Metagaming in D&D - Is It Cheating?

[@theDMLair]

PATREON ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair CHEAP D&D 5E ADVENTURES I CREATED ▶▶ www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/11812/Luke-Hart D&D PRODUCTS I USE ▶▶ www.amazon.com/shop/thedmlair FREE D&D ADVENTURES FOR KIDS ▶▶ dndadventuresforkids.com/ MY FREE D&D 5E ADVENTURES ▶▶ www.thedmlair.com/

[@filiplykkegaardkastrup1876]

Hey Luke if i May ask wen is the next stream (time and day)

[@quonomonna8126]

i think almost any character in almost any fantasy realm would know that fire burns trolls and sunlight kills vampires...so i think its reasonable for common monster weaknesses to be known by the characters...now, if its a rarer creature or not native to their realm or something that's another story

[@brycejaxon5815]

You all probably dont care but does anybody know of a method to get back into an instagram account? I stupidly forgot my password. I would love any assistance you can offer me!

[@enriquebriggs6009]

@Bryce Jaxon Instablaster :)

[@RylanStorm]

"I enter the library and walk to the fireplace. I twist the candle stick to the right twice and then once to the left" "Er....why would you do that?" "I just felt like it" "Ok, well I just feel that's a pretty random thing to do and that you're acting on knowledge your character does not have" "Not the case. He's eccentric" "You sure?" "Yes" "Ok then. As you move the candlestick, in the exact pattern required, a secret door to the right of the fireplace swings open. The air is dank and musty and it looks as if the tunnel has seen no footfall in years" "I stand in front of the tunnel and then jump 3 feet forwards, ensuring that I leap at least 2 feet upwards" "Really? And you're sure this is something your character would do?" /Smiles "Yep" "Make an athletics check" "14" "You jump forwards, clearing the hidden tripwire you could not have seen." "I press a stone block, two feet from the floor on the right side" "Uh-huh?" "That's right" "No, I'm sorry. That's the exact block needed to disarm the traps. How could you possibly have known that?" "Intuition" "I'm sorry but I don't believe you. You've clearly read this module" "I haven't" "Ok. Fine. Whatever. Sure. You press the block inwards?" "Er....yeah" "Not upwards?" "Er.....yes. Inwards" "Do you have fire resistance?" "Ahah! Yes!" "Acid resistance?" "Well. No..I'm weak to that" "Perfect. As you press the block inward, acid sprays into your face. The baron must have changed the trap recently." "But you said there had been no footfall in years." "He used magic. Make a dexterity save." "24" "Oh, bad luck. You take 4D6 acid damage. Make a strength check" "22" "With disadvantage" "Oh. " "Well?" "4" "Blinded by the acid you fall backwards, stumbling into the tripwire you narrowly avoided earlier.. spikes shoot from the floor. Take 2D6 damage" "Piercing?" "Let's call it acid"

[@theDMLair]

Love it! 😁

[@777Plushy]

@@theDMLair My Campign Is Mostly Homebrewed. (For Example The Magic Is Done With MP & The Goblin Librarian Is A Monster Mimic That Has A 1.04% Chance Of Getting A "Book Of Monsters" Which Not Only Gives The Players A Book That Shows The Stats Of Every Enemy That Is Not A Boss. But, Also The Ablity To Learn How The Use Monster Ablities On Any Other Class That Can't A Monster's Ability. While, Blue/Monster Mages Learns Everyone Single Monster Ability & Teach 2 Players 1 of a Monster's Ability. But, Used To Get A Secret Weapon That Only Ninjas Can Use Called The "Hamon Dagger" It's Desc States (A Dagger Made From The Power Of Sunlight & Steals The Souls Of The Undead, Killing An Undead Enemies In 1 Slice) & It Goes Well With The "Moonlight Discus" When Used Blinds The Enemy For 4 Turns & Poisons Them With A Weak 30 Damage Every Turn For 3 Turns, Guarnteed For The Price Of 5 MP. & The "Kitchen's Knife (That Is Blessed To Be Return To The Owner/Thrower Of Said Knife)" Does 7777 7 Damage Automatically & When A Freebie Happens [Which Has A 16% Chance Of Keeping A Thrown Item] Means The Next Time The Kitchen's Knife Is Thrown, The Throw Will Do [According To My Calculator] Is 4.88177526E+25 & The Only Thing That Can Survive Both Kitchen's Knife Throws Is The DPT Dummy & The Mimic Clown.

[@ronaldmahan8417]

Love this. Whenever i spot some micro metagaming going on i tend to change things a bit to see how players react. Metagamers exclusively get magical effect based traps not elements. Like "blindness for 1d4 days" is a great one. I dont kill a character but do attempt to show them "hey i modified this so you gonna need to play some RP or yikers" Like resistances or health i change those around a ton. The best one by far is effects. You find a sword that says "Frostbrand" on the hilt they think they have some sort of magic sword when in reality its a farmers weather sword that glows when a frost is coming. Its hilarious when a metagamer tries to roll some frost damage and i tell them "How do you know that there is frost on it you havent identified it" Another one was a guy who read the monster manual and started putting alcohol on chests to get mimics to reveal themselves. Nah in my world they like their fruity wine and not generic ale.

[@777Plushy]

@@ronaldmahan8417 What About Making A 5 x 5 Dungeon Where The Rooms Constantly Shifts & Change Places At Random. & Hence Make Metagaming Near Useless.

[@willofthewinds3222]

Best thing: he was guessing every time.

[@Boss-_]

"What's the purpose of a game?" To crush your enemies! See them driven before you! And hear the lamentation of their women! "To. Have. Fun." Well... I mean okay, yeah, if you wanna play casually and all...

[@gabriel300010]

I see you play a monted archer, good choice

[@Owlpotheosis]

Same.

[@IrvingIV]

@Rechordian D&D looks like it might offer the freedom I so yearn for. _Buuuuuut_ I like smashing things.

[@yaneighborhoodbigbrother3180]

Bossbattleproductions I would have to say those are all the same category

[@youareaspook5897]

@Rechordian parry this you filthy casual

[@haydennarumi]

"I cast fireball" of course you do, you are a wizard, you do nothing else.

[@commanderwyro4204]

please tell that to my friend. makes a wizard every new character with the same exact spells

[@Alresu]

Well, my wizard player tries minor illusion in every battle (has yet to realize, it's not effective^^). Granted, he has yet to learn fire ball...

[@theDMLair]

Illusions are highly dependent on the DM ruling "fairly" though I use that loosely. Basically in order for a player to successfully use any illusions, it requires a DM who doesn't just nerf them either consciously or subconsciously. This is why many players don't play illusionists. DMs often make them fail. Thus players turn to spells like fireball that have no room for DM interpretation and thus nerfing. That said, 5e illusions just suck mechanically compared to previous editions.

[@Alresu]

@@theDMLair Well, he used this spell to try to create a ring of fire around a player to hinder rats from attacking him (which did not work with cold, unmoving flames), he told a few skeletons that their job is done and they should go back to their graves in the voice of their dead master (which at least stopped them from chasing the PC they were ordered to chase (and who died to them later anyway)) and he used it to create a scream in the voice of one bandit's mother (still not sure, if i should have allowed that, since the player does not know that voice... But at least I ruled it as a ranged aid action). I am curious, what he will try next.^^

[@douglashoffmann5943]

If he was level nine he could have cast explosion

[@MrRuffleNeck]

Did that wizard just tpk the whole table at the beginning?

[@theDMLair]

I sure hope so.

[@Chopthemonions]

could be an evoker

[@solitudeguard3196]

Only the barb survived

[@Groundlord]

Everyone except the cheating Rogue. You *never* use spells and effects that allow Reflex saves against a Rogue.

[@TheDisorganizedNerd]

@@Groundlord could have got a nat 1

[@mykediemart]

Dungeon Master since ....(sports reference). I think you nailed it with the opening statement about its a role playing game and just talking to the player. A few player don't get the "its out of game knowledge" thing, they were raised on video games with guides and the internet. That said I have always been able to just talk to the player, not down to them and work it out. I have been a DM since before crystal pepsi. Also thanks for the reference to the adventures for kids, I'm trying to teach some adults and kids how to DnD.

[@theDMLair]

I'm waiting for someone to comment about when the Detroit Lions won their first Super Bowl... :D Yes, talking to players does the trick for like 95% of issues in the game, I've found.

[@RottenRogerDM]

Raise on video games. Haa. Old fart yells at cloud. Where was I. oh yeah. Raise on video games. Back in the pong era I had people megagaming.

[@mykediemart]

@@RottenRogerDM I was trying to point out the modern video gamer who looks up everything in a guide/walk thru, and that is not seen as metagaming. So they dont see anything wrong with "looking it up". Thats what I was getting at.

[@fitzmac8504]

That was the year before and after the Chicago Bears won the third and fourth ring ehh ?!

[@RottenRogerDM]

Good point. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[@Lcirex]

At my table the rule about meta monster knowledge needs to be covered by the player ether singing a folk song about what they know or can give me a children's rhyme about it. (Both require the usage of older queens english for proper effect.)

[@cp1cupcake]

For more fun, have them do it in Middle English or Old English. None of this Shakespearean English, we want Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales.

[@rickilydickily]

@@cp1cupcake whan that April with his shoures soote, the droghte of March hath perced to the roote.

[@anthonynorman7545]

How do you handle players skilled in improv or freestyle rap? Given the statblock and a round or 2, many could deliver the relevant info.

[@Lcirex]

@@anthonynorman7545 I write it down and add it to the world lore. So if they make a bad rhyme, then they make a bad rhyme that children say/sing at places they go. Can get embarrassing fast.

[@nickwilliams8302]

@@Lcirex Your idea makes about as much sense as giving players bonuses for drawing a really good character portrait or painting their mini really well. The ability to come up with improvisational verse is a skill that not all players possess.

