BECOME A PATRON - Get Lair Magazine (5e adventures, VTT maps, puzzles, traps, new monsters, and more), play D&D with me, and other perks ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair Thank you to my friend Alan from The Dungeon Coach YT channel for tolerating my loathsome behavior in this video. Check out The Dungeon Coach here: ua-cam.com/users/thedungeoncoach
Most of your videos are pretty bad. Just don’t play with problem players. Keep rotating players until you have a group that works. Meta gaming isn’t always an issue. The characters grew up in a world where these things exist. They might have known a few things going in. Longer lived races especially. I imply the 4e rules for knowledge checks on creatures. Allowing players and their characters to have knowledge of the stat block. Should they pass, they must give the party information in character. Like a monster hunter who knows their prey. Numbers aren’t allowed. But comparisons on stats are to things that may be tangible to the characters. “We have to hit it with radiant/holy light or it will keep regenerating “. It’s a game, an honestly you can’t go into everything always pretending to be a completely ignorant person to every situation. The games a hobby, an half the fun is recognizing things within this fantasy world you’re invested in.
You talk about characters the player See's but not there characters. Why would the player be able to see them and not there characters. Only thing I can think is if the enemy ran behind something, but the players character would know they are there. Otherwise maybe it's your fault as a DM
As far as using creatures far beyond the player's capabilities, such as a ancient red dragon. I have done this, not every battle the player's must win. I agree with not naming creatures and use descriptions. Along with calling out metagaming. As a player I have metagamed, but within character. For example we went to a place to destroy a evil person. We found a nice lady offering soup. As a person I was thinking hag, but said nothing. My stupid barbarian started looking around at the stuff in the room. Another player even said my character was an idiot. Funny thing was I didn't drink the poisoned soup and noticed the bag of spiders.
How to avoid Monster-metagaming: Describe a monster and give it a new name, so your players don't know what monster it is. Turn an Owlbear into a Giant Hawkwolf or something like that.
i don't even see why this kind of 'metagaming' is a problem. the characters should have at least some knowledge about their world. some monsters are rare or obscure, but damn, most pcs would at least know what an orc or hobgoblin or troll is
@@joshridinger3407 Setting specific I would say, kinda like how I don't know much or anything about koalas cause I'm not from australia, pc might not know about creatures that Don't dwell in their area. Ofcourse that is all about the world they live in.
In old school videogames, the designers wanted you to lose to some BS, then they would tempt you to put another quarter in to give that BS another go. The second time around you'd see the BS coming and avoided it. The entire business profits from metagaming. That was intentional. I think earlier versions of D&D achieved a similar effect, but inadvertently. Antagonistic DMs would pose ridiculous challenges, then mock the players for losing, and the frustrated players would roll up new characters and come prepared the next time around. At some point the game was all about having encyclopedic knowledge of dungeons and monsters. I have a couple of old school players at my table and you can see their eyes light up when they finally identify the monster, and therefore recall its weakness.
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of design the Tomb of Horrors had. D&D was seen as a challenge to see how high of a level you can play to until your character dies.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 from what I recall though, Tomb of Horrors wasn't designed to be a fun adventure. Wasn't that made just because he was sick of his players bitching about things being too easy or some such, so it was essentially a massive "Screw you then..."? Could be wrong and that might just be a myth though.
Definitely. As someone who's read the monster catalogs of every edition multiple times(mm4 for 3.5 is the best of all of them), I can't not metagame sometimes.
As a DM, I have a House Rule where I roll all Death Saves. This stops the PC's when metagaming. Think about it, when a player goes down, they roll a DS on their turn. Other players hear the pass or fail results. They in turn adjust their action accordingly. But because I roll the DS and don't tell them the results, they are unsure how many turns they can go before they heal the player. It makes character death more surreal.
honestly, that would bother me as a player. death saves are pretty important. I would be fine with secret death saves, but I play online so it is easy to just share rolls with the dm
I guess I could see both sides to this situation. You clearly presented a good reason for your thinking and I can’t say you’re wrong. As for the other side of the coin, the party members would surely be keeping an eye on a downed player. In my minds eye I imagine a downed player that fails a death saving throw as convulsing or maybe spurting up blood and groaning in pain. That would maybe cause a party member to come to their aid. Again, not saying you are wrong in any way. Things like this are why I do t want to DM though. As a player I just roll with it.
I keep waiting for Dungeon Coach to show up in chat. Great points about the metagaming. I DM for 8th/9th graders - metagaming is just something they do at the moment but they are already grabbing the concept of their characters not knowing things. When they started talking about that I knew that I had finally reached them and the role-playing has gone up a notch since then.
~ "Never reveal stats" In a recent Pathfinder Session I played, the DM presented us a special enemy. The enemy was quite challenging to hit for us as he was a few levels above our characters but I actually figured out how high the AC was just by listening to the "Does a 28 hit?" No "Does a 29 hit?" No and so on. "Smart" players can figure out how high certain ACs and threshholds are. No matter how hard you try to "hide" it. On the other hand .. Pathfinder 2E has some "abilities" that let you know certain stats of a monster, if you roll high enough.
Sure you can do that, but by the time you narrow down an AC or other stats through testing and observing a few rounds or at least combat interactions have happened to give you that knowledge and its reasonable for characters to make assumptions based on what they see. Its not really meta gaming if you roll a 4, hit anyway and your character says "I nearly nearly fumbled that attack and the they still couldn't get out of the way! Not going to be very hard to kill this one."
Yup. I do this with every encounter n keep track for the fight itself but not after (idc to remember and no reason to take note), I usually narrow it down to a range tho not the exact AC. But my ranger with +9 to hit usually hits BUT if I roll low I may notice say a 15 doesn't hit but noticed my party hit on 17+, I have a lock on and play my actions based on how hard that seems. E.g using a spell to mark or looking for cover
This is why you vary the stats a smidge, and homebrew important monsters at leaat a tiny bit. Maybe change the coloring and shuffle some resistances around, or changing it's general strategy. The small things can keep people on their toes, even if they have a general idea of their capabilities. This is partly why regular humanoids are good to use a fair bit. Thanks to things like gear and variable class abilities. The players can't immediately assume everything about their capabilities from seeing them.
I feel letting them know the AC can be beneficial at times. But telling them upfront also has its downsides.The players knowing the DC or AC can speed up play. Combat can sometimes take a long time so I see no harm in it if they know what they need for a hit or not. So long as they arent lying about their rolls its all fine imho. Some things about it though. Some abilities or skills can raise an AC in combat. If an enemy orc has a AC of 13 but later on picks up a shield his AC obviously gets higher. A wizard casting shield has a higher AC for a turn. etc. If the players dont know the AC you can also help them at times. The combat isent going their way? They need a 13 to hit but roll a 12? Ah yes! Its a hit! etc. Fudging dice doesent always have to happen to aid the DM for story telling purposes? Sometimes I do it to aid the players. I aim to give them a nice memorable experience, not pull a TPK out of my hat because the dice arent rolling higher then a 10...
The phrase "you're not there" comes up in every session I run haha The party usually does some minor splitting, and a player or two will often try to comment or add to an event they're not present for. Still, at least it shows they're engaged.
I deal with the same issue. I have some players who don't want to tag along and will wait at the tavern in town, while the other characters are gathering info. The tavern-dweller will sometimes ask a question, and I have to remind them that they are not there. Unfortunately, the character that does go decides to ask the question instead.
@@oniminikui I'm pretty OK with that sort of thing. After all, it is a team game. I only have a problem with it if they suggest a question because that specific character has information that's prompting the question. That's when I'll point out, "You're not there to suggest the question and the other character has no reason to know that's a good question to ask." They'll usually either drop it or magic a conversation to one of the characters that's there. A good player only suggests the question at that point if the conversation gets them to that point. But, honestly, at that point, I'll let it go either way. I'm really just looking for a justification and/or expenditure of resources.
Only minorly related, I followed a group that had one character that was really the main muscle of the group and always itching for a fight. But at one point he was taken out of commission for a while because of an effect that got him paralyzed. The player was still really excitable and would sometimes forget he was out of commission and the DM would need to remind him "You're paralyzed". The tone and voice the GM said it with was funny enough that it became an in-joke among the group that the DM would say that phrase whenever that player tried to do something they reasonably could not because their character wasn't around or something.
As a DM I have no problem with that happening. All of my adventures are party driven, and even if the party splits, it is still one party and I allow table talk. It keeps all the players engaged and reduces the "down time" for characters. However, a player cannot have their character undertake any action that is based on any knowledge gained by CHARACTERS in another area.
One important way to negate metagaming is this: Adventurers are PROFESSIONALS. Adventurers have been prepared to fight and survive in a world full of monsters. They are not aliens dropped in a world with no idea of how to deal with the challenges they will face. They possess a certain level of knowledge through their training in addition to what they would know through life experience. They would have lessons like, "If a creature regenerates, try fire or acid", "Probably don't bother trying to charm undead or constructs", "Don't stand too close to the guy that's checking for traps or opening the mysterious chest", "NEVER STEAL FROM A DRAGON THAT ISN'T DEAD", "Beware of incredibly life-like statues out in the wilderness", and so forth. If you need to decide how much they would know about a particular monster or place, roll for it.
yeah the idea that characters in a monster-infested world wouldn't know anything about monsters, wouldn't be able to intuit 'stats' like ac based on what armor an opponent is wearing, etc. is actually kind of silly. a lot of times 'metagaming' is just translating intuitive background knowledge characters should have into gameplay mechanics
As a long term D&D player and DM. I realized very early that playing in a game where the DM is playing an adversarial role is one that I have no interest in playing. If the rules as written break the game, then I ensure that a discussion about the rule is scheduled for discussion after the game. If my players and myself are having fun, then I'm doing my job right. I have enough creativity to come up with things that should challenge the players. So far I have been able to keep things within reason. The easiest solution to metagaming is to remind the players that what they do can be done to them as well.
And again, some meta gaming is ok. We are playing adventurers that spend days, weeks and possibly years together. These guys know they are going to have to fight things at some point. We don't play out every moment of their lives (roll for hand washing after using the toilet!) But mostly the adventure. It's entirely reasonable that they might have talked battle tactics on one of those unseen nights - even as a general thing. "Man, I hate it when I can't get distance on an enemy. My magic's not made for close encounters!" "I'm the opposite! Gotta be close to punch!" Group laughs. "I'm with the mage. Arrows work best from a distance... and cover." It can be assumed something like the above happened. But there is the otherside of course where everyone is too expertly fighting or succeeding when there's no reasonable way to know that. That you have to stop.
HP, AC, Saves, Resistances, and spell lists are the first things to look at modifying even if your players aren't metagaming. Sometimes a monster works perfectly thematically but would wipe your party. So, you lower the AC, lower the damage dealt, and change that Circle of Death to a Chill Touch.
I mean just alter it to be better thematically can be good too. If players whine about how easy zombies are just slap in some good ol’ Level Drain from previous editions and watch them freak out. Your players complain the bosses are too easy, have them be ambushed in their sleep if they don’t take travel seriously. All this and much more can make players watch themself. You can also add Arcana, Religion, History, and Nature checks to reveal info.
I once had a DM that justified a TPK because we (the players) should have figured out that a Medusa was responsible for what was going on and we should have known that we could not win. We were level three and this was AD&D. He thought we were supposed to metagame and alert the authorities instead of engaging.
