Metagame Like You Like To

[Nefreet]

Metagaming, acting in bad faith, cheating. I feel like a good half of these threads are little more than arguing about our personal definitions of what essentially boils down to out-of-character behaviors.

The characters themselves clearly aren't to blame for their actions. So let's admit it's the players, and let's admit that regardless of how serious the offense is titled, using out-of-character knowledge for an in-game benefit should be actively limited.

[Megistone]

A few years ago I watched a movie where there was an actress who had to pretend she couldn't sing, while in real life she is actually pretty good at it. She did an excellent job at going out of tune, and I thought: "That's good acting!"

We are playing a role, too. Whenever the player is making choices that the character would not have made, he is metagaming.
It's hard, sometimes really hard, to completely avoid that; so every table will naturally accept metagaming to some extent. That actress was doing her job, while we are playing a game instead... when you have been doing fantasy RPGs for decades, pretending that you don't know how to handle a troll for the n-th time could actually reduce your fun instead of increasing it.

That said, I don't agree with what thenobledrake is saying here. When a character switches their weapon to match the weakness of an opponent they shouldn't know anything about, you may not prove that they are doing that on purpose, but they clearly are. The fact that most tables will handwave the thing in the name of fun does not change the fact that the player is cheating to gain an in-game advantage.
On a conceptual level, it's just the same as getting involved in a mysterious crime and saying: "My character searches the cellar of third house on the right", not because you have got any clue, but because you have read the module in advance and you know that the evidence is hidden there. When confronted, the player can easily say: "Why not? It's a place as any, my character just happens to want to start their investigation there!"
In practice, doing this is usually detrimental to players fun while killing some trolls more efficiently may or may not be; but both are definitely cases of metagaming.

[Gloom]

When breaking down Recall Knowledge Checks I tend to have things scaled for common knowledge, basic knowledge, specific knowledge, and esoteric knowledge.

For example, using Red Dragons as a sample knowledge check.

Recall Knowledge (Lore: Dragons and Arcana)

Common Knowledge DC 10 (Untrained): Identifying it as a Dragon.
Common Knowledge DC 15 (Untrained): Knowing that Dragons have been known to breathe fire, acid, and other elements.
Basic Knowledge DC 15 (Trained): Red Dragons breathe and are resistant to Fire.
Specific Knowledge DC Variable (Trained): Identifying the age category, resistances, weaknesses, special powers, and other abilities specific to a breed of dragon.
Esoteric Knowledge DC Variable (Expert or Higher): Name, History, and any other details about a specific dragon.

When it comes to appropriate Lore checks I reduce the rarity step of the subject of knowledge by one step to make the check easier on them. So, while it might be a difficult check to know details of a Unique dragon it would only be treated as Rare for them making the check several points easier.

Libraries and specific books allow you to make the check for a higher proficiency if the knowledge exists in that library. Though, if you somehow know which book the knowledge is contained in through the results of a quest or other roleplay you can simply take time to read that book to gain your answer.

To address the specific question of this thread about Metagaming however.. if your character acts upon knowledge that they themselves don't have in their backstory, game history, or through recall knowledge checks then they are Metagaming and I would shut that down as it only tends to hurt the delicate balance given to skills that allow you to recall knowledge.

I wouldn't give someone a bonus to their attack in a fight just because they know how to fight outside of the game and I won't reward someone for memorizing the bestiary or other books.

[thenobledrake]

I feel like I have to remind people that some of the cases that have been called "metagaming" are cases in which a character, knowing only what that character knows, could take the actions in question because being certain how the actions will work out is not required to think it appropriate to do those actions.

So it's not "making a choice the character wouldn't have made" - it's making one of many choices that a character would make in that situation.

No, that's not every case ever called "metagaming" - but it is, in my experience so far, all of them that aren't just plain-old cheating.

There really should be a difference in how people treat a character using a very commonly occurring thing which harms/kills the majority of living things, regardless of when or what they happen to use it on, and how they treat a character whipping out an actually esoteric thing which is only especially harmful to a very small or very rare selection of creatures, and doing things that that they have in-character reasons not to like in the read the adventure before and gonna keep searching until they find the secret door they know is there example.

The former example just starts fights and leaves weird questions like "how long between picking up a particular thing and using it before it's suspicious that I finally decided to use it?" (that nobody has a definitive answer to), while the latter two are a magnitude more of a disruption to game play and actually do inherently indicate bad faith on the player's part.

[thenobledrake]

Megistone wrote:

That said, I don't agree with what thenobledrake is saying here. When a character switches their weapon to match the weakness of an opponent they shouldn't know anything about, you may not prove that they are doing that on purpose, but they clearly are.

If it's something actually rare and specific, you've got a point.

