| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 18:57:55
I found myself considering this point after a recent roleplay session.
I was running a game and my pc's started metagaming, using blatant player knowledge to make character decisions. But it got worse when a player made a character decision based on what he knew about me personally.
The situation was this, the players woke to find themselves locked in a cell, in the next cell was a minotaur. The players worked out a clever way to escape I had never considered, as they often do, and then one player said
"we can let this minotaur out cause I know wrigs likes minotaurs so he'll be ok"
I was shocked that my work on a minotaur civilisation was being thrown back at me this way. Now my first inclination was to simply say the minotaur was evil and remove the players head, but he was unfortunatly an important npc for later in the story arc, but not for the reasons the players may have thought.
I then found myself plotting against the players, not as an npc organistion against the characters, but as a dm against his players. I started using their metagame knowledge against them. This seemed fair and just.
But then I found myself plotting against the characters by giving my npc's and monsters the advantage based on equipment and the like. Not cheating but selecting spells and weapons I knew would bypass certain defenses. This seemed in hindsight less defensible.
The problem was I started thinking about how to use my knowledge of the players against them. Their personalities, likes and dislikes, as the basis for encounters. Properly planned a ECL-3 encounter could still cause significant trouble to players for little reward. I did stop myself at this point you will be glad to know.
So is this really metagaming?
Or is it fair to confuse and abuse players in this way?
If it is metagaming when does it start?
What is fair game and should you retaliate against metagaming players? |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fisk |
Posted - 09 May 2009 : 22:01:56
With one group that I DM, RPing usually gets us killed. I had planned to give them a surprise, because of their habit of mild metagaming, involving allignment deterioration (LG Wizard would freak out). As with a lot of players, they have a habit of killing everything that runs at them. So I designed a series of events that would lead to another plot line, likely with a lot of them in jail. The son of a High Commander was one of the guards of a wizard's tower, and would have been HIGHLY missed had he been killed by the PCs. However, they roleplayed rather well, and went out of their way to help him. I didn't expect this, and thus had to wing it for the next five hours.
It just goes to show that players will always surprise you. You can try to metagame against them, but it might not work.
I've always found that adding a little bit of extra RP experience helps. In one of the first adventures that I ran, one of the players duped a whole town into distrusting a band of wood elves to the east. Offering to take care of them, he gave the same exact story to the elves. Eventually, he had allied both sides behind him. It's hard to describe the RP in text, but it deserved some experience.
Other than that, change what they think they know, or mislead them with their bad rolls.
I hope that helped a little bit, and sorry for the long post. I have a tendancy to try to relate to the problem at hand. |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 22:36:00
I'd suggest you just lay out the house rules. If there is to be no metagaming, then the DM has spoken. Metagaming is, well...cheating. The same way that grabbing up a Monster Manual to discover a creature's weaknesses while PC'ing is cheating.
You aren't running a "guess what Wrigs is thinking" game, you're playing D&D. And while I know it's all but impossible to take your personal perceptions of other people completely off the table while gaming, it should be understood that if you must metagame, you need to keep it to yourself. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 20:47:10
I don't worry to much about what the players are doing.
I have several world plots moving along regardless of what the players do, they can affect the outcome but things still happen if they take a break in Arabel and just get drunk. 
I have even started cheating by creating an adventurers guild where notice boards contain dozens of plot hooks. I have an actual board in the room the players meet and they can stand around scratching their chins trying to decide which jobs are important stroylines I have written and which are just real jobs, such as guarding wagons from Suzail to Hillsfar.
The sneaky truth I don't know either.    |
| Afetbinttuzani |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 20:41:21
quote:
I used to be infamous for my 'twists' (I was the original 'M. Knight Shyamalan'  ), having Orcs save partys from evil Elves, and 'princesses' turning out to be evil Dragons in disguise. In fact, I got very predictable at being unpredictable, to the point where I had to dial it way back to get the game fun again. For instance, if they came across a small child crying in the middle of nowhere that was telling them it "lost my Mommy and Daddy", they would know to kill it on the spot (whatever 'it' actually was).
Of course, making them that paranoid was fun too. 
I overdid the twists at the start of our current campaign, to the point where the PCs were almost paralyzed by their constant second guessing and excessive caution. It can definitely backfire. It's a balancing act, to be sure. |
| Raith |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 20:37:04
That cow would've made me rich rich RICH! And the chicken's name was Mr. Horatio Tenders. |
| Zucrous |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 20:34:41
well wrigs, I like to have my PC's do whatever they want. I usually have lots of global things happening in my campaigns, but that doesnt mean that I force my players to get involved in them. Luckely enough for me, my players enjoy being the good guys so they go galavanting off after any rumor of en evil plot. I try not to have everything revolve around them, but I do give them the chance to become part of my plan. If they would rather lose a grapple check to a chicken, fear for their lives kill and keep the (untaxidermed) chicken as a keep sake, then plot to kidnap a celestial cow who bakes pies (ahem Raith), then I let em. It isnt going to slow down the other things happening in the campaign. It all depends on your DMing style. If the PC's are the center of your universe that must be really taxing whenever they do that stuff to you, but if it happened to me, its just another opportunity lost lol. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 20:22:25
So the secret is to be really obvious and predictable when it is a routine encounter of little consequence and then do the old switch-a-roo when it is a big bad guy. But then occasionally make the obvious trap turn out to be completely innocent.  