I tweak my monsters stats. Its not a chore to bump an AC up or down a point. Adjust the hit die a creature has, their speed, etc. I let my players know this. One protested but I told him it stops metagaming (which this player was starting to do) but is more for allowing me to set up better battles. They agreed and metagaming stopped. Also should note, people new to the game might not know what metagaming is so explain it to them and be patient. Some people truly dont mean to.
JUST had that conversation with a new player in the last campaign I ran! They literally had no idea 1) that it had a name and 2) that it was frowned upon. They just assumed, if they knew it, their character knew it. The flip side of that is that I helped that player with her spells. I told her, "you don't waste the spell slot on this as your character knows how her spells work even if you don't". (She'd attempted to cast a spell on an obviously-invalid target.) One of the times she tried it, I wasn't sure if her character would know it wouldn't work so I had her roll a knowledge check against the monster. She passed and, again, I said something like, "As you're about to cast the spell, you remember that spell won't work on that monster. Would you like to cast something else instead?" NOTE: I'm using invalid targets as an example. There were other instances where it was obvious the spell wouldn't work the way she wanted (such as Levitation not providing horizontal movement).
@@urdaanglospey6666 exactly, i know somewhere in Crit Role C2 Liam remarks that his wizard is a genius (even has the keen mind feat) but he (the player) is an idiot. You Wizard trained for years memorizing everything about their spells so a DM advising a player on how this spell doesn't work that way is perfectly reasonable, it may get frustrating if an experienced player doesn't understand their spells after a couple sessions though (and wastes time). And the other side is that players hear 99% of conversations and events but their characters don't. But you can make a point of "i tell everyone everything" as a shorthand for that conversation is no longer metagaming.
Number 1, I don't even see those examples as a gray area. Creatures are assumed to be aware of their surroundings and other creatures unless they are hiding successfully. So if a DM placed some bandits around the corner where I don't have direct line of sight, I'm gonna assume I know where they are. And knowledge about a lot of "popular" monsters should be common in a DnD world, I'm getting a bit tired of the assumption my character doesn't know anything that we haven't directly heard or seen during the game, despite living in this world for 20-700 years. While I don't do it, I also don't see much of a big deal about public DC or AC or stuff like that. Half the time it gets figured out during that fight anyway, when 15 fails but 17 succeeds. You also tend to know the minimum. If you're fighting a caster as a 5th level party, and he doesn't die in one hit, chances are his DC isn't lower than 14 at minimum. If an enemy is wearing armor, especially medium or heavy, it's pretty easy to guess the AC. But what I absolutely wouldn't tolerate is reading the freaking book right then and there as we're playing. When you know the game, either because you know the system or you're experienced or read the books a lot as a DM, you can't really help knowing stuff, but going out of your way to find the monster we're fighting and read the statblock, or find the dungeon so you know where all the traps are, that's crossing a lot of lines.
I guess it comes down to expectations and immersion. If you’re just playing a game none of it really matters. If you’re truly role playing even things like “ac” and “dc” don’t exist. It’s all a grey area and the only thing that matters is that when you play you enjoy yourself and the other players enjoy themselves
@@natethegm9802 I do see it as a game, but even games have incomplete information that you have to deal with sometimes, and it can lessen the experience and fun if you meta through it. My line for bad metagaming is just higher than a lot of people who want you to pretend to not know bludgeoning weapons are effective against skeletons, despite it being common sense. I've had in my game a character get into combat when separated from the others, and naturally everyone at the table knew he was in trouble and could have used that meta info to run over there unprompted. But because we still abide by reasonable knowledge unwritten rules, they didn't, so there the player had another problem to solve, which is part of the game: how to call for to the distant party for help. And finding the solution using your abilities and resources is part of the fun that would be lost otherwise, and eliminate a lot of the tension.
@@Boss-_ 100% agree. Im lucky with my players. We all enjoy out of character banter but they all enjoy not letting outside of fantasy world knowledge shape their decisions. I actually find myself interjecting to make sure that they know what their characters know because they usually shoot themselves in the foot thinking the opposite is metagaming.
@@natethegm9802 AC and DC don't exist in universe... But they're abstract stand-ins for real things. You knowing as a player "Probably has an AC above 15" is the equivalent of your character knowing "Probably very tough to wound". I think 100% of game mechanics can translate into something that makes sense for the characters to know. The only hard rule against metagaming should be if the metagaming replaces a mechanic you can purchase in the world. By knowing somebody 'off screen' is in trouble and running to their aid, you completely RUIN the value of the message cantrip - something a player might have decided for or against with great thought. The moment a spell, feat, or ability is devalued through metagaming is the moment it becomes a problem.
I kind of do metagame. By choosing best classes/classes combinations, because we have only 3 players and as much as i love playing weird characters, i often let 2 other players play what they want and not worry about how we are going to survive. Also when we were going to play curse of strahd and i knew about setting, i choose character who tottaly not benefited from it and guess what. I DIDNT had fun because my char was tottaly out of place
We all know that *Intelligence* is the most commonly dumped stat, but if you're committed to not metagaming, *Int* is probably the most useful stat of them all. Want to identify a creature, or to know trolls are weak to fire? Roll one of the relevant knowledge stats. This stays true even if the GM has homebrewed their monsters.
Players dumping any of the mental stats and then playing as if they're stat is high anyway really pisses me off. More than INT-dumpers, is the CHA dumpers that play Silver-tongued negotiators. DMs should make a habit of calling this bullshit out more often than not. "Listen, John, your character's CHA is an 8. I'mma need you to roleplay that 8 starting yesterday. Tom over there, who can dead-lift 200 kg isn't allowed to have his wizard swing a sword any better than his STR 8 allows, and neither do you get to be the face of the party." "B-b-b-b-b-but My ChArAcTeR cAn CoMe Up WiTh GoOd ArGuMeNtS, tOo!" "Not EVERY SINGLE TIME. Now roll a persuasion check. I don't care if you did say what the king wanted to hear. We need to see if you simultaneously belched, farted, and pissed your pants whilst saying it, and maybe even let slip a Yo-Mama joke, badly timed, in there for good measure." "9" "Yeah, frick you John. Quit dumping CHA if you're so desperate to play the party's face. Give bob a chance to play his, you know, BARD."
Also, if you have a character with good perception (WIS) you can notice that the Wizards Fireball standard didn't do very much to the rock monster but that troll isn't regenerating, maybe i should birn the troll and try a magical bludgeoning attack on the rock monster. PCs with decent observation and average brain power should be able to rotate through their damage types until something appears to be reasonably effective. And after enough combat they all should be expected to have some basic combat sense. Additionally their should be clues available, maybe a local complains about a troll problem and how the town gaurd is using fire on them. Maybe its just something subtle in the dungeon, like scorch marks on a wall which only indicates something used fire here at somepoint with the option to investigate and see if anyone has any ideas about the pattern. (Obviously role dependent)
@@JimMonsanto I once saw a DM, at the request of a player, allow a roll for an intelligence check. They rolled an 18, and the DM kept going as if he failed. Then the player asked what happened, and how high he needed to roll. It was a very critical moment in the session, and the DM bluntly replied, "The smartest idiot is still an idiot." It seems harsh, but guy had been doing this as a barbarian with int dumped. He played him like an idiot at first, and the DM played along making it seem as though the barbarian lucked into the right answer, or accidently solved a puzzle. They tried explaining to the player the concept of allowing a team to play their roles. For the most part the DM was pretty lenient, but he felt bad for another player trying to play a Sherlock meets Dr. Frankenstein-like character. Still kept doing it though. After that comment, player still protested, and the DM explained that for the particular puzzle they were up against, a barbarian couldn't resonably have enough knowledge or biology or engineering no matter the roll. Not to mention that technically it was going to be a string of int checks. It might have been harsh, and the player left after two more sessions, but I think the group was fine with that given how often he'd say he got it, but continued to try and do it all. They felt he had main character syndrome, so no love loss I guess.
Watching this has made me realize that I'm probably in a very weird position when it comes to possible metagaming considering that I enjoy reading adventure modules and monster manuals for fun.
Until recently, I was a forever DM. So, my go to question now is, "What does my character know about x?" Makes it easy not to metagame when you only know what the DM told you 3 seconds ago ;)
As a player, I recognize optimal plays while treading lightly. I'll typically ask the DM, "What would my character know about X? Because I think X is because Y, but I don't know if my character would know that. Should I roll?" The DM can decide if it's fair and there's no argument or foul play involved. After all, it's ridiculous to expect players to conveniently forget a spell DC of an enemy caster. I wouldn't punish players for using their brains. Maybe describe a level of magical energy the PC feels as they shrug off the effect and they recognize, "hey, that was kinda weak." Now we have a rp justification for not bothering to pop abilities to counter that weak spellcaster.
A simple history or arcana check will determine if your character knows something. Wizard roled a 1, i guess they fell asleep that day in class. Barb rolled a 20, maybe they have that nursery rhyme stuck in their head. And as far as values for saves or AC you should be descibing misses or failures based on how relatively close they were, players will have an idea about how scary a given attack is.
If players always think of a monster a certain way, remind them that 3.5 Ed D&D gave DM's the ability to add class levels to monsters. I still do that to great effect. Use random HP as well. Some monsters are pretty rugged! Example: The 6th level Kobold ranger (Jonrambo) who is a master at guerrilla warfare would give them a war they would never forget. If the party had been nice to him and just asked his name and been respectful of his ancestral lands, they might not have been in cages the next morning after they disrespected his squads home in the forest.
This is a thing I even did in AD&D. Intelligent monsters can learn and grow. Why WOULDN'T they learn classes just like the "normal" races? Especially monsters with societies?
I am working on a homebrew Pokémon mystery dungeon style DnD game. And I knowing that my most experienced player with Pokémon knows pretty much every weakness and resistance a typing has. I talked to him before hand and are going to have him roll to see what he can remember then based on his roll I will text him the details. The other players know almost nothing about Pokémon so I am not too worried about them yet. If they do something that is fully aligned with what info there character has I will discuss it.
Are you straight up stealing Dungeon Coach’s schtick? Shame, shame. Time out?! Who gave you the authority? (This is in Jest) I love seeing you guys build each other up!
"Is a player reading the module himself as you all play through it? Easy solution..." - Yeah, thats an appt. with the BanHammer for me. Cardinal sin right there.
Back in 1E I had monster knowledge checks and Monster Manuals. If you found a book with the monster write up you could open the Monster Manual. I kind of like Tasha's Monster Research rules. Disagree with the hidden DC comments. I GENERALLY let the group know. But when I want to make them sweat. I do keep a secret.
Inconsistent and immersion breaking in my opinion. Either always keep it a secret or never do. Once i'd catch on to the fact that my DM only keeps it a secret for special enemies or situations, i will quickly start noticing whenever one of these situations occur. And since i find numbers and DCs extremely gamey and immersionbreaking in general, i keep these things a secret, always. Players will catch on to these things after a few rounds of combat anyway, even without me ruining the entire mystery by telling them.
implement skill use so players have to make decisions based on current actual character knowledge and communicate with more experienced players the issue before the group starts.
