@@gohantanaka Remember on the eve of battle in RoTK, he was like hey Aragon, go get that ghost army, sorry I didn't tell you until the battle was about to begin.
VERY TARDY but... "We have bypassed all these warriors in this fortress. If we attack their master, he may summon them. And then we'd have to fight them all at once! Maybe we should go back and try to pick them off in manageable quantities." Is NOT metagaming. It's astute self preservation. "NAH!! Let's attack the master now. The GM wouldn't throw 20 encounters worth of enemies at us at a time. We'd have no chance." THAT'S metegaming.
This reminds me how I named a ranger character’s slain mentor Xavier Peters, so he could rush into battle bellowing “FOR X.P.!” and it be an in-game thing. 🤓😜
Also, it can be impossible to avoid metagaming sometimes. I think I first heard this from the Angry GM: a player who has knowledge that their character doesn't, but is acting on it, is obviously behaving differently from a player who doesn't have that knowledge; however, a player who has that knowledge and is *trying not to act on it* is also behaving differently from the player who doesn't have the knowledge at all.
I try to get into the mindset of my character and just do what they'd do. Even though I heard that my ally just went down in the next room, my character didn't and is going to keep looting this room. Usually when it comes to monsters we leave it up to the dice (and sort of the DM) by asking the DM if we'd know and the DM has us roll an appropriate skill to see if we do. Usually we'll come up with a reason for me to know something outside my skillset afterward. If it's something I'm certain my character wouldn't know/do, even if I would, my character does something different. Apparently this is something people have trouble with, thankfully not most of the people I've played with. In fact, one of our PCs last night did something incredibly stupid because he wouldn't know better. The player, naturally, suspected the door was trapped but the PC is a numbskull who's never walked into a trap so he just walked up and opened the door. The fireball brought everyone it hit below 10hp lol
@@RukamiKatochi That's the kind of play I love! I think so much more flavour is added to a game if the players do everything they can to only act as their PCs would, as for monsters and the like I enjoy going off of what my backstory has given them. The 17 year old human cleric? Of course he's never seen a goblin before, why would he try to fight it? The 250 year old grizzled Elven Ranger? I have a feeling he's at least heard of if not seen a Remorhaz so sure he can roll insight.
@Matthew Colville 8:20 I would say you were 'unintentionally' meta-gaming: Your deduction of the monster that was below caused a reaction at the table - the other players that did not know the 'mystery' of the pit and had assumed water was introduced, would have reacted differently had they not known the monster that was awaiting them. So even though YOU did not act on the information, it caused a dynamic change in the party and thus they prepared/acted/reacted differently than they would have without that information. Veteran players have A LOT of knowledge that their character most likely would not and it causes the player to have to 'curb' their out-of-character comments in order to not 'overly hone' the experience of the party... it is a difficult balance...
Though the audio issues are obvious, I feel like it sort of fades into the background due to the quality of the video itself. I think deciding not to redo it was a good choice.
People tend to cry metagaming whenever numbers are brought up, but the numbers do represent something. I had someone insist that players shouldn't know if they hit because that allows them to reverse engineer armor class, and since AC isn't a real thing, knowing it is metagaming. Yet AC does represent something real (how hard it is to land a meaningful hit), and characters would know if they got a good hit in or if their attack bounced harmlessly off the dragon's scales, and they would know roughly what level of force, edge alignment, precision, etc. it would take to get in a hit of any significance. As mentioned, the same goes for skill checks. A character knows what they are good at, and the guy with expertise in stealth probably is aware that he is better at sneaking than the rest of the party. They wouldn't have the number to associate with it, but they would know that it's true. It's generally safe to assume that the characters have awareness of the world they live in and generally know at least the ideas the numbers represent, even though they wouldn't think in numbers. They would know that it takes more energy to cast fireball than to cast shield, even if they don't think in terms of spell levels. They would understand that their magical energy is depleted, even if they don't think in terms of spell slots. They would know that they are pretty sore and beat up, even if they don't know that they are at 2 hit points
That's an interesting thought: do we know they don't think in numbers? We have numbers for how hard something is, how hot something is, how acidic something is, why wouldn't they have numbers? Some of them are going to be outside their knowledge obviously, but others they could probably work out. Imagine a world where every time I land a punch I do exactly the same amount of damage. Given enough punches and enough time, they should be able to calculate something like AC and HP. Spell levels and spell slots are similar. A wizard would know there are some spells they can cast forever, other spells they can cast x number of times per day, and that they can cast some spells stronger but that they lose the ability to cast one of the stronger spells if they do. Given enough time they could work out exactly how many times they can cast each spell a day and assign the numbers accordingly. That said, even if the numbers exist in universe a lot of characters might not know them. A wizard would probably know a spells level because learning that is just be part of learning the spell, but a sorcerer might not (or they might know it instinctively).
@@rayden54 Not to sound grim but one of examples with numbers knowledge IRL is how long medication would work or how often someone would need dialysis. A chap who knows he might go Rambo on his family when his meds wear off will think in terms of hours and dosages.
Years on, Baldur's Gate 3 shows character skill self-awareness pretty well. There's a short I saw the other day showing that there are some character dialogue differences when you come to an encounter before or after a certain level threshold. The characters don't know they're level 4 or 5, but they know how strong they are in less certain terms and can size up their opponents and get a feel for how tough the fight looks.
One of my favorite things to tell new players is "you as a person are not your character. They live these things so it may take you a minute to think of what would occur to them immediately."
Why I hate metagaming: Once, the party walked into a castle, and I was describing the various NPCS that where milling about. Our paladin, in character, walked up to the court mage.... Paladin: "Yo, B, I know you gonna deadass have a quest for me. Give it up." Mage: "What? Who are you, what are you talking about?" Paladin: "You got a quest, right? You're the first person Miles(me, DM) described. So gimme a quest, boi." Mage: "Stop, go away! Don't you have something better to do then heckle a poor old man?" Paladin "Ugh, I'll go away, just gimme something first. Like a quest, or some loot or a treasure map or something." Party Rogue (to paladin): "Uhh, dude, leave him alone" Paladin: "No, this guy has a quest, I just wanna know what it is! We haven't killed anyone in like a week so-" Mage: "GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDSSS!!!!!"
Miles Yeah, that's annoying. I wouldn't even treat that interaction seriously. I'd probably just ask the player to let me know when he's ready to start playing D&D. *rolling eyes*
I don't know that the expectation of getting a quest is nearly as grating as how he has his character talk. That's just the worst. Honestly there's always yard work people need done. Or being a mage maybe organizing the books in the floor to ceiling stacks in his library. Though if we're just dealing with the surface issue of having the PCs assume a particular NPC is a questgiver based on their presentation a nice quick way to deal with it is to have them just point them in the right direction: "I'm usually too busy with my duties to tend to such nonsense...I'd talk with Carslyle, the commander of the town watch. You can probably find him in the barracks or training grounds. He's the one who usually has work suitable for the loyal knights of the church." So that way he's wrong about who has the quest, but he still gets a quest and the story can move forward without it seeming like you're punishing anyone.
Robert Blank that's a perfect solution. The reason I didn't want to do that was to start the main quest they didn't have to talk to anyone in particular, they had to wait a few minutes. I also didn't want everyone to start talking like that, so I was trying to tell my party that harassing NPCs wouldn't go there way.
I have a player in my current game who is a terrible coward. To roleplay this, he has decided that he always fails saves against fear effects. It has been so great to watch.
Dungeon Dad As the campaign continues itd be cool if you have him eventually transition into disadvantage, and then to normal to show him getting used to adventureing.
Javier Perez -- Agreed. I think when a flaw "always" causes a character to act in a predictable way, it is not as interesting or as much fun as randomizing it. For example, we had a player create a character that "always forgot the plan." So every time the players spent 30 mins planning, his character would ruin it. What fun is that? I think leaving just a little space for something different to happen -- even if the character never grows up (as you suggest) -- makes the game a lot more fun, especially when it is something that will always affect the other players negatively.
It's certainly an interesting way to play a character. The only caveat for me, however, is that it would have to be something that the other players said they were cool with from the beginning. Otherwise, you'd be putting the rest of the players at a disadvantage simply to give yourself an interesting hook. I also agree with Javier. It would need to evolve over time. Otherwise, why would the character keep adventuring with the party? If they're really THAT much of a coward and always will be, why don't they run off and try to hide out somewhere? Their story arc should be them trying to overcome their crippling fear; transitioning to a disadvantage, then to normal play, and perhaps ultimately to a willing and intentional sacrifice to save others.