I suppose the danger is that as we dm's become lazy we forget that the players are getting more experienced. Thats why this site is so great, the chance to bounce ideas off complete strangers allows you to take a whole new approach to the next session. The players will never know whats hit them. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 18:42:29
But you do learn a DM's style, and if he gets into the habit of setting the same sorts of traps for his players, I don't think we're obligated to fall for them every time just because our characters wouldn't know any better. Shirley, there's a limit. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 18:31:41
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I guess some 'twists' are very predictable.
Maybe just a little. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 18:23:33
Just................. WOW. 
Thats excellent! I actualy had in mind the scene from Disney's Hercules, where the two Demons pose as 'trapped children', but that works even better.
I guess some 'twists' are very predictable. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 17:36:50
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I used to be infamous for my 'twists' (I was the original 'M. Knight Shyamalan' ), having Orcs save partys from evil Elves, and 'princesses' turning out to be evil Dragons in disguise. In fact, I got very predictable at being unpredictable, to the point where I had to dial it way back to get te game fun again. For instance, if they came across a small child crying in the middle of nowhere that was telling them it "lost my Mommy and Daddy", they would know to kill it on the spot (whatever 'it' actually was).
Of course, making them that paranoid was fun too.
You mean like this? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 17:13:23
What you need to do is drop in a twist later, since you couldn't at that moment (because the Minotaur was esential to your plans).
At some point - preferably during this particular story-arc - have them come acros a small group of Minotaurs (perhaps just 2-3, depending on party strength). The Minotaur should be doing something innocuous - like sitting at camp in the woods; then the party will think "Heey, here's another bunch f those 'nice' DM Minotaurs.
Thats when you give them a beat-down (byut don't kill them). If your players are starting to find you predictable, then you have to use that very thing against them. Its your JOB to keep them on their toes. When a DM does it, its not metagaming... you are supposed to be using every trick in your repetoire to keep your players entertained and coming back for more.
I used to be infamous for my 'twists' (I was the original 'M. Knight Shyamalan' ), having Orcs save partys from evil Elves, and 'princesses' turning out to be evil Dragons in disguise. In fact, I got very predictable at being unpredictable, to the point where I had to dial it way back to get te game fun again. For instance, if they came across a small child crying in the middle of nowhere that was telling them it "lost my Mommy and Daddy", they would know to kill it on the spot (whatever 'it' actually was).
Of course, making them that paranoid was fun too. |
| Raith |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 16:30:05
Maybe those other two guys know people who'd like to give it a shot?
I'm sorry, I realize it's totally off topic, but whenever that guy comes up I feel like I'm talking to somebody trapped in an abusive relationship or something. And having put up with players like that in the past, I vicariously feel your pain.
If you wanted to surprise the "left is best" guy, maybe taking your idea of making it the worst idea EVER and toning it back a little? For instance, he opens the door and sees a gelatinous cube oozing merrily on toward him. That way the party can slam the door and have a laugh about how it seems his mantra doesn't always apply before moving on. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 16:09:52
Well the player issue is a matter of relativity.
If I lose him I lose his brother and then 4 becomes 2 and I wouldn't want to run a game for just those two really. So I am over a barrel a bit on that front. 
You would think that "Right is Right" makes more sense as a saying, maybe I should expand the saying from "Left is Best" to "Left is the Best way to get a pointy stick in the eye", doesn't roll of the tongue in quite the same way but might work. |
| Raith |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 15:42:15
Uh oh, that problem player of yours again, Wrigs? I don't know how/why you'd put up with somebody exploding in a "fit of rage" at you, man. Must have the patience of Jobe.
Something else to consider when you're thinking about this is what your group likes as far as their game goes. Maybe even take a second to attack with pure logic: "What kind of a game do you guys WANT to play?"
If they say they're more into role playing than roll playing, ask how it's possible to really play a role when their character is acting upon out of character knowledge.
If they say they're more into it for the combat and challenging encounters, then by all means, have the ogres flank them. Oooh! Give the ogres NINJA levels! Ogre ninja assassins from Kara-Tar!
As for the "left is best" guy...I dunno. That sounds like it would just be mean, and while the issue of DM metagaming may be a little bit muddy, we all know for certain that DMs can sometimes be pretty mean. |
| Wrigs13 |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 10:34:01
I'll be honest I am not sure how productive breaking equipment would be. This sort of retailiation feels a bit personal to me, and it would most certainly cause the player in question to explode in a fit of rage so loud that it woud be heard even on other planets. 
I do agree that there needs to be punishment for this abuse of knowledge, and I concede that dm's do need to know everything about their players and characters, but I suppose the question is:
Should a dm think like his npc's or like a god moving npc's as part of a greater plan? 
