's not supposed to drain on every attack. That's why it all went wrong."
What would you think of what was suggested earlier in that scenario: Asking "Two points of ability drain at level 3? That seems high; are you sure you're using the right monster abilities? Would you mind checking?" and letting the GM make the call.
I'm not sure whether it would be better to ask up front? Or check yourself to make sure before interrupting? Might depend on how sure I was of the monster's stats without looking at the book.
This obviously all depends on the different agreements and table-etiquette we all have, so no doubt it's wildly different at different tables.
Nonetheless, I'd much prefer the "would you mind checking?" approach to the "I looked it up and I think that's not how it's supposed to work" approach. Even though they're functionally identical, I think I'd share Mythic Evil Lincoln's view about trust. The request to check may slow things down (a little) but it shows you still trust the DM to run the game and are leaving that part of the whole experience to him (FWIW, I'd be quite happy as a DM getting one of my players to check so as not to slow down the game - I'd still like to be asked as it's the impression of "checking up on me" that would feel wrong).
This would also depend (for us) on how well we knew the game. When we learn a new system, it's expected at our table that "off camera" players will be looking things up as we go to check we're doing it right - we wouldnt do that for a game we knew well though.
