Metagaming can be Good in Dnd 5e?!

Check out The Divine Forge - Well of the Aether Kickstarter: www.kickstarter.com/projects/...
Thank you very much Quest Nest for sponsoring this video!
Link to tabletop builds article about Metagaming: tabletopbuilds.com/metagaming/
Link to patreon, merch shop, discord and twitter:
www.patreon.com/Packtactics?f...
/ discord
/ pack_tacticss
my-store-c2baed.creator-sprin...
My tokens by Mrakobulka: / mrako_bulka
Gator art by Drakeven: / drakeven1
Kobold reading a scroll art by Novatonix:
kzbin.info/door/mJF...

[@PackTactics]

Check out The Divine Forge - Well of the Aether Kickstarter: www.kickstarter.com/projects/questnest/a-5e-gm-friendly-adventure-the-divine-forge?ref=czx1oo Thank you very much Quest Nest for sponsoring this video!

[@DonkeyDoormatDrive]

Finally someone I agree with on this. Policing metagaming is a drag on play in every respect, fostering wholesome metagaming is a genuine boon and is often mutually exclusive to policing metagaming RP. If you take any example of problematic "metagaming" and look a little deeper you will find another more serious root problem underneath, that if you fixed the root problem like being responsible with PC or plot secrets, respecting the verisimilitude of the setting, working cooperatively with your party, or not hogging the lime light. You fix the root issue and the "metagaming" will still happen but it will instead be used positively by the players. If you don't believe your fellows can use metagaming responsibly, then they have hazardous behaviors that are root problems. Saying no metagaming is putting a lid on a glass jar with a bomb inside.

[@LucanVaris]

New video idea, based on the updated OneD&D Races: Furries Break OneD&D: Ardling Edition. Essentially, Ardlings (the animal-headed celestials) have been updated in the most recent OneD&D playtest material, and one of their racial bonuses is a doozy: Racer (Deer, Dog, Horse, Triceratops). When you take the Dash Action, your Speed increases for that Action. The increase equals ten times your Proficiency Bonus. Now, let's make a Level 1 Horse Ardling Wizard, who just so happened to have picked up the spells Longstrider and Expeditious Retreat. If I cast Longstrider on myself, my movement speed increases to 40 feet (seems alright so far). If I dash as an Action later, the total distance I can travel goes up to a _hundred,_ due to the extra 20 foot of movement from my race. Expeditious Retreat time. I now Dash again as a Bonus Action, on top of a Main Action Dash, thus moving an additional _sixty_ feet. This gives me a grand total of 160 feet of movement, at level 1, and the amount of horsepower I get only goes up as I level. Naturally, you don't really _need_ that much movement at level 1. However, this is an example of how much top speed you can get, based solely off of a class/race choice. Even if you only take Expeditious Retreat (or go with some other class with access to Bonus Action Dashes), this still means that you get 80-120 feet of non-Action movement per-turn (due to how this feature scales with your Proficiency Bonus), and can thus kite out most enemies at level 1. Things only get crazier if you go Bladesinger, or pick up anything else that increases your speed, such as the Mobile feat or Boots of Speed. I like a lot of the other versions of Ardling (Climber gets a climb speed and a stronger unarmed strike, Flyer gets Feather Fall as a natural ability, along with an improved Jump, and Swimmer gets your usual water-based buffs, plus resistance to Cold Damage), but I feel like the kiting potential is what allows the Racer Ardling to come out on top of everyone, including other non-Ardling races, like Tabaxi. Don't get me wrong. Tabaxis are quick, but only in short bursts. Meanwhile, Racer Ardlings are marathon runners, who only get faster the longer their character has been in the running, in a manner of speaking.

[@zinogrevz7389]

Dear Pack Tactics, i noticed a funny rules problem when looking into twf handcrossbows. the argument seems to be that a free hand is needed for the Ammunition property. I understand and agree. HOWEVER: A longbow, as a twohanded weapon, requires two hands to attack with it. IF BOTH HANDS ARE FULL, WERE IS THE FREE HAND REQUIRED BY THE AMMUNITION PROPERTY? does that mean we cant attack with longbows RAW? or am i missing something?

[@arcticbanana66]

Back when I was in college, around 2002-2003, I had joined the gaming club, and we started a D&D campaign. For our first adventure the party was hired to clear out a cave system that monsters were regularly coming out of and harassing the surrounding area. A few rooms into the dungeon we encountered a one-way door that we wouldn't be able to come back out through. Some of the party wanted to leave at least one person behind to open the door so everyone else could get back out. I suggested we not split the party and all of us go through because, since monsters are constantly coming in and out of this place, there obviously must be a way back out. The DM and some of the players proceeded to try to call me out for metagaming (The DM specifically said "Your character wouldn't know that I would design the dungeon that way"), even though my resoning had nothing to do with game design, it was just simple logic that monsters coming out of the cave must have a way to _get out of the cave._

[@AlexT7916]

It just sounds like that group was full of assholes

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Don't confuse the stupidity of players with meta gaming. Especially if its the DM who thinks otherwise. Metagaming can be done by DMs too.

[@arcticbanana66]

There was another incident just prior to the One-way Door Room. The adventure began with an injured NPC rushing into the Adventurer's Guild and asking for help with this dungeon. He had gone in with his party and ran into trouble, and he was the one to come back to town for help. In the room before the controversial door, the party encountered a group consisting of two humans and an elf, which they completely destroyed in the surprise round. I couldn't say anything in the moment as I had rolled last in initiative, but I made it clear that I was _pretty sure_ they had just murdered that guy's party. We saw four sets of footprints going in and only one coming out, and the guy never said his party had been killed. I'm pretty sure I was the only person in this group who was paying attention to details. Also, this DM would start almost every encounter, even intended non-combat encounters, with the phrase "roll for initiative". For example, at one point the party was sent out to meet a messenger from another kingdom to make sure he made it to his destination safely; as we traveled, we encountered a horseman riding fast towards us, "roll for initiative". The party immediately kills him with ranged attacks while I say "guys, I think this is our guy", and while looting his body they discover he was the messenger. The party managed to escape any consequences by saying he was already dead by the time we got to him, which wasn't _technically_ a lie. This kind of thing was a regular occurrence. I wound up leaving that group when the DM messaged me before a session telling me to bring a new character, because the other players decided to kill my character in his sleep because their characters didn't like how my negotiating out of some (clearly non-combat) encounters was "robbing them of loot and experience".

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@arcticbanana66 Oof... That's not normal. Far from the average. Even Adventure League tables don't do this.

[@Tmanowns]

@@absolstoryoffiction6615 I would honestly say DMs metagame the most and the worst. Often making encounters tailored either for or against specific players. Metagaming is simply a tool. Sometimes used to give a player a chance to shine and make memories, and sometimes used to curbstomp a player whose build you don't like.

[@CivilWarMan]

I played in a Curse of Strahd campaign as a Paladin, and the DM was a little suspicious when during one fight we were attacked by wolves and on my first turn I had my character draw the silver short sword he picked up in Death House instead of his normal warhammer, since I am familiar with Curse of Strahd and so I out of character I knew the encounter included werewolves. I pointed out that my Paladin was an experienced monster hunter, and he just saw one of the wolves tank a hit from his Barbarian friend, and he was paranoid enough that his first instinct would be to assume that they are all werewolves until proven otherwise, which made the DM agree that it was a reasonable decision for him to make. IMO, metagaming is fine as long as there is an explanation as to why the character would make that decision. For my Paladin, his background made it reasonable to assume that he at least heard of the capabilities of werewolves, if not already fought some. For the troll example in the video it's as simple as "Most creatures don't react well to being set on fire."

[@LassBisharp]

I mean, if there's an explanation for why your character would do it, it's not metagaming.

[@sanserof7]

People will call out literally any knowledge about common monsters metagaming. Oh your character knows that Beholders are very dangerous monsters? How does he know that? Because they are extremely well known and notorious monsters in his world. My characters don't live under a rock, they know things about the world they live in.