Seems we could translate, "We've paid attention to the way you (Matt) tend to run the game and the things you tend to like", into the game as "This is how the world is... this is what the world tends to do...". If we look at it that way, it makes a lot of sense when it comes to players seemingly preparing for things like the "Colville Screw". This is indeed rewarding, and does indeed indicate they are paying attention which is cool.
weemcast Exactly! In the same way his players prepare for the "Colville Screw," my players know how I run my games and prepare/play accordingly. This is only natural in a sense. It also is really cool because, as you said, they are paying attention. If our players DIDN'T do this, they'd probably not survive long. And then they'd have no one to blame but themselves. 😁
This. Unless the PC is actually stupid and wouldn't use rational thinking or logic? It doesn't matter that the player says "Maybe we should get some more XP and loot." At that point you come down to the semantics of how you "properly" say something in a given situation. It doesn't matter whether the logic is "we need more XP" or "The place we're going to is dangerous, we could use an extra edge." when the end-result is the same. This is an action that the PCs would reasonably take so it isn't metagaming. --- In fact, if the way you phrase something is what makes it metagaming. Then it'd be an easy task for a metagamer to rationalize "How would my character come to this conclusion?" and bring it in an in-character way. Sure, you may not be aware that gelatinous cubes exist. But you could easily deduce that water wouldn't "act" like that and pursue some investigation to prove that it isn't water. The end result is the same. The PCs do not jump down in what they'd assumed is water.
But then this addresses his problem with players asking each other "What does DM Matt want us to do?" That might be translated into in-game role-playing as characters asking "What do the Gods [or whatever else they attribute the way the world works] want us to do?" Isn't that a legitimate question for heroes to ask? Maybe they get no answer. If they're religious types, and it's fun or fits into the game, maybe they could receive some divine inspiration or an omen. Or a false omen from an unfriendly spiritual power. Maybe the difference between the two questions lies chiefly in whether the players are just trying to get the DM to slip and give a hint, or whether they can reasonably be assumed to be role-playing.
I don't think players noticing patterns in the DM's storytelling or personal tropes is metagaming, because the PCs would notice the same things. If the DM throws low value minions to bait the paladin into wasting smites, it might works twice or maybe three times, but eventually a PC is going to twig to it and say "Mike, don't use your smite, don't you remember what happened last time?" The DM's patterns are real to the PCs and they will learn from them just as players would.
Bob Johnson I agree. Players learning their DM translates into the PCs learning how the world around them works. It's not really metagaming. It's players being smart which translates into PCs being smart.
That brings up an interesting question: we talk about PCs metagaming, but what about DMs? Is the idea that monsters are aware enough that the paladin has a finite amount of smites, and that they have certain weak compatriots that are willing to suicidally charge this paladin hoping he'll "waste" his precious smites on them by ending their lives...isn't that even worse metagaming?
Robert Blank The question, the answer to which which will vary, is "What does this being reasonably know or believe about the world?". If you are facing beings that would reasonably understand that magic is something you can run out of, than getting PCs to waste it is reasonable. If your PCs are nearing the villian's lair and "Oh look! A room with food and water that we can lock from within, allowing us to rest. And, hey! A chest with health potions!" They might expect something bad is going to happen because the last two times they had such a lucky find, someone nearly died.
Mr Norrell Exactly. If the PCs find a crazy good strategy or spell, you'd better believe the villians will know about it, especially at higher levels. Villains then have encountered and defeated more than their fair share of adventures.
I've had high level Villains scry on the party. "Wow! That goblin had a +3 sword!!! What luck!" Or . . . the villain gave you something he knew you'd keep so he could target it. Thanks! High level villains have the resources to plan ahead. They didn't become high level by being dumb.
"What's your HP?" "Your player doesnt know its HP" "On a scale of 1-76 Im feeling like a 14" In all seriousness, you could always lay out the "I dont think Im ready for this" rather than the "Im not high enough level"
I always help players put with this one because yeah technically it's meta gaming but this is a time when the Character has information the player does not. Not everybody is great at describing how they look/feel with knife and magic wounds. So if a player says their HP I jump in and say "You can tell by looking at them that [insert wound flavor text]" so they can have the number and it's not really meta gaming
Me as DM. "Sorry, I think you're feeling more like a 1 or 2. Really." Punishing players for metagaming (in a wanky way) is satisfying but not always well-received. (Actually, when I gave this example to my players, they thought the GM overhearing this should say something like "0" because they are crueler than I!) The topic of "should players know their HPs, or at least communicate this?" came up in an FB group and at least for some, the answer is, "hell yes! I need to know because that's part of my enjoyment and it creates tension." Of course, not knowing your exact HP number except in a descriptive way (flavour text) can also create tension and suspense, not through knowing, but by not knowing. This came up in my sit-down group. Most are new players with maybe 1 or 2 ttrpg vets. We started with Dungeon Crawl Classics, a standard D&D retro-clone with standard HP. For the last year plus we've been playing Boot Hill (2nd ed from 1979) and basically no one knew the rules. But without magic or powers (and basically just sixguns, shotguns, Sharps Buffalo rifles, etc.) actions were easy enough to describe and resolve. (After all, the inhabitants of New Mexico Territory are all normal-ish mortal humans or animals.) Basically, the Boot Hill rules are ancient and clunky and no one bothered to read them except me. Although the rules easily allow for 1-shot or quick kills, there is an HP system. But, no one knew it and I never thought to mention this, I just tracked HPs for everyone (instead of just the NPCs) and then described wounds narratively. When informed there actually was an HP system after over a year of play they were surprised! They are now generally ok with not knowing their actual numbers, just knowing narratively (some were more enthusiastic than others depending on the game).
It is a joke in my game for characters with zero or negative strength modifiers to ask enemies "About how many punches do you think it would take for me to kill you." lol
lmaooooo i make the "on a scale from 0 to 176 the monster is feelin abt a 49" joke all the time to my players, once they've gotten some hits in already
every time i think of this video im reminded of my first dnd game with my current online group. my gunslinger gnome had an ability that would allow her to grant temporary hit points to another creature that can hear her. i knew that the fight was going sideways, but i didnt know if the sorcerer or druid (our party composition was a little wacky lmao) were hurting more, so i asked the players, "hey, what are your hitpoints at?" to which everyone, INCLUDING the DM, responded, "you wouldnt know that, thats metagaming." this response is absolutely baffling to me, because of the same reason that matt brings up here about characters knowing their own skill check values. sure, i may not know that you have 3 hit points out of 9 currently, but i would be able to tell which of us are hardiest, which of us are currently hurting the most, and therefore who currently needs help the most as of right now. obstructing my knowledge of your current hit points does nothing other than make the game harder to play, and make your character more likely to die. EDIT: i learned recently they still think this way. dark gods end me
I get why people would object to it, but this should never be an issue. Healers have to know how bad it is before they treat the wound, especially paladins who drain points from a pool instead of rolling dice. Numbers are just the way our character sheet quantifies the reality of the game world.
The fact that the video with the """bad""" audio is one of my favorite RtG videos in a while says a lot about the importance of content vs presentation.
When it comes to Monster meta gaming, I think it makes sense for there to me a "monster manual" in the world. Academics will have books, notes and essays on various monsters; outlanders and clansmen would have stories and tales of strange beasties; bards, rogues, urchins and such would hear rumours about strange monsters from other adventurers or travellers. I doubt anyone remembers the exact stats and abilities of every monster, but they would have a general clue from the stories (cubes are invisible, don't hit rust monsters with a metal weapon etc.). The monster manual can be thought of as what is known. All other monsters haven't been discovered yet (or at least no one has come back to write about them...)
I'd argue there should be some sort of roll involved to see if the information is accurate. Roll well & you get details equivalent to the medical drawings of Leonardo da Vinci. Roll poorly & you end up with a medieval-like bestiary; where elephants looked like long nosed dog-pigs, lived monogamously & ate mandrakes from the Garden of Eden.
I tell them to make a history/nature check and if they succeed i tell them they may use any player knowledge they have about this situation as character knowledge.
