Taking 20 Podcast - Ep 25 - Metagaming

Episode Date: June 14, 2020

Players using their knowledge to make decisions for their characters is always bad, right?  In this episode, Jeremy talks about the good and bad of metagaming and even cites examples when the DM inadvertently or purposefully provides metagame knowledge to the players.  Come visit us at www.taking20podcast.com

Loyal listeners of Taking20, John4 of RoleplayingTips.com reached out to me with an episode idea, but I'll need your help to make it happen. He's taking GM questions from his readership and asked me to do the same for my listeners. The idea is that we will make an episode where we discuss the questions between the two of us. I love his idea, but I'll need your help to make it a success. What GM questions do you have for us? Even if they've been answered on a previous episode or in a blog post, ask away. We'll mention your name on the podcast, or we can keep your

question anonymous if you prefer. Please send your GM questions to me at feedback at taking20podcast.com. That's feedback at taking20podcast.com. If you can get them to me before the end of June 2020, I would greatly appreciate it. I can't wait to hear from you. Now, on with our regularly scheduled bullshh episode. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for tuning in to Taking20 Podcast, episode 25, Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for tuning in to the Taking20 Podcast, episode 25, all about metagaming. Today's sponsor is Encumbrance, the word that you learned thanks to tabletop RPGs. There's a key terminology difference that we have to make sure we all stay on point with. Player versus character.

To know the difference between the two, use the hammer method. If you hit a character with hammer, you roll damage. If you hit a player with hammer, you roll damage. If you hit a player with hammer, you go to jail. The definition of metagaming in my mind is quite simple. It's players using player knowledge that the character couldn't possibly know to make decisions about what the character would do. By no means is this anywhere near clear-cut. Specifically, defining what a character would know is harder than you think. For example, should a druid know the armor class and hit points of all the creatures she can wild shape into? I mean, theoretically, she would know how relatively hard to hit they are

and how tough things are compared to each other. She would know that a bear's skin is tougher than a wolf's, and bears are generally tougher to kill than wolves are. But exact numbers? Maybe she shouldn't know and knowing them would be metagaming, but knowing them makes the game go by so much faster, so who cares? Should a PC know after slaying the 25th rank-and-file skeleton that they have about 8 hit points? Probably. So what are some examples of bad metagaming? Let's go over some common ones. When fighting monsters, the character who's fighting with a scimitar, which does slashing damage, rolls garbage on the knowledge check, so he doesn't know the species of the creature he's fighting. From the book's description, the player, not the character, the player knows it's a skeleton,

which has damage resistance against slashing weapons. So when it's that next player's turn, the player says, oh, I dropped my scimitar and I'm going to draw my hammer, even though the character failed the knowledge roll. He has no good explanation why, because he hasn't even attacked with the scimitar yet. In this case, the player is using his knowledge, and so the character makes a choice that he wouldn't make

without the knowledge that the player has. So it's a key difference. The character should have no idea that the scimitar will do less damage against a skeleton, but the player knows that, so the player makes his character make that decision as if the character knew, even though the knowledge roll said he shouldn't. Another example of bad in metagaming is when the players use DM tendencies against the DM. DM, the party turns left, proceeds 30 feet down a corridor to a nondescript T intersection. Player one, every time the DM says nondescript, there's a trap. I search the intersection for traps. So the player is using DM tendencies to use certain words to make the character know something that maybe he or she shouldn't. Another example of bad metagaming is prior playthrough of a module. Player. Oh, I remember there's a bugbear around

this corner. I ready my crossbow. The character would have to be psychic to know that. The player knows that because he or she has run through the module before. So using that prior knowledge is bad metagaming. Another example is influencing another player with suggestions when characters aren't together. Player 1 who's alone in the room. I check for ways to open the door. Player 2 across the table. Look for levers behind the statues.