[@WolfmanXD]

I think Seth skorkowsky did a great video about meta gaming, where he said there's 3 kinds of meta gaming: good, bad, and gray area. Good meta gaming is things like dm inspiration and the such. Bad is looking up monster stat blocks. And gray area is like when you're players all know you're fighting a troll and they immediately go for their fire spells and torches. Like the players are acting on information that their characters wouldn't have, but is it fun to just PRETEND you don't know it's weak to fire and acid, get pounded on for a few turns, until the heavens decide you're worthy of that information? Then there's cheating. Looking up the adventure module to know what to expect.

[@TheCinderfang]

I'll often ask a dm for a skill check to see if my character knows something I know. This clearly shows the dm that though I know I'm not going to push it in character

[@Nonamearisto]

If you've played a specific module before, I suppose one can take precautions related to it, but one cannot warn the other players about what they know will happen. Mind you, this assumes the DM is mostly or totally faithful to the module, which is not as common as one might think.

[@quonomonna8126]

i think trolls being hurt by fire is pretty common knowledge, especially in a realm like Forgotten Realms where trolls and magic are common...it could even be in children's books, like i read children's books as a child that talked about monster weaknesses....like fear could be defeated by saying i don't believe in you...and trolls were turned to stone by sunlight....

[@fred_derf]

Who in your game world wouldn't know that Trolls need to be burned or they'll regenerate?

[@The_Letter_M]

Honestly, one of the funniest character moments was when someone asked why the half-orc character's maternal line makes a point to marry and mate outside of orc bloodlines, and I accidentally rolled incredibly well to know about orc relationship/mating behaviors. My character? A culturally isolated Aarakocra who'd had very little contact with the world outside of Aarakocran tribes. I rolled a 19. Some level of metagaming is okay, even inevitable; certain game styles encourage it and others don't, but it should be established early on what kind of game style you're playing so that the players know what to expect in terms of external knowledge.

[@theDMLair]

Agreed. A group should determine what is okay and what isn't.

[@ryanmilway1644]

I think in that instance, the GM should have a reasonable response of "There's no rational reason your character would even begin to have background knowledge on that." Maybe a bluff check, lol. "Yeahhh... they... ah... they go out of the tribe for.... reasons."

[@The_Letter_M]

@@ryanmilway1644 The DM's reasonable explanation for my character knowing was that my character had once gotten really into a book about orcs. Let people have fun, dude.

[@ryanmilway1644]

@@The_Letter_M that works, I was just saying there should be a reasonable explanation, that's all. I certainly am not telling people to not have fun. Ultimately its between you and the gm.

[@haku8135]

@@The_Letter_M technically speaking, if we're going into the canon lore of the orcs. Your character could have known that because they were told stories about how horrible orcs are. Seriously, those fuckers are MONSTERS. If a lot of half orcs are being made, it's because a lot of rape is happening 9 times out of 10. Orcs don't have a lot of plans outside of killing elves, taking stuff they want, killing everything else, and breeding with anything that causes pregnancy. Orcs are terrible, and so are half orcs raised by orcs. So you know, don't feel bad about setting an entire tribe of orcs on fire. It's a good thing.

[@FightingFire01]

"asking someone else to check is metagaming" You've obviously never been married. "Hey honey, I can't see any mustard in the fridge, can you come look?"

[@oni7488]

Then she pulls it out of the exact spot you swear you looked in 4 times because you ALWAYS keep the mustard there, where else would it be?

[@Immudzen]

@@oni7488 Haha I can relate to this! I could not find the mustard and I swear I looked and could not find it. But she found it.

[@michaelmurphy2112]

Except in that case you have a reason to believe the mustard is there (probably because your wife told, I mean asked, you to get it), so if you can't find it, you ask for help. If I went to get the mustard, couldn't find it, and my wife was unavailable, I'd assume we're out and go to the store to pick some up. Then my wife would come home, pull out the other bottle of mustard, and give me "that look"

[@someguy3861]

@Michael Murphy On that same token: those who blindly trust their own eyes when there are several other pairs around are doomed to fall into a spike pit. "Pretty sure I didn't miss anything, but just in case, Gro'k should probably take point."

[@christocanoid]

I think you missed the context. If you roll a 19 and you're DAMN sure it isn't in there, you wouldn't ask someone else to check. If you roll a 3, you're not gonna be confident, then you ask. Do you ask other people to affirm your understanding if you're very confident, or if your still questioning?

[@tristankendrick2582]

I think it depends on the scenario. Recently, I had a party encounter trolls, and I had to decide if my character would go fire for actual damage or lightning for flavor. In this case, I asked my DM, and we were told it was common knowledge that trolls weakness was fire. In *his* world, it was common knowledge. When I DM, I prefer to describe a weakness, resistance or immunity by the reaction of the creature and the damage it seems to do, like when an axe barely penetrates a creature's skin on a Max damage roll, or a creature burst into flames and begins screaming in pain. You clearly prefer ability checks to determine what characters know. It all depends on the world and who is in charge of it. (That's just about monster statblocks, everything else is too complicated for a KZbin comment so I'm gonna stop there)

[@mitchelltyner5670]

yeah I've run into this as well. I was running a lower level campaign at one point and a troll popped up and in my game, people might have heard of trolls but not about their weaknesses, especially a couple of people from the middle of a big city that have no background for adventuring. So when all those same players started trying to burn the troll, I made it where the troll was resistant to fire and cold was the damage type it was weak to. It completely flabbergasted my players and that's what I wanted, I wanted them to not know what was going on. When the wizard hit it with the frost ray cantrip, i said the troll howled in pain and they noticed that where it had it, the flesh was frozen and the wound wasn't closing up. Then they clued into what was going on.

[@RottenRogerDM]

Silly Tristan every one knows you take out the troll by telekinesing the club and hit the troll with it.

[@tristankendrick2582]

@@jaysw9585 I'll never be able to agree with that, especially if players are sitting at the table pulling up stat blocks. Advanced detail on every monster, including the most uncommon, is not something characters would have.

[@malcadorsigilite6120]

Jason Whetzesl It’s meta gaming, no two ways about it. However, just reading stat blocks because you fought against a specific monster and then you know what monster you’re fighting in a different campaign isn’t bad meta gaming. Looking through the monster manual specifically with the intent of knowing all the monsters so you don’t get surprised when the DM puts forth an encounter IS bad metagaming. Metagaming isn’t about intent; it’s simply the usage of knowledge your character doesn’t have to accomplish something they wouldn’t know how to do. It doesn’t matter if you heard it off hand or looked for it; it’s still meta gaming to use it. The argument of “You know a lot of stuff your not supposed to know” doesn’t work when you consider that the character your playing isn’t you, but a completely different entity you’re bringing to life in the game world. Put it this way: You hear that the solution to some puzzle in the Tomb of Annihilation module is X, and you’re currently playing in a campaign of said module. This event doesn’t translate into your Human Wizard Ethan suddenly knowing to pull lever 1 three times and lever 2 six times (I don’t actually know any of the puzzles, this is a random example) in order to lower the drawbridge. If you overheard it, it’s perfectly fine to have the knowledge, but this isn’t 40k where your opponent’s army’s rules are known to you in the interest of a fair game. Role playing games can sometimes rely on the lack of knowledge in order to create cool moments or give greater satisfaction to the players for discovering a weakness in character. Of course, none of this means anything if your group has fun metagaming, so whatever.

[@fred_derf]

@@tristankendrick2582I think it's an important distinction between plyers knowing a monsters stat block because they've read the Monster Manual (in my groups we've always taken turns DMing) and looking the monster up at the table. The second one is a definite no no.

[@nathanielsteward2221]

I find it quite hard not to meta game when I’m a player, when the DM is describing a monster I’m always trying to figure out what the monster is. That’s a little habit picked up from watching podcasts. I find it much more fun to not think about that but I can’t help it!

[@nickwilliams8302]

Well, isn't your _character_ trying to figure out what the monster is as well?

[@theDMLair]

Yeah, I get it. When I'm DMing, I rarely give the monster's name, and often describe it vaguely or differently from what the book shows...just to make it harder for my players (many of whom DM and know the MM) to know what the monster is.

[@hypersonixgamer1962]

I mean i suppose that's fair, considering you aren't purposefully searching them up.

[@mitchelltyner5670]

yeah it happens but the real hard part is when you know what it is and you have to not play into the information you know and go directly for it's weaknesses... or you could have a DM like me that will notice when players are doing that and completely change up the monster's resistances etc, I hate metagaming so it's something I do with my players since they have all been playing for 10+ years.

[@nickwilliams8302]

@@mitchelltyner5670 But why do you feel that you have to not use information in you brain to play more effectively? What does it add to the game?

[@mazingdaddid]

"Yes, but.." and "Yes, and..." are my favorite DM tools.

[@UlyssesPrime]

Mine is, "Are you sure you want to do that?" It's even better when they still do it

[@melkiorwiseman5234]

@@UlyssesPrime Hearing all these stories, I've adopted a new saying: "When the DM asks you if you're sure, you'd better not be."

[@williamwontiam3166]

How about. Well, that’s a terrible idea.

[@kouron]

@@UlyssesPrime It's what I like to do, if it makes sense to my character. Since I like somewhat crazy or curious chars, it makes sense more often than not.

[@agsilverradio2225]

Instead of "yes," or "no," what about "why?"

[@Marshadow01]

When I become a dm, im going to make MY OWN stories so people can’t cheat by knowing what happens at what time. Also I might even make up my own monsters

[@joezombie55]

You will be of the golden aura'ed DM's who fear not the Metagamer!

[@Marshadow01]

Thanks man, I appreciate it

[@deathi]

hey i would just have in the game where you need to defeat the monster first to collect data on it than you slowly collect information on every kill of it. i would set it to 10 unique encounter kills to mostly understand the monster. i would also have a npc where you can complete a questline to unlock a hidden store which sells a completed mob database of common-uncommon mobs in the area for a fee of 250 or so gp.

[@velazquezarmouries]

i do that and leave fake story clues everywhere

[@hellhound74]

I do the same I crate my own story's and my own gods that players fight so they know what game or lore the character has (I like to use characters from undertale and magic as Ally's and gods to kill) so they know them but I d and d format them so they have no idea what they are going up against so meta gaming is impossible

[@jgr7487]

"I cast Fireball!" then everybody died because of its AOE.