I go a step further and say the world is rich with stories and anecdotes about the dangerous creatures of the world, so the characters have plenty of reason to have knowledge of standard creatures.
Matt's first example of the Gelatinous Cube isn't really so egregious. Keep in mind that in most settings, people KNOW about monsters. Even back in olden times, people would be aware of all sorts of dangers, because it's a matter of survival. Gelatinous Cubes are a huge danger, because the special knowledge of their nature is critical to avoiding them. Also, they're very interesting and unusual creatures, which makes it even more likely that traveling minstrels and bards or adventurers would tell about them. Now, even though in our real world, we might pass that off as hyperbole, the people in a D&D setting likely are keenly aware of the fact that fantastic creatures exist, and people who set off to be adventurers ESPECIALLY would take this information to heart. So to me, I feel like even a low level PC knowing about a Gelatinous Cube is really a very fair thing to do. It's another thing to know the Frightful Presence DC of an Adult Red Dragon, obviously.
If metagaming is characters acting on knowledge only the players know, what Matt did in the Gelantinous Cube example is like reverse metagaming. He took something that his character learned, and thought about it as a player and came to the OoG conclusion that it was a gelantious cube. It makes sense that experienced players would do this, and sometimes probably without realizing it, but it can definitely break immersion or ruin a surprise that the DM was excited about
To add on to your point of about "experience points and levels", even in the real world you know (or would learn very quickly) what "level" you are. If you're a rookie boxer and you think you can go up against Mike Tyson, you'll learn quickly that you need to go train, or "level up", before you face him again. Once you have an idea of what you and he can do, you are then able to judge what "level" you need to be to face him and have a chance of succeeding.
Good comparison, though I would add that in his case, where the party decides to go down one tunnel to fight a weaker enemy in the hopes of leveling up before going down the other tunnel to fight the main enemy, is like scheduling another fight half an hour before your Mike Tyson fight in the hopes of getting stronger. Chances are, you will only be tired and beaten up going into your main fight. I would understand if the party embarked on a few months long quest to travel far away and fight many battles in order to get stronger before coming back and facing their main enemy in a year or two, that would make sense.
@@francois6915 realistically they should find knowledge not adventures, punching people don't magically give you a new skill, that is why gold exist to pay for books, tutors and itens and get stronger in a way that makes sense, maybe for example they know there is a monster, but not what it is, and it is to risky to check, so what about finding some hero that can get rid of it, and on the journey they get levels, them that hero could even die, and out of necessity they would fight the monster anyway, but they actually had an objective other than "level up"
22:15 I can't agree more. I'm pretty new to DnD, as are most of my friends, but we all enjoy the game quite a bit. There was an occasion in a game I was playing where the DM told us a strange person came up to the party and started spouting off nonsense. Though we were not particularly pressed for time, one player said out loud, "We all know [the DM]. He just wants us to move along." It looked like the DM just got shot. He was so shocked she said that. It all turned out alright in the end, thankfully. Another player and I (both of us having DM'd before) went to her after the session and told her, hey, it's not about what the DM wants. Everything that they do is for the fun of the players. From the rocks to the cities to the gods, everything is made with the fun of the players in mind- something I learned from Matt. And it turned into a really nice moment, because from then on, she really changed her outlook on the game and seemed to be able to relax more and ease into her character.
As a player, one of my favorite questions to ask the GM in an encounter with Something New (tm) is: "What common knowledge do I know about this creature?"
I've been the tactician before. I was playing with a friend, who was really roleplay-heavy. I was irritated because she played a druid, but never used her wild shapes, or spell slots. All she was doing was throw knives in combat, and sometimes cast a cantrip. I was probably insufferable with my constant "why are you doing that?".
@@conlon4332 nah yeah youre kind of spitting, bc there's roleplaying and then there's just being actually useless. she could have played a ranger, thrown her daggers, and gotten all her skills except wildshape and contributed infinitely more to the party in almost every way by the sounds of it. It probably was just a new player who decided to play druid, the common blunder. I think this specific section of the video could almost entirely be written off, because it is fine at some tables, not fine at others, because to an extent, its a blurred line between teaching inexperienced players how to play and being an asshole, and it comes down to how you handle it.
As a GM, it definitely brings a smile to my face whenever PCs adapt to something I tend to do that has hamstringed them before and they manage to bypass or prepare properly for it. I'm not even sure it's metagaming in my head at that moment; it is the players and PCs both learning from past experience and problem solving from that place. I think it is wonderful.
I run a game where all the players are DM's in other games. They are constantly trying not to use their knowledge and I'm constantly saying it is reasonable that your character would know something about this. It's this weird struggle against metagameing in reverse.
Yes that's a key element. Sometimes I figure things out because I'm invested and trying to understand things about the story. Sometime I end up being right about very important story things, "ruining" some dramatic moments. But I don't know, if I can figure out in advance what these moments are going to be, I don't think I'm the one at fault, after all it only means I picked up on the queues that were given to me. If, as players, we're supposed to not try and understand some things, and work very hard to understand other things, then we're at a very big risk of ending up not knowing what the hell we're supposed to be doing at any given time
I expect my players to know at least the basic stuff about monsters and puzzles. Hit trolls with fire. Dragons breathe different energy types, and you can tell which one by the color of their scales. If the dungeon corridors are sparkling clean, there's probably an ooze of some sort around. These are the things that their characters grew up hearing, in nursery rhymes and stories told about previous adventurers. It's a fantasy world, everything in the monster manual exists, and has for a very long time. Other people have killed trolls, or dragons, or gelatinous cubes before. And brought home, along with the treasures won in these encounters, the tales of how they did it. The characters are not ignorant of the world.
Matt, for the rolls thing, well, the easy way to get players to stop is to pretty much have a random pile of random info about the area written down along with just random rolls. Having the druid make the check might give some insight to what is actually going on, but the bard might just get the "insight" that the tree they just passed was where some random brigand who ended up in a story was hanged fifty years prior and has nothing to do with the adventure. Also random perception checks for the party is very useful there as well for just upping paranoia
I have a group that does this all the time and ignores my arguments against it- I've just started telling people who make a roll I didn't ask for that they don't know anything/see anything.
The way I always deal with it is even simpler. Here's how this went in my game a few days ago: Me: [Druid], make an Arcana check. [Druid]'s player: *makes an Arcana check and fails* [Sorcerer]: Can I make an Arcana check? Me: No. The players don't decide when they make checks, the DM does. If you haven't let a player make a check, don't let them make the check. There's no reason to think about things to say if a player makes a check you don't want them to make when you can just not let the check happen. (If a player skipped directly to rolling the dice in this situation I would say something along the lines of "Sorry, but there's no way you would know this".)
Personally, the way I get around that is I only allow rolls if the character is trained in that skill, or if it makes sense for them to get a roll (ie a ranger or druid making a perception roll in a forest). Anyone else who rolls and tries to get into it gets disadvantage on their next roll. Stopped the whole "group roll" thing real quick
If you really want to up paranoia. Just roll a d20. Not rolling for anything. Just roll it, look at the die, and nod. If you really want to freak them out, then ask them to do a Perception check. As long as none get a crit, they're going to be freaking out.
I think it's reasonable though, if a player is making a perception check, that the PCs see the character perk up and look around. That might make them want to do likewise. Or if they stop and stare at an inscription on a wall and stroke their chin, they might wander over and see what they can contribute. It isn't always necessarily metagaming. Honestly I think this is a good use for advantage/disadvantage. Someone might have a better chance to catch something than the others because of their background--they get advantage. Someone fails to notice something right when it happens and others perk up, but just a second too late and now have to cue in on subtler clues--so they get disadvantage. Simple.
I would love to play a computerized RPG in which "you can sneak your way around most/all of the encounters but when you meet the boss you'll have to fight them all at once" is a possibility.
Super late, but maybe try Divinity Original Sin 2, or Balder’s Gate 3 (made by the same studio) when it comes out. It’s not always going to happen, but you can occasionally be surprised by retreating to higher, or otherwise advantageous terrain, and finding another encounter over the ridge. Or simply spending so long in combat that another guard patrol comes across the combat. If you’re trying to be stealthy, and you split the party, and one gets caught, the others might trigger a different encounter trying to reach them. There’s a lot of scenarios where combats may merge in that game. Boss fights generally have their own arena where you’re unlikely to merge encounters, but it’s something like what you wanted~ I guess, if you just wanted to do a super encounter, you could just drag a bunch of enemies into the boss room with you.