[@TheMountainLynx]

As a DM, if I hear the question "I as a player know what we're dealing with, but would my character?" I'll happily allow them an appropriate skill check to be able to use that knowledge, and even be generous with the DC.

[@dondumitru7093]

3.5 had some statblocks showing what Knowledge rolls would grant what information. I don't wait for my players to ask for a roll. When I describe the encounter and finish describing the creatures, I call for the roll right then, because the result of that roll Is What Characters Would Know i.e. integral to the description of the encounter I am giving to players.

[@gabrielamaral978]

Exactly

[@ahealthkit2745]

I feel like this is best practice, this is how my GM does it in their games.

[@kdaviper]

At some level we have to assume that the pcs know about the world they are in. Would they just assume lava isn't hot until they touch it because it doesn't specifically say that it is so in their character descriptions? If a party runs into a pack of wolves they probably wouldn't assume they are just a pack of lost furry dogs... If a player spends several hours looking at stat blocks and abilities, their character could have done similar research. Now opening the mm and looking up stat blocks in the middle of a game seems cheaty to me unless you're looking up stats for a summon.

[@gabrielamaral978]

@@kdaviper yeah, but it have to be reasonable. Knowing about ancient gods/demigods, the hierachy of 9 hells or how the raksasha soul Works might not be reasonable, more so if they are a low int character.

[@BennysGamingAttic]

I had a DM fight metagaming so hard that he wouldn't even describe the enemies we were fighting until after. He wouldn't tell me how tall something was, what weapons they had, nothing. It was so odd. I found out I was fighting a giant ogre with goblin archers on its back. I literally had no idea.

[@_zurr]

Guy must've been traumatized by some asshole to have gone to insane extremes like that

[@BennysGamingAttic]

@@_zurr he just enjoyed being DM and lording it over players.

[@MagiofAsura]

Yeah, that's pretty dick. I understand not using the name of a monster but not even describing what you guys are fighting?

[@BennysGamingAttic]

@@MagiofAsura Yup

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

That's not metagaming... That's a red flag on the DM.

[@bayardmartins]

In the tables I'm the DM metagaming is welcome. The challenges are for the players, not the characters. Whenever they stumble a new kind of monster I ask if a player knows what it is, and it's powers. If a players knows I invite them to tell us how the character may know this, stories about mentors, bonfire tales, village folklore and stuff come up from this opportunities. I highly recomend trying this. When a player uses their knowledge about what's happening somewhere else because the party is splited, or if there's a character invisible and this kind of stuff I don't consider metagaming, is just cheating...

[@dondumitru7093]

Asking for the player to role play and describe how their character knows something is excellent. I am going to try to remember that for my own table.

[@Hi-kc4bv]

Yea this is a great idea

[@cakeyeater7392]

That second case of knowing current events that they shouldn't, it's often a good idea to physically separate players, or communicate via written messages to keep things secret

[@sunname6252]

"Stories about mentors, bonfire tales, village folklore" Thank you, characters aren't empty headed til the first time they encounter a creature, They WILL have heard stories about monsters, especially local or famous ones growing up, not all need be correct outright, because surprises can be fun. For example: People in the American midwest will probably know how to tell a coral and corn snake apart without ever having seen one because of a little rhyme. Not to mention I'd wager a huge amount of the Western and Japanese world know how to respond to most Greek and Christian monsters because of video games or other media and even Westerners with no familiarity with Japanese, especially Shinto myths will probably have picked on a few random critters and how to respond to them.

[@rodlimadiniz]

Metagaming is a necessity. Some degree of it, anyway. I learned this one time a new group of players refused to interact with the clues and hooks I gave them. They refused to go on with the adventure because it was too dangerous, and thought that their characters needed convincing to go in the cave. I could have designed that adventure in a different way and make it more railroady, but I don't want to worry about that. I want my players to understand that I'm proposing a fun experience to everyone by laying breadcrumbs in front of them, and that if they follow them and interact with them, nice things will come out of it, even if it makes no sense in the character's perspective. This is what happens when a GM describes an NPC quietly crying in the corner. Would it make sense for you, a complete stranger, to go and ask what's wrong? Would it make sense for them to trust your character? Absolutely not! But we all know what's going to happen: you're going to ask them what's wrong, and they'll throw a side quest your way. That's metagaming, and that's how the game is supposed to be played!

[@reubenconner1679]

Good point

[@Greywander87]

It depends where you encounter them. An NPC crying in the corner of a tavern? Sure, I'll bite. An NPC crying in the corner of a dungeon? Or in the middle of a forest? That's some fey crap, I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole. There's a shockingly high chance you'll find yourself trapped and unable to do anything but watch as the NPC takes your place and pretends to be you. If it doesn't just outright eat you on the spot. And that's not metagaming, that's just being genre savvy. How many people need to get eaten by crying figures in the forest before people start to wise up?

[@EnraiChannel]

@@Greywander87 If your DM has always messed with you with those, then that's kind of sad. DM's job is not to kill you, though the risk should be there at times.

[@Greywander87]

@@EnraiChannel Nah, I hardly even get a chance to play, and no DM has ever done that to me. I tend toward Simulationism, as well as Combat as War, so stuff like this should be expected. Both of those incline me towards a more realistic approach to the setting and the dangers within, rather than artificially leveling the playing field to make sure things are "fair" for the players. Fey are suppose to be terrifying monsters that pull tricks like this, and making them not do that is dumbing them down and making them less interesting. Likewise, I'm not going to hold the players' hands; it's their responsibility to recognize danger and not do something stupid. At the same time, with proper planning and preparation, and perhaps a healthy dose of good luck, the players should be able to bring down an enemy far above their weight class by employing tricks of their own. Combat as War is all about fighting dirty or not at all, stacking as many advantages in your favor as you can or retreating until the odds become more favorable. After all, your life is on the line, so it doesn't make sense to risk it more than you have to. It's not a style of play that will appeal to everyone, but it's one I like. It rewards you for playing smarter and not just having high stats or powerful abilities (although those always help).

[@tscoff]

One of my favorite meta gaming experienced: DM: Did you know what that creature was? Me: Yes, but my character didn’t. That’s why I used a spell against it that did damage that it’s resistant to, it’s what my character would have done. DM: I forgot all about it being resistant to that damage!

[@MrCactuar13]

I think knowing of a troll's weaknesses or Medusa's petrification are perfectly acceptable forms of metagaming. These are at least partially based on real world legends that many people would be familiar with. Presumably, these legends and folk tales would be prevalent in a DND setting as well. It's not a stretch to say that some village elder taught your character to throw fire/acid at trolls or you heard stories about the Medusa. And since this information is very difficult for players to unlearn, it could at least justify a reason that this carryover in knowledge came from legends of a player's previous character's exploits. It makes for some fun meta-narrative as well.

[@theuncalledfor]

Yeah, monsters that aren't super obscure in-universe should be well-known to the characters. Like, why wouldn't your character know what a basilisk is, if they just live in the overworld and exist as an ever-present danger to everyone who wanders nearby? If it's a freshly created monstrosity that no one in-universe has seen before, or if it's something that lives so far away from civilization that people using the roads to travel would never have to worry about it, then yeah, the characters probably shouldn't know its weaknesses and special dangers.