[@theDMLair]

Wizards never think before casting fireball...

[@mitchelltyner5670]

@@theDMLair since I'm playing a wizard in my current game, I told them in character that when a combat starts I'll cast fireball to soften up the targets, and with that information the party fighters still run into melee as soon as the combat starts. AND, I still cast that fireball just like I told them. (and on topic with your video on metagaming, since the round of combat happens in the same 6 second time slot, I'm casting my spell as they are running so it would be "metagaming" not to cast the fireball hahaha) they got pissed the first 3 times I've done it, but I told them that sooner or later they would have to remember what I'd told them what I'd do at the start of every combat where the enemies are grouped together hahaha.

[@Malkuth-Gaming]

@@theDMLair Evocation wizard. Used his special ability to avoid taking damage from the spell ;)

[@TJBUSMC1973]

Malkuth Ah, yes... Sculpt Spell!

[@shadowofkitsune]

I have players that when they cast aoe spells they don't place it perfectly and might hit friends as well or don't hit all enemies they could hit. Because a wizard doesn't have the Birdseye perspective and in the heat of battle doesn't have time to aim it perfectly. That is so awesome!

[@MiGG0535]

Everyone needs this reminder every now and then: It's just a game and the gaming is about having fun together, not ripping your butt apart. And of course, the group together (The DM included) determines what IS that "fun" you pursue.

[@emanuelgrau4745]

He he changed his intro. Confusion is setting in

[@DodgeThatAttack]

I remember when my friends got me into D&D in early highschool and pretty much made a character for me because I was big dumb. Anyway, I thought it was actually great to be this uneducated on... Everything and my friends were patient with me trying to understand everything but I remember the DM really liked my character Because unlike my friend who loved to get into loopholes, I would pretty blindly follow story hooks and literally could not meta game. This meant that everytime I did something good, it was because I was being smart and every time I didn't, I learned something about the game.

[@Maeve_Rose]

i kept that. i keep the blind story hook following and while i love a loophole (what really counts as a dose of a potion, do you have to drink all, most, or just a single drop?)

[@DaDunge]

@@Maeve_Rose I guess that depends on the DM, if you are allowed agency to explore plot hooks at your own pace then sure I will walk right int them, but if the DM keeps propping up unavoidable plot hooks everywhere we go then I will start thinking of ways to get out of them. My party has spent the last three sessions wanting to go to a place but every time we try to wait and gather our strength before that the DM keeps throwing things out of left field at us. It's beginning to feel a bit to stressful.

[@kouron]

@@DaDunge Had the same situation, it's more likely that your DM wants to force decisions, thus increasing character driven events (be it by doing something, or not doing it). Our group is very "freestyle", so it might not apply to your DM.

[@bookworm13x]

One way to solve this is to have the players start out with a "pokedex" type item. Use your whole turn and lose your reaction, and the item gives you the relevant information (within reason) which you can choose to convey as part of your use of the item.

[@breyor1]

I usually leave this up to the Dm. One of the most Absurd recent instance on “anti Meta gaming” behavior is our party was discussing wether our lvl3 party should try to fell a dragon.. one said there far to strong, we should wait. One of the other players started to argue how his character would know that...it was absurd

[@theDMLair]

Yeah no kidding. A character would have a general understanding of how powerful he is compared to other warriors and especially something ad mighty as a dragon.

[@PhabioTheHost]

This is often an issue with me. I have an exceptional memory for stats and rules. Combined with the fact I have 10 years of experience as a DM and much more as a player I know the stats on almost every monster and rule. Heck, most tables I play at the DM looks to me for the strange rulings. And while I try my best never to leverage that ability to my advantage it is also hard to willingly waste my turn on things I know won't work. eg. We came across a powerful Demon. I knew that it was immune to fire and lightning and had resistance to cold. My Wizard had 2 acid spells and the rest were fire. I cast acid (even though I would have gone with fire since we didn't yet know it was immune) because part of the game is having fun and there isn't anything fun about wasting a 3rd level spell slot at level 6. And I knew my damage would lead other players to follow suit without domineering the combat and being the star. The other issue I have is with optimizing. I love it. I spent a few days building a Summoner in pathfinder for a one-shot. When the game finally started my Eidolon was a better rogue than the rogue and hit harder than all the martial characters combined (w/o crits). It wasn't my intention originally but it happened. Obviously, I just let the rogue do everything first and only came in when he failed and I only used my full attacks against bosses and the occasional minion. And I still had fun. But man I was hoping to have an actual session where I wouldn't have to hold back. The problem with that story is that it's ALSO metagaming. Metagaming because if this were real nobody would complain that the nonsentient demon spawn was taking all the risks, and my character would have 0 reasons not to use his eidolon to the fullest. But that doesn't make for a very fun session. Metagaming isn't inherently good or bad. What is bad is robbing the rest of the table of an enjoyable experience, be it puzzle or combat or whatever else. You shouldn't do things that rob the table of their fun.

[@melkiorwiseman5234]

It sounds as though you have the right attitude to meta-gaming. It may be impossible for you to avoid, but it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't interfere with everyone's fun.

[@alexanderflack566]

I mean, you could roll knowledge checks for it. Also, I would say that investigation or something may, if high enough, let you see some clue as to its immunities; perhaps there is something obscure (physiological feature, sigil that they display showing allegiance to a particular entity whose servants are all resistant or immune to fire) that is common to all (or a subset of) fire-resistant or -immune fiends that scholars managed to discover and write about, and your character may recall such information and observe such a feature on the demon in question. Personally, against obscure enemies (assuming a knowledge roll comes up blank), I've had my artillerist try fire bolt and observe its effectiveness before I use a spell slot on that flamethrower. If fire bolt seems to do little or no damage on a direct hit compared to what it normally does, he'll probably use a force ballista just to be safe. He also observes what other party members use against it, and how effective those are, when determining what to use spell slots on and which cantrip to favor.

[@fred_derf]

If your first go to when facing a big bad is to hit it with a fire spell you (assuming you have no role paying reason to know not to) should have been to hit the Demon with a fire spell. This would not have been, as you say, a waste of a 3rd level spell. You and the other PCs would have learned valuable information on what not to use to attack it.

[@eablount0]

For me as a DM, i make many changes to the creatures and most the encounters. I use the modules and the monsters aa guides. I had a playee that decided to tell me how shadow dragons work. I ended up saying in my games they work differently. The players have much more fun with this then the cut and paste stat block from the source material. I recommend changing things up and keep it secret from the players and reveal when the time comes up. As a player, i do my best to keep my game knowledge separate from character knowledge.

[@theDMLair]

Yes I almost always make slight tweaks to my monsters too. Most monsters are a little bit different than how they are in the books in my games. So I probably would not appreciate a player trying to tell me how to run a monster. Even if I'm making a mistake then I'm still willing to say that in my world that's how it works with that monster and that ability. I think the dungeon master has 100% control over how he implements monsters in his game.

[@EricScheid]

Reminder: "Don't split the party (because it's tedious managing two groups at the table)" is metagaming too.

[@scottcooley5125]

That was already covered in the video >.>

[@hotwheels2621]

Eric Scheid amen

[@Zellonous]

I would think only the foolhardy would separate themselves from the party. Even irl you are told not to do things alone. Im basically a bear and yet my boss told me not to go behind the store by myself. Why? Because safety in numbers. In a world like dnd, I would think everyone would know this protip.

[@hotwheels2621]

Zellonous there’s a fight in the starter module for 5th edition where there’s a small kitchen adjacent to a dining area. Enemies in both, and a small window for serving food. My group dealt with it by sending some of us into the kitchen and some of us into the dining room at the same time. I can’t remember now if we ran the combat separately or together, but we used in-game knowledge to say that it would be better to take both groups at the same time rather than risk getting cornered, flanked, or someone going for reinforcements. I guess it’s a mild example

[@DavidAnderson-cw7oq]

Coming back to this later, the one version of metagaming I’m fine with is metagaming with the other characters. I.E. knowing what the other characters can do and how their abilities work. It makes the experience more interesting and prevents players from accidentally making overlapping characters due to not knowing what the others can do.

[@notreallythere477]

As a GM of many different systems, I am fine with a certain baseline level of metagaming. As you said, the players "knowing" what is and is not an appropriate challenge for them is good, but I'd also say that in D&D, Knowledge tends to be a little overzealous in its gatekeeping of basic adventuring know-how. I treat my players in D&D and its derivatives as being aware of at least the basic facts concerning any common monster. Trolls regenerate and can only be killed with fire or acid. Mindless undead and constructs are immune to mind-affecting spells. Mimics exist. Gelatinous cubes are terrible. And so on. Knowledge rolls for these more common monsters would generally give insight into their actual behavior or the specific stats of the creature they're fighting. I'll also include less common monsters, or trickier variants of the classics, in certain monster groups, to make sure the players don't get too comfortable. Of course, I make my own adventures from scratch, so, reading the module is rarely a problem for me, but at that point, they're mostly just hurting themselves by spoiling the story.

[@dylanfulater6807]

Little Story about an experience I had with metagaming: When I first started playing I was in a 3man group that had encountered a MindFlayer. He was definitely way out of our league at the time, but our characters didn't know that. We had a kid in our group that was completely metagaming, freaking out that we were in trouble. This put me in a tight spot, as I wasn't sure if my character should be on edge because his party member was, or because I as the player knew we were in trouble. I decided to roll a d4, and asked the DM to pick even or odd. He picked even, and I decided that his choice would be my character jumping into action in the situation. Things got super dicey, but we managed to escape the situation, with the metagamer being a causality along the way. And rewarded a boatload of extra experience for being able to come up with a creative way to deal with the issue, as well as our subsequent escape. While I don't really support the DMs decision to have dealt with the kid so harshly, I've taken the experience with me as I've played as a way to try and weigh what I know as a player, vs what my character knows. On a side note: I would like to hear thoughts about Metagaming as the DM, sure we can say that they are the All Powerful Master of the Game, but where do you think the morality lies in situations where things in the world react based on knowledge the DM has of the players, that the NPCs may not have themselves?