In one campaign I ran, as a reward for an early sidequest, the characters were given a field guide that contained information on the common creatures in the area, effectively allowing them to use whatever meta-knowledge the players might have had about various creatures they encountered, at least as long as they had spent some of their down time reading it. Was a nice little reward for them actually biting on a plot hook, but didn't really change the balance of the game either.
funnily, I sometimes call out other players for metagaming on something before the DM will... =p Usually it's along the lines, "would you really know that as the character?" and we players will typically stop it before the DM does.
Counter point to telling DC of things. just use variable DCs for NPCs. round 1: The wizard casts suggestion DC 12 charisma save. round 2: The wizard casts suggestion DC 15 charisma save. players: huh wasnt the DC 12? you: ehh, you dont now maybe that was his innate ability or an item. thinking you were easy prey. sit back as no player ever underestimates npc saves again. also thematically doable by describing what focus was used. maybe the wizard has a special item that gives +x DC.
@@theobscene1654 unless it stops functioning, otherwise we have to go into the specifics that any item an npc has is dropable so better not use any npc with armor, weapons, special item of any kind. But i get the concern.
he can definitely ask, other players arent obliged to listen to him. combat isnt to static. an adventuring party who've known each other a long time, most likely have hand signals or the likes to help them if you thematically want to justify it
@@ricardoduinkerken8074 I've never had this be an issue in any of my games. If there are 2 melee types in the party, it is only natural for them to want to work together to give each other advantage in combat, and it makes sense in character as well, since any character trained in melee combat would know that flanking an enemy gives you an advantage against them.
Been watching you for a while and am about to DM for the first time soonish. May rewatch some videos soonish. Anyways, just wanna say thanks for the catalogue and you don't absolutely suck.
Loved the tone ! What I get from the video : 1) flexible metagaming management helps to keep things fun for everyone 2) best confrontation comes with an opportunity for player to empathize with their character 3) don’t overwork yourself to play around metagaming
Reason why Metagaming for combat doesnt work in my games: Me Building an encounter: "uh, that Monster looks cool... not quite the CR I was looking for though... But this is the look... ok, lets see... This Monster has the right CR, i give its statblock to the other one... but... hmmm that ability really doesnt vibe with me... What if its a Level 6 Berserk Barbarian instead... Yeah, thats cool! Wait, its immune to X and takes double damage from Y? Now that totaly doesnt fit the new look, lets fix that..."
When my players start meta-gaming (usually huddling up to decide how they’re going to handle a particular action), I let the game respond. For example: the guard overhears the group whispering something about sneaking into the castle and confronts the group about it.
A good practice but a bad example scenario, lol, you would kind of expect the characters to talk about how they want to sneak in the castle and develop a plan, so the players doing it seems fine, like who sneaks into a castle with no forethought
@@chrisbammer8679 yeah, that’s a bad example. I was thinking more like when players are trying to meta-game in a situation where it wouldn’t make sense in real life. For example: players coming up with a detailed battle plan in the middle of combat. In cases like those, I let enemies hear the players talking their battle plans and respond accordingly, or I tell the players that they only have time in combat to yell simple commands.
I wondered how that was metagaming until I read the comments and saw that it was in the middle of combat. lmao Yeah. I do the same. That's what downtime and short rests are for. Characters get their butts kicked and go, "OKAY. HOW ABOUT WE DEVELOP SOME SORT OF STRATEGY AND PLAN WHEN WE FIGHT BECAUSE I NEED HEALING, THE MONK IS SHAKEN AND NEEDS TO MEDITATE TO STEEL HERSELF, AND I THINK EVERYONE FORGOT THAT THE SEWERS HAVE PACKS OF RATS THAT CARRY DISEASE. HOW ABOUT THE FIGHTER ACTUALLY USES THEIR SHIELD AND DEFENSIVE FIGHTING STYLE AND HOLD THE LINE WITH THE BARBARIAN, FOLKS." - That was directly inspired by my game, where a bunch of my players were surprised that giant rats' tactics are using their pack to swarm and kill and that dark sewers are stinky, filthy, and hard as hell to sneak in with a torch in hand.
One technique I've found helpful here is called the "murky mirror" (the term the Angry GM uses). Basically, whatever the players are doing, the PCs are _kinda_ doing too. If a player tells another player what they think the other should do, assume their PC told the other's PC that information. If the players are focused on your descriptions, the PCs are paying attention to their surroundings. If they're joking around, so are the PCs (maybe not Monty Python references, but jokes). If they're making fun of the King, so are the PCs. And if they're huddling up to plan, so are the PCs. Whether that has a bad consequence is going to depend - as in life - on what is going on at the time.
@@chrisbammer8679 "Who sneaks into a castle with no forethought?" I will point you to my group Critical Role A few one shots I have watched Basically the option you take once option A, B, and C didn't work/roll the way you were hoping.
I told my players the one instance they all metagame all the time is that their group is always together. They never even though this was metagaming, but ultimately I as the DM need the group to stick together, and we all subconsciously know the players sticking together is important for a cohesive game. This blew their minds, there was in party conflict but the reason no one ever left group was the meta knowledge the PCs had to be a group for the campaign to be cohesive.
We had been playing awhile, third level. Me the thief, yeah when that was a class, was scouting ahead through the forest. Four elves up in the trees ambush me and I go down. Screaming out the party knew I was in trouble, and come rushing forward. Our fighter, sheathed his sword and drew his crossbow. The DM asked him, in all our sessions, you have never used your crossbow, are you sure he would be drawing it out now? Yes, he is going to draw his crossbow and rush forward with the rest of the party. Guess who got targeted by all the attacks? Lesson learned.
Great advice here, Luke. One thing I find a bit funny is when a party encounters a certain monster and that monster behaves or reacts differently (as I also change up monster stats/homebrew and don't use their name in my games like you mentioned) and the player(s) start complaining that's not how the monster should behave or work... they are self-incriminating themselves by admitting they are metgaming.
Also fun to run monsters they've never seen. I told my players a monster was called a banderhobb after they spent like 6 months calling it "that frog monster"
As a response to casting dimension door into a space you haven't seen yet, *pulls out artillery dice from warhammer* "Roll to see where your door comes up. 1d10 + scatter die = tiles that direction you appear, hopefully it isn't in a wall!" When running close dungeons with tight corridoors, it usually ends up bad and the metagaming teleports stop. Same with unseen fireballs, and other spells/ideas. "Roll 1d10 + scatter die" is enough to backtrack, unless the player is particularly chaotic.... As for custom monsters, my favorite is throwing in a scifi creature and give it comparable stats to another creature already written out that resmebles what I want. Example: "graboids" aka tremors. i ran an Exalted game once where a desert hideout of terrestrials was surrounded by "shifting mounds of sand, which pulled some of the travelers down". the players, being exalted of the Sun, treaded so lightly it was hilarious, but once one was drug under and fought against, they started connecting the vibrations with the creature finding them and discovered I had placed large rocks as a path to the hideout, which seemed more like rock pillars that had been carved by time and weather. They eventually got it and took out 1 of the "wurms", but not giving stats, describing actions only as they perceive goes a long way to helping stop metagaming. Throw in a new ability or two or switch some stats to quickly customize critters. Make a table so a random encounter happens, you encounter *rolls encounter with 5 orcs* a gang of large, ruffian green fellows wearing bedraggled furs, wielding hefty weapons, and grimacing mouths showing tusks protruding from their foul teeth. *rolls random characteristic chart, gets 'fire breathing'* and two of them seem to have a puff of dark smoke emanating from their nostrils. *makes note to downsize breath attack to appropriate creature size and power*
Whenever I want to do something that could be metagaming, I ask the DM if my character knows trolls are weak to fire... Or if I heard something about the rogue drop in the other room, like a clattering dagger or a scream. Sometimes I'll get a yes or a no with a bit of background, other times a skill check. In some cases I can give a background reason myself for the DM to adjudicate. Like how a circle of the shepard druid might have an innate awareness of where party members are going. Or that a ranger who spent a lot of time in the wilds might have seen a troll before or be part of a community where the knowledge can be expected to exist as a commonplace piece of lore. In my experience, being honest as a player about metagaming and about how to work knowledge into the game really helps to take the edge off the whole thing. It gives the DM control over what is acceptable and what is not, while allowing the players to make metagaming decisions that don't break immersion (too much).
I've had a situation where the party was dealing with a spellcaster using Suggestion... So I pulled the expected target aside between sessions and let them know what the deal was ahead of time (once they failed their save), asked them to basically help the current BBEG to bamboozle the party. They gleefully agreed, and the moment the other two discovered that he'd let the person they were hunting escape remains legendary within that group. The very next session I had the same spellcaster say something subtle as a suggestion spell to one of the PC's, who was patting them down to check for a disguise self spell: "you won't find anything more than what you see". I rolled the save for them, and they failed it of course. Cue them letting the BBEG escape for the second time in two sessions. Sometimes the best way to fight metagaming is to enlist the help of your players, or to subvert their expectations. My players will never trust anything the next time a spellcaster is involved... Probably a good lesson!
Was watching an old video of yours where you mentioned reading R.A. Salvatore when you were young. My favorite fantasy series was and still is Guardians of the Flame by Joel Rosenberg. I found the first book in the series The Sleeping Dragon in my middle school library when I was 12 and instantly fell in love. Despite being in my school library, this is NOT a children's or YA series. It's every bit as brutal as ASoIaF. The basic plot is a group of D&D playing college kids are magically transported into the campaign world by the DM who is an exiled archmage who hopes the PCs will open a portal for his return. Death, horror, politics, romance, and ultimately a war against slavers ensues. I can't recommend the series enough to any fans of the genre. Walter Slovotsky is the man!
My favorite is colloquial terms. Is your standard peasant going to recognize difference between a ghost, a specter, and a banshee? Nope! We got a ghost!
I don't know about homebrewing all the monsters, but there's always the "stat block switcharoo" you can use. Describe a goblin, but use orc stats. Describe a zombie, use a wight. Describe a giant lizard, use a displacer beast. If they can't trust the description to line up with the monster, they're gonna have trouble metagaming.
Another ruggedly-handsome-hosted video! Best Dungeon Couch on the Tubes! What’s a flag on the play? Where’s the DC when you need him? -really great advice on being a reasonable GM and a reasonable human being. Thank you.
I often use the picture I find cool with a statblock of a completely different monster, especially with demons and devil's. My enemies appearance, statblocks, and lore/behavior often come from 3 different sources. Sometimes homebrewed.
I usually roll monster hp, that way even if its a group of the same monsters they all have different hp. I had one guy in the group keep track of damage on all monsters and announce it..
The other day while playing through a campaign the DM revealed a some monsters, and outside of that campaign I was prepping for my own campaign as a DM and happened to recognize the creatures by their description. Simple solution I may know what the creatures were but I thought about whether my character did and whether they have weaknesses for not and just acted accordingly, unless it was revealed in game. If a creature has a weakness to fire for example and my arrows aren't doing much damage I could then use other weapons to deal different kinds of damage. Especially since the DM in this campaign could just as easily switch it up. Fire in this case was easy since I pre-prepped some fire arrows for my rogue that I would sometimes use in battle against tougher enemies if my regular arrows weren't working.
While I don't care that much about metagaming - I think the save DC is something that the players would realize based on feeling/seeing how powerful the effect is. Same as telling them they got hit for 4 points of damage. That's technically metagaming, but it's shorthand for translating something that the characters would know into terms that the players understand. I think a Charm Person spell from a powerful archmage would feel different than one from a lowly apprentice.