For example, if I see some kind of cat-like humanoid and I go "let's bless some crossbow bolts... I know that's not a thing we've ever done for any reason at all, but let's try it out." there is clearly something wrong.

But the example I've been talking about this whole time, using fire, isn't even close to specific. There are numerous reasons that aren't bad faith that a player could be choosing to use a commonly useful attack like fire, and by saying that it's clear the player knows what they're doing you're basically saying that said player has a guaranteed 100% accuracy at interpreting the GM's description and picking out the correct memorized monster stat block to react to.

Which I think is pretty hilarious since people consider it the most likely thing when it's actually a pretty cool "super power" since even well-intentioned descriptions are easily and frequently misunderstood, even by other GMs.

Here's a test: A hulking brute with green-tinged skin and coarse tufts of dark hair steps forth from the cover of the tree line, opening it's heavily tusked mouth in a roar.

Name that monster? Hint, it isn't a troll.

[Rysky]

“It’s what my character could do” is a completely irrelevant and useless defense.

Your character could hit themselves in the face with their weapon.

Your character could throw alchemist fire at their allies.

Metagaming is all you.

For your second post I guess an Orc.

[Gloom]

Using fire in a fight isn't a bad idea for most people.. Though if it hasn't been a part of their tactics in the past it's odd that they start to use it in the specific instance it would help.

The same thing could be said about using holy water for Undead or Splash weapons for Swarms.

It's not common knowledge to the point that you wouldn't have to make a check for it.

If you've got something in your backstory or if you've encountered the situation before and seen the effects of those items being used however then I would not be calling it metagaming.

[Nefreet]

thenobledrake wrote:

A hulking brute with green-tinged skin and coarse tufts of dark hair steps forth from the cover of the tree line, opening it's heavily tusked mouth in a roar.

Name that monster?

What knowledge am I rolling?

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

“It’s what my character could do” is a completely irrelevant and useless defense.

Your character could hit themselves in the face with their weapon.

Your character could throw alchemist fire at their allies.

Metagaming is all you.

For your second post I guess an Orc.

You're wrong on both counts.

What the character is capable of doing and that being reasonable, which by the way using fire on something you want to kill isn't unreasonable unless you know that it won't work, is exactly the only possible defense against the accusation "you're character wouldn't do that, you're cheating."

I'll give some more time for folks that feel like playing guess the monster to submit their guesses before I reveal what I was describing.

[CrystalSeas]

thenobledrake wrote:

Here's a test: A hulking brute with green-tinged skin and coarse tufts of dark hair steps forth from the cover of the tree line, opening its heavily tusked mouth in a roar.

Name that monster? Hint, it isn't a troll.

FTFY

"Kermit!! What big teeth you have!"

Oh, wait. Wrong fairy tale.

[thenobledrake]

Nefreet wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

A hulking brute with green-tinged skin and coarse tufts of dark hair steps forth from the cover of the tree line, opening it's heavily tusked mouth in a roar.

Name that monster?

What knowledge am I rolling?

You're not rolling a knowledge - we aren't talking about character knowledge here, ya'll are supposed to be proving that a GM giving a description of a monster is all it takes for the player to know exactly what they are facing and thus be capable of deliberately choosing to attack whatever weakness it might have.

You know, demonstrate that the GM in the scenario of me trying to use fire on a monster is actually not talking out their backdoor when saying I definitely know what my character is facing.

[Nefreet]

The thing about a varied universe such as Pathfinder is that the creature you're facing could be anything.

I've faced a Dragon who used disguise self to appear as a different color.

I've had players pissed when the Necrophidius they couldn't identify wasn't harmed by Channel Energy.

Bludgeoning weapons are of no use against a Bone Devil, and Bone Golems need Adamantine to bypass their DR.

Bone creatures in PF1 could be constructs, aberrations, outsiders or even humanoids, rather than undead.

To put everyone on equal footing, for their benefit and to prevent out-of-character knowledge from influencing in-character decisions, it's honestly just best to ask for knowledge checks for everything.

The new player who knows nothing about the regeneration of trolls out-of-character won't feel like such a newb when everyone else pulls out their torches rather than the weapons they've been using for the past few sessions, and if they're the one who made their knowledge check they can be the one to inform the "veterans" that this type of troll is actually hurt by acid.

[Nefreet]

thenobledrake wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

A hulking brute with green-tinged skin and coarse tufts of dark hair steps forth from the cover of the tree line, opening it's heavily tusked mouth in a roar.

Name that monster?

What knowledge am I rolling?

You're not rolling a knowledge - we aren't talking about character knowledge here, ya'll are supposed to be proving that a GM giving a description of a monster is all it takes for the player to know exactly what they are facing

Have you been reading this thread?