[@RPGmodsFan]

It is cheating, if (at the gaming table) the PCs refer to Monster Manuals and/or DMG (via books/tablets/phones/etc.). I do not consider it cheating if they are going off of memory. In this case, I treat it as if the PCs have an unusual knowledge/memory of folklore. Best way to deal with metagaming is to change things up a bit. For example, make werewolfs susceptible to gold instead of silver, etc.

[@Dancan799]

RPGmodsFan why is it cheating to look? I would say it is cheating to act on it but not to look

[@theDMLair]

So if I study the MM for a few hours before each game and can memorize significant parts of it, that's okay? Or if I read the part of the module we're running BEFORE the game (but not during) and can remember it, that's okay?

[@peterwhitcomb8315]

I know of a few GM's who do this if they suspect players are actively using knowledge the character wouldn't know. It's when the player calls the GM out that you know the player is metagaming/cheating. "There is a secret door here" or "Goblins can't 'do that'" is when they expose themselves 😎

[@nickwilliams8302]

@@Dancan799 Because you _can't_ not act on information you possess. Even if you try to pretend not to know what you know, what you know will affect how you make decisions.

[@nickwilliams8302]

@RPGmodsFan Altering monsters' vulnerabilities is an utter overreaction to a complete non-problem. How is the game worse if a player knows that werewolves are vulnerable to silver? Because, unless you're running a game for a bunch of people who've never even _heard_ of werewolves, _your players know werewolves are vulnerable to silver._ To say nothing of the fact that werewolves' vulnerability to silver is thematically connected to the influence of the moon over lycanthropes.

[@skitzopath8964]

I'd have a hard time with that given I'd want to read the monster books for fun and would have to remember to sort wat I know from wat my charecter would know

[@theDMLair]

Yeah, it's tough. I get it. When I'm a player, I often know the monsters, too, because I also DM and thus read the books. I just do my best to only act on my PC's knowledge. Basically, if my PC has never fought it before, I don't use the information I know as a player.

[@nickwilliams8302]

Don't look up stats at the table. If you happen to remember a monster's vulnerabilities, no one reasonable cares.

[@Interrobang212]

Yep i know the feeling Luke. I like to think if I'm playing with fellow DMs they'll be mature enough to not purposely act on it. NO monster manual at the table though.

[@unshackledjester]

Feel free to read the books, just don't act on the information in character. My group tends to run heavy ooc comments while playing and I'll groan every time I see an encounter that's gonna suck. Even in hardcore groups where oof is frowned upon, I groan whenever I see a black pudding. I just don't have my character yell out what I know. That's the key. It's not meta gaming to know something. It is meta gaming to act on that knowledge. However....if you cannot stop yourself...just don't read the books. It can ruin the game for others, and that's not fair to them(unless your DM is cool with it and so is the party as a whole).

[@Ironic_daemonic]

@@theDMLair they are creatures that exist in the world your character lives in. They could have heard tale of it in a bard's song or a child's story or even common sense. The ice monster logically would have fire weakness.

[@WeskerFrank]

The only thing I hate about this is when you fight a monster you've seen hundreds of time but you have to act dumb and risk your character life because ''Your character did not know it was immune to your attack'' Or something similar. This scenario happen all the time in the game I'm playing

[@theDMLair]

Yeah, I get that. It's rough. I ask thw DM if I can check to see if I know about a monster to see if my PC knows a thing.

[@nickwilliams8302]

@@theDMLair And if they fail? How many times should a DM force a player to take an action that player knows to be a bad idea before they allow them to "work out" what they knew all along?

[@shaunwhelan17]

It's part of role playing my dude. it's part of the fun honestly

[@nickwilliams8302]

@@shaunwhelan17 Except it's _not_ fun. People just feel they have to pretend it's fun in order to fit in with the "cool kids".

[@shaunwhelan17]

@@nickwilliams8302 to many people it isn't, to some it is. I agree that it's usually not fun. But I would be full of myself, ignorant, if I thought my way of playing a game was the only way to have fun.

[@dnddude9652]

The amount of meta gaming the rouge did CAN be considered as meta gaming... but if they just know what a... for example... Bullywug does, then I’d pass it off... but them knowing what the NPC’s are going to say and how they’re going to act, alongside the fact they know what their motives are... now THAT’S a bit extreme Also, I saw this funny thing, it’s a short text that goes like this: Guards: “One of us lies, one of us tells the truth” Wizard: “Now, how are we-“ Barb: **Kills one of the guards** Wizard: “WTF” Barb, to the living guard: “Is he alive?” Living guard: *”NOPE”* Barb: “Alright, he’s the liar”

[@theDMLair]

Perfect way to solve the "who's the liar?" scenario. lmao

[@AlchemistCH]

Well, technically, if they together claim that one of them always tells the truth and the other always lies, there is already a problem that if that was true, they wouldn't be able to tell this together - so the solution is that this claim is untrue and they both are damn liars! That's what kind of mess the absolutes of binary logic create, if you aren't extremely careful in how you present them. So while the wizard is confused with logical intricacies, the barbarian is accidentally genius (probably has high wisdom)

[@HairyHariyama]

@@theDMLair Reminds me a bit of how Order of The Stick did it: www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0327.html

[@jaivv247]

3:42 your point there is valid but one could say that their character really wanted the door open and if they failed their character may think that teammates can that's just point though. You keep on with the cool vids mate

[@jaivv247]

Rechordian that also true I'm just saying a point and just wanted to write a comment. But still thanks for your feedback

[@panzerii8384]

Dm lair: clerics heal the wounded Clerics: *hold my ale*

[@Ravensinkwell]

My life Cleric that knows several necromancy spells and likes using sacred flame: Wait I'm supposed to heal people?!?

[@Ravensinkwell]

Nah just has run into one too many demons in her life.

[@ColdspaceDog]

My cleric’s only healing is prayer of heal,spare the dying, and if you count coming back as an undead servant,animate dead

[@Zthewise]

I have two stories about meta gaming. One I did and one a friend did. Mine our party found a deck of many things, which out of character I knew all about but my barbarian would not, refused to touch the thing. The second in a different campaign, while in town doing some down time, the fighter went to do some shopping, the rest of the party and myself were breaking up a fight between a dwarf, a friend who joined late, and a town guard who insulted him. The fighter came back after selling a few things and our illusionist demanded a cut despite not know about the transactions. For context we all split up and agreed to rendezvous at the inn, so none of us knew what the others were up too.

[@nonya9120]

Ohhhhh kay Been playing and mastering since before the first boxed set was published. Ya, I be a geezer. Meta gaming is one of those nifty new terms you youngsters came up with. Mind ya I kind of like it. Sounds cool maybe a 6th or so level spell? My first argument concerns the change in attitude and gaming culture in general. This divison between "war gamers" and "roleplayers". It just seems daft. Bottom line groups all have their own style and group agreement on whats good or really the right way. Nobody wants to play a game and not know the rules. Or have them change without reason. But "meta gaming" As for the rules lawyer types which are in my experience the most likely to read up on monsters and so on. Some will read a published module. We solved that one about the time they started putting Advanced on Dungeons and Dragons. Solution..... Let them. Yep go for it, balls up and into the jaws of death the idiots go. Just be ready. More than once I can recall a player at a shop game whinning from the characters grave, something like, "That wasn't supposed to be there." Or some other bs about what was fair. We let them die and laughed them off the table. It's up to the GM to make things unique and challenging. Especially when something is published. I played the giant modules at least a dozen times through. Past runs never made the next a walk in the park.

[@LlamaNewton]

One of my players (the wizard who always casts fireball) has also been a DM. The way we handle the things he remembers about monster stat blocks is that he's read about/studied that creature in books and has a general sense of some of its characteristics. Whether those books are reliable or not is up to me, and I have changed the monster's stats or allowed one of his mis-remembrances to go uncorrected on occasion. Not all books contain perfect information, after all. If he wants to use specific intel, he has to make the appropriate knowledge roll.

[@tyler58701]

When I was new to dnd i was guilty frequently of looking at the monster manual a lot. It was mainly so I can learn names and picture them in my head, yet I still got confronted on it when I wasn't trying to metagamr I actually didn't know people could be that dishonest at the time. It wasn't until I started to get in larger and larger groups that I realized it does in fact exist.

[@theDMLair]

Oh yeah it definitely exists. I think the power gamer type is the most likely person to do that sort of metagaming. You know the guy who needs to win to must win at all cost. As though winning had any meaning in a role playing game like D&D.

[@kin2naruto]

A great way to encourage that kind of "power gamer" that researches the heck out of monster manuals and stuff... is to give them a character that has an in-world reason to be an expert in that kind of information. (Like a ranger or sage) To balance that out... they need to pick skills, proficiencies, and backgrounds that explain that knowledge. That means they can NOT play characters that require a lot of other skills too. Unless they want to go with it and play like... a Rogue that isn't proficient in Stealth or Lockpicking for several levels! Simply banning that kind of player from learning more about this cool game they like "because it is metagaming" really isn't gonna be fun.

[@emilygordbort7300]

2:50 My barbarian paints in her spare time, my rogue is terrified of being alone, my cleric lies to people for fun and my wizard... yeah my wizard casts fireball.

[@JackLaserWing]

Instead of searching failing then asking someone else to search I just say before I search that we should all check then I fail and my friend finds it.

[@lockwoan01]

To be honest, I am fairly new to the game, but in one case, the group my guy (who was just found him basically in what amounted to a gilded cage) had met up with ran into a clay golem. With us was two dwarves, so we basically had the dwarves do a stonecunning check, while the rest of us did Arcana/Perception checks. We basically said "Okay, who rolled above X?" Afterwards, we basically picked which stat went best for our guys. One of the dwarves, plus my guy, and one of the others, all rolled high enough that all available stats said that "We're dealing with a crummy crumbling golem that should fall over with a shove." The assumption is that our guys said to the others "Hey! This piece of rubble is about to fall apart." "I just found a weak spot for us to use magic on!" "I just found a big old crack we can plant an axe in!" We took it out. Then a second one popped up. As we attacked it, the first rebuilt itself and was behind us. We managed to take both out, and then we decided to run, so that we wouldn't have to deal with them again. On the plus side, our DM seems to be the generous sort, who basically says "Everytime you go into town, you load up on the stuff you need" so that we don't "need" to gather things the hard way.