[@qiidian1760]

The most important thing in giving that info is that it now changes the focus of the party from blindly doing their own things to trying to counter these mechanics. This adds another dimension to the game and makes fights more interesting

[@MyLittlePonyTheater]

This exactly. Your characters have lives of their own, and as adventurers, it's imperative that they understand possible threats they might face during an adventure. Literature existed in our world to teach us a great many things, although not all of it was reliable. Thus, literature likely exists in the D&D world as well, and a player's knowledge about monsters can be explained as their character having read a bestiary or two. If the DM changes something about said monster, then the character must have gotten bad information from the books they've read or the training they've received. Remember that some characters can be outright drastically more intelligent and learned than their players. You can play a 500-year-old elf sage who's spent his entire life reading and learning about all the great mysteries of the multiiverse, funding himself by educating nobles and their children, having a proficiency in all Intelligence skills and having a higher-than-20 Intelligence score. That elf probably has a lot more knowledge about his own world than you do about some random fantasy setting, so acting on your own knowledge would be entirely in-line with that character. Then, obviously, those characters are hired as tutors - drastically more intelligent and capable tutors than we had in the middle ages in our world - so even characters who aren't 500-year-old ultra-brilliant elf sages would still be able to claim that that elf's lectures or books lead them to the same information you know as a player. There seems to be this utterly wrong interpretation of D&D that every character a player can possibly make has to be made with the sum total knowledge about their own world that the Men of Bree have in Tolkien's universe. A PC is an adventurer - often a career choice only the best and brightest can hold, and most of the popular settings of D&D, such as the Forgotten Realms, have a lot more information repositories than people expect, from grand libraries to brilliant tutors to actual gods of knowledge bestowing their information on their chosen. Adventurers will likely know all of the information required to keep them alive, or they wouldn't be adventuring for very long.

[@LocalMaple]

“Hey look, a red dragon! I’ll use Fireball on it!” - No one ever in that universe

[@gabrielamaral978]

Unless it is. In a world were monster are actually rare, it can be unreasonable to know this. Normally i just twist it like "medusa never had petrification vision, is actually *insert other system that she uses to petrify*" Because otherwise some players cant stop metagaming.

[@ryancparker]

In conclusion: Memorize the Monster Manual in your spare time, always always take Fire Bolt, be very careful when you come across realistic life-sized statues with terrified looks on their faces, and ask yourself if you’ve ever seen an animal laugh.

[@rafaelroaf-esparza4176]

Chill Touch also works for trolls, damage may not be as good but it has so many other features a cantrip! Namely having a poorly named spell for the actual effect. :P

[@mailcs06]

I've heard a hyena laugh.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

@@mailcs06 Cast Hideous Laughter on hyenas, seals, and no other animals.

[@lilithsstuff]

The next person to call out metagaming just because it's metagaming will have their air fryer confiscated

[@augustus1138]

😱😱😱

[@DDCRExposed]

Not my air fryer! I love my air fryer!!!

[@augustus1138]

@@DDCRExposed I HAVEN’T EVEN USED MINE YET!!

[@Calebgoblin]

you wouldn't

[@qchtohere8636]

Joke's on you. Metagamers use aluminum foil and a hair dryer.

[@joshuatran1556]

As a DM, metagaming is fine because the players are working with incomplete information. They can make a plan but can't always account for complications. There's also a certain amount of coordination and heads up gaming that I expect, which is a tool for me to move the story along.

[@FlOz127]

Sometimes when I'm metagaming, I'll ask the dm if I can roll an intelligence check to know if my character knows what I know. It helps me separate my character from myself and incentivizes me not to dump INT.

[@TheAegisClaw]

Shouldn't that really be wisdom? 😉

[@Dalenthas]

One of the worst experiences I've had in recent memory was playing an Order of Scribes Wizard with the ability to tailor my damage types for whatever we were fighting, only to be stonewalled by the DM as to what the monsters were actually weak against. I hit a mechanical spider thing with lightning and to this day I still don't know if it did normal damage, double damage, half damage, or possibly even healed it. The DM allowed me one Insight check when I hit it, I rolled a 4, end of story. Great, I wasted one of my 3 spell slots not learning anything.

[@kevingriffith6011]

I think there's probably a line that could be drawn between Narrative Metagaming and Mechanical Metagaming. Most of the time Mechanical metagaming (the kind you discussed in this video) is fine, the characters have inhabited this world far longer than the players have and are probably familiar with the rules it plays by even if they don't think in terms of Hit Points and Experience Points. It's Narrative metagaming when things get a little hairy: We'll say the party is split up, one character is at a dinner party with a bunch of NPCs while the other is doing some investigating across town. The player across town learns that one of the NPCs at that dinner is the killer they've been searching for, but has no way to tell the other PC... and yet the PC at the dinner party contrives a reason to shoot the killer on the spot. That's pretty obviously metagaming. When a character uses metagame information to impact the story is when things get ugly, and again sometimes this is healthy too: In the example you mentioned with the new PC, it's perfectly fine to be mistrusting of them and push back against them a bit for some fun roleplay, but at the end of the day that's the character they brought and they came to play, so be flexible. If you, the player, know that the game master is planning on running "The Keep on the Borderlands" then a little buy-in to not just outright avoid going to the borderlands or investigating any keeps is healthy for the game.

[@wanderer7965]

The issue is that narrative metagaming is impossible to avoid, even moreso than mechanical metagaming. If a DM tells information that's happening, that's forcing a metagaming situation in play, and unless your players are able to completely disassociate themselves from their characters, that is going to end up playing as knowledge that their *characters* know, whether they intend it or not.

[@kevingriffith6011]

@@wanderer7965 It's not that difficult to willingly have your character act as though they don't have information that you do. Hell, I actually do appreciate adding in that little bit of dramatic irony to the table. Admittedly, yes, it's difficult to not be effected *at all* by any information that you have that your character doesn't (I've intentionally walked into a few traps I knew existed but my character didn't, for example), but you can make a conscious effort not to directly act on information you know your character doesn't know.

[@wanderer7965]

@@kevingriffith6011 Then let me ask you this: how does one *act* like they don't know something? A lot of the time, it's merely a matter of not doing something that would have been done should that character have known (I.e. going to save a party member when you don't know they're in danger). However, what if the action would be reasonable thing that you would do should you *not* know? Like, let's say you're facing a troll, and you got chill touch, fire bolt, chromatic orb and scorching ray, as well as spells like hideous laughter and magic missile. Now, here's the question: why would you not use Scorching Ray? If your character doesn't know that trolls are weak to fire, why would that stop them from using it? Out of the available options, it's likely the best one for someone to use as it's the one that deals the most damage. But you *know* that trolls are weak to fire, and have to act as if your character doesn't. So they would have to use chromatic orb with thunder damage, up casted to second level. But, in doing so, you made them choose an option that is known to be bad *in character* for immersion. It's quite literally someone metagaming in a way that breaks immersion *in an attempt to not do exactly that*

[@kevingriffith6011]

@@wanderer7965 Ok, so I think you entirely misunderstood what I meant by Narrative metagaming, because the troll scenario you're describing is, in fact, mechanical metagaming, and it depends on the table. In my tables, knowing trolls are weak to fire and acid is actually common knowledge IN THE SETTING, so nobody's guessing that. Same thing with things like the various general weaknesses that fey, demons, devils have. If the point of the encounter is for the players to figure out the weakness, or to include a reward for the character having a specific knowledge skill then I homebrew the monster specifically for that scenario. Let's go with the other example though: Reacting to your friend in danger. Are they in the same room? Sure. Are they in the room next to you? Absolutely, as long as the danger isn't specifically about not making any noise. Are they on the other side of the keep? If they're shouting, sure. Other side of town? Only if they're contacting you with magic or sending up smoke signals or something. When I talk about "narrative metagaming", what I mean is less about exploiting a weakness that you know as a player or playing in a way that doesn't make sense in character but it does mechanically (like thinking in terms of HP, EXP, Saves, ETC) and more about acting on specific information about their current situation that they expressly shouldn't have. I'm talking about a player attacking their ally on sight because they know that said ally was replaced by a shapechanger in a different scene... or being excessively defensive around an ally because they know that ally was dominated, even though their character never saw that happen. Things where the entire point of the encounter is that the character doesn't know. Naturally, I could take the player into another room to do the scene, but that's a hassle that bogs the game down that I don't need to do if I can trust my players to not metagame.