[Rysky]

Also you weren’t asking asking in game or to a specific character, you’re asking posters on a forum, who do have a lot of knowledge of the game and its monsters even of they don’t GM. The Bestiaries are my favourite things to get, i like reading all of the monster entries in them and in the Alien Archives.

I can also easily cut that knowledge off when actually playing the game and encountering creatures.

[Gloom]

We don't have to demonstrate any of that to prove our point. Because people make assumptions all of the time based on knowledge their character doesn't have.

For all I know your example is a homebrew creature that doesn't have a write-up in the bestiary.

It could describe an Orc, Bugbear, Troll, and a handful of other things. That doesn't really play into whether or not there is merit in what we are saying.

[thenobledrake]

Gloom wrote:

...Though if it hasn't been a part of their tactics in the past it's odd that they start to use it in the specific instance it would help.

But you are open to it being possible that it's not intentional, aren't you?

Such as not having used fire much before but then found some alchemist's fire as treasure, and then a little while later starts using it, with it being either coincidence that the first encounter they do so in is one with a monster that has a fire weakness - or it being the result of GM's campaign design along the lines of putting the alchemist's fire as treasure just a few encounters before monsters with fire weakness, much like how many published adventures do exactly that: provide special weapons just before you will encounter creatures they are meant to be used on.

Gloom wrote:

The same thing could be said about using holy water for Undead or Splash weapons for Swarms.

Holy water, and to a similar degree cold iron and silver weapons, occupy a specific thought space - the game makes it clear that people in-setting offer up these things for sale, but they aren't exactly cheap. That indicates that if they sell enough to justify it being a regular enough thing that they aren't by-special-order-only, people must know what to use them for.

Yes, that still leaves identifying that what you're looking at is actually an undead or a fiend or whatever, but most cases of those sort of creatures have really clear indicators like looking and smelling like a corpse or seeming entirely unnatural in origin. Though I'm willing for there to be some confusion between whether to use silver or cold iron on a particular fiend, I entirely reject the idea that it takes some special knowledge to see a fiend that looks fiendish (i.e. isn't disguised) and go for a material besides steel.

And when it comes to swarms, their weakness is absolutely 100% visibly indicated by the fact that they are a swarm and thus things which cover more than one creature within the swarm at a time will be more effective.

[Gloom]

Playing Devil's Advocate here is just coming off as annoying and isn't contributing to the conversation. If someone tosses an alchemist's fire because they just found it as loot and it's more convenient to the situation? Sure, that is likely fine. Though if they save it for things that are weak to fire or splash damage? That would be metagaming.

Trying to chalk it up to coincidence in game as a reason for it.. but doing it intentionally is just a cop out.

When you say that you reject the idea that it takes a special knowledge to see that a fiend looks fiendish.. or that you'd want to use a material other than steel to go against it... This is the entire point. It does require specific knowledge to do this. It would require either Religion or an appropriate lore skill to properly identify something as a Fiend or know anything about them.

[thenobledrake]

Nefreet wrote:

The thing about a varied universe such as Pathfinder is that the creature you're facing could be anything.

Which is exactly why a player pulling out a commonly useful sort of attack like fire is not guaranteed to be metagaming when doing so, even if the creature they are facing happens to have a weakness to that commonly useful sort of attack.

Rysky wrote:

The Bestiaries are my favourite things to get, i like reading all of the monster entries in them and in the Alien Archives.

And despite that, even when I asked you to actually try and guess what monster I am describing, you landed on the wrong monster. Yet when the scenario is reversed - you describe a monster and a player is guessing at what it is - you assume they will guess correctly.

Gloom wrote:

We don't have to demonstrate any of that to prove our point. Because people make assumptions all of the time based on knowledge their character doesn't have.

For all I know your example is a homebrew creature that doesn't have a write-up in the bestiary.

It could describe an Orc, Bugbear, Troll, and a handful of other things. That doesn't really play into whether or not there is merit in what we are saying.

People have been arguing that it is definite, not just possible, that the player in the scenario knows they are facing a troll. I'm arguing that isn't true - the player might think they are facing a different monster.

So yes, someone does have to actually prove that just the description of a monster is enough to guarantee accurate identification in order to prove me incorrect.

So far, instead, I've got one person who was willing to guess providing support to my claim by guessing wrong, and two more acknowledging that even though I've given a description it still isn't clear exactly which monster I'm talking about.

Gloom wrote:

If someone tosses an alchemist's fire because they just found it as loot and it's more convenient to the situation? Sure, that is likely fine. Though if they save it for things that are weak to fire or splash damage? That would be metagaming.

Okay, so, if I just found the alchemist's fire I can use it without any trouble... how many encounters that I "save it" have to pass for it become suspicious that I use it?