Player 1 may have done that, but player 2 couldn't know what player 1 was doing at that particular moment. Now the worst example of metagaming in my mind is reading the adventure as you're playing it. A player thinks he or she will be an advantage by knowing what's coming. The thing is, a good chunk of the fun of RPGs is the surprise, unexpected monsters and plot twists, hidden traps and clever puzzles that the players and or the characters have to wrangle with and struggle with. Reading the adventure gives you a leg up, sure, but it also puts you in a position to rob the other players of fun. players of fun. I recently read a Reddit thread discussing metagaming and one person told the story of a player who insisted on investigating a closet that the DM had removed from the game entirely. The whole reason that player insisted on investigating the closet that the DM hadn't

mentioned because the player knew that in the module that closet had good loot in it. Needless to say that player got called out for reading the adventure, and I believe they left the group soon after that. Look, metagaming has so many negative effects, and I'm going to highlight two. One, it ruins suspension of disbelief. It takes players out of the game. It's nice sometimes when a player's character gets cut off from the group, and they have to struggle alone. If the rest of the players are all screaming

ideas at them how they can defeat this monster, it does take away a little bit of that challenge of being alone. That challenge that the DM has given specifically to that character so that character can struggle and overcome. The other way it ruins suspension disbelief is it gives these players these godlike ability to give their characters exactly what they need in exactly the right moment. Another way metagaming has a negative effect is it diminishes the fun of other players, puts them at a disadvantage, as I mentioned earlier. Look, you may have studied the monster manual, you may have read the bestiary a hundred times, and you know the exact armor class that this displacer beast has.

But maybe not all the other players do. They want to be there and have fun and just be challenged. Your memorizing of the monster manual just takes the fun away from other people. But it's not all negative. If you've listened to other episodes of mine, you generally know I rarely side 100% on one side of an issue. So I want to make sure I highlight there are minor metagame positive effects as well. One, keeps the game moving. Knowing that a skeleton has eight hit points keeps the game moving. Fighter has multiple attacks per round, hits the first one, does nine damage, and before the DM can even say, yeah, it's dead, the player says, okay, now I'm going to swing at the second one does nine damage and before the DM can even say, yeah, it's dead, the player says,

okay, now I'm going to swing at the second one. Everybody knows you did 12 points of damage once you bypassed its damage reduction and voila, it's going to be dead. Two, it gives characters a reason to be together. Think about it. Independent of any other metagaming rules, is there any way this paladin would put up with this chaotic sorcerer and maybe this slightly evil rogue? Why would they work together, even if they were thrown together by the most dire of circumstances? Paladin's not going to put up with that shit. It's a little bit metagaming, but it enables your party to stay together. There are metagaming reasons why these particular characters are adventuring together, it's because the players are around the same table or connected to the same online session. So minor metagaming has some

positive effects. And what do I mean by minor? It's not unreasonable to expect a character who lived in an area that was regularly attacked by goblins to know that goblins have a penchant for using fire. That just makes sense. Forcing checks and rolls in this situation just slows the game down. To me, that's the equivalent of, okay, while you're putting your socks on, make a dex check. Listen, I've been guilty of metagaming as a DM, and yes, DMs can metagame.

I'm going to give you some examples. Player, I think I can sneak up on that golem with a hundred eyes all over its body me as a dm you sure now there's the metagaming me asking are you sure so because the player then says uh i think i'll attack it from range technically when i asked are you sure it gave that player metagame knowledge that the character may not have had especially the way i asked it are you sure? Kind of like, do you really want to be this stupid? Really, it's my fault that I did it. But here's the thing.

Are you sure is a powerful tool for DMs. I was recently DMing a game for younger players. The party had captured a kobold who was willing to give a major plot point to the PCs, and that kobold was singing on his former friends like Adele. The cleric of a good deity said, let's cut out his tongue when he's done talking. I looked at him very slowly and said, are you sure, given that you're a cleric of insert deity's name here? You could hear the mental brakes being hit when he said, oh, she'd probably be pretty upset if I did that. Are you sure kept him from potentially losing his cleric powers and doing something that was an anathema to his faith.