[@wanderer7965]

@@kevingriffith6011 Indeed. The idea of a character being dominated without the other characters knowing yet the players do know might come up, and is a real thing. But the question still remains: how does one act like they don't know someone is being mind controlled? Because again, these are things being levied by the DM, so you need to prove it. And what does one do to prove it? Well, there's really two options that you could employ, but they both suck in this case. Option one is to not interact with the change. At all. No asking questions, no rolls, no reaction to *anything* relating to it. This, from what I can tell, is something that a DM *doesn't* want to happen. After all: What's the point in doing all of this in the open, letting the other players know about it if they do nothing about it other than figuratively shrug and move on. Which is why option two exists; interact in some way about it. Which requires you to do a circus act of mental gymnastics to try and explain why your character is interacting when, by all accounts, they shouldn't want to do so. If it's something they don't know, why would they be able to interact with it? Now, let's say this is done in secret, so that the only party member who knows that the character has been replaced is the player of that character. What then? *Nothing* We're back to the issue of the first problem. The DM has something that they planned for gets completely ignored. It does, in essence, nothing. It's a murder mystery, *but no one knows that there's even been a murder except for the victim.* And even then, there are some DMs that don't even do *that.* Having the entire party turn into shapeshifters without the players knowing. And that kind of DM is a Dick with a control problem. This is why I used mechanical metagaming problem to explain why narrative metagaming is wrong. Because it's the exact. Same. Problem. Put in this situation, you are either forced to "metagame" or forced to "not metagame," never able to take into consideration if the character *would* do the Metagaming option, even when not knowing about the information to begin with.

[@MumboJ]

3:21 That throwaway "he's optimizing" line gave me an idea for a villain. Basically, someone cursed with immortality, so they just respawn each time the party kills them. The curse also granted them great magical power, but they are completely new to such power and they are terribly optimized. Each time they respawn, they become slightly more optimized and thus more of a threat, but their "level" technically never changes.

[@grantbaugh2773]

It's also often hard to know what your character will and won't know. I remember a DM once gave us a riddle that I knew immediately, because I had personally heard the riddle in real life before. But would my character have known that? **shrugs**

[@colbyfife4709]

One of the best ways I have always handled it as a player was "Would my character know this?" And let the DM make a ruling or ask for a roll. Works out to prevent other players from being angry about "meta-gaming" because why would a decently experienced adventurer not know some basic information about common enemy encounters? People talk after all

[@qiidian1760]

Thanks for the video, I really appreciate you bringing more awareness to this. I especially liked the fact you mentioned that DMs should give more info to the players, which is something that shouldn't even be necessary to say, but unfortunately the dnd community in general thinks players have more fun when they look like blind people crossing the street. I hope in future videos you could address more DM aspects that are "unhealthy" for the game like fudging and other house rules. For now, thanks for your efforts at trying to be a good influence

[@PackTactics]

I will cover fudging eventually. I have very strong opinions about it.

[@jiminkpen9750]

@@PackTactics *really interested in your take. I have super strong views too :)

[@probablythedm1669]

I tried fudging once when I was a new DM. It was a terrible idea! It killed all verisimilitude and my players no longer trusted my rolls, even if I immediately stopped when they objected. Just the knowledge I had been willing to fudge for one session killed all trust, and once the trust was broken my players found they no longer cared. They essentially felt they had been given "plot armor" and were being railroaded, that their decisions did not matter. They'd make it out no matter what. So the players became passive and I had to essentially drag them along with events they were forced to react to. It was a chore and only one session was really fun for all of us after that. We decided to end on a high note after that session and start a new game with me as a player. This was the second adventure I ever ran, and the last time I was a DM for that group. It felt awful, like a lot of time wasted trying to string them along to keep the campaign moving. I was genuinely really sad about it for a long time, even if I learned a lot of from it. One of them being that I should not fudge rolls, it just does not work for my style of running the game.

[@y2kafka472]

I tried fudging HP once when I was DMing for my family (all new players). I remember the fighter just walloping everything up and down including the boss of the dungeon so I fudged the HP so it would live longer, and everyone had a chance to participate instead of the boss just keeling over round 2. Everyone seemed to enjoy it more especially my dad who had been mostly... uh... Dad: "Can I swing my sword at the birds?" Me: "The birds... flying above you... out of reach?" Dad: "Yes." He was playing a ranger. I knew for a fact he had a bow because I setup his sheet. Oh dad...

[@jeffersonian000]

My current group is composed of experienced DMs, all engineers, and metagaming is feature in our games, not a flaw.

[@sanjaraejour9632]

I remember reading an article from Dragon Magazine back in the '90s about metagaming. The example used was a party coming across a bridge that could be raised and lowered to get into the enemy's lair, and the party looking around for a lever to activate it. The metagaming reason would be "the DM wouldn't make the encounter without a way for the party to lower the bridge, so there must be a lever," whereas an in game reason would be "the enemy would likely have a way to lower the bridge when they aren't there." When it comes to something like creature abilities and weaknesses, a thing to remember is that the characters live in a world where such creatures exist, and so there would be plenty of stories about them. Not all of the information from such stories would be accurate, but the general gist would still be widely known except for the most esoteric of creatures.

[@xcelentei]

"My character would probably try and split the party here, but in the interest of keeping the game sensible for the DM He gives this excuse and goes with you" When it comes to logistics or metagaming to smooth out the mechanics, Lampshade it and move on. Most TPKs are caused by scheduling ending the campaign rather than unbalanced encounters so keep the game fun and focused.

[@arielgarcia8833]

I would have my players roll for knowledge about creatures. In Tasha's there's a section called Parleying with Monsters that have suggested skills that they can roll depending on the creature type to gain knowledge on it with the DC = 10 + the creature's CR. I trust my players to not meta if they fail the check though I know that others might have players that will still meta.

[@retayuan123]

I am a lucky DM. My players come to the table with little to no knowledge of the Monster Manual etc. Trolls, Mimics, Vampires were all very exciting for the players to learn about in game. I actually lean towards giving my players as much info as possible, i.e. describing a monster's magical resistance after the monster makes its first save against a spell.

[@xBreaker666]

I love that you changed back to ads related to D&D. cheers i love your great content

[@AleksiJoensuu]

I loved the way basilisks were introduced in Critical Role. The party first found extremely lifelike stone statues which were suspiciously outside civilization, with no-one else in sight. That in itself puts in the clues. There's obviously no hermit statue carver's workshop nearby. The statues are frozen solid mid-movement or reaction with surprised, horrified or other expressions on their faces. They have varying gear and clothing, some statues have wounds, some of them are older and more worn, some more recently "made". And *THEN* the basilisk(s) emerge from their hideouts. They did the same with a white dragon lair, finding frozen solid or even ice-encased corpses. I figure this approach could be used for a lot of different monster abilities. Maybe before the party encounters the rot grubs they might find a corpse that's been/being eaten by grubs except for some areas with burn marks on them, and/or find a few charred rot grub husks next to it. And so on.

[@AleksiJoensuu]

The basilisk lairs made me think of an idea for an evil party. Party goes out looking for basilisk lairs, extracts the statues, casts restoration on them, then demands money or services as payment. Plenty of opportunities for different kinds of play - all horrible. Imagine the contract negotiation table.

[@jamcdonald120]

6:15 read that again. the troll CANT die unless you shutdown its regen. remember, HP doesnt go negative

[@FaisLittleWhiteRaven]

This is pretty cool take on the topic

[@benw7616]

I encountered this situation with a troll, my char always started off combat with fire bolt, as it was there best cantrip and we where still low level so not many spell slots. The DM said I was metagaming even tho firebolt was the only cantrip I used upto that fight.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

That's not meta gaming. lol But DMs shouldn't act so... Terribly.

[@AtelierGod]

As with most things I say the “intent” is more important than the action, trolls being not being able to regenerate after being hit with fire or acid is far from malicious meta gaming than let’s say, “I know we don’t know anything about this creature, but here’s the entire stat block!” An intent can change the meaning behind something much more than the action itself.

[@LectionARICCLARK]

Excellent, thoughtful video.