Assume, as is demonstrated by Rysky's incorrect guess and the pair of claims that my described monster could be anything, even a homebrew creature, that I as a player don't know whether fire will trigger a weakness because I don't actually know what I'm fighting - but the encounter I do use the alchmist's fire in happens to be one with a creature with a fire weakness. If it's the 2nd encounter since I found the alchmist's fire, amd I metagaming? What if it's the 5th encounter since finding it?

At what point, as precisely as you can tell me, does the paradigm switch from "who knows what monster that even is?" to "you knew exactly what you were doing, you cheater."?

Gloom wrote:

...you reject the idea that it takes a special knowledge... It does require specific knowledge to do this.

There's a difference between the kinds of knowledge we are talking about. I'm talking about stuff people know because cold iron weapons exist and people sell them, which given that they cost more than steel weapons requires that people know why someone would choose cold iron instead of steel - the people selling said weapons are marketing them as fiend-killers - and because they can see the spines, slime, strange hues and shapes of a fiend and can say "that don't look like regular folk to me, looks fiendish." Not stuff like you are talking about which requires specific study to have learned about.

[Rysky]

Quote:

Which is exactly why a player pulling out a commonly useful sort of attack like fire is not guaranteed to be metagaming when doing so, even if the creature they are facing happens to have a weakness to that commonly useful sort of attack.

But as we have readily established across three different threads, it may be commonly useful but it is not commonly used. It only seems to get used against things that have Weaknesses to it.

Quote:

And despite that, even when I asked you to actually try and guess what monster I am describing, you landed on the wrong monster. Yet when the scenario is reversed - you describe a monster and a player is guessing at what it is - you assume they will guess correctly.

Because I and the other players have a brain with cognitive faculties. Metagaming isn’t some super hidden skill.

Hilariously this pointless exercise doesn’t have anything to do with the situation, since if the player in question assumed it was a troll and pulled out alchemist’s Fire they would still be metagaming. It just bit them in the ass. Being wrong doesn’t mean you weren’t metagaming, it just means you were also wrong.

Quote:

So yes, someone does have to actually prove that just the description of a monster is enough to guarantee accurate identification in order to prove me incorrect.

LMAO what?

No, just because the player (not the character) misidentified the creature doesn’t mean they weren’t metagaming.

Whatever the monster is is completely irrelevant, what’s relevant is the player relying on out of character knowledge to cheat.

[beowulf99]

Rysky wrote:

Also you weren’t asking asking in game or to a specific character, you’re asking posters on a forum, who do have a lot of knowledge of the game and its monsters even of they don’t GM. The Bestiaries are my favourite things to get, i like reading all of the monster entries in them and in the Alien Archives.

I can also easily cut that knowledge off when actually playing the game and encountering creatures.

No you can't. You can ignore your knowledge and pretend you dont know that creature has dr slashing or some such, but you can't "turn off" your knowledge.

And you are going to sit there behind your keyboard and honestly tell me that at no time in your ttrpg playing did you use just a wee little bit of that knowledge to get yourself or your party out of a jam? You never prodded the party member with the proper knowledge to make just one more check to find out that weakness?

[Rysky]

beowulf99 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Also you weren’t asking asking in game or to a specific character, you’re asking posters on a forum, who do have a lot of knowledge of the game and its monsters even of they don’t GM. The Bestiaries are my favourite things to get, i like reading all of the monster entries in them and in the Alien Archives.

I can also easily cut that knowledge off when actually playing the game and encountering creatures.

No you can't. You can ignore your knowledge and pretend you dont know that creature has dr slashing or some such, but you can't "turn off" your knowledge.

That's exactly what that means so you're just being pedantic here.

Quote:

And you are going to sit there behind your keyboard and honestly tell me that at no time in your ttrpg playing did you use just a wee little bit of that knowledge to get yourself or your party out of a jam? You never prodded the party member with the proper knowledge to make just one more check to find out that weakness?

Nope.

[Megistone]

As I said, completely avoiding metagaming is probably impossible; at the very least, by forcing you to think in-character for every little decision, it would make the game slower, more complicated and (for most people) less fun.
Avoiding most of it is easier: just don't indulge on that out-of-character knowledge that clearly gives you and advantage.
In the end, everyone draws their 'cheating line' somewhere, and as long as it's not far from the lines drawn by the other people playing with them, they can all enjoy the game.

[beowulf99]

So in situations that you have used that out of game knowledge to prod along the game, was that meta gaming? If it was, did it hurt the game, or keep it moving?

Meta game decisions, as stated repeatedly in all these useless posts, are a part of TTRPG's. Always have been, always will be. Why take a hardline against them, especially in the interest of fun and interesting play, when allowing them can only help the game along?