I mean this in terms of individual encounters really, I know there is always a bigger plan, but if I can conceive a ridiculously converluted strategy that means all 5 ogres can gain flanking bonuses against the players does that mean that they could also work it out? I am clearly smarter than an ogre, well I hope so, so what is a reasonable strategy for them to use?
Put it another way, I have a player who always says
"Left is Best" given a choice of directions, I know this so when designing a maze or dungeon I can make turning right take you straight to the exit, but turning consistantly left leads you through a 2 hour dungeon crawl past traps and beasties of every kind. Is this good or bad? Its good to make the maze a challenge and hence fun to play but if you have a two doors and behind one is pit trap with poison tipped spikes and a beholder floating in it, and behind the other is a +5 Holy Bastardsword of Deicide, isn't that metagaming?
Yes that example is exagerrated but it serves my point.
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with thinking player A will think X, and so will do Y even though his character wouldn't so I will do Z to screw him for metagaming. |
| Raith |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 23:51:11
I think that the term "metagame" is ill suited to anything the DM does. The DM NEEDS to know the out of character reasons behind everything, and occasionally prepare encounters and even entire dungeons based around this knowledge. Playing to a character's strengths and exploiting the occasional weakness are key tools in making things fun and challenging, putting a little bit of excitement into the "adventure".
If a player meta games like that, I would correct them on it out of game, and maybe even break one of their favorite magical items as a penalty. Maybe it's harsh, but it'll at least ensure that they make an effort to disguise their meta game thinking in the future, (We should let this minotaur go because...I have a really good...feeling about him...?) and keep it to an internal monologue so I can keep pretending that I'm making them really feel like they're part of Faerun. |
| Zucrous |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 21:21:19
well to be honest, it is always a tragedy when a DnD gets into an us vs them mentality between the players and the DM. What your characters did was unforgivable imo. But as a DM you arent supposed to have an ego. You are the story teller, you dont need to get bent out of shape because they are being jerks. The part that you are able to get pissed about is them basically cheating. Dm's are the only ones allowed to meta-game. You have to do it in many situations. But you do it in benefit of the game itself, not to gain an advantage over your players, I hope. If the group does something you dont expect, awsome, good on them. Let them go with it, you dont need to metagame to make it interesting because well, they did that on their own. Main point of my post is, they did something wrong, dont do something wrong back to make up for it. When DnD becomes a giant (excuse the phrase) cockfight, nobody has any fun. What I would do, is have the minotaur reluctant to leave the jail cell with these hullagans. That will throw them for a loop. Depending on their reactions perhaps hint on which direction the minotaur is heading and have them find out they need him, if they decide to leave him. All in all im a rather inexperienced DM, so I dunno. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 20:27:17
You don't retaliate against them, you just remind them that that's what they're doing, and you disallow the action. Or maybe you laugh and get a big grin on your face like you know something they don't, and make them wonder when the minotaur is going to suddenly slice them in half with a big axe.
I think the DM has to metagame some in order to make the game challenging. I hate it, though, when it's done arbitrarily or in a very blatant attempt to beef up encounters. I called ours on something like that recently. Immediately after we went up a level, and our sorceror acquired protection from arrows, the troops we had been fighting suddenly acquired magic arrows. They were just like the troops we had been fighting before, except the mundane arrows they had been using were now magically magical. It made her spell advancement a complete waste. The arrows stayed in for that encounter, but he's ratcheted back on them since.
So DM metagaming that can be disguised as a natural evolution within the setting is generally okay, but when it appears blatant, arbitrary, vengeful, or malicious, it will make the players justifiably angry. You already have a player suffering from a persecution complex, and the last thing you want to do is confirm it.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 19:48:00
'Metagaming' isn't a universal sin but a matter of play style. Especially in a campaign where the players really have to use their wits to overcome DM ploys, tricks and traps, it's impossible and perhaps undesirable to separate OOC and IC completely. And as Wooly says, you have to do it more than they do, so it comes down to the purposes you do it for.
But it seems clear enough that you'd like your players to do it less and you aren't comfortable doing it yourself past a certain point. In that case: yes, it is metagaming, and whether it's fair is moot: it's a poor strategy for getting your players to stop.
I know I veer strongly toward being personally direct, but it continues to surprise me that people on these 'how can I fix my campaign?' threads continue to let the fact that an RPG is involved distract them from the fact that these are situations between people like any other, and are vanishingly unlikely to work out by any means except the people involved talking with each other. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 19:42:52
I think all DMs should metagame, to a certain extent... You have to give your players what they want in a game, after all. And knowing your players can add to the adventures -- if all of your players hate spiders, and you want to creep them out for a particular adventure, dropping them into a spider lair will do it. It'll certainly make the adventure more memorable for them! |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 19:22:40
I think that it is a form of justice to metagame against players who metagame, but really only if it is to make a point. If you throw an encounter at them where the baddies have prepared in advance for the players' capabilities, it can be a good example to the players. I would not kill any players off with this encounter.
Basically, you should let the players know that there are consequences to metagaming, but do it in a way that isn't overly harsh. |
|
|