[@smob0]

I have recently been making my own modified monsters in my campaign and it's been working out nice. I use these monsters as a way to have the "learn how the fight works" experience. Everyone can know what a Medusa is, and you can even look at the statblock, but you don't get to look at my notes, so I can control the information on the Medusa priestess in this dungeon. Maybe you learn through exploring that they have a weakness to fire and are immune or resist to cold because they grew up in the arctic or something.

[@abelsampaio389]

At times if a player asks if he knows information X or Y, I ask him to roll an int check. Sometimes, if it's a very famous monsters, as a medusa or a troll, I can just tell it's common sense. Other times, I leave it entirely on the player's choice: when he asks, I just answer "do you think your character should know? why?" this usually has the player thinking rationally about the character, maybe in the player never thought of. At times it's "well, my character has the acolyte background, she might have read about these undead in a scroll or something" or "nah, my character is a soldier with 8 int, he probably won't know". Even better than this: find a way to show that feature to your players. They're going to face a medusa? Throw around some broken very life-life statues. If a village is having trouble with a troll, maybe they don't know it's a troll. The party hears a peasant saying "it's huge! the size of two man combined, it smells of stillwater and dirt, and our weapons didn't seem to hurt it, but it's afraid of fire". I actually did that exact thing once, and it worked wonders.

[@anonymouskitten4715]

Maybe you can bridge the gap between player and character knowledge by saying characters feel guidance from some outside force. They don’t know what or why, but they have this gut feeling that they shouldn’t look at the basilisk. Not only is metafiction fun but it also prevents players from having to pay an ignorance tax

[@final_catalyst]

I have wanted to wright monster stat blocks for players that contain general information on a monster with out hard numbers. So it would mention trolls can recover quickly but fire and acid has been found to effectively put them down, it could then go on to mention they are brutish (highlighte that the str score is high, and idea of the tactics)

[@joshmargolis1424]

The trick is to equally develop the story of your character to explain the metagaming or expertice of your character that way you treat dnd as both a cooperative story and competitive game

[@mentalrebllion1270]

Oh a new player joined the game and we had to figure out how to quickly integrate this character into the group. In the end I just decided my character noticed this new character was lost and decided to be his guide. Given I’m a ranger, this isn’t unheard of, especially in an environment like this, where any amount of wilderness traversing is recommended to do with a ranger considering how brutal it can be. But I’d like to point out that I wasn’t pushed to make this happen. I had planned to shop this first part of the session and had compiled a list beforehand that I ran by the dm leading up so that we could get this part done with as quickly as possible, I didn’t intend to roleplay it but needed some supplies I foresaw needing for future encounters. So the only part the dm did was make sure we were both in the shopping district at the same time. Not too bad. I thought about how best to reason my character into interacting with the player after they said their piece. The player themselves couldn’t “see” me at this time as I was keeping to the shadows and rolled too high for stealth (I was avoiding an npc I pissed off…probably). So basically we roleplayed I did my suddenly popping out of nowhere thing and asked them if they were ok because my high as heck perception and insight told me this person seemed lost. I asked the dm if I could infer that so my character had a reason to approach this person. My character is already established to be a nice person and to just escort people wherever they wish to go. In fact, my character does this for the group regularly with my high survival stat and so often leads exploration and expeditions. I built him for that role. So anyway, this was a bit of metagaming of my own to push to make a connection with a new player’s character. It worked out. Sadly the player did drop the game but that’s expected due to this game being run in the middle of the week. It works for me, which is why I’m the longest time player, but it isn’t unusual for it to not work for many others due to work schedules. I’d play weekends myself but I have tons of family responsibilities and chores that I can’t commit time for dnd for weekend games, so a midweek session is what I do on the slowest day of the workweek. I can get that time off consistently and dedicate myself to truly decompressing with dnd. What I’m trying to get at is that sometimes you need to metagame just enough to make a story work. It may feel contrived but sometimes that how you get the ball rolling for dnd. That’s why it’s important to communicate with your dm and the other players so you can come up with the best contrivances that make sense for your characters in the context of the story. Battles can be fun and all, but the storytelling is what makes it fun to come back to over a video game. So metagame! Just have fun with it and think of it more as a fun back and forth of idea exchange for storytelling. That’s the point. You are the storyteller, you’ll always have more knowledge than the character, but it’s up to you to move them in a way that helps build a more entertaining world to view.

[@mraines13]

I just had a metagaming encounter a few weeks ago. My group (4 players lvl 10) have been battling devils in a fire giants fortress. We're down a hall and I (Druid) cast Ice Storm to knock a few flying ones out of the air. The "boss" devil waits back and sees the battle going south and starts to run. I'm around a corner and I have Earth Bind prepared in preparation of fighting a Dragon (who has been working with the Devils). I know the Devil has a fast flying speed and a slow walking speed (I looked him up between campaigns). I asked if I could see him and tried Earth Bind and with ADV on magical saves, DM rolled a 2 and a 3 so he failed. I had two checks, one to see if I had line of sight where I was and DM said I did and my logic for Earth Bind was we fought one earlier and the description was they have large wings and small legs, so my character would assume they are slow on the ground. A second time is I've watched as my allies go to 0 HP on the field. I've purposely not healed one guy and he died as it had happened in another room while I was pre-occupied with another foe. I wanted to rush and heal him, but I could not as my character had no idea. In similar fashion, I've asked my DM if my character, knowing how he behaves being brash and running into combat like an idiot when surrounded by a dozen enemies, would know to "check" after a couple rounds. Moral is I try not to keep him in sight at all times.

[@Chiisii1076]

A little off-topic for the current video, but I think a really cool subclass review would be the School of Enchantment for Wizards. I find that it is EXTREMELY underrated, and people do not understand exactly what such a wizard is capable of. For example you could cast Dominate Person on two people to become allies, use Hypnotic Gaze on a third to take them out completely, and then use your reaction to divert attacks made against you that tried to break your concentration. Split Enchantment in particular is quite nasty when it comes to what you can do with it. Notable and lesser known options can include Hex (requires a feat or multiclassing, not the greatest but still an option not a lot of people think about), Silvery Barbs (absolutely disgusting choice, but EXTREMELY good), Tasha's Mind Whip, Psychic Lance, Feeblemind, and Power Word Pain, Stun, and Kill. It's not only about dominating two creatures (which is still extremely good for action economy), but your other options for sheer offense and debilitation are insane. Absolutely a powerhouse of a wizard subclass, and I find it a crime that people just happen to look over it. Granted, their level 14 ability isn't amazing for anything other than roleplay, but their other features MORE than make up for that in combat. Truthfully, I think that it has more than enough capability to be better than the Divination Wizard, but that is an argument for another day.

[@achillesa5894]

People often forget that just because it's an Enchantment wizard doesn't mean they are locked to just enchantment spells. They still have access to the full wizard spell list. Their fireballs hurt just as good, they can still throw down hypnotic patterns and webs etc.

[@KuaEtus]

Yep, i totaly agree, and i love re-skinning monsters 👻 and describe hoy each tipe of damage or effects change the abilities of the monster, like if they have 3 or more characters at 10 ft the monster is weaker but they dont know why 🐊

[@KururuJi]

As long as the players at the table are all chill with it, and players aren't trying to rules lawyer when you're reflavouring (or, in one case at the game store I play AL at sometimes, literally trying to pull an un-brought MM off the wall to try and figure stuff out disrespectfully interrupting everybody, not just our table...) it's chill! When I run my games, I'm open with a lot of information. It's fun! Plus I'm a newer DM, and sometimes I need to ask my players for help in things...

[@Rubidius]

If the action is happening somewhere else that your PC doesn't know about and you don't want to miss out just tell the DM "My PC feels like going for a walk and goes outside." This is a perfect opportunity for the DM to find a way to rope you into the action.