Super Devil's Advocate time: What part of role playing does the cognitive dissonance created by having to pretend you don't know something simple, like the weakness of an iconic creature, help? Did the player pretending they didn't know their dagger would be weaker than their club against that skeleton really improve the story in any discernible way? To get back to the core of the discussion, did the bard deciding to throw out his buffing spells rather than make a Recall Knowledge about that Troll to tell the rest of the party about it's fire weakness hurt the story? If the rest of the party decides to use fire against that troll, did that hurt the story?

The real question isn't what is meta gaming or when is it appropriate. It is how much meta gaming are you okay with at your table, and how much of it are you willing to let slide.

I stated a long while ago that largely, I let my players "meta game" the small stuff. Feel free to use your out of character knowledge in ways that speed up play. Useless or boring checks are exactly that, useless and boring.

Where I cut the line are actions that are entirely unreasonable in my opinion. And yes, in my opinion, which means that I don't have to justify that opinion to anyone that isn't the player trying to make that action. And I very rarely have to pull that card on any player in my games. I feel like largely, this discussion has forgotten that meta gaming is in the eye of the beholder, and instead is devolving into a silly argument about opinions.

Your opinion is that you can "turn off" your knowledge about all of the creatures in the Bestiaries that you have read. My opinion was that I doubt you actually do, making what you said nothing more than a lie. But hey, that's my opinion, as yours is yours.

[Rysky]

You can believe I'm lying about that, it doesn't bother me. It's just easy for me to not do something.

As for why I don't like it, I don't like cheating. It isn't fair for people who play by the rules and invest according to the rules (if it's okay for Player A to metagame why should the reast of us bother investing in Knowledge skills?).

So it isn't universally "fun", even if it might make a fight go faster. "Hurrying things up" isn't a gaming mindset I'm particualry fond of, since that also tends to cause burnout and malaise with the story.

[Gloom]

I'm with Rysky on this one. Allowing someone to waive mechanics to "speed up" the game means that investing into skills and feats that makes identifying enemies that much less valuable.

[beowulf99]

Rysky wrote:

You can believe I'm lying about that, it doesn't bother me. It's just easy for me to not do something.

As for why I don't like it, I don't like cheating. It isn't fair for people who play by the rules and invest according to the rules (if it's okay for Player A to metagame why should the reast of us bother investing in Knowledge skills?).

So it isn't universally "fun", even if it might make a fight go faster. "Hurrying things up" isn't a gaming mindset I'm particualry fond of, since that also tends to cause burnout and malaise with the story.

To each their own. In my experience, nothing has killed a game faster than spinning our wheels dealing with odd rules interactions for 40 minute combats that lead no where. In my group we largely don't sweat the small stuff, as that leads us to not achieving anything. Nothing is worse than a "wasted" game session where we started up, did 1 combat, entered the next area, then had to call the session because there wasn't enough time to handle the next encounter.

Then again, my group is very time limited. We only meet every other sunday for 3-4 hours, so a wasted session feels MUCH worse for us than it did back in the days when we would get together once a week for longer sessions. Back then we probably would have been more critical about meta gaming. Nowadays, we assume competence on the part of our characters to keep the game moving.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

LMAO what?

No, just because the player (not the character) misidentified the creature doesn’t mean they weren’t metagaming.

Whatever the monster is is completely irrelevant, what’s relevant is the player relying on out of character knowledge to cheat.

You're saying that a player that has identified the monster their character faces as an ogre (and is incorrect) and decides "I'll throw fire at it" is cheating.

Does that actually make sense to you?

What the monster is cannot both be irrelevant and the knowledge being used to cheat.

You seem so focused on the idea that the player knows it's a troll that you aren't even processing the question "But what if that's not what the player is actually thinking?" at all - like it's just impossible, despite that you guessed the wrong monster from my description, that a player ever be wrong about what monster they are facing.

[Gloom]

thenobledrake wrote:

Rysky wrote:

LMAO what?

No, just because the player (not the character) misidentified the creature doesn’t mean they weren’t metagaming.

Whatever the monster is is completely irrelevant, what’s relevant is the player relying on out of character knowledge to cheat.

You're saying that a player that has identified the monster their character faces as an ogre (and is incorrect) and decides "I'll throw fire at it" is cheating.

Does that actually make sense to you?

What the monster is cannot both be irrelevant and the knowledge being used to cheat.

You seem so focused on the idea that the player knows it's a troll that you aren't even processing the question "But what if that's not what the player is actually thinking?" at all - like it's just impossible, despite that you guessed the wrong monster from my description, that a player ever be wrong about what monster they are facing.

Technically they would be cheating, yes. Just because they are wrong does not mean they were not attempting to cheat.

[Rysky]

Gloom wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Rysky wrote:

LMAO what?