[@lockwoan01]

Then in a secondary campaign, we've had moments where we must past a stealth check - if enough pass, the rest of the group is good, even if their rolls failed. Again, the assumption is that those who passed helped to muffle any missteps the others made, or gag that halfling who always opens his mouth at the wrong moment.

[@vadegreenwell4078]

A Wise man once said “Calm Down”

[@katkidrockthewolf6532]

As a new player when the DM would say before you stands a "non descriptive and just the name of said beast" I would often grab the monster manual to look at the art of said beast. I had never heard the term meta-gaming so when the DM mentioned it being a taboo, I informed him if why I was looking it up. To my credit I had done this numerous times and was able to site instances where I could have but did not exploit a monsters weakness. We also came up with an easy solution, he would print out a picture of the more umcommon DnD monsters and he also got better at describing what the monster looks like instead of just calling it out by name. This is something I think every DM should do. Experienced players often know many if the monsters as well as having a good idea of it's strengths and weaknesses. Case and point in an instance where we ran into a Rakshaza, not sure if I spelled that right, I looked it up but didn't shoot it with a blessed crossbow bolt. For anyone unfamiliar with older additions of DnD a blessed crossbow bolt outright killed a Rakshaza with a successful hit. The Cleric in our group actually blessed a bolt and killed the beast. If you only describe what a person is seeing that helps to prevent the pro meta gaming. Mainly I find when you dont tell people its a specific monster or w/e then that leaves them unsure if it's a Rakshaza or home brewed beast from straight out of the DMs imagination. Food for thought. Sorry so long winded. Edit: Of course this scenario was my introduction to metagaming in general, I wasn't at that time but as time passed and I became more knowledgeable of out of character information, then metagaming and not metagaming became more of a challenge. Now when I am unsure how much my character would know about something I simply as the DM A simple does this beast look or act like anything I have ever heard of? We have also have a system. If it's reskinn or home brewed he or she will say something like this one seems similar yet different at the same time.

[@B0redom13]

First thing I was taught was that this isn’t a game you try to “win” it is about the journey. Meta gaming always seems to be about winning.

[@waifutrashqueen5930]

or at the very least not dying 😂

[@williamthain2888]

So my DM lets me “metagame” and read the module during sessions. Now before someone has a hissy fit over that, I am aLso a DM as well as an experienced role player. My dm knows that even though I have the map to Avernus memorized I won’t follow it. He knows that when I see a monster who’s stat block he sent me at the beginning of combat, that I won’t use that knowledge to benefit the party. Like in one instance we fought these fiery velociraptor chicken things, and when we rolled initiative he sent me the stat block. I rolled low on initiative so I read up on the chicken, saw it healed from fire damage. So after surprise round and by my first turn in initiative (right after the second Dinochicken)we killed one and the other was getting ready to attack us, our half-dragon fighter did a great deal of damage, then our cleric/druid missed, it hit our fighter for HIGH damage and then I attacked, I did my exact usual attack. And at the end of my turn I did what I usually do, about “Kill them with fire!” To our warforged. So he cast fireball at his max level spell slot, and healed the chicken back up to full health. I use my metagaming knowledge in a non harmful way to add excitement for our dm and players.

[@adamkaris]

I mean.... How metagaming is it not use fire on a "fiery velociraptor"? If I see a creature made of a specific element. I don't see why I would use that element? It's the most basic Rock/Paper/Scissors strategy lol.

[@robinthrush9672]

My DM had me role an insanity check when he thought I was meta-gaming. I was looking up an image of the demon he was describing. I was way off in my imagination.

[@theDMLair]

Did you pass your Insanity check? :-)

[@robinthrush9672]

@@theDMLair I did. It was against her weakest stat too. I also looked up a second demon during the fight that started the next session and he asked if I was looking it up, but I wisely used Google image rather than D&D Beyond and show him my phone, which he was fine with.

[@DennisNeijmeijer]

My second session as DM. I had a player accuse me of meta gaming and holding my punches because a owlbear would turn and attack the player that did the most damage to it, without regard for attacks of opportunity. The same player told the entire party later that they should not attack the aarakocra's they encountered because they are a playable race and were good aligned. Needless to say the aarakocra's immediately attacked them.

[@legolotrgeek1409]

I’ve got one player that occasionally looks at stat blocks for monsters, but am fortunate that he does not use that information to meta game. All of my group is pretty good at separating what they know, and what their characters know. It’s actually been beneficial at times, as he’ll catch when I misread something, which sometimes saves the party from some damage, sometimes condemns them to take a bit more damage.

[@antikmayas]

If this 2 humble exemples can fill the jar of anecdotes: During our RoT campaign, our poor GM was not finding notes and informations about a certain item in a certain dungeon (he didn't read little note), he did ask help to two of his long lasting (and trusted player) for help him to find out informations and not slow / stop the game too much. Again in our RoT campaign, a certain player, meta-gamer in body, heart and souls, did check more than once the MM and VGtM for stats-blocks and "poney rock&roll" their holy ass. After a certain moment, he had to convince us as pc that he was not working for the ennemy since he "know too much" for a "wanderer".. The GM, after kicking him out, did reveal he was already working on changing every monster of the campaign for mess him up. For myself, i tend to never touch the "GM Books" when i am a player, but i have a hard time to separate "what i know" from "what my pc know" when we are facing a monster that i am using in my own campaign.

[@Shadowseer7930]

Is it weird that every time I see a bookcase in a KZbinrs video, I always look for The Wheel of Time series

[@theDMLair]

Nope. I have TWoT on mine. 😁

[@Shadowseer7930]

@@theDMLair A man of culture I see

[@loki3275]

I had issues with bad metagaming where the players looked up a monster, showed the stats to all the other players and then built up a plan for the encounter while they thought I was unable to hear them. It made me mad, but I thought this is a good chance to show them the dm can change the monster stats on the fly. And indtead of a normal group of 3 purple wit me, they fought a 3 headed purple wurm hydra earth titan. The party barbarian ate him to death. We had fun, they got a few bruises, one unlucky guy got stuck in a maze for 3 rounds lol.

[@theDMLair]

Great way to adapt! I would suck to have to do that with every monster though.

[@loki3275]

@@theDMLair I typically don't, havent had them look up stats in front if me though, and most of the time with monsters I use base stats. Though now I'm thinking of adopting the kobold press monster books into my world and the tome of horrors from frog god games as well. I own them, but rarely use them.

[@bonbondurjdr6553]

@@loki3275 if you want, you can look up creature generators and related GM help on DriveThruRPG to help fight metagaming at your table!

[@Scorpious187]

"I've been a Dungeon Master since the first time the Detroit Lions won the Superbowl." As a Bears fan, this intro had me dead. That was hilarious.

[@CLNCJD94]

As a Lions fan, this intro made me lose my shit.

[@camfalafranca800]

I just don't understand the reference

[@Scorpious187]

@@camfalafranca800 The last time the Detroit Lions won the Superbowl is never. They've never even been to a Superbowl. In fact the Lions have never even been to a Superbowl.

[@camfalafranca800]

Cool thnx

[@baobhan9094]

I agree wholeheartedly, especially on when meta-gaming is ok, if you see a party toiling pointlessly on something as a DM you feel that their characters likely know, or that is simply wasting time, it's okay to occasionally break, and inform them that something is unnecessary or even provide them with another form of out. Telling / confirming players when they are correct rather than just allowing them to stew, overthink and derail their thoughts on certain plot-points, puzzles or mysteries is a good one. It's better that they feel great about their achievement and we move on, rather than sit for an hour and a half at the game table chasing false flags.

[@kendrickrochelanzot2053]

"I've been a dungeon master since the first time the Detroit lions won the superbowl" Me: takes 1d6 psychic damage But my opinion about metagaming is that it is not good, like it sort of breaks inversion because one isn't playing in character.

[@theDMLair]

Every Detroit Lions fan takes psychic damage every single year during football season. Every. Single. Year.

[@RottenRogerDM]

I thought they were a NBA team.

[@anthonynorman7545]

So in a video about metagaming you refrained from metagaming ;)

[@theDMLair]

Ah, missed opportunity... Lol

[@ratman505]

9:26 - The paladin and the rogue. Or the paladin and the warlock. Or the paladin and the horny bard. Or the paladin and another paladin of a different deity. Also my thoughts on today's topic. I've been a GM for years now and I have pretty good visual memory. It is impossible to prevent metagaming (the bad looking-up-stats kind) all the time. Every player knows of troll's healing power for example. They might wait one hit, maybe a round, after that they will grab torches. I don't see a way to stop that other than spending several hours homebrewing every single monster. But when your troll is now vulnurable to alcohol and that stops his regeneration, you could only do that for a single campaign.

[@broke_af_games9661]

Immort4lFr0sty I wouldn't say that it's impossible. Been DMing for 20 years. Played this year and DM faced us against a medusa. I know what they do.... He said "I'll give you a chance to avert your eyes" My warlock (blaster) charlatan city slicker with 9 con.... "Nope, never heard about a medusa before" DM and party "what!?" Me: rolls a 3, in sta turns to stone "Huh, cool, LOL" When DMing I basically say that anything that falls into a nursery rhyme or folklore in any culture will have its DnD equivalent. So people would have a nursery rhyme about trolls and their vulnerability about fire. Basically just determine what's common knowledge in the moment and try not to make common monsters part of that combat-puzzle-mystery without reskinning or having an NPC warn the PCs

[@mitchelltyner5670]

I had something similar with a low level party from a city that ran into a troll. All of them started out using fire and were dumbfounded when I said that it seemed to be very limited in it's effect. They were dumbfounded and then after like 6 rounds the wizard used the frost ray and I said the beast howled in pain and they could see that the area that was hit was not healing like the other areas. Since my players have about 10+ years of playing multiple editions they know about everything's weakness so I change them up and add back in that bit of mystery.