[@mastersouth531]

Monster stats or features are pretty much changed in our DM's world, a banshee has screamed more than 3 times in one night, the trolls are imune to fire, so on and so forth. We love this though, we learn about these features before the encounter or while looking at the monster in front of us. My game is in a homebrewed system, homebrewed world, so metagaming isn't really a thing when you don't know what a GRUB chunk is.

[@bee5464]

Although I do get some points, I do think you can act as the character would, and not how the player would. Sure it's very tricky to master, or even be competent at, but doing something 'suboptimal' because your character doesn't know better should still be appropriate. I do really like your point about the DM giving details characters should know, but the players don't.

[@theuncalledfor]

It always depends on the extent. How unbelievable is it for your character to know this, how much does it strain willing suspension of disbelief, how bad/unfun are the consequences of _not_ metagaming, etc.

[@bee5464]

@@theuncalledfor of course, but backgrounds and class would really help also. For example a bard might've heard stories of a troll's regeneration, but it likely only described it, while a rogue wouldn't really know anything about trolls, since rogues are often intended to fight more Humanoid enemies.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

One argument that I love for not getting mad about metagaming, is that characters in a world know a lot more about it than the people playing those characters. *I* might not know that a Beholder shoots death lasers and shuts down magic in an area, but probably my character does, because they've lived these rules for decades or centuries and travel a lot. Some metagaming can be bad; if you helped your DM design a puzzle, then you shouldn't help the other players solve that puzzle. But for the most part it's really not a problem.

[@IPIay01]

If my DM wants to surprise the group and avoid metagaming he'll take an already pre-existing monster and reflavor it with new abilities. We as players may know what we're going up against but surprise! It has a different set of abilities and weaknesses. This allows us as players to interact with the monster in a familiar way but at the same time learn with our characters what works and how this *new* monster differs from it's kind.

[@mailcs06]

I feel like many people in a D&D world would have heard about medusas and their petrifying stare. They're well known in our world, and ours doesn't even have them! Also, casting fire spells at the troll cant be ruled as metagaming if you use fire spells on everything you encounter!

[@ResidentEvilFan686]

in one of my campaigns one of the characters has a book of creatures as a way to inform the party. if the party hasn't encountered it before we roll a d100 and the scale is higher or lower depending. if the creature would be a common i allow players to look it up as their characters would know it.

[@mrmuffins951]

Is there a DMsGuild link to the Kobold subrace that Groovy Drakencoast is using at 4:42?

[@SamuraiJack44]

Keep up the great content

[@davidcrofts5246]

The medusa thing can be avoided by the DM describing but not saying what the creature is if you randomly encounter one.

[@charleighkimber4611]

There's a 2nd Ed. supplement that talks essentially about player buy-in, justifying it with good-faith roleplaying. The example was where one member of a party went to do something solo in a city and got beaten down badly. The DM had their attackers throw him in an alley and toss trash over him, and left him to finish dying. The other players, hearing this, RP'd going out and discussing some in-game things, taking themselves to where they were near an alleyway entrance. One was peeling and eating an orange, and throwing the peels at the nearest pile of garbage, "naturally" taking them close enough the DM let them hear groans of semi-conscious agony.

[@99sonder]

We had a bit of an unfortunate miscommunication of inviting a new player into our party that completely clashed with the rest of the party's tone, came in at the worst possible time when we were the least trusting of them. So we kinda had to metagame to avoid utterly murdering the new party member and give them some time to explain and prove themself, even if it went against the ideas of the pre-existing characters at the table. It would've definitely been better if the character was introduced at a different time or if it was more adjusted to fit the pre-existing party. But we made the best of a bad situation using metagaming.

[@alejandrogomezdelmoralguer3502]

YES. Tusen tusen takk for dette, vennen min! Paljon kiitoksia tästä, kaverini! It is so fucking hard to decide how to manage having extensive system knowledge as a player, when you know full well that this one tactic you might otherwise do will do NOTHING or worse, possibly get you killed. Not a feel-good moment. So you ask for knowledge rolls, or you bide your time and hope something happens in-game that justifies choosing a not-shitty course of action. Conversely, I have long wanted to run a game based off one of the best dnd games I ever played (2e), where we played OURSELVES, sucked into a dnd world, and we had only our actual knowledge and whatever we could scrounge from the car outside (the game started set 30 min before the actual game, and the opening premise was we never made it to our friend’s house, as the car and everyone in it got sucked into a portal randomly). I ended up using a sled and an ice-scraper as a kind of shield and mace. Sold my pocket calculator (this was 2002 or something like that) at the local town for an absolute butt-load of gold. Oh, and the first night out in the wild? We were attacked by monsters. Truly a terrifying ordeal. And what were they, you ask? A pack of…you guessed it…KOBOLDS. 😊 Anyway, later we were in a dungeon, I see a floating eye with eyestalks come round the corner, and yeah, I’m playing myself so it’s perfectly normal that I shouted “shit people, we are SCREWED. And quickly warned the uninformed about what beholders are.” As you say, interaction is more fun than non-interaction, and being able to have those kinds of moments with a PC (even one that isn’t actually you, and so might not have the same knowledge you do) can make for amazing, memorable game moments.

[@MagiofAsura]

I remember a Mr. Ripper story where a player knew a sphere of annihilation was through a passage and one of the players wanted to fish through with the team to take on was through there unknowing the sphere. He didn't say anything and it tpk the team

[@EnraiChannel]

I would assume that people in that world would know surprisingly a lot about monsters if they actually roam freely and are somewhat numerous. I guess letting players use libraries or buy books about monsters would make it more natural way to know about monsters beforehand. But as the video said: you can't unlearn something. Everyone knows what basilisk or medusa does.

[@drewforchic9083]

We came across a dragon once and I got told off for metagaming when I asked how big it was.

[@IzuMiya.]

Your DM will remember this.

[@sauronsrighthandman301]

I don't really have a problem with players knowing a monster's weaknesses or invulnerabilities, I generally chalk it up to "It's just common knowledge in a fantasy setting". Medusas might be told of in old wive's tales to teach children not to stare at people or something, and a troll's vulnerability to fire might be spoken of in old folk stories and so on. For me, a problem with meta gaming arises when a player confers something their PC would have zero knowledge of whatsoever. For example, one session I had I was planning on using a Young Green Dragon, in my homebrew setting dragons (especially chromatic or metallic) are exceedingly rare. Very few people have in-depth knowledge of what dragons are or even how most of them work. I described the dragon's lair to my players, and the one metagamer (Who knows dragons very well) went " Oh, it's a green dragon. If we do X, Y, and Z we can trivialize this encounter." Now that annoyed me a lot. No history check, no animal handling, survival, or nature check to figure out what this mystery creature could be. Just "I know what it is IRL, therefore my PC spews out the information without actually having seen the creature, or having any prior knowledge of what it might be." Luckily for me, the session ended there for the night. I then proceeded to spend an entire week devising a new, homebrew Drake pair. (Which I am now obsessed with doing. Drakes as a concept are very customizable and I highly recommend other DMs homebrewing their own Drake species for some added flavor) I called this race of Drakes "Red-Striped Steelwings", A male and a female, introducing a complete unknown. This culminated as the male drake started spying on the players through a secret tunnel in the cave ceiling, spying down at them through perforated holes. The Metagamer said "Alright, everyone hold your breaths, it might breathe poison at us." To which the drake did breathe something... It spewed out Napalm at the players before scurrying away. The Metagamer looks at me shocked. "Green dragons can't breathe fire!" To which I replied: "I know. It's not a green dragon." TLDR; One player blurted out a monster I was planning on using until I replaced it with a homebrew monster and shocked everyone.