My players don't get an opportunity to metagame. I use the stats as a means of communicating an idea. "This monster has 16 ac. It has chainmail" Is one way of communicating the idea of what they're up against. I never understood hiding the obvious.
I borrow ideas from other games too. The D10 Unisystem has "Drama Points," that can be used to help players, like the rogue, out of a jam. So, I banned the luck feat from my games, but I allow each player one luck point at the beginning of the session. Luck points do not stack, but it is possible to get a luck point back through good roleplaying. So, if the rogue or wizard wanted to meta game like that, I would have one of them spend a luck point, to roll a D20, and have it pass a check to see if the Wizard just happened to open a dimension door to the rogue, out of intuition. However, that player would have lost their luck point for the session, unless they did some good roleplaying to earn it back. That's my homebrew anyway
The idea of asking how a PC would know something is actually one of the first things I learned with DnD and the DM explained it as Character knowledge vs Player knowledge. He gave an example where if my character was just a farmhand a month or so ago and now I have to deal with a vampire, what would I use and why, so I reasoned out that vampire hunters occasionally stop by to buy garlic and they explained that vampires dislike garlic or the character had an encounter with a vampire where they only survived by hiding in the nearest plants, which were garlic. I don't run into the issue much and the closest I have is writing down an enemy's AC based on what hit for things like Great Weapon Master.
If you completely avoid meta-gaming, the character will act borderline suicidal. For example, why wouldn't the players try garlic, holy water, silver, iron, 4-leaf clovers, lead, or a duck against a troll until they have a total party kill? Or why wouldn't a character be as superstitious as a medieval peasant? Or, why wouldn't an ignorant character be wrong but firmly convinced, and be the equivalent of a flat-earther?
@blkgardner Well again, that's player knowledge vs character knowledge. If your character was very superstitious, they would be aware of ways to deter some creatures and might try everything with a new one
I like making my own creachers that are terrain spesific that follow stats of this or has stuff of that. I love my killer flowers. Slow moving like zombies. Has a spray attack and can eat players. Vine whip. Good to block areas in groups. Easy to run from and attack from distance. Live in open forests with tall grass and random holes in the land scape.
So just recently I ended up being the one to metagame. I felt a little bad about it, but the rules had been broken so badly and egregiously that I didn't feel that bad about it. 1. A Paladin Warforged was casting dispel magic to try and open a magically locked staircase. Paladins don't have access to dispel magic. I didn't realize it at the time, but I did a few days later. 2. Paladin Warforged was in Plate armor and NOT taking disadvantage rolls on Stealth checks. I wondered why he was rolling so well so I looked at his character sheet and he wasn't rolling disadvantage. This is when I spoke and caused a "scene" at the table because I was pissed. A person assisting the DM tried to argue that the way a Warforged was created it would negate and negative effects that Plate armor has on Stealth rolls, that person didn't have access to the character sheets, to which I replied it was a ridiculous argument to make without the facts in front of his face. 3. Paladin Warforged was taking about 8 attacks each turn in combat. I looked at the character sheets and it states that the character could take 2 Attacks each Action. He was taking 2 melee attacks, several spell attacks, some sort of Giant feature attack, and another 2 melee attacks. At this point I was so over the game that night that I kept my mouth shut about it. if I have to play at the table with that person again, I'd ask the DM to police heavily the rules, or make clear that the rules don't apply and players can do whatever they want.
I make an effort to ask would my character notice X, Y, or Z. My DM who knows me well enough to read between the lines, that it is my way of avoiding meta-gaming. And yes, it is annoying when a player at the table says that monster can't do that, or some other comment from the player who attempts to be Mr. stat block Wikipedia. We have one of those guys at our table too.
After we finish our current module, I often have players asking “hey, DM, which module are you going to run next?” to which I reply that they must wait until the next game session to find out (to prevent players from buying the module and reading it ahead of time). If I see a player reading the module at my game table, I tell them to put it away immediately and come talk to me after the session. I only give them one warning and that’s it: if I see them reading the module at my game table again, they’re out of the game. Also, I never use a monster’s real name in the game. I will describe the monsters and then leave it up to the players to figure out what the monsters really are. Another thing I will not do is allow a player to act on knowledge that their character doesn’t possess. When they try to do that, I will ask them “how would your character know that?” My players pretty much know that I don’t tolerate this crap at my table.
Ngl I lie and tell my players I tend to change monster stat blocks even if I don’t. Cause it tends to keep my players from looking up stat blocks. I never say what I’ve changed either so nobody is sure what to expect. Also it tends to make them excited for my combat. Also helps I’m the only person in our group to EVER dm.
As a player/gm I have to read the modules, I know pretty much what happens.. but my character has no idea so I act like I have no clue even though, even when they ask me where the traps are or what HP the monsters have
I like revealing the DC of saves (or the AC if people are trying to attack it) about halfway into the battle, when it feels like their characters would have a good sense of how tough the enemies are
All monsters in my games have stats relegated to that world space. I also change up some creatures' appearance, sometimes trolls are large gangly ogre like creatures (2e d&d,) sometimes smaller furry critters (Willow) or almost bear-like (Skyrim.) I'll also make grander changes, sometimes goblins are barely sentient monsters that are just evil, sometimes they're almost man-like and just like any other race etc. I don't do this necessarily to counter meta-gaming specifically, that's not usually a problem with my group. But it's almost impossible not to to an extent, I don't like going too weird with enemies so there's relatively limited options, especially for lower levels. So, this helps change things up and make different adventures feel different, both for the players and myself.
I honestly don't even bother with any of this stuff, when players in my game start metagaming. I really just tell them that if they keep doing this shit, they're out and that usually solves it. For people reading up statblocks while playing, i generally have a lot less mercy than for people just remembering stuff, because lets be honest, you cannot control what you remember and what not.. and what do you wanna do instead if you know for a fact that trolls are weak to fire? Mindnumbingly blasting it with Ray of Frost over and over again just to not metagame is just as fake anyway.
The Characters are professional adventurers. I would assume they have some basic knowledge of common monsters and have heard some legends about others. As a previous commenter mentioned, Troll weakness to fire is legendary, every legendary hero who killed a Troll used fire, so your character could have heard that legend as a child.
Cool ideas to keep in mind. As for me, to limit the woes of meta gaming, I currently trying incorporate lore or knowledge rolls about monsters to help allow experienced players to use their player knowledge and skill to play their characters. So I describe a large ugly creature, the player might make a roll to identify what it is exactly, and if it’s weaknesses are obscure, it might require another roll to know the weakness. I also think that knowing the weakness, and perhaps knowing the players but not the characters, know the weakness, I try to describe how the monster acts to give characters a reason to know. For example, after a few round s I say the party notices that the big monster (troll) is keeping a wide berth from the campfire. Or something.
I never had a problem with metagaming on any of those levels; What I had was stuff like player trying to convince me to include stuff specially for the benefit of his character in the module; "hey GM can you include this item I need for my build on the next module?" "Hey GM!! I want a henchman!" "When are you going to include my backstory into the game?" I am like "Dude!!! Half of the fun is me surprising you with that stuff; if you keep asking for it you are metagaming the fun out of the game!!" But thinking about it, the way this kind of player is, it would go like "oh you want a henchman? I did include some NPCs that would be willing, but you killed them all." instead I just say "I am not a good fit for GMing for this group, find another GM."
I must confess. Today I metagamed - we was investigating a case of monster attack and I heard that DM is rolling some dices. As a fairy I immediately darted upwards to look around and noticed a rogue steel predator right in time before he attacked. It saved us from a quite probable tpk and, as we were grouped together, helped spread out before his stunning roar
when players metagame, you change the rules - using sword for 3 sessions just to pull out a mace on the first skeleton the character has ever encountered? skellies are resistant to blunt damage now - players decide their characters are all gonna break out torches on the first troll they have ever encountered? its a type of troll that fire heals now - you can ask the dm if you know anything about this particular monster, they will say yes, no, or roll to find out - solves all metagaming problems - if you know something, ask the dm if your character also knows and play accordingly, it is very easy
When I have someone trying to have their characters say x monster has x stats, I tell them to roll a history/investigation check as their action. Depending on how common the monster is, and their background will determine the difficulty. Like if I have a that wizard sage that spent years of research and studying, their check will be lower compared to the street urchin rogue who spent their time learning how to steal and escape.
My party was fighting an illithid and they weren't metagaming at all and I literally expected their level 13 characters to know how to fight an illithid. When I asked later they said "You homebrew so many monsters we just weren't sure if it was a mindflayer or not". And I realized that I accidently put anti-metagaming into my campaigns. That being said, I do stick to patterns and all of my homebrew could evolve naturally, so some of my better players can quickly guess good and logical options to deal with them.
BECOME A PATRON - Get Lair Magazine (5e adventures, VTT maps, puzzles, traps, new monsters, and more), play D&D with me, and other perks ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair
Thank you to my friend Alan from The Dungeon Coach YT channel for tolerating my loathsome behavior in this video. Check out The Dungeon Coach here: ua-cam.com/users/thedungeoncoach
Most of your videos are pretty bad. Just don’t play with problem players.
Keep rotating players until you have a group that works.
Meta gaming isn’t always an issue. The characters grew up in a world where these things exist. They might have known a few things going in. Longer lived races especially.
I imply the 4e rules for knowledge checks on creatures. Allowing players and their characters to have knowledge of the stat block.
Should they pass, they must give the party information in character. Like a monster hunter who knows their prey. Numbers aren’t allowed. But comparisons on stats are to things that may be tangible to the characters.
“We have to hit it with radiant/holy light or it will keep regenerating “.
It’s a game, an honestly you can’t go into everything always pretending to be a completely ignorant person to every situation.
The games a hobby, an half the fun is recognizing things within this fantasy world you’re invested in.
I liked how the "Time Out" red thingies made it look like you were in a penalty box.
ttyttttttt
tut
ttrtitffft
You talk about characters the player See's but not there characters. Why would the player be able to see them and not there characters. Only thing I can think is if the enemy ran behind something, but the players character would know they are there. Otherwise maybe it's your fault as a DM
As far as using creatures far beyond the player's capabilities, such as a ancient red dragon. I have done this, not every battle the player's must win. I agree with not naming creatures and use descriptions. Along with calling out metagaming. As a player I have metagamed, but within character. For example we went to a place to destroy a evil person. We found a nice lady offering soup. As a person I was thinking hag, but said nothing. My stupid barbarian started looking around at the stuff in the room. Another player even said my character was an idiot. Funny thing was I didn't drink the poisoned soup and noticed the bag of spiders.
How to avoid Monster-metagaming: Describe a monster and give it a new name, so your players don't know what monster it is. Turn an Owlbear into a Giant Hawkwolf or something like that.
Or change the stats; take the numbers in the book as averages.
Tried that and almost worked...Until our initiative bot gave the real name away.
I miss real life games :( xD
i don't even see why this kind of 'metagaming' is a problem. the characters should have at least some knowledge about their world. some monsters are rare or obscure, but damn, most pcs would at least know what an orc or hobgoblin or troll is
Or just don’t say the name, saves you a load of hassle
@@joshridinger3407 Setting specific I would say, kinda like how I don't know much or anything about koalas cause I'm not from australia, pc might not know about creatures that Don't dwell in their area. Ofcourse that is all about the world they live in.