No, just because the player (not the character) misidentified the creature doesn’t mean they weren’t metagaming.

Whatever the monster is is completely irrelevant, what’s relevant is the player relying on out of character knowledge to cheat.

You're saying that a player that has identified the monster their character faces as an ogre (and is incorrect) and decides "I'll throw fire at it" is cheating.

Does that actually make sense to you?

What the monster is cannot both be irrelevant and the knowledge being used to cheat.

You seem so focused on the idea that the player knows it's a troll that you aren't even processing the question "But what if that's not what the player is actually thinking?" at all - like it's just impossible, despite that you guessed the wrong monster from my description, that a player ever be wrong about what monster they are facing.

Technically they would be cheating, yes. Just because they are wrong does not mean they were not attempting to cheat.

Which is all I care about, what they're trying to cheat or if they're successful is irrelevant. They're trying to cheat.

[Temperans]

Would it still be "cheating" if the creature really was an ogre and they still chucked the Alchemist Fire?

Right now it seems like the only real link is "I know it's a troll and any use of fire without a check is not allowed". Doesnt matter what the PC or player is thinking.

[Rysky]

Yes because they're operating on zero-previosuly established knowledge that trolls are weak to fire. Doesn't matter that they screwed up.

Come from an area with trolls and worked that backstory out with the GM? Made a Recall Knowledge check? Encountered Trolls previosuly? All cool.

[Nefreet]

This isn't a new philosophy, either. Knowledge checks were required in the first Pathfinder, and still are in Starfinder.

[Vidmaster7]

So the problem with this thread is that you guys are approaching a subject that may very well have the very most table variance I could imagine.

A general statement that I believe probably applies to everyone"
I think it is impossible to remove meta-gaming entirely from a game. You are not physically capable of completely separating your mind form that of the character you are playing. It may be more obvious with monster encounters but lets say the DM sets a puzzle trap can you really say your not drawing from your own knowledge to solve a puzzle? However for my games an the people I've played with we have a bit of an agreement we try to not meta-game as best we can. New characters each example

So since trolls are popular I will give the 5 times that I can remember using trolls starting with the earliest.

1st troll use: Party didn't know a troll would keep healing without fire or acid no meta-game at all.

2nd time. Players knew how to beat troll but did this awkward song and dance about figuring it out for their characters.

3rd time. players went right to fire spells and acid vials. This irritated me because It was some obvious meta-gaming but I thought about how often they as players had fought trolls and with them popping up so much in my games they are probably pretty common in my world by now so it would make sense for people to go hey you know trolls and fire, man the works.

4th time. I used a classed troll ranger at range so they couldn't figure it out till they got close enough

5th time the most effective single troll I've ever used. A troll in full plate. They couldn't figure out it was a troll. It got up 3 times and killed party members.

I know some players in my games when they see a monster they recognize but their character doesn't will remain quiet and not help with figuring it out even though their character normally would the player knows to much. This is also meta gaming in a way. It is the player affecting the characters actions with their knowledge. It's a fine line to walk in fact maybe to fine.

I trust my players not to go and memorize every monster's stat block and use it against me. It's mutual respect that helps games flow smoothly. I do make them make knowledge checks for info on monsters. Some of my favorite no knowledge common no roll required facts are like assuming all dragons breath fire (even tho some don't).

Meta gaming is complex and the table variance is huge.

[thenobledrake]

wait... what?

How in the actual <expletive deleted> is it cheating for a player to throw alchemist's fire at what they believe to be an ogre?

"Doesn't matter that you guessed ogre instead of troll, you were still trying to trigger the troll's weakness" Huh?

"You don't know trolls are weak to fire so you can't do that, doesn't matter that you think you're attacking an ogre right now." ...uhhh?

It seems like y'all just really can't fathom that a player is ever not trying to cheat unless they are constantly rolling Recall Knowledge or only using the same attack options over and over no matter what you, the GM, lay out for them in treasures.

[Vidmaster7]

I think you are purposefully misconstruing what they were saying.

[Temperans]

*previously: If the player fails the check and identifies the Troll as an Ogre but still chucks fire, the response was "it's kind of cheating".

So I asked,

me wrote:

Would it still be "cheating" if the creature really was an ogre and they still chucked the Alchemist Fire?

Right now it seems like the only real link is "I know it's a troll and any use of fire without a check is not allowed". Doesnt matter what the PC or player is thinking

Which Risky responded with,

Risky wrote:

Yes because they're operating on zero-previosuly established knowledge that trolls are weak to fire. Doesn't matter that they screwed up.

Come from an area with trolls and worked that backstory out with the GM? Made a Recall Knowledge check? Encountered Trolls previosuly? All cool.

So either there was an an error in communication or a player has to follow a script.