[@ratman505]

@@broke_af_games9661 damn, I wouldn't pass a chance to avoid any form of cc, in video game terms. I mean, I'm there to play the game But I have senselessly attacked a creature before, even though I knew that all damage was "exported" to something called a crystal heart. Destroying that would have killed the creature, instead I almost ended up dying xD

[@HairyHariyama]

Damn paladins! They ruin paladinhood!

[@Zellonous]

@@broke_af_games9661 that sounds awesome actually. Nursery rhymes... You could even have old wives tales... That are false. That would be interesting....

[@Randomdudefromtheinternet]

As a DM I don't mind meta gaming, because as a player I do that a lot (and I take this as an opportunity to custom make my monsters and stuff) In another note: It's also quite hard to RP a dumb character because I love making strategies, in one session I was a Moon Druid, and although my PC is quite on the dumber side, he made quite the infiltration/raid plan (he was raised by wolves so I guess tactical thinking can be there to a degree) (he turned into a giant spider, built this advantage point out of silk, sent an ally to free some prisoners, and ogre spider'd one of the bandits)

[@Josh-on-journey]

*EXACTLY* A player should never know anything about how much HP a creature or enemy has. That completely takes the fun out.

[@JenomKolemjdouci]

That's why it's better to roll creature's HPs - the monsters are also more diverse that way.

[@gabriel300010]

@@JenomKolemjdouci yeah but then you have to actually roll it

[@JenomKolemjdouci]

@@gabriel300010 Which is what you have the screen for :D

[@Zellonous]

@@gabriel300010 roll planned encounters ahead of time

[@Pursy]

I sort of disagree. Yes, the player should not know how much HP a creature has at the start of the game, but i like it when our DM tells us that the creature is bloodied aka it has lost at least half its HP. Its kinda helps to estimate the efforts you still have to do and is an archivement by itself. Also its is some sort of an archivement. So while fighting, you can at least estimate how much HP an enemy has by that, and its not meta gaming.

[@lockwoan01]

Wait a moment! Checking facts! Unless I'm mistaking the Frost Brand for the Ice Brand (which I can't find (or is a homebrewed version)), the Flame Tongue does more damage (+2d6)(when lit) compared to the Frost Brand (+1d6). Of course, when the Flame Tongue isn't lit, it does regular damage (1d6). This means that the Rogue is totally justified switching his weapons (especially if he's activating it for Fire Damage!)!

[@jacobvanveit3437]

“D&D is the worlds greatest roleplaying game?” No no no... “the world is D&D’s greatest Roleplaying game.”

[@ernestasbogdanov5856]

In our parties we don't have major metagaming issues, but as there are 3 DMs also playing in other campaigns, sometimes it's hard to get rid of some knowledge. But as you pointed out, how we approach this is: "I know, but my character doesn't" and sometimes we do things that our characters would do even though we know it's not gonna work or fail. Regarding monsters, we actually started to modify a lot of them - yes, it's a lot of additional prep work, but it eliminates potential metagaming and it makes combats much more fun.

[@tyrantofcans465]

IMO, when you have a table full of DMs who have done the module a few times, I think the metagaming bits ok. (Though, personally, I'd change the module up a bit) Bad Metagaming, in my book, is knowing EXACTLY what a monster is weak to, resistant to, and how many hitpoints it has. It's knowing exactly what 'hidden' magical item you have. It's when you twist the candle 50 degrees perfectly to open the hidden dor. OK metagaming is where the PCs have an inkling of what they are, like they know hags exist and want to avoid them, or having enough 'intellect' to not wear that special hat, or when there is litteraly only one torch in the room and you've already checked all the other rooms on the board. Good metagaming is when the DM throws the Terrasque at you and all the characters KNOW they are screwed or when you know you character is going to be a necromancer so you start stuffing dead bodies into a bag of holding for later use, or when you have to deal with one of your old hometowns YOUR CHARACTER GREW UP IN. (This all happened in one session where I was a player, surprisingly enough. The only bad one I did was the 'hidden' magical item thing, and it was a bag of holding for my kenku wizard. Still a little mad at that last one, tbh, cause I had to roll knowlege check and I rolled a 2.)

[@Hazel-xl8in]

something another DM mentioned is “awareness of style”. if you as a DM are known, famous or infamous, for doing a certain kind of thing, then the players picking up on that can be a huge compliment. the example given was the “empty” hallway trap: you’re walking down a hallway in a dungeon and the characters notice a lot of new masonry here. once you get to the end, all of the new walls break down and a bunch of orcs hack their way into the hallway, a whole bunch of doors had been plastered over! the DM in question was known for using that kind of trap all the time, and when the players picked up on it, he was overjoyed. this scenario is absolutely metagaming, but it’s in good sport.

[@05Tom1]

I'm the 7th person to like the video! :D Love your videos man. They're really helping me build my first campaign as a new DM :)

[@theDMLair]

Cool, glad you like them and that I've been able to help you! :D

[@spartanhawk7637]

There are ways you can work around metagaming to a certain degree, such as an encyclopedia collection in a bag of holding or, in a more modern/futuristic setting, maybe an informant at the police precinct. Even then, however, there are drawbacks, mainly how long it would take to look up the needed information. defending metagaming by saying "But he lives in the world!" is like expecting your average Joe to know how to build a smartphone or automatically know what plants are poisonous. Sure, some people know that stuff, but they're few and far between.

[@doncoyote68]

Players knowing monster statlines is great. They have enough engagement to try and learn the gameworld. That should be encouraged. In a mechanics focused game, knowledge about the game mechanics become a vital part of player skill. Someone who enjoys reading about and memorizing hundreds of monsters is no different than someone who enjoys reading and memories hundreds of spells, magic items, feats and everything else. And yeah fine, if you have a total new person it can be more fun to let them discover the game world in character. But as soon as this is no longer their first campaign ever, any player who to want to learn more about the gameworld is a good player. And since d&d has no specific setting, information about monsters, races, classes, gods, magic items and such is really what you get setting wise that isn't specific to a single campaign or module. Relevant knowledge skills should only be used to know about monsters as a convenience/crutch for players that don't want to memorize hundreds of different statblocks. In short, knowing that a red dragon is resistant towards fire, is no difference than knowing that a cleric have good Wisdom saves. And yes, this equally applies to rare monsters, (and rare tactical situations). As for modules obviously avoid reading the one you are playing in.

[@Reinshark]

The goal of playing D&D isn’t to play the character who is most capable of slaying monsters; the goal is to tell a collaborative story. You’re treating it like a video game.

[@xericsbyrd5195]

I run 2nd edition games where the stuff is harder to come by. Everyone uses my stuff so they don't really have access to the monster manual most of the time. Additionally I design my own monsters and even some adventures so there is no way for players to pre-read the module or look up the monster stat blocks.

[@kyleward3914]

Is altering the monsters' stats on the fly punishing the players? I've told my players before that if I suspect someone has looked the stats up, that's when the stats will change. I also tend to use a lot of homebrewed or reskinned monsters, though, so even if a player were so inclined, it wouldn't come up often at my table.

[@IrvingIV]

If you warn them about the rule during session 0 (or the equivalent) there is no problem.

[@iglidor]

Kyle Ward: Depends on how you are altering those stats and for what reason. Honestly I at this point practicaly never even look up moster stats and abilities myself and just made them all up as things go. It requires from you to be sensible about it of course. But as long as you are, it speeds thing greatly, it allows you to muddle numbers even in mid encounter (fex when it is clear that goblins lost all advantages and it is just matter of time before they are wiped, I reduce their HP a bit or make them fall auto-unconcious if they HP get low enough to finish fight faster) At the same time, when you are able to throw away rulebook stats, you can easily and without needing much time for preparation spike things up too. Back to the case of goblins, you can simply say that one of them is low lvl wizard and give him 2-3 spells that are ussualy never used by PCs (fog cloud, or Jump to allow one goblin to jump into backranks of PCs and threaten with his goblin "might" that poor wizard who though to be safe behind wall of plated warriors and clerics.) At this point I ussualy plan about 10-15% of my adventures and leave the rest fo improvisation or to player input. Really great GM tool that I learned from Apocalypse World is to sometimes throw back questions to players. Ie when they rescue some hostage and one players ask if he knows him, you can simply ask him back: "Do you know him? Who is he? Describe him.". Great way to create NPCs that players take at least some interest in.

[@eros5420]

There was an error on the dungeon map, showing a trap on the floor. I told the party to ignore it and roleplay as their character would. My party's Minotaur Paladin of Baphomet walks 2/3 the way down the hallway, stopping right in front of the trap and says he wants to roll perception to check for traps. I ask why he wants to check for traps there and not earlier in the hallway. The rest of the party is laughing at him cause they know im not gonna let him get away with it. He says he thinks the hallway ahead might be trapped. I tell him to roll perception. 17. I tell him he doesnt notice anything. He is dead quiet as the party breaks out in laughter. He says he walks forwards, I describe how the floor falls out below him, have one of the other players roll to grab him and pull him back. It was a low DC and they make it. Lol. Original trap was easy to spot and didnt do much damage but saw a chance to teach a lesson against metagaming and took it. If nothing else the rest of the party thought it was hilarious.

[@kieranslater7437]

I personally feel that meta gaming is fine (in regards to vulnerabilities) if it is for much more common monsters

[@erikschaal4124]

Sometimes resorting to metagaming can salvage a combat that had gone south. In a few 4th ed games, a hand full or players are struggling with ghosts because they are insubstantial, I would just spam magic missile knowing a) ghost took full damage from force attacks, and b) being the Wizard, was the only one capable of dealing that damage type.

[@pierluigidipietro5597]

I'm about to run a D&D module, but prehemptively said: "you know, we'll play this campaign in a few sessions... But I've decided to apply a lot of changes to it". Luckily enough, my players appreciate the thrill of surprise more than trying to "control" the events.

[@joelsmall8565]

How to not need to look at the monster manual Memorise it like me

[@TheGainfulGamer]

I had hinted as a DM of a creature reaching out to the party in an underground lake for a few sessions. The players guessed it was an abolith. A few of the players had devised a plan out of session together, to pull the abolith out of water with control water, then stone-walled it away from the water, then spike growthed the ground and shot it from afar while it flopped around with its crap movement speed. I was pretty upset, but the party loved how smart they were. Yes, it was meta gaming. Yes they chumped the monster. But they had fun, which was what is the objective.