Sometimes are you sure that phrase can help players see the folly of a certain choice. Maybe they didn't hear the description, maybe they didn't understand the situation, or maybe they hadn't thought it all the way through. they didn't understand the situation, or maybe they hadn't thought it all the way through. To a broader concept, player metagaming isn't automatically bad. One of my campaigns that I'm running right now, the players metagame the shit out of everything. If they're having fun and I'm having fun running it, who cares if they metagame? I just reskin some things and surprise them every now and then. A red-skinned dragon that breathed acid instead of fire. Whoopsie!

Also, a skeleton that was made up of bones with a swarm property. So they said, oh, this is just a regular skeleton, and pulled out the hammers. When they swung through, it was doing considerably less damage than they expected. So how do you know if metagaming's a problem? Number one, and you've heard this from me before, read your table. Is there only one person or maybe two people metagaming and the rest of the players all roll their eyes when they do it? Are there a couple of characters that always seem to be prepared, always have the exact right damage against every monster type, and they use

the exact right elemental attacks to maximize the possible damage they can do, even if the character has never run into an ooze before. Do characters of metagaming players always seem to be the focus? They always seem to be in the spotlight. They always get the kill. They always know the weaknesses of the enemy. Now it's a problem.

The rest of your players are probably not having as much fun because the other players are stealing the spotlight and not giving the other players the opportunity to shine. So if it is a problem, what can you do? You know me. I'm keen on communication. Talk to the player. Sit down with them one-on-one. Let them know how their metagaming is hurting the narrative or the game at large.

Please note, I said sit down one-on-one, let them know how their metagaming is hurting the narrative or the game at large. Please note, I said sit down one-on-one. Very rarely am I going to condone calling someone out in front of everybody. It's management 101. You praise in public and correct in private. Sit down with them knee-to-knee, person-to-person, nose-to-nose, geez, what are you kissing them? nose, not nose to nose, geez, what are you kissing them? Stop the music. I can't afford the rights. Moving on. Sit down with them face to face and say, this is a problem and this is why it's a problem. Now there are exceptions, times when you need to speak up immediately to stop something from happening. If one player keeps coaching another player, even though he or she isn't there, If one player keeps coaching another player even though he or she isn't there, that's one I would address immediately. A simple, hey, you're not there, or she can't hear you, usually gets the message across.

If one player is using knowledge that his or her character doesn't have, that's another one I would address immediately. There's no way your character could possibly know that. I have a house rule that prohibits looking up monsters at the table. It doesn't stop metagaming entirely, but at least it discourages it. Also, ask the players not to read the module you are running. That's in my session zero every time I start a campaign. If I'm using a pre-built module or a pre-built adventure path or adventure season or whatever your gaming system calls what you're running, I ask them, look, we are running Lost Mines of Phandelver. We are running

Wrath of the Righteous. Do not go read this book because it will take away your fun. If it is a problem, do find out if it's just one player or is it pervasive throughout your table. it is a problem, do find out if it's just one player or is it pervasive throughout your table. If it's one player, address it with the player. If it's pervasive and you're the only one that has a problem with it, maybe take a break. Step away from this particular gaming group for just a little bit. Give it a couple of weeks. Let it rest because if you're the only one with a problem with it, maybe the problem is you. Metagaming can be an issue. It's not guaranteed to be an issue, but it can be. If one or a small number of players are consistently hogging the spotlight because of what the player knows, not because of what the character knows,

it robs the fun from the rest of the group. And let's keep this in mind. We're all playing RPGs because it's fun. We want to get together with friends, and we all want to have a good time. We're not all here to get together just so Kevin can kill another skeleton. Thank you all for listening to Taking 20, Episode 25,

all about player metagaming. Once again, I want to thank our sponsor, Incumbrance. It's a heavy topic to discuss with your DM. My name is Jeremy Shelley, and I hope that your next game is your best game.