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

Metagaming is best in games where the most engaging or interesting is also the optimal process. Looking at Fate Core, City of Mist, or Masks, the games orbit around preparation, exploitation of vulnerabilities, and a loop of loading and firing Chekhov's gun. I don't really think D&D is one of these games to the same scale, but with one big exception: the GM. I think the GM using player knowledge and convention to make more odd, deep, or creative conflicts is potentially wildly fun when done fairly. For narrative and rp metagaming, if you all are caring about your shared story, yeah facilitating experiences for your GM or each other can help too

[@ianwood5362]

I appreciate this video on this topic and for the most part falls in line with my views. I know Seth Skorkowsky also did a video on the topic and seems to be in line with that as well. I suppose one reason why I am so passionate about this topic and why I reflexively cringe every time I hear the word metagaming is when I played with some roleplay obsessed gamers who would come down hard on anything they perceived to be metagaming to the point where the word became a club that beat down other players that were not playing in a way they perceived to be the "right" way to play. An extreme example was when they would outright yell at other players they were metagaming simply for stating what their character's HP was currently at out loud. In one particular moment when that happened and I was the one behind the screen I as calmly as I could stated when I am running a game I had no issues with players stating what their HP is at. The player that yelled metagaming (who for the record was also the store owner) glared at me and muttered angrily that they as the cleric weren't going to heal anyone that said what their HP was. I feel that was a player doubling down on toxic behavior but at least when I was the one running the game I at least made it clear where I stood and it seemed to at least minimize that sort of behavior when I was DMing.

[@AvangionQ]

When I DM, at the start of almost every encounter, I offer players one or more knowledge checks appropriate to the scenario, nearly always starting with a perception check. If any of the players succeed, I give them the relevant information their characters should know. If they fail, they can act as they please ~ usually means find out the hard way. To me, metagaming is using modern knowledge in a medieval setting. If you try to "science the shit" out of a scenario, that's metagaming, especially with a low-INT character. The idea of using out of character knowledge to your in-game advantage is a grey area ~ each instance must be examined individually to determine if a player is ❝cheating.❞

[@ConnorSinclairCavin]

I tend to put any given info behind a DC, then i run based on people’s passive check unless they specifically ask to attempt to remember more about creatures. And at that point the worst they can get is thinking one part is reversed, with a check to fix that if it goes wrong, but usually they remember more. And i mark down what they have so far learned as long as they take time to make notes at their next rest.

[@EnraiChannel]

That's fine, but I think character's age and background/backstory should then also affect the check.

[@ARViuff]

Honestly I have no issue with a player knowing trolls are weak to fire or vampires weakness to sunlight, I consider those common knowledge most people would have in a world where those creatures are more than just myth. I draw the line at more mystical creatures, like I would consider it meta gaming if they knew a unicorn is a celestial and not a fey for instance or that a zombies bite does not infect you, but being killed by a zombie might.

[@Shalloworldmx]

When I DM, I also tell information open to ALL the players, so if one key player forgets about a detail, another player can try to come up with ways their character will know that piece of information. I have been in games where a player forgets about a key magic item they possess and it is hell to not be able to advance because of that.

[@edwardg8912]

Meta gaming is not so much from video games, but is from the term used in literary criticism: meta textual. Something is described as meta textual when the work itself knows that it is a work, for example, if a character in a novel referenced that they were in a novel. It is an immersion breaking technique, which can work quite well for some authors. However, it could cause issues at a table, as immersion is so important at many tables. It also feels like a false equivocation of definitions. Like what you are describing as meta gaming is not what most DMs take issue with. And it is kind of hard to define exactly what meta gaming is, in part because if there was an agreed upon definition, some players would work to find loopholes in that definition. It really is a matter of knowing it when you seeing it. Because most (I will stress most, not all) DMs would not have a problem with players knowing that a Medusa can turn people to stone. However, most DMs would take issue if a player read a full pre written adventure before playing in it. One seems to be meta, one seems to not be. There is a lot of gray in between but I think most good DMs have a good idea of what it is. It may also be that meta gaming is something that is relative to the table. Something that is ok with one DM is not something another DM is ok with, and that is fine. DM’s word is law at his table, in agreement with the players, and social contracts differ between groups. In other words, I feel that this view of meta gaming is rather narrow. I also feel that this idea may work for one table and not another.

[@DDCRExposed]

Light metagaming is fine in my books. Luckily I don't believe any of my players go all out for hardcore metagaming (except maybe one but they've moved on). I've even seen them actively not metagame even when info was shown accidently.

[@wf4860]

My party will often split up without telling each-other where we’re going. When one party member inevitability runs into trouble, it’s an expectation that the rest of the party will head off to rescue them asap, regardless of how silly the in game reason is. You can move insanely quickly when player and dm want something done

[@not-a-theist8251]

Great video

[@kaylaa2204]

In the last session I played, my Grim Hallow Bard and the party ran into a water elemental. I know these things have certain weaknesses, but my character not necessarily last time I had played D&D, I wasn't big into roleplay but nowadays I am via other roleplaying games I was into. So my solution was asking if I could roll to see if my character knows what a water elemental is, the DM allowed it, I succeeded, and I made a note of everything the DM proceeded to say my character knows about them My character knows what it is, that it's a construct of elemental water, and it's weaknesses and resistances, because I had rolled particularly high I assume if I rolled lower I may not have known as much beyond what they are. But because of the note, I no longer make this specific check against these creatures. What i have been told I know is what I know unless I am given additional information later I agree with you though, and restricting metagaming too strictly can be messy as you put it. However, I thought this was a really elegant solution to the problem that I thought up on the spot, though it only works in the context of "does my character know anything about this creature we are fighting?" But this I think is only fine because it's not a rule the party was subjected to, it's just how I wanted to run my own character

[@TheDarkArch0n]

As a DM myself, I appreciate this. I always feel guilty when my dm pulls something out or uses an ability against my character and I know exactly what it is 😅

[@murderyoutubeworkersandceos]

Dnd3 - the superior game - has knowledge tests that allow u to outright ask about monsters stats. Number of pieces of information depends on your test result. 15 reveals all, general creature type stats. U can draw from that over the counter and u can justify the few questions. Spellcraft test reveals info abot a spell. The spells r standard - tested and quantified over the years of experience. Other characters might figure out what is the priest casting and get within the range. And the cleric himself can state outright "get within 10ft of me and stay close - itll help u evade blasts and bolt"

[@DraconSteel]

My only times i hate metagaming is when the pc would not know anything about a creature or object and the player shouts things out. Example when my group encountered a gelatinous cube none of our characters would of ever have encountered one before and one of the players shouted out "Its a gelatinous cube!" Interrupting the dm was describing what was going on.

[@relariistheparadox221]

5:25 It's simple kobold. Just make it so that there's a near or total TPK so that most or all of the party will be new when someone gets replaced. They'll be much more welcoming then.

[@midnightoilradio5257]

As a DM, I used the idea of an adventurer's Guild with most campaigns, so the fact that older adventurers writing down what they saw, as a in-game monster manual, is probable. I still ask my players, "would your character know that?" Like everyone knows spiders are afraid of fire, but would he have known something like "a black golden dragon's weakness is under his wings." (Something insane.) Metagaming hasn't been that bad for me, but I try to provide the use of researching in some of my campaigns and give advantages for players that use that route.

[@Wrathnicangel104]

Separating player knowlege and character knowlege is what I had a problem with when I played with my friends. I also had too couldn’t help my video game mentality at the time too. I never played the table top until 2019 which my friends and I were playing 5e. My knowlege on killing vampires and Trolls is fixed into my head was because of Baldurs Gate 2 when I played it years ago when I was 11 or 12 at the time and borrowed it from my uncle. I gotta tell ya , when I played that game I didn’t know jack squat about dnd’s stuff (lore and gameplay) and especially on how I didn’t know how to kill those 2 enemies in the game to the point I raged quit for awhile. I had no guide book at the time. and I don’t know if the instruction book explaine that either. When I was a teen and when online ane figured out…my reaction was “THATS ALL I HAD TO DO?!”…yeah I might have been kind mentally traumatized about it. Confusion and level drain I had the exact problem too and boy did I hate those status effects out of all especially if your main character runs out of health for any fucking reason instant game over even though I have a cleric in the party or some resurrection spells scrolls…I know why its like that…but you couldn’t help but call it too damn hard if not way too unfair.