I’m not afraid to drop the “All right, that’s enough metagaming” to my players. They’re a pretty good group… just get a bit ahead of themselves.
A courageous action indeed
Adding this phrase to my dm vocab
"TABLE TALK!" Usually is my go to. Don't even have to be rude about it, just definitive.
In old school videogames, the designers wanted you to lose to some BS, then they would tempt you to put another quarter in to give that BS another go. The second time around you'd see the BS coming and avoided it. The entire business profits from metagaming. That was intentional. I think earlier versions of D&D achieved a similar effect, but inadvertently. Antagonistic DMs would pose ridiculous challenges, then mock the players for losing, and the frustrated players would roll up new characters and come prepared the next time around. At some point the game was all about having encyclopedic knowledge of dungeons and monsters. I have a couple of old school players at my table and you can see their eyes light up when they finally identify the monster, and therefore recall its weakness.
All of this
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of design the Tomb of Horrors had. D&D was seen as a challenge to see how high of a level you can play to until your character dies.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 from what I recall though, Tomb of Horrors wasn't designed to be a fun adventure. Wasn't that made just because he was sick of his players bitching about things being too easy or some such, so it was essentially a massive "Screw you then..."?
Could be wrong and that might just be a myth though.
@@Grigeral That's true, Tomb of Horrors was a troll/meme campaign.
Definitely. As someone who's read the monster catalogs of every edition multiple times(mm4 for 3.5 is the best of all of them), I can't not metagame sometimes.
As a DM, I have a House Rule where I roll all Death Saves. This stops the PC's when metagaming. Think about it, when a player goes down, they roll a DS on their turn. Other players hear the pass or fail results. They in turn adjust their action accordingly. But because I roll the DS and don't tell them the results, they are unsure how many turns they can go before they heal the player. It makes character death more surreal.
honestly, that would bother me as a player. death saves are pretty important. I would be fine with secret death saves, but I play online so it is easy to just share rolls with the dm
I guess I could see both sides to this situation. You clearly presented a good reason for your thinking and I can’t say you’re wrong. As for the other side of the coin, the party members would surely be keeping an eye on a downed player. In my minds eye I imagine a downed player that fails a death saving throw as convulsing or maybe spurting up blood and groaning in pain. That would maybe cause a party member to come to their aid. Again, not saying you are wrong in any way. Things like this are why I do t want to DM though. As a player I just roll with it.
I keep waiting for Dungeon Coach to show up in chat.
Great points about the metagaming. I DM for 8th/9th graders - metagaming is just something they do at the moment but they are already grabbing the concept of their characters not knowing things. When they started talking about that I knew that I had finally reached them and the role-playing has gone up a notch since then.
~ "Never reveal stats" In a recent Pathfinder Session I played, the DM presented us a special enemy. The enemy was quite challenging to hit for us as he was a few levels above our characters but I actually figured out how high the AC was just by listening to the "Does a 28 hit?" No "Does a 29 hit?" No and so on.
"Smart" players can figure out how high certain ACs and threshholds are. No matter how hard you try to "hide" it.
On the other hand .. Pathfinder 2E has some "abilities" that let you know certain stats of a monster, if you roll high enough.
Figuring out stuff like that keeps players engaged though. I don't see that as a problem ;)
It's handing out that information that's not a great idea.
Sure you can do that, but by the time you narrow down an AC or other stats through testing and observing a few rounds or at least combat interactions have happened to give you that knowledge and its reasonable for characters to make assumptions based on what they see. Its not really meta gaming if you roll a 4, hit anyway and your character says "I nearly nearly fumbled that attack and the they still couldn't get out of the way! Not going to be very hard to kill this one."
Yup. I do this with every encounter n keep track for the fight itself but not after (idc to remember and no reason to take note), I usually narrow it down to a range tho not the exact AC. But my ranger with +9 to hit usually hits BUT if I roll low I may notice say a 15 doesn't hit but noticed my party hit on 17+, I have a lock on and play my actions based on how hard that seems. E.g using a spell to mark or looking for cover
This is why you vary the stats a smidge, and homebrew important monsters at leaat a tiny bit. Maybe change the coloring and shuffle some resistances around, or changing it's general strategy.
The small things can keep people on their toes, even if they have a general idea of their capabilities. This is partly why regular humanoids are good to use a fair bit. Thanks to things like gear and variable class abilities. The players can't immediately assume everything about their capabilities from seeing them.
I feel letting them know the AC can be beneficial at times. But telling them upfront also has its downsides.The players knowing the DC or AC can speed up play. Combat can sometimes take a long time so I see no harm in it if they know what they need for a hit or not. So long as they arent lying about their rolls its all fine imho. Some things about it though. Some abilities or skills can raise an AC in combat. If an enemy orc has a AC of 13 but later on picks up a shield his AC obviously gets higher. A wizard casting shield has a higher AC for a turn. etc.
If the players dont know the AC you can also help them at times. The combat isent going their way? They need a 13 to hit but roll a 12? Ah yes! Its a hit! etc. Fudging dice doesent always have to happen to aid the DM for story telling purposes? Sometimes I do it to aid the players. I aim to give them a nice memorable experience, not pull a TPK out of my hat because the dice arent rolling higher then a 10...
The phrase "you're not there" comes up in every session I run haha
The party usually does some minor splitting, and a player or two will often try to comment or add to an event they're not present for. Still, at least it shows they're engaged.
I deal with the same issue. I have some players who don't want to tag along and will wait at the tavern in town, while the other characters are gathering info. The tavern-dweller will sometimes ask a question, and I have to remind them that they are not there. Unfortunately, the character that does go decides to ask the question instead.
@@oniminikui I'm pretty OK with that sort of thing. After all, it is a team game. I only have a problem with it if they suggest a question because that specific character has information that's prompting the question. That's when I'll point out, "You're not there to suggest the question and the other character has no reason to know that's a good question to ask." They'll usually either drop it or magic a conversation to one of the characters that's there. A good player only suggests the question at that point if the conversation gets them to that point. But, honestly, at that point, I'll let it go either way. I'm really just looking for a justification and/or expenditure of resources.
OGRES? Man, I've got an ogre-slaying knife. It's got a +9 against ogres!
Only minorly related, I followed a group that had one character that was really the main muscle of the group and always itching for a fight. But at one point he was taken out of commission for a while because of an effect that got him paralyzed. The player was still really excitable and would sometimes forget he was out of commission and the DM would need to remind him "You're paralyzed". The tone and voice the GM said it with was funny enough that it became an in-joke among the group that the DM would say that phrase whenever that player tried to do something they reasonably could not because their character wasn't around or something.
As a DM I have no problem with that happening. All of my adventures are party driven, and even if the party splits, it is still one party and I allow table talk. It keeps all the players engaged and reduces the "down time" for characters. However, a player cannot have their character undertake any action that is based on any knowledge gained by CHARACTERS in another area.
One important way to negate metagaming is this: Adventurers are PROFESSIONALS. Adventurers have been prepared to fight and survive in a world full of monsters. They are not aliens dropped in a world with no idea of how to deal with the challenges they will face. They possess a certain level of knowledge through their training in addition to what they would know through life experience. They would have lessons like, "If a creature regenerates, try fire or acid", "Probably don't bother trying to charm undead or constructs", "Don't stand too close to the guy that's checking for traps or opening the mysterious chest", "NEVER STEAL FROM A DRAGON THAT ISN'T DEAD", "Beware of incredibly life-like statues out in the wilderness", and so forth. If you need to decide how much they would know about a particular monster or place, roll for it.
yeah the idea that characters in a monster-infested world wouldn't know anything about monsters, wouldn't be able to intuit 'stats' like ac based on what armor an opponent is wearing, etc. is actually kind of silly. a lot of times 'metagaming' is just translating intuitive background knowledge characters should have into gameplay mechanics
As a long term D&D player and DM. I realized very early that playing in a game where the DM is playing an adversarial role is one that I have no interest in playing.
If the rules as written break the game, then I ensure that a discussion about the rule is scheduled for discussion after the game.
If my players and myself are having fun, then I'm doing my job right. I have enough creativity to come up with things that should challenge the players.
So far I have been able to keep things within reason. The easiest solution to metagaming is to remind the players that what they do can be done to them as well.
And again, some meta gaming is ok.
We are playing adventurers that spend days, weeks and possibly years together. These guys know they are going to have to fight things at some point.
We don't play out every moment of their lives (roll for hand washing after using the toilet!) But mostly the adventure.
It's entirely reasonable that they might have talked battle tactics on one of those unseen nights - even as a general thing.
"Man, I hate it when I can't get distance on an enemy. My magic's not made for close encounters!"
"I'm the opposite! Gotta be close to punch!" Group laughs.
"I'm with the mage. Arrows work best from a distance... and cover."
It can be assumed something like the above happened.
But there is the otherside of course where everyone is too expertly fighting or succeeding when there's no reasonable way to know that. That you have to stop.
HP, AC, Saves, Resistances, and spell lists are the first things to look at modifying even if your players aren't metagaming. Sometimes a monster works perfectly thematically but would wipe your party. So, you lower the AC, lower the damage dealt, and change that Circle of Death to a Chill Touch.
I mean just alter it to be better thematically can be good too. If players whine about how easy zombies are just slap in some good ol’ Level Drain from previous editions and watch them freak out. Your players complain the bosses are too easy, have them be ambushed in their sleep if they don’t take travel seriously. All this and much more can make players watch themself. You can also add Arcana, Religion, History, and Nature checks to reveal info.
I once had a DM that justified a TPK because we (the players) should have figured out that a Medusa was responsible for what was going on and we should have known that we could not win. We were level three and this was AD&D. He thought we were supposed to metagame and alert the authorities instead of engaging.
The villain's lair is collapsing around you and you are nowhere near the exit with one round remaining. The DM declares Extra Time.
I tweak my monsters stats. Its not a chore to bump an AC up or down a point. Adjust the hit die a creature has, their speed, etc. I let my players know this. One protested but I told him it stops metagaming (which this player was starting to do) but is more for allowing me to set up better battles. They agreed and metagaming stopped.
Also should note, people new to the game might not know what metagaming is so explain it to them and be patient. Some people truly dont mean to.
JUST had that conversation with a new player in the last campaign I ran! They literally had no idea 1) that it had a name and 2) that it was frowned upon. They just assumed, if they knew it, their character knew it.
The flip side of that is that I helped that player with her spells. I told her, "you don't waste the spell slot on this as your character knows how her spells work even if you don't". (She'd attempted to cast a spell on an obviously-invalid target.) One of the times she tried it, I wasn't sure if her character would know it wouldn't work so I had her roll a knowledge check against the monster. She passed and, again, I said something like, "As you're about to cast the spell, you remember that spell won't work on that monster. Would you like to cast something else instead?" NOTE: I'm using invalid targets as an example. There were other instances where it was obvious the spell wouldn't work the way she wanted (such as Levitation not providing horizontal movement).
@@urdaanglospey6666 exactly, i know somewhere in Crit Role C2 Liam remarks that his wizard is a genius (even has the keen mind feat) but he (the player) is an idiot.