My first born son shall be named Matthew, then I shall legally change my last name to Matthew. He will come become the ultimate DM and create 7th edition!
The skill dogpiling issue is solved very elegantly in Pathfinder Second Edition by using secret checks with critical failure effects. When a character attempts to Recall Knowledge, for instance, the rule is that you, the GM, roll the check secretly, and you don't tell the player the result, just what they know. On a critical failure (failure by 10 or more) they recall false information. The players *can* dogpile, if they want, but when the characters all disagree on the truth, the party will not be sure who crit failed and who succeeded and they'll quickly learn to simply trust the expert in the party and not dog pile.
31:02 I think it is realistic that occasionally people will have a random piece of knowledge, even if it's not related to something they're an expert in. Maybe they just happened to hear it somewhere. As a real world example, a Zoologist is far more likely to know about some obscure animal most people have never heard of, but there's still a decent likelihood they won't have heard of it, meanwhile it's much less likely, but still possible, that some other person hasn't studied any relevant field, just happens to have heard of it somewhere. I think a reasonable simulation of this is that all players get to roll the knowledge check, but those that have no particular reason to know about it have to make a much higher roll, maybe even a 20, to happen to have this knowledge they have no real reason to have.
In Critical Role, Talesin metagames. I've seen Mat call him on it, and I've seen him try to cut back on it when he realizes he is doing it. However, I have also seen him use metagaming knowledge to enhance the roleplay and create some awesome character moments. My examples would be in campaign 2 because I have not seen much of campaign one (and I do not know if campaign 2 had started when this video came out). One example is that scene where Mollymock confronts Nott about stealing from Ford. The character shouldn't know what she was looking for but the player did so he held up something that looked like what she was looking for something.
I think in regards to tactics vs roleplaying, and playing optimally vs playing sub-optimally because it makes sense for your character, I don't think there's one right answer, I think it depends on what you want out of the game, but that's something that everyone should agree on, or at least if they don't just make that decision for themselves.
It's interesting that I saw this video now. Only last night, my character had to decide if the current quest was too high of a difficulty for our party level. Once I decided that we wouldn't be able to help any more than a guide, the DM said, "If this were a Witcher game, there'd be a giant red skull over the quest line." Basically confirming the decision my character had made. But my character is pretty reasonable and rational and came to the conclusion on his own accord. So, it was a similar situation to what spurred this video. lol
I think the "What does the DM want us to do" way of thinking can also be something that's reinforced in the minds of players who have played before with a railroady GM (railroady as in 'the kind of GM who says no too much and only allows problems to be solved in exactly the way they planned for during prep'). When you play for a GM like that, and you start hearing 'no' every time you deviate from the prep, you clue in rather quickly that there's a correct answer, and the GM won't let you move forward until you think of it. I wouldn't be surprised if many such players carry those habits forward even to GMs who don't run the game that way, whether they mean to or not
Excellent video and very reasonable look at how meta-gaming works. The players discuss the world in words that resemble the rules books that we read and consult in order to figure out how things operate in the fictional reality but that doesn't constitute meta gaming. Saying, "I'm low on spell slots and we have no more healing so we should probably rest." is basically a shortcut for a character saying, "I'm barely on my feet, Glondal is still bleeding from the last battle and our Cleric over there looks like she's unconscious. We rest, then we move on." I don't think its a distinction that most people need as we sort of automatically understand whats happening even if we don't actively register it. On the same token, as you stated, your characters discussing in game that they're not ready to storm an ancient red dragons lair isn't meta gaming as it's not a far leap of logic that four or five fairly green adventurers shouldn't be trifling with powerful elder beasts or a dangerous unknown. Exploration and adventuring are core to the very bedrock of D&D, noting that you may have missed a passage back a way that you'd like to go investigate is just a good habit to be in if for nothing else to make sure you aren't going to be attacked from behind. The awareness of style thing is something I LOVE when I see it at the table, as I describe a room I see five sets of eyes narrow at me because they feel suspicious. I think there is some space to argue that this isn't necessarily always meta-gaming as I might place that in the realm of the characters themselves using things they have come up against before to inform the things they see now. It's fun to see the players and their characters get smarter along the way, plus that sort of soft-meta gaming forces me to get better and change my ways, because if they know me that well it's going to start getting boring. Thats my queue to watch how I design things going forward. To your point of guessing what the DM wants I've always described as trying to "Know the will of god". You can bang your head against that wall all you want but if you do then we're pretty much done playing D&D cause you'll be busy with that for all time. The gods in the game may talk to people but the DM is not one of them so don't talk to me, just tell me what you're doing. Anyway, way too much rambling for a TH-cam comment! Great video! Awesome discussion, well done!
Had a good group I was in and the rule was once initiative was rolled you could only talk on your turn. Couldn't give advice unless something quick like kill that guy, help etc. Could plan if had knowledge before the fight, someone scouted or something but those discussions between characters was in real time, so if it took 5 minutes, then what was scouted could be changed. It was great!
Should they have to play weak characters if they have low stats? If so, why one and not the other? I think the "niche protection" applies for that as well.
Eric Vulgaris I think that if the Gnome wizard can't plausibly ignore low str & con then the Dragonborn barbarian with 8 int can't choose to ignore it either, but his knowledge is played as combat focused, not worldly. He also has input out of character.
One thing I love about this channel is Matt is constantly telling us his process and how he is going about getting better content for us it's really cool
I have a group full of newbies that can't stop saying things in character, such as "hi my name is thema, I'm a 5th level wizard" which is not ideal. it would be like Matt saying, "hi, I'm a 10th level writer" tough habit to break
The thing thatfeels metagame-y to me in this example is the assumption (perhaps incorrect) on the part of the players that the side-quest will be less dangerous than the main quest, despite all of the information about how many people the side quest killed. Perhaps the characters had information that established the main quest as even more dangerous, but none of that is established in this video. So it seems like, in addition to the metagaming Matt identified, there's one based on the "main quest" being the hardest part of the module.
We have all had that one guy who hits every inanimate object because he just fought a mimic in another campaign, even though his character has no knowledge of that creature.
Lots of really good points, Matt. As a player one of my most used phrases, (either addressed to myself or another player that is struggling with a choice, metagaming, controlling, or being pressured), is "What would [character] do?" It's a really simple phrase that allows everyone at the table to take that step back from being a player playing a game, and instead take a step forward in the game world and imagine what that character would actually want to do in that situation. And as you stated, it's that reassurance that they are allowed to make sub-optimal decisions. That phrase has diffused many arguments between players, moved us along in over-analyzed combats, and led to some of the most memorable character moments I've seen. So, if you or someone at your table is struggling with a choice or leaning too far into their own knowledge as a player, don't be afraid to say, "What would [character] do?"
Thank you, 18:00 i needed to hear this. I often find myself getting bothered with people at my board not doing the most optimal. I have never brought my frustration to my team mates, but it makes a lot of sense to me now. Its their story, not a tactical game.
The explanation of a character understanding getting experience (equivalently gaining levels) is very true. I have a character currently who has a symbiote inside his brain who watches everything he does. At a certain point it mentioned that pain is good. I asked why. It then explained that pain (from combat and exploration) seem to push my limits and then make me stronger. It was just a fascinating realization for the character due to it being so true.
There's a nice (and often overlooked) feature of 3.X that a character can only use knowledge skills untrained to find out information of DC 10 or lower. Since the DC to learn useful information about most monsters is 15 + CR, PCs can make all the knowledge checks they want...they won't know anything beyond common knowledge, like, "That's a goblin, they're crazy."
I’m usually fine with character’s having general knowledge of a monster’s appearance and I believe characters should be able to plan out what their characters’ tactics should be, but rather than a timer on the characters making a decision I combat discussion meta-gaming by allowing all my npcs nearby to ‘hear’ anything that the players say as if their characters are saying it! This puts much more importance on telepathy skills and whatnot because they allow for secret messages to be sent between players. On the other hand I try to keep the discussions happening in real time, so if there is a hostage being held and the players are trying to come up with a solution and they go quiet for a few minutes, welp there goes the hostage because the bad guy got impatient and killed him lol
Matt, you are such an inspiration! My boyfriend and I haven't played in over a decade, but getting back into it (with the recommendation of your videos from a friend) have not only allowed out creative nerdy side to come out, but I'm also keeping in touch with family across continents (through D&D) and helping some secret nerds show their beautiful side. You are so great, I can't thank you enough!