[@nickwilliams8302]

You mean, the players used the information within their brains to win D&D and this was fun for them? The only thing wrong with your story is that you were upset that the players did this. What you described is the usual result of "metagaming": players feeling smart because they successfully used their knowledge to solve a challenge and then having a great time and a DM learning how to build a better encounter.

[@TheGainfulGamer]

A bit heavy on the sarcasm there my friend. And never start off a comment by assuming. Let me clarify. The point of my comment was to illustrate the need to know your play group. I was upset initially because I felt that I was failing to create challenging bosses that would be memorable. The encounter was only memorable to our play group due to the fact it was cheesed so easily. The information the group used was metagaming - heavily metagaming - so it pertained to the video. The point I made was, my play group enjoyed playing this way and that is ok. I was illustrating that this was a learning experience for myself in adjusting my campaign style to suit the type of players I was hosting. The campaign is a group effort and not a DM vs Player situation. The "mean"ing of my story was to show that I was at fault and learned from it, and illustrate the importance of finding out what type of fun the group has while playing.

[@scorpiovenator_4736]

Ooh my god my player's love looking at all the d&d books and monster stats i need to hide my books sometimes.

[@TeaLeaf91]

Last night a player recognized a creature I described (he fought something similar in elden ring) and then told everyone what it was. However, his character absolutely had no idea what it was. He then proceeded to show everyone a picture of what it looked like that he found online. He was arguing that there’s nothing wrong with what he did because he already knew what it was. He also keeps track of HP and the AC of everything the group fights. He is known to, and is very open and proud of, finding exploits in video games and using it to make his characters OP.

[@danieldosso2455]

To play Devil's Advocate, I'd argue several of WotC's Module's combat encounters are overstacked, especially at lower level.

[@theDMLair]

Agreed, but that's an issue with those modules and WotC for not balancing low levels better or designing modules better. One of the first encounters in Descent in Avernus is BRUTAL.

[@mitchelltyner5670]

I find that sometimes you have to hit them hard at low level to keep that idea of realism with them. So they don't believe they can walk into every fight without planning and come out on the other side just fine "because it's 5th edition and it's almost impossible to kill a PC in 5th" ...

[@tristankendrick2582]

@@mitchelltyner5670 This is one of the worst problems I've found with 5e. What? You want the players to actually be somewhat threatened with death if the fail an encounter? Too bad, one point of lay on hands from a paladin or pretty much any support caster and they become invincible

[@mitchelltyner5670]

@@tristankendrick2582 yeah I've enacted the lingering wounds system so if they drop to 0 they have bad things that happen to them so it stops whack-a-mole tactics. Also when in a vicious fight where it has to be deadly if the monster has 2 or 3 attacks I aim them all at the player at the start of the creatures turn. If the creature knocks the player down in the first hit it is likely going to be a character death or they might pull it out of an attack or two misses. In 5e about the only way to kill a pc is to attack a downed pc. Also I've started playing my monsters a lot smarter and depending on the amount of prep some things like a beholder or Dragon will 100% kill the party if no prep was done before the confrontation.

[@jamesorlong]

Honestly, just like the DM Lair said, if all the players like to metagame because that's fun and that's how they play games rather than role-playing or w/e that's up to them. One of the largest selling points and why people play D&D is the freedom to do pretty much w/e they want. There're no hard-coded rules, DMs can homebrew w/e they want, and players can pretty much do w/e they want as long as it's REASONABLE or cool AF. The only rule I like to have between me and any table is that when a rule is called out it's used consistently between sessions unless the initial ruling was game-breaking and it MUST be overruled.

[@MrUmakemelaff]

"Been a dungeon master since the Detroit Lions won the Superbowl." And the Lions won it without metagaming....After all, they are not the New England Patriots...

[@theDMLair]

Im pretty sure the Lions have never won the Super Bowl. 😁

[@zacattack3899]

They haven't even been to one

[@TopLaneChad]

@@theDMLair Yeah that was like 54 years ago. You weren't even alive then

[@russelljacob7955]

Commenting as it goes: First metagame: Failed checks Any action which can affect the players actions on followup: Sneak, checking for hidden stuff, etc. I as a DM roll in secret. With jumps etc, outcome is determined on roll. But if the action then determines knowledge for future acts? Secret rolls. Seriously adds lots of fun. I can then preroll trap checks so they dont need to announce every check and keeps it exciting not ever truly knowing.... Monster manual and info stuff with experienced players? You said... check determines experience. I live on earth and know water buffalos exist, but no idea on how to be killed by one. for experienced characters and spontaneous action checks? I do a video game style start. Have player define and set up their mannerisms and stuff like a backstory helps keep in the mind and metagame mistakes. Map and that sleep spell? Take minis off the board. Quick sketch to track location behind the screen. Use "Fog of War" paper to cover map sections. In worst case players, I exploit their metagaming and do not give them info, or use my GM perogative to mislead by being minimalist in info or perhaps using monster variation. So non check clues all pointing to a black dragon.... then the encounter is a necromancer with a dragolem? Well, their metaminmax backfired. I didnt do anything, no lies, just some misleading clues. Quickly they begin to question the metas. It also makes it more fun because they want to really investigate and find info. Still metagaming, but they have to really use the character, party and roleplay for certainty. More fun for everybody by redirecting the metagame mentality.

[@EasilyBoredGamer]

why would you cast fireball, a dex save spell on what I assume is a rogue he's just gonna take no damage because of evasion

[@theDMLair]

Noooooo...now I have to redo the entire video. 😢

[@dreadfirewyrm8337]

@@theDMLair Who said it had to be a newer edition of AD&D? A 1e Thief's save vs spell is not the best at least assuming 5th level wizard and thief.

[@ConnorSinclairCavin]

One tip i would propose that i have used before (though fair warning it does put more session 0 work into play) is make a list of all creatures, spells, places, important people, and materials you plan to use, plus a few extra slots just in case. Next to each of these names set aside a blank spot for each relevant potential check (aka each knowledge type and observation/research type skill) have each player give you a number of rolls equal to how many total slots you have, if their character would logically have a better chance or a worse chance to know of a certain topic based on training, lifestyle, raising, or the like then give their roll to that a bonus. Then whenever you encounter something you can look through your player notes and hand copies of info (old holy fables, local tales, natural studies, hero trading card info...) to the people whom actually know something, if they want to expand their knowledge after the encounter they need to write a note and hand it (or a copy) to the dm.

[@allisongreen6116]

"He's Lucario" -Boyfriend

[@spectrelead]

The last campaign I was a player in was when Descent into Avernus released, and we all had copies, as there is player information in the back. There were a LOT of times we'd talk about the spot we were, and the DM saying we could use knowledge up to a specific spot, etc. I'd already read the book three times by the time we had a TPK because we picked the wrong fight and Zariel showed up. I could've ended up doing something at the end, but I knew that would've been meta-gaming to use that. We also would ask to make checks and then use information from the MM after getting permission (mostly my wizard in our first campaign because of his INT and background), but I was the second youngest person at the table at the age of 42...

[@Cobravenom69]

Tis cheating. All who defend it are smelly cheaters. You should only look at stuff your character knows. Like a necromancer knowing undeads stats. Or a ranger who hunts beasts knowing a bunch about beasts. ECT As for the role playing of a Pali and a rogue working together, I think the role play works well. In my current party we have a lawful good Pali, chaotic good cleric, two neutrals running around the conflicts between group members can make it more fun lol. Meta gaming punishment ! You must pay for the Pizza and hardcider yourself tonight for meta gaming.

[@theDMLair]

I hereby dub you Sir Lux Sanitatem. Rise, sir knight.

[@nickwilliams8302]

Who are you to tell someone else what _their_ character knows?

[@Cobravenom69]

@@nickwilliams8302 Thankfully not your Gm. I feel sorry for who ever is.

[@nickwilliams8302]

@@Cobravenom69 I am the GM. So thanks, I suppose? I have bigger fish to fry than trying to tell my players who their characters are and what they do and don't know. Someone actually _remembers_ something from their two decades of playing TTRPGs? I don't sweat it. It's just as easy to come up with a reason why a PC _does_ know something as it is to invent a spurious interjection as to why they _wouldn't._

[@Cobravenom69]

@@nickwilliams8302 Lol must be boring af to play in your game then. Everyone just sitting there looking up all the stats for all your encounter. Hey if you want to rp that all your PC's having infinite knowledge of everything and everyone in the world and know exactly how to solve and kill and deal with everything good for you. And fyi no one said anything about telling your players who they are and what they do. I suggested they should only know what their characters would know from the experiences their pc have had. But once again if you want all your pc having infinite knowledge of everything and knowing every encounter and how-to solve every puzzle that's great for you.

[@Salt_Master_Queue]

I have some examples for both good and bad Meta-Gaming. Good example 1: Guys, I checked for secret doors, and didn't find any. I wanna have someone to double check just to make sure we're not missing anything. Good example 2: *the bard making a reference to something outside the game about vampires while fighting Strahd* Hey Strahd, I read some popular books on vampires, and they make you look dumb. *obviously referencing Bram Stoker's "Count Dracula"* Bad example 1: *out of character* Hey guys, this creature has X amount of HP, and is vulnerable to Y kind of damage. Bad example 2: *the player makes reference to a bit of the story that their character wasn't a part of whilst in character* I don't think Meta-Gaming isn't inherently bad, it just needs to be reigned in a bit, so that way everyone can have fun while playing.

[@WexMajor82]

Is it cheating? Can I get a "Hell yes!" ?

[@Zellonous]

Hell yes

[@chillwill1083]

100% I also think it depends on the situation. In my first DnD game I ever played I metagamed because I, the player, knew trolls were afraid of fire because I had just read the Drizzt books and he used fairy fire to scare them. This moment caused me to fall in love with the game and I've been hooked ever since. I was maybe 11 at the time? While I'd probably not want my players to do this if they're an adult if it's a kid or someone younger and makes them fall in love with the game because they can use some info then I think it can work.