[Malk_Content]

Nobledrake you appear to be operating in a land in which 0 surrounding context is allowed to be considered when evaluating a desicion.

[Vidmaster7]

So if your character is acting on information they wouldn't poses no matter how they use it or what they do with it. That is meta-gaming. If a player says yeah that is a troll even tho the character has not fought one before and uses a fire source on it then that is metagaming. Regardless of what it is.

[Temperans]

That second part actually sounds more like stereotyping and racism than metagaming, still bad but a totally different problem.

[Malk_Content]

Temperans wrote:

That second part actually sounds more like stereotyping and racism than metagaming, still bad but a totally different problem.

Wait what?

[Vidmaster7]

Yeah I would also like to know which part and post your referencing. You didn't quote man!

[thenobledrake]

Malk_Content wrote:

Nobledrake you appear to be operating in a land in which 0 surrounding context is allowed to be considered when evaluating a desicion.

I'm sure that the extreme stance of the other side of this discussion is making my own statements look extreme as well, but no - I'm not saying that context isn't allowed to be considered.

If anything, I'm saying all of the context has to be considered - while the other side of the discussion is only allowing half of the context to be considered.

The GM knows what the monster they've put in front of the character is, and they know how long whatever attack options the character has available have been available = but they do not, unless the player is actually telling them, know what the player is thinking in regards to what monster they think the character is facing or why they are thinking it's okay to use a particular sort of attack.

A player thinking they are throwing fire at an ogre or a hag is a completely different context from a player knowing they are throwing fire at a troll - even though some other posters have appeared to claim otherwise.

[Ruzza]

If we get the thread topic to turn into: "Throwing fire at trolls is racist," then we'll have finally justified the need for three threads about this.

[Vidmaster7]

Ruzza wrote:

If we get the thread topic to turn into: "Throwing fire at trolls is racist," then we'll have finally justified the need for three threads about this.

I'm currently strongly resisting the urge to dive into this and analyse as it might be a derailment.

[beowulf99]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

If we get the thread topic to turn into: "Throwing fire at trolls is racist," then we'll have finally justified the need for three threads about this.

I'm currently strongly resisting the urge to dive into this and analyse as it might be a derailment.

There are no rails here man. There never were.

But on a serious note, after eating entirely too much turkey and drinking entirely too much egg nog (little bit of brandy), I have come to an epiphany. This discussion is pointless but fun.

So how should a GM approach introducing a new monster into the game? Say you design the Ultitroll, complete with Fire resistance and DR 10 turned off by chickens. Cornish game hens to be specific.

Do you prompt your players for knowledge checks, or just describe the the creature as a troll and wait for what they do? Normally as a GM, I would lead the party a bit and throw them a bone as this is not a standard enemy, but does that mean that I am metagaming For the party?

If the creature just looks like a troll, but has different stats, and you give your players a clue to lead them to attempt a knowledge check regarding the creature, is that okay?

Can a GM metagame?

I have a friend who would play in this guy we knows campaigns. Various systems and he ran them at an LGS. This GM would frequently run "gotcha" style sessions where he would mess with a creatures stats to throw the party off all in the name of stopping them from Metagaming. It went so far as him altering existing spells on the fly in ways meant only to inconvenience the party. Stupid stuff like Tensers Floating Disk (3.5) being unable to carry a particular type of material all of a sudden. But the kicker was his stance on the surprise round. He simply disallowed the party from making surprise attacks against foes. Whether that was through fudging spot checks or simply having the opponent know that the party is coming (and having all of their buffs in place at just the right time to be active) with little or no warning that the party was walking into a trap.

Does this mean that the GM was essentially making the world Metagame against the party? After all he never justified the opponent knowing the party was there. No scouts or guards warnings or anything like that. The big bad would just be ready to fight when they arrived.

[Vidmaster7]

I think depending on how you look at metagaming it is possible for the GM to do so but it's unnecessary. I had a DM who would listen to us make plans and then have his NPC baddie react accordingly to counter them. That seems pretty meta to me. He probably could of just said he was scrying on us or something but I don't think that was the case.

[Malk_Content]

GMs absolutely metagame and I think when its specifically to reduce player efficacy and agency it's the worst thing a person can do in rpgs.

[Mathmuse]

I use a wider definition of metagaming than most people in this thread. My definition is so wide that most of what I would lable metagaming are good behavior rather than bad. Wikipedia's definition (Metagaming) is similar to mine: "Metagaming is a term used in role-playing games, which describes a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances. This can refer to plot information in the game such as secrets or events occurring away from the character, as well as facets of the game's mechanics such as abstract statistics or the precise limits of abilities. Metagaming is an example of "breaking character", as the character is making decisions based on information they couldn't know and thus would not make in reality."