On characters' understanding of their own levels: In a character level game, any character that is a member of a casting class knows that casters (in a typical world as I've experienced them as a player) periodically go to sleep one night able to memorize (say) 6 spells of two different difficulties and wake up in the morning able to memorize (say) 9 spells of three different difficulties. Whether they would use the word "level" to describe that isn't really very important, but they would use _some_ word to describe that phenomenon. Skill/power in the world is obviously granular. You can make an argument that non-casters don't have the same experience, but even there character power jumps from plateau to plateau. Since the game describes this revealed phenomenon using the word "level", I think it's entirely reasonable that the characters use the same word. But if you think that "grade", or "rank", or whatever other synonym you pull out of Roget is better, fly, be free. As to how that change happens? Again, there's a tremendous amount of in-world experience by thousands of characters (at least). I suggest that there's plenty to be able to speculate with more or less accuracy on what might cause the change. Quibbling that "the characters have no concept of 'level' or how or why they should increase it" is just silly.
I’ve never consider leveling up to be this spontaneous thing that happens one day but rather the culmination of constant study and practice ‘off screen’. As in the wizard doesn’t wake up suddenly knowing how to cast fireball at level 5, He decides to look into learning how to cast it at level 4.
Which is fine, except the result is still that one day he can't cast 3rd level spells and the next day he can. Now, if you're handing out level bennies a bit at a time (bonus to saving throw at 1/3 of the way to the next level, increase in BAB at 2/3 of the way, one skill point for every 15% of the way, or whatever), then the argument is stronger. But even in that situation, one day you can't cast fireballs or any other spell of similar power and the next day you can. If you're playing a game like Fantasy Hero, where you gain a couple of character points every session, then the concept of "level" wouldn't really have any in-game meaning. But in a class and level system like D&D or Pathfinder, levels would be obvious in the world.
Doug Sundseth As the other guy said, I view it with the implication the mage has been researching "off screen" and eventually completed research/figured it out. Not an overnight magical conflux, more like you learning to backflip. Days of almost managing, until one day you wakeup and it's the day you succeed.
I think the whole idea of tying a spellcaster's sudden ability to cast new spells to how many orcs he's stabbed is just ridiculous. How accomplished you are in spellcasting has to do with how well versed you are in various theories of magical lore upon which learning different spells is contingent--like algebra compared to calculus. You can learn spells of your level of learning by copying them down, you can prepare a certain number of them and keep track of the different finishing components, words and gestures. This is, like folks have said, pretty much entirely an off-screen study phenomenon. The upshot is though, that at a certain point you have a breakthrough and are just better at retaining more prepared spells or you've mastered enough of the next level of magic that you can start making heads or tails of the spells from that level. Tying this to XP from killed monsters though, that's silly. This is why as a DM I grant per session XP. I use level as a measure of where a character is in their career as an adventurer and XP as a measure of where they are within that level--it goes up as time passes with some bonuses for special things that happen that advance their craft. It makes a lot more sense to me and it encourages playing the adventure at hand rather than stalking the dungeon room to room like a murder hobo to get XP.
@Wolf 616: "Days of almost managing, until one day you wakeup and it's the day you succeed." Which is an observable, in-universe quantum change. It also coincides with a variety of other quantum changes. That quantum state is your level, and it is obvious to people in the universe. @Robert Blank: It doesn't matter so much how you justify the change, whether as a result of monster whacking, gold gathering, puzzle solving, or off-screen study. One day you have a specific set of abilities and the next you have a new, better set that is very similar to the changes of everybody else in your "class". "Level", by whatever name, is an observable and obvious feature of the universe that could not be missed by anyone paying attention.
So not exactly on topic here, but I wanted to thank you for making these videos. Because of them i was actually brave enough to try my hand at GM'ing for some friends online in Table Top Simulator even though I've only played Table top RPG's a few times. We're playing with a super rules light thing called Deck quest(all-be it rather modified by myself) so it's not D&D 5E but still we've been having a blast and I've really enjoyed making the campaign and running it with them. We have one who's played more table top RPG's than me, one who's played just about as much as I have and two who've never played at all, one of which is around 60 years old and doesn't know the first thing about games like this (although he does play video games) and we've all been having a lot of fun with it. So thanks again for all the work you've put into doing this, I really appreciate it.
Had your character, previous to the torch incident, run into a gelatinous cube or other ooze or jelly? If they had, it would be reasonable for them to deduce this possibility. Was your character a Bard, or Lore-Master? If so, then again, they might have heard tales of such creatures, possibly cautionary, or read arcane tomes on such creatures. What level was your character? I imagine higher level characters chatting up other adventurers in the pubs of Waterdeep, and exchanging stories... I often go out of my way to avoid low level characters acting on information they wouldn't have had access to, but then let my mid-to high level characters just be wiser to the ways and creatures of the world, without feeling the need to justify each interaction, precisely because the character is more "experienced". Regarding the characters who were willing to split the party to explore the end of the map, past which point, none had returned from, my complaint is more that both sides were willing to split the party over this decision. I assume, having properly warned the party that nobody, including adventuring parties with magic items, had returned from this area of the map, you killed them all when they eventually did indeed explore down he corridor of no return, yes?
This was fantastic Matt. I really appreciate you posting this as is, rather than re-recording. I've played with the same core group for nearly a decade at this point in at least weekly games. One of the things that I love with this particular group is have willing we are to screw ourselves over. We played flawed, sometimes tragic characters. We often make decisions that we know are bad as players, because our characters would not think the same way or would act on impulse. It's a always been a delicate balance, where this group seems to have know where to draw the line - how not to de-rail a game. Also, our regular GM, has a handful of setups that he likes to use. He both loves it and hates when we can figure it out. He loves a big reveal, but also thinks its especially cool if us as players can find clues in character that reasonably allow them to suss it out. He'll tell us, give us a gut check feeling on the character's part that they have it; an epiphany.
The majority of metagaming I've seen while playing is when players act on information that other characters have learned of but have either not shared or have not been present to share yet. Basically their characters would have no way at all of knowing what the others have been told or have discovered, but the players heard this information shared at the table thus know the "correct" course of action, even though their characters don't actually have that information themselves. When it comes to knowing kinds of enemies, chasing after loot, trusting certain NPCs or not, and so on, I can typically see where such decisions/occurrences can be reasonably understood by the characters as well (even though I do think you should be understanding enough to roll for such things regardless of what knowledge you have). I just get irked when a player acts on information someone else learned, feels very "spotlight hoggie" to me :P
This here's the problem with the gelatinous cube example. It's not that Matt said it, it's that his character didn't and yet everyone at the table saw the DM react and so now they all know what's down there and will probably use that knowledge in character. And that's where it turns into metagaming.
Honestly, there’s even an argument that a player who’s been living in Matt Colville-land for their whole life would pick up on the patterns of how deadly it is or what kinds of traps exist. To them it wouldn’t even be a weird thing, it’s just how their world works.
I'm a little late to the party, but I think my least favorite "I want to stop being a DM" level of metagaming is when the players make an assumption about the adventure to try and bypass the roleplay part of the roleplay game. Something like setting up a torched village for the players to find and explore for clues, only for one of them to immediately say "I'm going to follow the trail to find the bandits that did this." It's happened twice and I struggled to explain to both players that this was an unfair assumption.
Wow. That's a nice water bottle. I promise that's not the only thing I noticed from this video, but just had to say that is cool. lol. Random, cool, useful gifts that you never would have thought to get for yourself are always nice.
Matt at approx 31:40 you talk about asking for a knowledge check from a specific player because they have a specific backstory and other players jumping in when the check fails. My suggestion for this situation is to give some info on a fail, basic info on a success and extensive info on a fantastic success. That way the character protects that niche in the game that you want protected.
Dude, as long as we can understand the words you say in the video, I don't think 95% of us would mind. Maybe even more. I'm glad you stuck with what you recorded, it has a lot of pertinence to most dnd games.