[@mrhatnclogs116]

This is why reflavoring and homebrew is so useful

[@grogmadman522]

I love metagaming like quicken spell and twin spell

[@water2770]

I feel this all depends on how we define or look at meta gaming. Like if you've already played through or dm'd a module. It would probably be better if you took a more passive approach so others could enjoy figuring out mysteries.

[@warlordvir137]

So, I love to add a great example of bad metagaming from a game I play years ago, we were playing a homebrew campaign based loosely on CoS with a Bavoria-like island we (the party) were sent out to investigate its mystery and eventually have to find a way off the island as well after getting stuck on it. The DM was going scary and mysterious campaign. We had a meta-gamer was getting upset when monsters did not follow standard stat-blocks, instead of doing what the rest of the party was doing which was using knowledge rolls and experimenting with different attacks. The meta-gamer (not the DM) would start arguing about it. After a few times of him doing this, he was ultimately kicked as the game was not for him nor was he a great fit for our party.

[@fpc987]

in the lore all the book we have IRL have there equivalent write in the word. the quivalent of TCE is a book wrote by tacha; for MTF by mordenkainen ... the information you have on a monster are probably already know by your character. story of a adventure not (don't read the campagne before playing it as PC). the book will propably existe, but after, as historic work .

[@YourBoyNobody530]

I also let them make a dex saving throw to remove the grub before it can burrow into them.

[@rafaelbordoni516]

Metagaming can be good for combat in particular. It's a known game design thing for puzzles/strategy games that the less information is hidden, the more mentally engaging it can be for the player. In combat, I roll all my dice in front of the players, which mean they know how much damage dice the enemies deal, they can know their to-hit bonuses, AC, etc if they do the math. I also allow them to do all sorts of planning out of character and just do their turns without roleplaying their coordination in-game. It depends on the vibe you're going for, of course you shouldn't do that every campaign. I just think combat as it is in D&D is at it's best when we embrace the mechanics. Of course, knowledge of how the monster works that the character doesn't have is bad for tactical gameplay, so that tip of reflavoring is really good. I do that a lot, not only I reflavor monster stat blocks but I also change them, like, turning a beast/monstrosity into a fiend, a humanoid into an undead, removing/adding weaknesses/resistances, etc. I rarely use the monsters on the Monster Manual, but I always use the stat blocks there.

[@kdaviper]

Once I had a mildly heated debate with my DM after he mind flayed me while I was a Trex... I pointed out that the mind flayer attack only works on humanoids and that a polymorphed PC takes on the type of their new form

[@archmagemc3561]

Another thing if your an experienced player is to actually play into a creature's strengths if it is a very, very, very uncommon strength at least once. Skaladors or Helmed Horrors for example are IMMUNE to force damage, but are super, super rare. So wasting an Eldritch Blast on them and having it do nothing once is fine. This works well as sometimes even experienced players wont know about creatures like this, and you give them a "wait what?" moment and as an experienced player, that makes the game interesting.

[@YourBoyNobody530]

So, I often use meta gaming with stat blocks to make the dungeon masters job easier. For example I know a typical goblin in melee has 15 AC and 7 HP so I will try to speed up combat by using that knowledge to determine whether I hit and kill the goblin without DM intervention.

[@theuncalledfor]

If you're blatantly acting on information that you know your character does not or could not have, that's bad metagaming. Don't do this, you're cheating if you do. If it's hard to tell whether something is metagaming from a neutral perspective, you're probably good. If you're acting on the details of the mechanics, you're definitely good. So yeah I agree with this video.

[@FlutesLoot]

It's awkward how much people try to not metagame, making the game less fun. Well said, Kobold!

[@archibaldzidlicka8960]

When it comes to metagaming it is a touchy subject. I must say I am not a fan of it but I see your point. The thing is (and this is just my opinion) dnd I’d primarily or roleplaying game and it is not always supposed to be 100 fun. Now I am not saying that it is not supposed to be fun it definitely is, however there will be other emotions involved. Frustration when an attack misses and such. Or sadness when a character dies. It’s all part of the experience. Metagaming can add to the experience but it can also go against it. The same goes for optimisation. It can be really fun to try new builds and creating powerful characters but it is less fun when a person takes lightning bolt instead of a fireball and is called stupid or pushed to change that spell. It all comes down to communication and preferences.

[@YourBoyNobody530]

There is a time and place for everything even cold blooded homicide to an admittedly lesser extent.

[@asmordisfluffbreaker4999]

Kobold spotted, watching video is a must now.

[@MalloonTarka]

Metagaming is an important tool for helping to build narratives. But it can also break them. Just make sure you play a character, not an avatar of yourself. Unless that's how your group plays, of course.

[@TwylightCSS]

It was brought up about different games having a metagame, but for those competitive games, they are not the same. META game for them is Most Efficient Tactic Available. It is an acronym, whereas the metagame being spoken here is usually used for knowledge outside of an experience. Very different things. Metagaming in and of itself isn't terrible, but it also has the ability to lessen an experience if they already know how to deal with something or someone.

[@marvintodisco2970]

I've heard arguments for both sides. One argument I liked a lot is: "This is a dragon. Dragons are famous. Even in our real world, where there are no dragons, dragons are still famous. Stories of dragons are famous. Most commoners would expect a red dragon to breathe fire, be immune to fire, and have a terrifying howl, which is not terrifying because of some game mechanics, but just because dragons are very fucking terrifying. So yes, my character would know all of those things." And I liked the argument a lot. But it gets harder to justify stuff like this with rare creatures like Mind Flayers and the infamous Intellect Devourers. In the end, I tell my players this: "You know those are Intellect Devourers. Your Int-dump Barbarian would not know. He would run in, get Mind Blasted, stunned, and die by having his brain eaten. I won't encourage you to metagame to avoid this, but I will not condemn you either. It is your decision." And when I'm the one playing, I just throw my knowledge out of the window and act like my character would. And I play cautious characters. Adventurers don't usually live long if they're not cautious. Do I know the weird humanoid tentacle-mouth alien can mind-control others? Nah, but Imma cast Protection from Evil and Good, or Bless, just to make sure this thing has as little chance as possible to fuck me over. Or I try to sneak up and kill it super fast - that way I don't have to find out what it can do.

[@thatname7298]

One thing people seem to not realize is that your character *lives* in the setting. They are going to know a lot of things, hell they may even know more than you will ever learn about the setting, because it is their universe. Medusas? They could have heard a fairytale about it. Rot worms? They could have heard abt a poor soul that died from one of those. You only visit their world for like 8 hours per week, they live on it 24/7.

[@CaitSith87]

I usually play a wizard who studided magic and of course on of this studies would be monster lore. In a world with trolls everybody would know they are weak to fire. We live in this wolrd for two hours a week or month and know this stuff.

[@kangarutan1915]

Easiest way to fix the "metagaming" for knowing special things about monsters is simple to ask the DM, "Would my character know that X creature has Y weakness?" Then the DM can just choose to either make it a check or say, "Yeah. It's pretty common knowledge in this area/campaign/timeline/universe that X creature has Y weakness."

[@jaceg810]

so I came across this situation, instantly gets awkward: my level 3 party was hunting a crime lord, he turned out to be a demon (with a rakshasa token), I am a dm and have run one before and know that such a creature is both way too strong for us now in addition immune to anything, it kind of made clear it was too strong and everything, however my character could not really know that.

[@prosamis]

I usually go for "hey dm, does my character know [X]?" and if I feel like I need to explain why they would, I'd add that Whatever DM says is final If, for example, my character usually uses firebolt and always firebolts I wouldn't even ask that question to begin with I only ask if my character would suddenly change behavior And if it makes sense for me for my character to know, I usually don't ask

[@zzlord4309]

Totally agree, referencing metagaming is indeed a problem in it self I often let playera thing of a source in their knowledge, stories, myths or arcane scriptures help establish a character and limit panic for metagaming