A group of strangers meeting up to form a party is metagaming. The evil characters in that group resolving to never betray their fellow party members is metagaming. The party swallowing the blatant plot hook that begins their first quest is metagaming. All these behaviors help the game.

Using modern slang and cultural references in the mouths of characters is metagaming, though that is a necessity since none of us know Taldoran idioms.

A character learning a foreign technique, such as a Varisian magus learning Dervish Dance from Quadira, without a foreign trainer is metagaming. That magus ditching his rapier to start swinging a scimitar makes the metagaming all the more obvious. Most GMs are okay with this and offer scimitars for sale in the local weapon shop.

A character automatically knowing that a troll has regenertion deactived by fire and acid, when the GM has ruled that this knowledge requires a successful Recall Knowledge check, is metagaming.

Ironically, the opposite, a character who usually attacks with Produce Flame but uses Ray of Frost against a troll because he failed his Recall Knowledge check (no information rather than false information) is also metagaming. The character selected his action due to the the player's knowledge that he would be criticized for using fire.

The troll situation is actually a weak example of metagaming, because the simplest way to predict what is basic information in a setting is that common knowledge among players is basic information in the setting. I don't buy thenobledrake's argument that a GM is unable to distinguish between typical character behavior and atypical character behavior nor deduce the motivation behind it, but I would buy an argument that a troll's weakness to fire should be basic information. Maybe it was mentioned when a shopkeeper tried to sell the fighter some Alchemist's Fire. Maybe children on a town bordering troll territory recite it in their nursery rhymes. Maybe the fighter deduced how a village of 1st-level goblin firebombers managed to survive in the middle of troll territory.

I gave alternative examples of metagaming by the characters Juran and Ishmael, but people still preferred arguing about trolls. And the player who played those two characters in two different campaigns is predictable. He often tries to gain an edge over the other PCs, because he likes glory. In one campaign, treasure was split into even shares between the PCs and an extra share for party needs, such as Wands of Cure Light Wounds. He argued that spending the party share on better gear for his fighter would benefit the party. Sigh. Skipping a Recall Knowledge check for an extra action in combat would fit his style.

Nefreet wrote:

This isn't a new philosophy, either. Knowledge checks were required in the first Pathfinder, and still are in Starfinder.

In Pathfinder 1st Edition, I gave everyone a free action for a knowledge check to identify a new monster. Thus, they did not need to spend an action. In Pathfinder 2nd Edition, knowledge has a cost and that changes the dynamic.

Sadly, I have more fun when the players know what they are fighting. "We don't know what that monster was, but it died when we stabbed it enough," is a dull story. Thus, my players and I developed houserules to increase the knowledge offered by Recall Knowledge so that the check is worth the action.

Malk_Content wrote:

GMs absolutely metagame and I think when its specifically to reduce player efficacy and agency it's the worst thing a person can do in rpgs.

Yes, by my wide definition GMs metagame, too. But I alter the plots in the Paizo modules to add more things fitting the players' interests. When the players go off the rails in their own direction, I often lift scenes from the skipped areas in order to fill in the new scenes, so the world rearranges itself around the PCs in total violation of NPC agency.

[Bill Dunn]

thenobledrake wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

I view Juran's player as metagaming.

I view what happened in that scenario as cheating.

Calling it "metagaming" just muddies the definition of the phrase and confuses discussions on the matter.

It isn’t necessarily either. Juran is asserting narrative control via his character’s actions in that situation, entirely reasonable for some styles of play - just not the traditional D&D/PF style of play.

[Particular Jones]

Personal opinion here I thin kthe term meta-gaming is thrown out WAY too often in the hobby. While also ignoring the common sense an actually character has acquired over the years through adventuring. Low level character never having fought the creature or been the victim of some kind of spell definite metagaming. Mid to high levels it is entire possible the PCs may have run and fought the creature or been the victim of a spell.

To use the Troll example above if the area they are adventuring in is called GenericMapa1 then imo I would consider it metagaming. If it's called MeaTrollland Expect to die it is entirely possible one of the PCs may have heard through stories, legends, or even from the town guards to bring fire and keep an eye out for Trolls.

I truly don't get the idea that an 5th, 10th or even 20th level adventurer must be absolutely clueless as a first level character. That is like saying every day one goes to one job even if it has been for 15-20 years they are completely lacking in any knowledge or experience and each days is like the very first day on the job. Which is simply not true.

No if player XYZ consistently keeps targeting an enemies weakness even if they never fought the creature than I agree it is metagaming. But I'm sorry I see no reason why adventuring party level 10 should pretend not to check for traps, look for secret doors and yes throw Alchemst fire at an enemy especially if they fought or experienced traps before. Sorry I don't play stupid at the table and neither do I want players to do so when I run games.