I love Matt's style, but one area we differ in is timing. If in combat, I move on if a player is not ready straight away. They have not missed their turn - it just happens later in the round. (We have a variant initiative systems that better suits this). Also, for count downs (such as when the guards show up), here is a great idea (from WOIN?), drop a bunch of d6s and have players role each round. When a 1 is rolled, you remove that dice. When all are gone, the time is up. This is great because it cannot be measured and players don't know exactly when something happens. Great tension builder.
That part about the tactition, and his: "what you want to/ should do..." input is so true. Great advice on dealing with it though. I find myself becoming frustrated with our tactition, and I can see that when he dishes out loads more damage than the other players, it can be tiresome for them too. I usually have to reel my neck in, and remind myself he's maybe playing for a different reason to the others. It's a bit like spinning plates, and it's my first time ever doing it, but I'm loving the challenge; it's extremely rewarding (for all of us) when it works.
Hate when GMs metagame in the sense that the GM knows my cleric has X amount of turn undeads a day so they make sure I use all my turn undeads before fighting the big bad guy
What I think was most important to me in this video about METAGMING is the two or three times Matt brings up "Sportsmanship", it's just like when to Fudge a die roll or not, the intention and the sportsmanship is whate truly matters!
Great video. The players all piling on to make rolls once you ask for one is an issue at most tables I DM or play at. I have been giving it some thought lately and I think I am going to add Trained skills to each character's initiative card. That way I can say "Jose, Sally, and June you guys make Nature checks for me." Going to try it out on the next campaign.
Said this on another comment, but the way I deal with it is just not letting characters make checks I haven't asked for. If I tell a specific person to make a check, and other players ask me if they can also make that check, I just say no.
This is such a problem in the current edition. Bounded accuracy makes the skill system a mess. It's impossible to actually be any good at something unless you are a rogue/bard with the expertise class power. A druid can't actually be that knowledgeable about Nature, and a Sorcerer isn't actually that smart about Arcane matters. The untrained Fighter with even a *slightly* luckier roll will beat them in skill checks routinely over the course of a game. Skills are my biggest disappointment with 5e.
Ghost why? As mentioned, if you don't feel they would know, then don't tell them to roll. DM determines when a skill check is required. The same applies when they should know outright, they don't need the roll to succeed.
A DM can do that, and they should in this edition. In 3.x we got used to the DM just calling out for anyone to make an arcane check (for example) and it was never a problem in that edition. The characters who were trained in arcane would have, you know, a +10 or +15 or even higher (+30 wasn't unreasonable once you got to the high levels) to their skill check - the untrained people would have just their ability modifier so +0 or maybe up to +5. It was a big enough difference that you felt like game mechanics supported the trained person being much much better at the thing. In 5e the bonuses are so small compared to the d20 roll that it often doesn't feel like the trained person is better at all. It feels like luck more than skill.
Something rough about requiring training is that in this edition, short of burning a feat on it, there's a lot of skills you will just never have a chance to train in. You just don't get the choice. If they aren't part of your particular race or background and not in the sublist of skills you get with your class (or just get crowded out by other equally crucial skills) you can't just pick them up later. You will never get them. That's fine, if as intended, skills give a relatively minor boost to stat rolls, but could get frustrating if you don't have training in a particular skill you could never have been trained in.
Few things get me as excited about DnD like Matt Colville's videos. I very much appreciate you Matt! There is an abundance of knowledge within your channel, and I am quite amazed almost every video.
I think the biggest example of metagaming that everyone does is riddles. You're always expected to solve riddles with out of game intelligence and knowledge rather than having your character make a knowledge check.
I don't worry too much about what is or isn't metagaming at my own tables, simply because it is inevitable. Someone will likely clue in on what's going on, and I like rewarding players for doing so, as it means they're paying attention to the game. Likewise, I find the game of "do you know what this is, or don't you?" a waste of time. If I want them to have no idea what something is or what it can do, I'll reskin a monster or make a new one. The only time metagaming pisses me off is if they're reading from the adventure books or monster manual *in my face.*
That's all well and good, but the 7 int Barbarian shouldn't be the one identifying crazy obscure arcane items or traps or what have you. At some point there needs to be a limit on what is player or character knowledge.
Rosetta Foster I agree with you. I couldn't care less about metagaming at my table. Everyone does it to a certain extent -- as you said -- and worrying about it just slows things down. Use fire against the trolls. Do it! I dare you! No, they still burn... (DM bluff.) Some of the most annoying conversations at the table have been when player A accuses player B of metagaming, and then 20 minutes later player A metagames by casting a sleep spell such that he hits several goblins whose positions only player C is aware of. So, yeah, let's just play the game and not worry about it. It's mostly a pointless exercise.
I like the idea of making a creature that's basically a flameskull but works in Lightning instead of fire, but I need to find a good skin for it so that difference isn't obvious
I feel like the narrative that's missing and get's buried in this conversation is... What are the other players at the table supposed to do when the person not being tactical is being the wang rod. We always look at the person as getting "bullied" and/or the "victim" rather than seeing that person as the wang-rod. But I've found often enough, there's one player that either doesn't know how to play but wants to keep putting on the front that they do, or they like never helping the team because they want their character to shine or becuase they'd rather be silly and goofy... and like you said in the begining of the video, the one player isn't taking the game as serious as the rest of the table.
Another thing to consider is the idea of positive metagaming. My best example is the Margaret Weis productions Marvel Heroic RPG, which is very story and role play driven. You generally only gain experience in that game by triggering what are called Milestones; built in character arcs unique to the character you're playing, or the story arc you're playing in. Often you just get a bump of XP by referencing your motivation in a plausible way. So does Spider-Man know he gets an XP bonus for cracking wise at his opponents? No, of course not. But the players do, so having other players set Spider-Man up to make a joke is something the game encourages. The same can be totally true in a D&D game. He may not get any immediate reward for it, and my character might have no knowledge of it, but I as a player know the party's bard has a tragic backstory hidden behind their mirthful exterior, so if my character chides their character for not taking things seriously, or running from trouble at the first chance, both directly paralleling what I as a player know about their history, it must sting them that much more sharply. It adds to the drama of the encounter, and it helps validate their choice to make this information part of the character they're playing. Their character might hate being reminded of their past failures, but the player is likely to love that someone else at the table is, if not directly referencing the events of that story, deliberately alluding to them.
Matthew Colville! Thanks again for a great video. I have greedily consumed all of these videos, most several times. I can't tell you how many times I've benefited from your musings.
Good for you Matt, its always nice to see people and geeks work in a field they actually enjoy. Rather than dying in boredom in their '9-5' office job. Just make sure the game stays fun and doesn't become "just work". Good luck with the new office space and all :) Thanks for the video, always a joy.
I've never had players explicitly state it, but the "What does the GM want us to do?" thought, but I could tell that a few of my previous players were very much of the mindset that if there was a choice to be made, or a set of interactive pieces to mess around with, that then there must be something in particular that I wanted them to do. Which has never been the case! And I don't know how many times I had to sit down with them and explain, "I don't care what your character is doing with the things I have laid out in front of them, so long as they are doing something! If I wanted a particular story to unfold, I wouldn't be here running a game, but instead back at home writing a novel." It took a while to get through to two of them, but I think that one of them still personally believed that I was merely saying that to create an illusion of choice, because he always seemed to be trying to "figure out" my desire and seemingly couldn't accept that I'd be okay with the players not following a particular path or story thread. I guess what I am saying is: I can understand your frustration with that expression or line of thinking, because I too get irritated by it to the point of wanting to stop running. I just want to shout, "I want everyone to have fun and enjoy the story!"
I think that's because in most D&D games, the DM has prepared an adventure (or two) for the players to run through. The social contract is that they players will honor the hard work the DM has put into preparing those adventures and run through them. I think your players are just operating off that social contract, even though you seem to have clearly established that your particular social contract doesn't include that clause. Sometimes, it tough to break things that have been hard-coded into us.