[@KageRyuu6]

Personally if you're concerned about metagaming, it's because you've failed as a DM to get your players invested in the experience rather than the XP. Also as a wise DM once told me. "You control the world, not the characters." To that end I believe Knowledge Skills should be used to reward rather than punish a player, so I tend to reason that a Monster's Resistances and Special Attacks would be common knowledge to one tasked with hunting them down, while using Knowledge Skills to give them additional useful information, such as AC or HP, rather than having my players flail around ineffectively for a round or two to appease someone's sense of Roleplay.

[@LeLa_Lu]

I have an interesting point to make about "double-checking" knowledge checks or stealth checks. Imo, you can divide events that happen when you roll badly into two domains: 1. 7-12 and

[@artemisgoldheart6791]

My rule is if nobody can see a creature don’t put it out yet and it’s fine if you cast at a location others in your party can see and you can communicate with them

[@cynicose2781]

In WDH when you meet Volo, I give my players the option of buying a signed special edition of Volos Guide to Monsters. If they have it I'll give them advantage on intelligence checks to find info of that monster. Also there's a fun 'Meta Thief' subclass in Minsc and Boo's guide which pokes fun at the meta gaming trope.

[@XTheCrystalBeastGuyX]

A player in the campaign I'm in with assumed I stole his deck of illusions. (I did). But the fact he as a player knew I did while his character didn't, made me feel like punishing him after he constantly attacked me over it and pointed a gun at me like he knew I did steal it. So I got a chest, stole gold from him, stole his deck of illusions from him (again) and put it in the chest while the rest of the party was asleep. I was already working on this chest for a long time beforehand and started off with a dozen gold coins in it that had Glyph of Wardings on them. The casting point was the chest so the DM allowed the glyphs to stay active as long as they stayed within 10 feet of the chest. I set conditions for which the glyphs would detonate. 1) If anyone other my character opens the chest, they'll detonate. 2) If they coins touch anything other than me, other gold coins, or the chest itself; the glyphs will detonate. If the glyphs went critical, that'd be over 118d8 damage to everything within the blast radius at the DM's discretion. At the same time, the gold coins in there that aren't marked with glyphs would become shrapnel that strikes at everything at every angle. 59 piercing damage to everything within 20 feet. 29 to those that make a successful Dex Save. 29 to those from 25 to 40. 15 to those that make a successful save. But to the point. The deck of illusions will be incinerated when the chest goes critical. I did an arcana check on the rest of the party. No one is capable to performing "Anti-Magic Zone" or has the ability to use dispel magic on the coins that they can't even get to without setting off a nuke. Dispel magic only works on the target but if the target is concealed and characters don't know what the glyphs are on inside the box, they don't know what to target for Dispel Magic anyway. So for blindly (even though accurately) saying I stole you deck (but without any proof or evidence aside from "yOu'Re ThE rOgUe So Of CoUrSe YoU dId It!") this is your just desserts as my character leaves the campaign to be replaced by another that isn't borderline Chaotic Evil. But point a gun at the player who's chaotic neutral or actually attack them and someone is about to get a very rude wakeup call.

[@mys6886]

I’ve sometimes had to introduce what I call the meta gaming dragon, Which was a prismatic dragon yes a prismatic dragon in 5E that also met a game but normally showed itself by flying over the party or making sounds or showing up in some way whenever they meta gamed, as a warning letting them know that if they continue to break the fourth wall so will i with a dragon

[@Notsogoodguitarguy]

I'm running a completely custom campaign at home, and one of my players is our previous DM who got tired of DMing. He's playing a tempest domain cleric. Now, my world has borrowed off of the standard D&D stuff, of course, but the story, some gods, and most monsters are completely custom. And the monsters that aren't custom are reskinned (kind of), so that it's not immediately obvious what they're fighting. So, one encounter, I had them meet two shambling mounds in an acid swamp. I tried describing how they look, but they were a bit different than his description. But our previous DM recognized them immediately. Up to that point, he had been using his 8th level ability (divine strike) to always (and I do mean always, no exception) deal lightning damage, since we had agreed it didn't make any noise. But, as soon as he saw the shambling mounds, he started using thunder damage. Literally, at the flip of a switch. No explanation, no anything. Now, this was a clear case of metagaming. A really clear case. None of the other members of the party had met such a creature before or knew what they did. They couldn't possibly know that they absorb lightning damage and heal. So, instead of calling him out, I did the next best thing. What happens when you use thunder damage in a swamp densely populated with creatures? You attract attention from hundreds of feet away. All manner of alligators, snakes, birds and insects rushed their way. Because of this one instance of metagaming, they had to waste six more valuable spell slots to get away from the approaching monsters, and they were just about to fight a hydra. So, that's my way of dealing with metagaming. If it's not fatal, but quite obvious, I don't really call it out, I punish it without too much of a fuss. Nobody has yet to complain. If it's something more on the nose, then I call it out and have a discussion.

[@redith137]

One of the hardest metagaming situations I had as a player was when one of our party members was playing the blue falcon rogue. you know what I mean by that the type of one that will steal from the party. It was real hard not to meta game that situation as he describes picking the lock of my room to the DM. It got real annoying when I accused the rogue of stealing my stuff when I noticed it was missing. I was accused of metagaming even though I think it would be a natural response to blame the sticky-fingered rogue.

[@CosplayZine]

Seems like the action should have been discussed and rolled in secret before the game and not in front of you to hear. Lol

[@allolebarilliertaxi4304]

Thank you. Interesting for a nioubie DM like me. To avoid metagaming, i'm more likely to give chosen informations compelling my players to ask questions, performs rolls, i also put monsters on the gaming table according to their Char's position. But, you nailed one of those sticky situation when players have the knowledge on some monsters. It is... Difficult to fully play roles against some monsters like trolls etc. So i'm comprehensive or weak, choose what suits you :)

[@CmikeDnD]

When I DM, I often read or give my intelligent monster stats if they RP learning it etc When I'm a player, I too need help gauging the confidence of my characters. I usually look up the monsters - to see the art, I avoid any of the stats except the CR. I use Sly Flourish's CR math to help me gauge "the deadliness of the encounter or possible encounter" For the same reason why I talked to my DM about letting me roll Charisma checks before RPing. I don't metagame my rolls. The roll helps guide me through the RP, if I failed, I'm going to RP something fun/funny/clumsy. This helps me because irl i struggle socially and having a tool to help me focus my contribution of the story is important. So knowing the party's CR: (number of players) * (player lvl) / (by 2 if lvl 5+ or by 4 if under lvl 5), then the CR of the monsters helps me understand how confident my character would feel in the situation. Especially as the tank of the group, can i determine the deadliness of the situation without slowing down the game, and just contribute. For example, our party is lvl 7, and we have 5 PCs, so we're roughly CR 21. So that means my character would know based on experience in game when he feels he can win or has to protect the others. irl, i forget the toughness of most fights since the campaign is long and we play a few different games to give the DM a break, so it's a really good way to go, "oh, my tank might not have ever fought this thing before, but they would eyeball this and think, I got this" But again, I avoid reading the stats, and if I know the stats, I work to ignore them and just focus on the above "CR - deadliness gauging tool"

[@QCSoDa]

I love this video. One of the instances we are more lenient about meta-gaming is when the PLAYER or even the GAME MASTER is still learning what the CHARACTER would be able to do in their sleep, or is missing knowledge that the character needs to role play fully. Take an archer that does trick shots. Joe Player is an accountant that has never held a bow, and doesn't know that parts of the bow or arrow. His character would know what a fletchers knife is called, which plants can be made into arrows, and the best birds to get feathers. Jane Player is a real world competitive archer and lets Joe Player know how his character can improvise a bow if they soak a certain kind of reed in torch oil during an extended rest. Not in the rules, but the character archer might know this, and now the player can make a check to improvise a weapon in a way that makes a big impact on the upcoming battle, and might even be something the DM didn't think of.

[@carpedm9846]

I fully agree. I think players should(if they want to) know about the enemy stats and abilities. Because by all means "A giant insectoid monster" could be an Ankheg or a Remorhaz. An easy fight or an easy tpk. "The giant insectoid bug easily dealt an aoe acid damage that hurt us a lot! We should all run because this thing can do too much damage!" Turns out it was a recharge or a once per day, which turns the monster from "can chew tarrasque like a gum" to "easy bug to crush". Think of it this way, The Party does not know about a banshee. Banshee uses wail, and reduces half of the party to 0 hp. Instantly. Without "damaging" them. A sensible player withou access to the statblock would think "yep, that thing is way too powerful and we should run away and leave others to die before it wails on its next turn." But a "metagaming" player would know "ok, that was the strongest ability now done and dealt with, Im confident we can take it out still."

[@Swelephant_]

“Just playing the game” and staying with the party just because the story needs you to is a lesson I’ve learned pretty recently. I tend to make a character that is non altruistic and or snooty and I find justifying staying with the party going out of their way to do acts of charitable heroism or have members who are chaotic stupid/bastard. Honestly that’s why I like campaigns that creates “parties of necessity” ( like the world is going to end and your party has the best chance of saving it” or the only way out of this outer plane is through the BBEG)

[@theophrastusbombastus1359]

Metagaming is such a nuanced topic I wish it was never mentioned. Yeah, reading the module and going directly to the secret doors you couldn't know were there is obvs not cool or fun But we also metagame at lvl 1 when we first enter the _Delian Tomb_ and search for traps.... Your guys have *never* adventured before. How could they possibly know such hazards exist? You, as a player, have been playing for years. So *you* know to check for traps no matter what character you're playing. So where do we draw the line? Matt Colville made a very interesting video about it.

[@kodiakthebear4422]

I'm surprised you didn't talk about PCs planning there strategies during games as metagaming. Honestly, I enjoy it when the players work together on a strategy out of character, as long as they don't include things like monster abilities they wouldn't know and what not. I know some DMs who get really frustrated at this over the table conversation and will add extra enemies or something (which I think at a certain point is okay if the players are really taking too long). Anyways, those are my thoughts. Thanks for the video!