You Wizard trained for years memorizing everything about their spells so a DM advising a player on how this spell doesn't work that way is perfectly reasonable, it may get frustrating if an experienced player doesn't understand their spells after a couple sessions though (and wastes time).
And the other side is that players hear 99% of conversations and events but their characters don't. But you can make a point of "i tell everyone everything" as a shorthand for that conversation is no longer metagaming.
If you took a time out every time you interjected your own monologue, it would be mostly time outs lol. Love the bit!
Number 1, I don't even see those examples as a gray area. Creatures are assumed to be aware of their surroundings and other creatures unless they are hiding successfully. So if a DM placed some bandits around the corner where I don't have direct line of sight, I'm gonna assume I know where they are. And knowledge about a lot of "popular" monsters should be common in a DnD world, I'm getting a bit tired of the assumption my character doesn't know anything that we haven't directly heard or seen during the game, despite living in this world for 20-700 years.
While I don't do it, I also don't see much of a big deal about public DC or AC or stuff like that. Half the time it gets figured out during that fight anyway, when 15 fails but 17 succeeds. You also tend to know the minimum. If you're fighting a caster as a 5th level party, and he doesn't die in one hit, chances are his DC isn't lower than 14 at minimum. If an enemy is wearing armor, especially medium or heavy, it's pretty easy to guess the AC.
But what I absolutely wouldn't tolerate is reading the freaking book right then and there as we're playing. When you know the game, either because you know the system or you're experienced or read the books a lot as a DM, you can't really help knowing stuff, but going out of your way to find the monster we're fighting and read the statblock, or find the dungeon so you know where all the traps are, that's crossing a lot of lines.
Because no one knows the Icy Dragon made of ice and found in a literal ice castle is weak to fire
I guess it comes down to expectations and immersion. If you’re just playing a game none of it really matters. If you’re truly role playing even things like “ac” and “dc” don’t exist. It’s all a grey area and the only thing that matters is that when you play you enjoy yourself and the other players enjoy themselves
@@natethegm9802 I do see it as a game, but even games have incomplete information that you have to deal with sometimes, and it can lessen the experience and fun if you meta through it. My line for bad metagaming is just higher than a lot of people who want you to pretend to not know bludgeoning weapons are effective against skeletons, despite it being common sense.
I've had in my game a character get into combat when separated from the others, and naturally everyone at the table knew he was in trouble and could have used that meta info to run over there unprompted. But because we still abide by reasonable knowledge unwritten rules, they didn't, so there the player had another problem to solve, which is part of the game: how to call for to the distant party for help. And finding the solution using your abilities and resources is part of the fun that would be lost otherwise, and eliminate a lot of the tension.
@@Boss-_ 100% agree.
Im lucky with my players. We all enjoy out of character banter but they all enjoy not letting outside of fantasy world knowledge shape their decisions. I actually find myself interjecting to make sure that they know what their characters know because they usually shoot themselves in the foot thinking the opposite is metagaming.
@@natethegm9802 AC and DC don't exist in universe... But they're abstract stand-ins for real things.
You knowing as a player "Probably has an AC above 15" is the equivalent of your character knowing "Probably very tough to wound".
I think 100% of game mechanics can translate into something that makes sense for the characters to know.
The only hard rule against metagaming should be if the metagaming replaces a mechanic you can purchase in the world.
By knowing somebody 'off screen' is in trouble and running to their aid, you completely RUIN the value of the message cantrip - something a player might have decided for or against with great thought. The moment a spell, feat, or ability is devalued through metagaming is the moment it becomes a problem.
I kind of do metagame. By choosing best classes/classes combinations, because we have only 3 players and as much as i love playing weird characters, i often let 2 other players play what they want and not worry about how we are going to survive. Also when we were going to play curse of strahd and i knew about setting, i choose character who tottaly not benefited from it and guess what. I DIDNT had fun because my char was tottaly out of place
We all know that *Intelligence* is the most commonly dumped stat, but if you're committed to not metagaming, *Int* is probably the most useful stat of them all.
Want to identify a creature, or to know trolls are weak to fire? Roll one of the relevant knowledge stats. This stays true even if the GM has homebrewed their monsters.
Yeah. I never consider Intelligence a dump Stat unless I'm making a character that way for role-playing purposes. Knowledges will be useful.
Players dumping any of the mental stats and then playing as if they're stat is high anyway really pisses me off. More than INT-dumpers, is the CHA dumpers that play Silver-tongued negotiators. DMs should make a habit of calling this bullshit out more often than not. "Listen, John, your character's CHA is an 8. I'mma need you to roleplay that 8 starting yesterday. Tom over there, who can dead-lift 200 kg isn't allowed to have his wizard swing a sword any better than his STR 8 allows, and neither do you get to be the face of the party."
"B-b-b-b-b-but My ChArAcTeR cAn CoMe Up WiTh GoOd ArGuMeNtS, tOo!"
"Not EVERY SINGLE TIME. Now roll a persuasion check. I don't care if you did say what the king wanted to hear. We need to see if you simultaneously belched, farted, and pissed your pants whilst saying it, and maybe even let slip a Yo-Mama joke, badly timed, in there for good measure."
"9"
"Yeah, frick you John. Quit dumping CHA if you're so desperate to play the party's face. Give bob a chance to play his, you know, BARD."
It sounds like YOU put some extra points in INT 😉
Also, if you have a character with good perception (WIS) you can notice that the Wizards Fireball standard didn't do very much to the rock monster but that troll isn't regenerating, maybe i should birn the troll and try a magical bludgeoning attack on the rock monster.
PCs with decent observation and average brain power should be able to rotate through their damage types until something appears to be reasonably effective. And after enough combat they all should be expected to have some basic combat sense.
Additionally their should be clues available, maybe a local complains about a troll problem and how the town gaurd is using fire on them. Maybe its just something subtle in the dungeon, like scorch marks on a wall which only indicates something used fire here at somepoint with the option to investigate and see if anyone has any ideas about the pattern. (Obviously role dependent)
@@JimMonsanto I once saw a DM, at the request of a player, allow a roll for an intelligence check. They rolled an 18, and the DM kept going as if he failed. Then the player asked what happened, and how high he needed to roll. It was a very critical moment in the session, and the DM bluntly replied, "The smartest idiot is still an idiot."
It seems harsh, but guy had been doing this as a barbarian with int dumped. He played him like an idiot at first, and the DM played along making it seem as though the barbarian lucked into the right answer, or accidently solved a puzzle. They tried explaining to the player the concept of allowing a team to play their roles. For the most part the DM was pretty lenient, but he felt bad for another player trying to play a Sherlock meets Dr. Frankenstein-like character. Still kept doing it though. After that comment, player still protested, and the DM explained that for the particular puzzle they were up against, a barbarian couldn't resonably have enough knowledge or biology or engineering no matter the roll. Not to mention that technically it was going to be a string of int checks.
It might have been harsh, and the player left after two more sessions, but I think the group was fine with that given how often he'd say he got it, but continued to try and do it all. They felt he had main character syndrome, so no love loss I guess.
Watching this has made me realize that I'm probably in a very weird position when it comes to possible metagaming considering that I enjoy reading adventure modules and monster manuals for fun.
lol same
It isn't what you know, it is what you do with that information.
Until recently, I was a forever DM. So, my go to question now is, "What does my character know about x?" Makes it easy not to metagame when you only know what the DM told you 3 seconds ago ;)
The real metagame here was knowing this entire video was a Dungeon Coach parody LOL had a goofy smile on my face the whole time
As a player, I recognize optimal plays while treading lightly. I'll typically ask the DM, "What would my character know about X? Because I think X is because Y, but I don't know if my character would know that. Should I roll?" The DM can decide if it's fair and there's no argument or foul play involved.
After all, it's ridiculous to expect players to conveniently forget a spell DC of an enemy caster. I wouldn't punish players for using their brains. Maybe describe a level of magical energy the PC feels as they shrug off the effect and they recognize, "hey, that was kinda weak." Now we have a rp justification for not bothering to pop abilities to counter that weak spellcaster.
YES, thank you
A simple history or arcana check will determine if your character knows something. Wizard roled a 1, i guess they fell asleep that day in class. Barb rolled a 20, maybe they have that nursery rhyme stuck in their head.
And as far as values for saves or AC you should be descibing misses or failures based on how relatively close they were, players will have an idea about how scary a given attack is.
Imagine a non meta gaming dm who gives like, 8 kobalds to fight a level 20 party.
Hehe DC is gonna enjoy this. All the sports references are going right over my head, but I'm sure he'll get them XD
I was just watching his vids when this came out😂
I was expecting his appearance throughout the whole video lol I wanna see this cool crossover, homebrew and DM magnifique
Now I gotta see his next video to see if they traded gimmicks or something
If players always think of a monster a certain way, remind them that 3.5 Ed D&D gave DM's the ability to add class levels to monsters. I still do that to great effect. Use random HP as well. Some monsters are pretty rugged!
Example: The 6th level Kobold ranger (Jonrambo) who is a master at guerrilla warfare would give them a war they would never forget. If the party had been nice to him and just asked his name and been respectful of his ancestral lands, they might not have been in cages the next morning after they disrespected his squads home in the forest.
Giant rangers are a favorite. Pass without a trace really helps add some tension up until the discovery.
This is a thing I even did in AD&D. Intelligent monsters can learn and grow. Why WOULDN'T they learn classes just like the "normal" races? Especially monsters with societies?
I love this energetic style, I’d love to see this more often
I am working on a homebrew Pokémon mystery dungeon style DnD game. And I knowing that my most experienced player with Pokémon knows pretty much every weakness and resistance a typing has. I talked to him before hand and are going to have him roll to see what he can remember then based on his roll I will text him the details. The other players know almost nothing about Pokémon so I am not too worried about them yet. If they do something that is fully aligned with what info there character has I will discuss it.
Are you straight up stealing Dungeon Coach’s schtick? Shame, shame. Time out?! Who gave you the authority? (This is in Jest) I love seeing you guys build each other up!
"Is a player reading the module himself as you all play through it? Easy solution..." - Yeah, thats an appt. with the BanHammer for me. Cardinal sin right there.
Back in 1E I had monster knowledge checks and Monster Manuals. If you found a book with the monster write up you could open the Monster Manual. I kind of like Tasha's Monster Research rules. Disagree with the hidden DC comments. I GENERALLY let the group know. But when I want to make them sweat. I do keep a secret.
Inconsistent and immersion breaking in my opinion. Either always keep it a secret or never do. Once i'd catch on to the fact that my DM only keeps it a secret for special enemies or situations, i will quickly start noticing whenever one of these situations occur. And since i find numbers and DCs extremely gamey and immersionbreaking in general, i keep these things a secret, always. Players will catch on to these things after a few rounds of combat anyway, even without me ruining the entire mystery by telling them.
implement skill use so players have to make decisions based on current actual character knowledge and communicate with more experienced players the issue before the group starts.
Walking the line... When guiding new players through their first campaign, they may not realize they are metagaming.
In one campaign I ran, as a reward for an early sidequest, the characters were given a field guide that contained information on the common creatures in the area, effectively allowing them to use whatever meta-knowledge the players might have had about various creatures they encountered, at least as long as they had spent some of their down time reading it. Was a nice little reward for them actually biting on a plot hook, but didn't really change the balance of the game either.
funnily, I sometimes call out other players for metagaming on something before the DM will... =p Usually it's along the lines, "would you really know that as the character?" and we players will typically stop it before the DM does.