This sounds like the kind of thinking that comes exclusively from behind the DM screen. You may say "I don't care what you do, just do something" but really I'd wager there's things in your game that need to be done a specific way in order to succeed. Some of the stuff the PCs find are important quest items and they need to be used a certain way (even if they look like normal treasure or worthless trinkets). Other things you've set up are just dungeon dressing, or are set up to pay off later and aren't intended to be used now or worse are deadly traps designed to look like important quest items but actually melt your face off. Some of your NPCs are secretly villains and will do terrible things if the PCs don't suss them out. Some of the monsters might actually be amenable to talking instead of fighting and be useful allies--while others might trick the PCs into "talking" so they can get them surrounded and kill them. Most of these things look exactly the same to players on the other side of the screen. They don't have anything to go on in game to figure out the deathtraps from the genuine golden treasures, so they go off of what they do know: You. I've been in plenty of games where we just got destroyed by an enemy or a trap and had the DM just sort of smugly smile and go "yeeeah..." or we'd feel really good about a fight where we just stepped right in and slew a whole bunch of badguys and the DM would look heartbroken and go "Dude! Those guys were awesome! They would have totally been your friends. You didn't even try to talk to them." I've become pretty callous about all this. I will often pursue my character's agendas with impunity nowadays, often going flat against what the DM wants to have happen even if I suss it out with no apologies. If a door is locked and there's a set of musical notes that appear to be carved above a golden sentient harp, I'll take out the hinges. If there's a floor covered with obscure letters in an ancient alphabet and a riddle on the far wall, I'll put some ladders lashed together across the floor and walk across the rungs. I've found that most DMs who seem frustrated by PCs trying to decode what they want have either stymied them with obscure content they aren't sure what to do with or else have traumatized them with consequences for doing something in a way the DM considers dumb and so have become dedicated to figuring out what the DM considers smart (because they thought their original idea was fine) and only do those things from now on so as to avoid getting burned again.
Jim Murphy True. I think the irony is that D&D is generally stacked in favor of the players, depending on the DM running the game, of course. I feel a good DM creates the illusion of impossible odds as it makes victory all that much more sweet. But behind the screen, it's just as much about enjoying the journey as it is about enjoying victory.
Robert Blank, I know what you mean. I just had a situation with one of my DM's in a Harry Potter mystery game. My character needed to hide somethings and after all the information he got those things only exploded when you trow them (he read a book about those things). So my character as a first year student transformed part of a wall into a curtain to create a hole, put the stuff in, cut most of the curtain off and charm the rest into a wall again. My character was nearly killed, because my DM thought that this was such a obvious dumb idea that he made the wall explode. The other characters had to play a time travel mini plot to keep my character alive. Later she told me she expected me to either just let those things lay around somewhere or confess to a teacher. But my character didn't want to do either. The teacher would mean lots of trouble and he doesn't want other students in danger of those things. additional it would allow me character the possibility to get those back if needed. At other hand she gets frustrated when the character didn't follow the plot hooks and focus on things that would get them in the situation where they had to hide explosives in a school...
15:30 Where did the 6 seconds come from ? Cause for me, a round of action is 6 second in REAL TIME in a 30 FPS game, called Baldur's Gate, but in that, the round lenght in GAME TIME is in minutes.
Glad to see videos out there explaining the good side of metagaming noone hears about in the face of the generic "it's just bad" videos filling the search results.
This is a classic example of every table being different. Just respect each other, discuss thoughts and opinions as they arise and most importantly have fun.
I agree with you on much of the video, but I disagree on something you said for the following reasons. You said that you where not sportsman like for figuring out that there was a gelatinous cube in Jerry's campaign. This is NOT true. You where paying attention to his world and every clue he gave out, this would make me so happy as a DM, and only upset if you then used the knowledge to make decisions. Not sportsmanlike behavior is in my opinion is doing things like attempting to deceive the DM (deceiving their npc's can be fun, but don't deceive the actual person). If the players are secretly looking through the bestiary, or blaming everyone but themselves, or stealing the fun from everyone else is the not sportsmanlike conduct we need to avoid. NOT your paying attention and deduction to further understand your DM's clues. Tl;dr I would LOVE to have what you did happen in one of my games, or at least it is not cheating. You where not cheating and the above examples are what we as players should REALLY be avoiding. Love a viewer of your videos. See you on the next video.
Yeah, personally I've always hated how some GMS have this weird idea that characters know nothing about the world they live in unless you happen to be trained in a skill. Bards and other storytellers exist, and people love stories. Parents probably tell their children bedtime stories, and that these monsters are a constant threat. The idea that people don't know things like "kill trolls with fire" is pretty silly honestly. Adventurers are even more likely to have heard these stories. I mean if you become a professional monster hunter for a living, it's probably likely you're interested in it, so the adventuring fighter probably always enjoyed hearing tales of orcs, trolls and giants. Really unless there's a good reason the character lived an extremely sheltered life or the monster is very rare, I don't really think it's out of line to ever say the PC has heard of those creatures and has a rough idea of what they are.
It was poor sportsmanship from person to person completely separate from the characters or game. He made his DM feel deflated. It was careless, avoidable, and regrettable. It was a moment and not a habit, but it still was a reasonable description.
I think part of the players thinking "what does my dm want?" Can be them being slightly worried about missing this thing the dm has put in front of them and not wanting to miss their work. I think this is easily solved by just saying "not everything is critically important to your character and that's okay." Can work really well to help those with good intentions.
I think there is a fundamental problem with these games if you want to avoid metagaming: your character does not have independent thought from you. I dont think it serves the game if you have to make an intelligence check or something similar every time you want your character to figure things out that you are already aware of, but if you dont do that how could you be sure that your character would know the same things you do? If the DM creates a puzzle he does so mainly for the players to solve, but we wouldnt know if their characters could, so the game intends for us to metagame here, but in another situation its suddenly "cheating" if the players think about the situation beyond their characters knowledge? There should be certain things that we should avoid like knowing what an unknown creature is weak to, but everything involving planning should allow certain levels of metagaming or you defeat a lot of the fun in the game.
My thoughts exactly. There is an acceptable level of metagaming, though I like to keep the threshold low. We are, after all, playing a game, and the game requires using game terms at times. I've had players say, "This is where the adventure wants us to go, so that's what we should focus on." It felt rather railroady to me, that at the time the players didn't seem to mind. Since I was running a pre-made adventure, I didn't take it personally. On one hand, it's good to have clear goals for players, particularly those who are inexperienced or may not "get" the flow of the campaign. On the other hand, I don't like to restrain player choices so much that they feel they need to do only one particular thing, but I suppose that's a different topic. In any event, good video, and congratulations on the kick starter. I'm looking forward to the book.
When my players “pile on” a skill check that I only ask one player to make, I reset the DC to a Natural 20, and the only thing I say on a Nat 20 being rolled is, “You think you see (player X) pondering something interesting.”This puts the focus back on the original player, it is quite a cinematic moment, and player X can decide how to react.
I was in too many campaigns where not going to the dead end nearly cost us TPK... I also was in quite some when going to the dead end meant totally derailing the campaign and unnecessarily complicating the situation and sending as on fools errand and ultimately losing to the bbeg in the end... since we have given him too much time to prepare
'The Ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade.'
'FFS Elrond, stop metagaming!'
President Jyrgunkarrd ... You know, I’m sure the comparison exists somewhere, but you’ve made me realize that Elrond was like the freakin’ DM.
Gandalf = min maxer
Legolas = edge lord
Strider = edge lord
Gimmli = role player
The hobbits = roleplayer
Elrond was so OP they didn't let him play. If I was Frodo, that guy would have been my first draft pick.
'It's not metagaming, my character would know that. Did you read his backstory? He was alive when it was created...'
@@gohantanaka Remember on the eve of battle in RoTK, he was like hey Aragon, go get that ghost army, sorry I didn't tell you until the battle was about to begin.
VERY TARDY but...
"We have bypassed all these warriors in this fortress. If we attack their master, he may summon them. And then we'd have to fight them all at once! Maybe we should go back and try to pick them off in manageable quantities." Is NOT metagaming. It's astute self preservation.
"NAH!! Let's attack the master now. The GM wouldn't throw 20 encounters worth of enemies at us at a time. We'd have no chance." THAT'S metegaming.
That's kinda what I was thinking and that is a very apt explanation and example.
... he would.
@@tombratcher6938 especially f you dared him like above.
This reminds me how I named a ranger character’s slain mentor Xavier Peters, so he could rush into battle bellowing “FOR X.P.!” and it be an in-game thing. 🤓😜
My cleric named his pony Shirley, so he could ride Shirley into combat and ride Shirley home again.