Counter point to telling DC of things. just use variable DCs for NPCs.
round 1: The wizard casts suggestion DC 12 charisma save.
round 2: The wizard casts suggestion DC 15 charisma save.
players: huh wasnt the DC 12?
you: ehh, you dont now maybe that was his innate ability or an item. thinking you were easy prey.
sit back as no player ever underestimates npc saves again.
also thematically doable by describing what focus was used. maybe the wizard has a special item that gives +x DC.
Careful with that. An item used can be an item dropped.
@@theobscene1654 unless it stops functioning, otherwise we have to go into the specifics that any item an npc has is dropable so better not use any npc with armor, weapons, special item of any kind. But i get the concern.
I should tell my paladin player to stop asking people to flank, and just let people move how/where they want
he can definitely ask, other players arent obliged to listen to him. combat isnt to static. an adventuring party who've known each other a long time, most likely have hand signals or the likes to help them if you thematically want to justify it
@@ricardoduinkerken8074 I've never had this be an issue in any of my games. If there are 2 melee types in the party, it is only natural for them to want to work together to give each other advantage in combat, and it makes sense in character as well, since any character trained in melee combat would know that flanking an enemy gives you an advantage against them.
Been watching you for a while and am about to DM for the first time soonish. May rewatch some videos soonish. Anyways, just wanna say thanks for the catalogue and you don't absolutely suck.
Loved the tone !
What I get from the video :
1) flexible metagaming management helps to keep things fun for everyone
2) best confrontation comes with an opportunity for player to empathize with their character
3) don’t overwork yourself to play around metagaming
Reason why Metagaming for combat doesnt work in my games:
Me Building an encounter: "uh, that Monster looks cool... not quite the CR I was looking for though... But this is the look... ok, lets see... This Monster has the right CR, i give its statblock to the other one... but... hmmm that ability really doesnt vibe with me... What if its a Level 6 Berserk Barbarian instead... Yeah, thats cool! Wait, its immune to X and takes double damage from Y? Now that totaly doesnt fit the new look, lets fix that..."
That's it! I am adding a "Dungeon Couch" to every dungeon 🤣
Even got the lights and camera crops 😂 very thorough. Loved it!
Missing some bad puns. (dad puns?)
When my players start meta-gaming (usually huddling up to decide how they’re going to handle a particular action), I let the game respond. For example: the guard overhears the group whispering something about sneaking into the castle and confronts the group about it.
A good practice but a bad example scenario, lol, you would kind of expect the characters to talk about how they want to sneak in the castle and develop a plan, so the players doing it seems fine, like who sneaks into a castle with no forethought
@@chrisbammer8679 yeah, that’s a bad example. I was thinking more like when players are trying to meta-game in a situation where it wouldn’t make sense in real life. For example: players coming up with a detailed battle plan in the middle of combat. In cases like those, I let enemies hear the players talking their battle plans and respond accordingly, or I tell the players that they only have time in combat to yell simple commands.
I wondered how that was metagaming until I read the comments and saw that it was in the middle of combat. lmao Yeah. I do the same. That's what downtime and short rests are for. Characters get their butts kicked and go, "OKAY. HOW ABOUT WE DEVELOP SOME SORT OF STRATEGY AND PLAN WHEN WE FIGHT BECAUSE I NEED HEALING, THE MONK IS SHAKEN AND NEEDS TO MEDITATE TO STEEL HERSELF, AND I THINK EVERYONE FORGOT THAT THE SEWERS HAVE PACKS OF RATS THAT CARRY DISEASE. HOW ABOUT THE FIGHTER ACTUALLY USES THEIR SHIELD AND DEFENSIVE FIGHTING STYLE AND HOLD THE LINE WITH THE BARBARIAN, FOLKS."
- That was directly inspired by my game, where a bunch of my players were surprised that giant rats' tactics are using their pack to swarm and kill and that dark sewers are stinky, filthy, and hard as hell to sneak in with a torch in hand.
One technique I've found helpful here is called the "murky mirror" (the term the Angry GM uses).
Basically, whatever the players are doing, the PCs are _kinda_ doing too.
If a player tells another player what they think the other should do, assume their PC told the other's PC that information. If the players are focused on your descriptions, the PCs are paying attention to their surroundings. If they're joking around, so are the PCs (maybe not Monty Python references, but jokes). If they're making fun of the King, so are the PCs.
And if they're huddling up to plan, so are the PCs.
Whether that has a bad consequence is going to depend - as in life - on what is going on at the time.
@@chrisbammer8679
"Who sneaks into a castle with no forethought?"
I will point you to my group
Critical Role
A few one shots I have watched
Basically the option you take once option A, B, and C didn't work/roll the way you were hoping.
I told my players the one instance they all metagame all the time is that their group is always together. They never even though this was metagaming, but ultimately I as the DM need the group to stick together, and we all subconsciously know the players sticking together is important for a cohesive game. This blew their minds, there was in party conflict but the reason no one ever left group was the meta knowledge the PCs had to be a group for the campaign to be cohesive.
The second I noticed the purple lights in the background. I knew instantly where it was going. Hehe Well done Luke…. I mean Dungeon Coach. 😉
We had been playing awhile, third level. Me the thief, yeah when that was a class, was scouting ahead through the forest. Four elves up in the trees ambush me and I go down. Screaming out the party knew I was in trouble, and come rushing forward. Our fighter, sheathed his sword and drew his crossbow. The DM asked him, in all our sessions, you have never used your crossbow, are you sure he would be drawing it out now? Yes, he is going to draw his crossbow and rush forward with the rest of the party. Guess who got targeted by all the attacks?
Lesson learned.
Great advice here, Luke. One thing I find a bit funny is when a party encounters a certain monster and that monster behaves or reacts differently (as I also change up monster stats/homebrew and don't use their name in my games like you mentioned) and the player(s) start complaining that's not how the monster should behave or work... they are self-incriminating themselves by admitting they are metgaming.
Also fun to run monsters they've never seen. I told my players a monster was called a banderhobb after they spent like 6 months calling it "that frog monster"
As a response to casting dimension door into a space you haven't seen yet, *pulls out artillery dice from warhammer*
"Roll to see where your door comes up. 1d10 + scatter die = tiles that direction you appear, hopefully it isn't in a wall!"
When running close dungeons with tight corridoors, it usually ends up bad and the metagaming teleports stop. Same with unseen fireballs, and other spells/ideas. "Roll 1d10 + scatter die" is enough to backtrack, unless the player is particularly chaotic....
As for custom monsters, my favorite is throwing in a scifi creature and give it comparable stats to another creature already written out that resmebles what I want. Example: "graboids" aka tremors. i ran an Exalted game once where a desert hideout of terrestrials was surrounded by "shifting mounds of sand, which pulled some of the travelers down". the players, being exalted of the Sun, treaded so lightly it was hilarious, but once one was drug under and fought against, they started connecting the vibrations with the creature finding them and discovered I had placed large rocks as a path to the hideout, which seemed more like rock pillars that had been carved by time and weather.
They eventually got it and took out 1 of the "wurms", but not giving stats, describing actions only as they perceive goes a long way to helping stop metagaming. Throw in a new ability or two or switch some stats to quickly customize critters. Make a table so a random encounter happens, you encounter *rolls encounter with 5 orcs* a gang of large, ruffian green fellows wearing bedraggled furs, wielding hefty weapons, and grimacing mouths showing tusks protruding from their foul teeth. *rolls random characteristic chart, gets 'fire breathing'* and two of them seem to have a puff of dark smoke emanating from their nostrils. *makes note to downsize breath attack to appropriate creature size and power*
Reskinning monsters is the standard MO for me now. And with so many cool pictures over the internet, it isn't too time consuming.
Whenever I want to do something that could be metagaming, I ask the DM if my character knows trolls are weak to fire... Or if I heard something about the rogue drop in the other room, like a clattering dagger or a scream. Sometimes I'll get a yes or a no with a bit of background, other times a skill check. In some cases I can give a background reason myself for the DM to adjudicate. Like how a circle of the shepard druid might have an innate awareness of where party members are going. Or that a ranger who spent a lot of time in the wilds might have seen a troll before or be part of a community where the knowledge can be expected to exist as a commonplace piece of lore.
In my experience, being honest as a player about metagaming and about how to work knowledge into the game really helps to take the edge off the whole thing. It gives the DM control over what is acceptable and what is not, while allowing the players to make metagaming decisions that don't break immersion (too much).
I've had a situation where the party was dealing with a spellcaster using Suggestion... So I pulled the expected target aside between sessions and let them know what the deal was ahead of time (once they failed their save), asked them to basically help the current BBEG to bamboozle the party. They gleefully agreed, and the moment the other two discovered that he'd let the person they were hunting escape remains legendary within that group.
The very next session I had the same spellcaster say something subtle as a suggestion spell to one of the PC's, who was patting them down to check for a disguise self spell: "you won't find anything more than what you see". I rolled the save for them, and they failed it of course. Cue them letting the BBEG escape for the second time in two sessions.
Sometimes the best way to fight metagaming is to enlist the help of your players, or to subvert their expectations.
My players will never trust anything the next time a spellcaster is involved... Probably a good lesson!
You're the best dungeon couch on the internet
Luke this is one of the best videos you put out yet, love the energy and sports references. Definitely the best Dungeon Couch on UA-cam.
Was watching an old video of yours where you mentioned reading R.A. Salvatore when you were young. My favorite fantasy series was and still is Guardians of the Flame by Joel Rosenberg. I found the first book in the series The Sleeping Dragon in my middle school library when I was 12 and instantly fell in love. Despite being in my school library, this is NOT a children's or YA series. It's every bit as brutal as ASoIaF. The basic plot is a group of D&D playing college kids are magically transported into the campaign world by the DM who is an exiled archmage who hopes the PCs will open a portal for his return. Death, horror, politics, romance, and ultimately a war against slavers ensues. I can't recommend the series enough to any fans of the genre. Walter Slovotsky is the man!
My favorite is colloquial terms. Is your standard peasant going to recognize difference between a ghost, a specter, and a banshee? Nope! We got a ghost!
I don't know about homebrewing all the monsters, but there's always the "stat block switcharoo" you can use. Describe a goblin, but use orc stats. Describe a zombie, use a wight. Describe a giant lizard, use a displacer beast. If they can't trust the description to line up with the monster, they're gonna have trouble metagaming.
This is good info but the delivery is absolutely 💯....keep it up guys...
Another ruggedly-handsome-hosted video! Best Dungeon Couch on the Tubes! What’s a flag on the play? Where’s the DC when you need him? -really great advice on being a reasonable GM and a reasonable human being. Thank you.
I often use the picture I find cool with a statblock of a completely different monster, especially with demons and devil's. My enemies appearance, statblocks, and lore/behavior often come from 3 different sources. Sometimes homebrewed.
I usually roll monster hp, that way even if its a group of the same monsters they all have different hp. I had one guy in the group keep track of damage on all monsters and announce it..
The other day while playing through a campaign the DM revealed a some monsters, and outside of that campaign I was prepping for my own campaign as a DM and happened to recognize the creatures by their description. Simple solution I may know what the creatures were but I thought about whether my character did and whether they have weaknesses for not and just acted accordingly, unless it was revealed in game. If a creature has a weakness to fire for example and my arrows aren't doing much damage I could then use other weapons to deal different kinds of damage. Especially since the DM in this campaign could just as easily switch it up. Fire in this case was easy since I pre-prepped some fire arrows for my rogue that I would sometimes use in battle against tougher enemies if my regular arrows weren't working.
What a fun way to combine another style to this video. Can’t wait until the next Dungeon Couch’s video to see if he parodies this channel now.
as someone who absolutely despises any kind of fire magic, chill touch is my best friend when dealing with regeneration
While I don't care that much about metagaming - I think the save DC is something that the players would realize based on feeling/seeing how powerful the effect is. Same as telling them they got hit for 4 points of damage. That's technically metagaming, but it's shorthand for translating something that the characters would know into terms that the players understand. I think a Charm Person spell from a powerful archmage would feel different than one from a lowly apprentice.
My players don't get an opportunity to metagame. I use the stats as a means of communicating an idea. "This monster has 16 ac. It has chainmail" Is one way of communicating the idea of what they're up against.
I never understood hiding the obvious.
Exactly! Plenty of people know about fire and trolls. Acid is a little bit more niche
Yes to number 3! If you started the game at higher levels the player may have written something about fighting said monster before
I borrow ideas from other games too. The D10 Unisystem has "Drama Points," that can be used to help players, like the rogue, out of a jam. So, I banned the luck feat from my games, but I allow each player one luck point at the beginning of the session. Luck points do not stack, but it is possible to get a luck point back through good roleplaying.
So, if the rogue or wizard wanted to meta game like that, I would have one of them spend a luck point, to roll a D20, and have it pass a check to see if the Wizard just happened to open a dimension door to the rogue, out of intuition. However, that player would have lost their luck point for the session, unless they did some good roleplaying to earn it back.
That's my homebrew anyway
The idea of asking how a PC would know something is actually one of the first things I learned with DnD and the DM explained it as Character knowledge vs Player knowledge. He gave an example where if my character was just a farmhand a month or so ago and now I have to deal with a vampire, what would I use and why, so I reasoned out that vampire hunters occasionally stop by to buy garlic and they explained that vampires dislike garlic or the character had an encounter with a vampire where they only survived by hiding in the nearest plants, which were garlic. I don't run into the issue much and the closest I have is writing down an enemy's AC based on what hit for things like Great Weapon Master.
If you completely avoid meta-gaming, the character will act borderline suicidal. For example, why wouldn't the players try garlic, holy water, silver, iron, 4-leaf clovers, lead, or a duck against a troll until they have a total party kill? Or why wouldn't a character be as superstitious as a medieval peasant? Or, why wouldn't an ignorant character be wrong but firmly convinced, and be the equivalent of a flat-earther?
@blkgardner Well again, that's player knowledge vs character knowledge. If your character was very superstitious, they would be aware of ways to deter some creatures and might try everything with a new one
You deserve the vacation Luke we all need one once and a while
This is why I sometimes use a character sheet to make my BBEG. This way there is no metagaming for him/her.
I like making my own creachers that are terrain spesific that follow stats of this or has stuff of that.
I love my killer flowers. Slow moving like zombies. Has a spray attack and can eat players. Vine whip. Good to block areas in groups. Easy to run from and attack from distance. Live in open forests with tall grass and random holes in the land scape.
"I homebrewed it pray I didn't go too far" seems like the best way XD
So just recently I ended up being the one to metagame. I felt a little bad about it, but the rules had been broken so badly and egregiously that I didn't feel that bad about it.
1. A Paladin Warforged was casting dispel magic to try and open a magically locked staircase. Paladins don't have access to dispel magic. I didn't realize it at the time, but I did a few days later.
2. Paladin Warforged was in Plate armor and NOT taking disadvantage rolls on Stealth checks. I wondered why he was rolling so well so I looked at his character sheet and he wasn't rolling disadvantage. This is when I spoke and caused a "scene" at the table because I was pissed. A person assisting the DM tried to argue that the way a Warforged was created it would negate and negative effects that Plate armor has on Stealth rolls, that person didn't have access to the character sheets, to which I replied it was a ridiculous argument to make without the facts in front of his face.
3. Paladin Warforged was taking about 8 attacks each turn in combat. I looked at the character sheets and it states that the character could take 2 Attacks each Action. He was taking 2 melee attacks, several spell attacks, some sort of Giant feature attack, and another 2 melee attacks. At this point I was so over the game that night that I kept my mouth shut about it.
if I have to play at the table with that person again, I'd ask the DM to police heavily the rules, or make clear that the rules don't apply and players can do whatever they want.
Great video, as always. Love that you’re supporting Stack Up too!
I make an effort to ask would my character notice X, Y, or Z. My DM who knows me well enough to read between the lines, that it is my way of avoiding meta-gaming.
And yes, it is annoying when a player at the table says that monster can't do that, or some other comment from the player who attempts to be Mr. stat block Wikipedia. We have one of those guys at our table too.
“HOMEBREW EVERYTHING!!” Why yes I think I might! :)
Came here from DC’s plug for ya. Fun video and solid advice. Thx.
After we finish our current module, I often have players asking “hey, DM, which module are you going to run next?” to which I reply that they must wait until the next game session to find out (to prevent players from buying the module and reading it ahead of time). If I see a player reading the module at my game table, I tell them to put it away immediately and come talk to me after the session. I only give them one warning and that’s it: if I see them reading the module at my game table again, they’re out of the game. Also, I never use a monster’s real name in the game. I will describe the monsters and then leave it up to the players to figure out what the monsters really are. Another thing I will not do is allow a player to act on knowledge that their character doesn’t possess. When they try to do that, I will ask them “how would your character know that?” My players pretty much know that I don’t tolerate this crap at my table.
Ngl I lie and tell my players I tend to change monster stat blocks even if I don’t. Cause it tends to keep my players from looking up stat blocks. I never say what I’ve changed either so nobody is sure what to expect. Also it tends to make them excited for my combat.
Also helps I’m the only person in our group to EVER dm.
As a player/gm I have to read the modules, I know pretty much what happens.. but my character has no idea so I act like I have no clue even though, even when they ask me where the traps are or what HP the monsters have
Still miss the intro skits. Understand why they are a ton of work. But still miss them.
I like revealing the DC of saves (or the AC if people are trying to attack it) about halfway into the battle, when it feels like their characters would have a good sense of how tough the enemies are
With 3 time outs after 6 minutes, I calculated that there will be 5 time outs in the video, and I was right.
Hold on a minute: The metaphors were all eggball, and now they're diamond-stick.
All monsters in my games have stats relegated to that world space. I also change up some creatures' appearance, sometimes trolls are large gangly ogre like creatures (2e d&d,) sometimes smaller furry critters (Willow) or almost bear-like (Skyrim.) I'll also make grander changes, sometimes goblins are barely sentient monsters that are just evil, sometimes they're almost man-like and just like any other race etc.
I don't do this necessarily to counter meta-gaming specifically, that's not usually a problem with my group. But it's almost impossible not to to an extent, I don't like going too weird with enemies so there's relatively limited options, especially for lower levels. So, this helps change things up and make different adventures feel different, both for the players and myself.
Wow, I thought I was watching The Dungeon Coach when I heard the whistle and you said "time out" to do your promo.
I honestly don't even bother with any of this stuff, when players in my game start metagaming. I really just tell them that if they keep doing this shit, they're out and that usually solves it. For people reading up statblocks while playing, i generally have a lot less mercy than for people just remembering stuff, because lets be honest, you cannot control what you remember and what not.. and what do you wanna do instead if you know for a fact that trolls are weak to fire? Mindnumbingly blasting it with Ray of Frost over and over again just to not metagame is just as fake anyway.
The Characters are professional adventurers. I would assume they have some basic knowledge of common monsters and have heard some legends about others. As a previous commenter mentioned, Troll weakness to fire is legendary, every legendary hero who killed a Troll used fire, so your character could have heard that legend as a child.
The lighting in this video is giving Luke some beautiful magenta eye shadow, he's gonna be the belle of the ball
Cool ideas to keep in mind.
As for me, to limit the woes of meta gaming, I currently trying incorporate lore or knowledge rolls about monsters to help allow experienced players to use their player knowledge and skill to play their characters. So I describe a large ugly creature, the player might make a roll to identify what it is exactly, and if it’s weaknesses are obscure, it might require another roll to know the weakness.
I also think that knowing the weakness, and perhaps knowing the players but not the characters, know the weakness, I try to describe how the monster acts to give characters a reason to know. For example, after a few round s I say the party notices that the big monster (troll) is keeping a wide berth from the campfire. Or something.
That purple light is seriously disturbing. It looks like you and my wife followed the same makeup tutorials. lmao
LOL - I'm sure we did.
That pink lighting made me think you were in a fight, looked like a dark eye in various angles
I never had a problem with metagaming on any of those levels;
What I had was stuff like player trying to convince me to include stuff specially for the benefit of his character in the module; "hey GM can you include this item I need for my build on the next module?" "Hey GM!! I want a henchman!" "When are you going to include my backstory into the game?"
I am like "Dude!!! Half of the fun is me surprising you with that stuff; if you keep asking for it you are metagaming the fun out of the game!!"
But thinking about it, the way this kind of player is, it would go like "oh you want a henchman? I did include some NPCs that would be willing, but you killed them all." instead I just say "I am not a good fit for GMing for this group, find another GM."
Played a game where one player said "yep that's a mimic room.". I promptly marched my character in to start touching stuff
I was in a group where 3/6 players had been DMs before and hearing "I know what this monster is" got old real fast
I must confess. Today I metagamed - we was investigating a case of monster attack and I heard that DM is rolling some dices. As a fairy I immediately darted upwards to look around and noticed a rogue steel predator right in time before he attacked. It saved us from a quite probable tpk and, as we were grouped together, helped spread out before his stunning roar
Knowing how to deal with trolls from fairy tales is just as likely wrong as it is right. But instead of saying no, give them a roll.
On closer inspection the troll seems to have grown stronger with your last attacks. On closer inspection this is a flaming-acid troll.
when players metagame, you change the rules - using sword for 3 sessions just to pull out a mace on the first skeleton the character has ever encountered? skellies are resistant to blunt damage now - players decide their characters are all gonna break out torches on the first troll they have ever encountered? its a type of troll that fire heals now - you can ask the dm if you know anything about this particular monster, they will say yes, no, or roll to find out - solves all metagaming problems - if you know something, ask the dm if your character also knows and play accordingly, it is very easy
When I have someone trying to have their characters say x monster has x stats, I tell them to roll a history/investigation check as their action. Depending on how common the monster is, and their background will determine the difficulty. Like if I have a that wizard sage that spent years of research and studying, their check will be lower compared to the street urchin rogue who spent their time learning how to steal and escape.
My party was fighting an illithid and they weren't metagaming at all and I literally expected their level 13 characters to know how to fight an illithid. When I asked later they said "You homebrew so many monsters we just weren't sure if it was a mindflayer or not".
And I realized that I accidently put anti-metagaming into my campaigns. That being said, I do stick to patterns and all of my homebrew could evolve naturally, so some of my better players can quickly guess good and logical options to deal with them.
"Of course you have, it's all I talk about" Can Confirm...
I don't have that problem because my players don't read the rulebooks...