@@bretterry8356 Shirley you can't be serious...
I'm stealing this
Pretty silly
This is the funniest thing I’ve seen all week
Also, it can be impossible to avoid metagaming sometimes. I think I first heard this from the Angry GM: a player who has knowledge that their character doesn't, but is acting on it, is obviously behaving differently from a player who doesn't have that knowledge; however, a player who has that knowledge and is *trying not to act on it* is also behaving differently from the player who doesn't have the knowledge at all.
I try to get into the mindset of my character and just do what they'd do. Even though I heard that my ally just went down in the next room, my character didn't and is going to keep looting this room.
Usually when it comes to monsters we leave it up to the dice (and sort of the DM) by asking the DM if we'd know and the DM has us roll an appropriate skill to see if we do. Usually we'll come up with a reason for me to know something outside my skillset afterward. If it's something I'm certain my character wouldn't know/do, even if I would, my character does something different.
Apparently this is something people have trouble with, thankfully not most of the people I've played with.
In fact, one of our PCs last night did something incredibly stupid because he wouldn't know better. The player, naturally, suspected the door was trapped but the PC is a numbskull who's never walked into a trap so he just walked up and opened the door. The fireball brought everyone it hit below 10hp lol
@@RukamiKatochi That's the kind of play I love! I think so much more flavour is added to a game if the players do everything they can to only act as their PCs would, as for monsters and the like I enjoy going off of what my backstory has given them. The 17 year old human cleric? Of course he's never seen a goblin before, why would he try to fight it? The 250 year old grizzled Elven Ranger? I have a feeling he's at least heard of if not seen a Remorhaz so sure he can roll insight.
After reading the Angry GM I always get angry when GMs complain about metagaming.
@Matthew Colville 8:20 I would say you were 'unintentionally' meta-gaming: Your deduction of the monster that was below caused a reaction at the table - the other players that did not know the 'mystery' of the pit and had assumed water was introduced, would have reacted differently had they not known the monster that was awaiting them. So even though YOU did not act on the information, it caused a dynamic change in the party and thus they prepared/acted/reacted differently than they would have without that information.
Veteran players have A LOT of knowledge that their character most likely would not and it causes the player to have to 'curb' their out-of-character comments in order to not 'overly hone' the experience of the party... it is a difficult balance...
That's roleplaying. You just described roleplaying. That's not metagaming
Though the audio issues are obvious, I feel like it sort of fades into the background due to the quality of the video itself. I think deciding not to redo it was a good choice.
100 % agree
People tend to cry metagaming whenever numbers are brought up, but the numbers do represent something. I had someone insist that players shouldn't know if they hit because that allows them to reverse engineer armor class, and since AC isn't a real thing, knowing it is metagaming. Yet AC does represent something real (how hard it is to land a meaningful hit), and characters would know if they got a good hit in or if their attack bounced harmlessly off the dragon's scales, and they would know roughly what level of force, edge alignment, precision, etc. it would take to get in a hit of any significance. As mentioned, the same goes for skill checks. A character knows what they are good at, and the guy with expertise in stealth probably is aware that he is better at sneaking than the rest of the party. They wouldn't have the number to associate with it, but they would know that it's true.
It's generally safe to assume that the characters have awareness of the world they live in and generally know at least the ideas the numbers represent, even though they wouldn't think in numbers. They would know that it takes more energy to cast fireball than to cast shield, even if they don't think in terms of spell levels. They would understand that their magical energy is depleted, even if they don't think in terms of spell slots. They would know that they are pretty sore and beat up, even if they don't know that they are at 2 hit points
That's an interesting thought: do we know they don't think in numbers? We have numbers for how hard something is, how hot something is, how acidic something is, why wouldn't they have numbers? Some of them are going to be outside their knowledge obviously, but others they could probably work out. Imagine a world where every time I land a punch I do exactly the same amount of damage. Given enough punches and enough time, they should be able to calculate something like AC and HP.
Spell levels and spell slots are similar. A wizard would know there are some spells they can cast forever, other spells they can cast x number of times per day, and that they can cast some spells stronger but that they lose the ability to cast one of the stronger spells if they do. Given enough time they could work out exactly how many times they can cast each spell a day and assign the numbers accordingly. That said, even if the numbers exist in universe a lot of characters might not know them. A wizard would probably know a spells level because learning that is just be part of learning the spell, but a sorcerer might not (or they might know it instinctively).
@@rayden54 Not to sound grim but one of examples with numbers knowledge IRL is how long medication would work or how often someone would need dialysis. A chap who knows he might go Rambo on his family when his meds wear off will think in terms of hours and dosages.
Years on, Baldur's Gate 3 shows character skill self-awareness pretty well. There's a short I saw the other day showing that there are some character dialogue differences when you come to an encounter before or after a certain level threshold. The characters don't know they're level 4 or 5, but they know how strong they are in less certain terms and can size up their opponents and get a feel for how tough the fight looks.
One of my favorite things to tell new players is "you as a person are not your character. They live these things so it may take you a minute to think of what would occur to them immediately."
I love this so much!
Why I hate metagaming:
Once, the party walked into a castle, and I was describing the various NPCS that where milling about.
Our paladin, in character, walked up to the court mage....
Paladin: "Yo, B, I know you gonna deadass have a quest for me. Give it up."
Mage: "What? Who are you, what are you talking about?"
Paladin: "You got a quest, right? You're the first person Miles(me, DM) described. So gimme a quest, boi."
Mage: "Stop, go away! Don't you have something better to do then heckle a poor old man?"
Paladin "Ugh, I'll go away, just gimme something first. Like a quest, or some loot or a treasure map or something."
Party Rogue (to paladin): "Uhh, dude, leave him alone"
Paladin: "No, this guy has a quest, I just wanna know what it is! We haven't killed anyone in like a week so-"
Mage: "GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDSSS!!!!!"
There is metagaming then there is stupid. You do have to loathe people expecting D&D to be a video game.
do your other npc behave like their from runescape or is it just your players
Miles Yeah, that's annoying. I wouldn't even treat that interaction seriously. I'd probably just ask the player to let me know when he's ready to start playing D&D. *rolling eyes*
I don't know that the expectation of getting a quest is nearly as grating as how he has his character talk. That's just the worst.
Honestly there's always yard work people need done. Or being a mage maybe organizing the books in the floor to ceiling stacks in his library.
Though if we're just dealing with the surface issue of having the PCs assume a particular NPC is a questgiver based on their presentation a nice quick way to deal with it is to have them just point them in the right direction:
"I'm usually too busy with my duties to tend to such nonsense...I'd talk with Carslyle, the commander of the town watch. You can probably find him in the barracks or training grounds. He's the one who usually has work suitable for the loyal knights of the church."
So that way he's wrong about who has the quest, but he still gets a quest and the story can move forward without it seeming like you're punishing anyone.
Robert Blank that's a perfect solution. The reason I didn't want to do that was to start the main quest they didn't have to talk to anyone in particular, they had to wait a few minutes. I also didn't want everyone to start talking like that, so I was trying to tell my party that harassing NPCs wouldn't go there way.
I have a player in my current game who is a terrible coward. To roleplay this, he has decided that he always fails saves against fear effects. It has been so great to watch.
Dungeon Dad thats super cool.
Dungeon Dad As the campaign continues itd be cool if you have him eventually transition into disadvantage, and then to normal to show him getting used to adventureing.
Javier Perez -- Agreed. I think when a flaw "always" causes a character to act in a predictable way, it is not as interesting or as much fun as randomizing it. For example, we had a player create a character that "always forgot the plan." So every time the players spent 30 mins planning, his character would ruin it. What fun is that? I think leaving just a little space for something different to happen -- even if the character never grows up (as you suggest) -- makes the game a lot more fun, especially when it is something that will always affect the other players negatively.
I love giving myself out of the rules disadvantages, but also mitigating them with advantages, to have a balanced but interesting character.
It's certainly an interesting way to play a character. The only caveat for me, however, is that it would have to be something that the other players said they were cool with from the beginning. Otherwise, you'd be putting the rest of the players at a disadvantage simply to give yourself an interesting hook. I also agree with Javier. It would need to evolve over time. Otherwise, why would the character keep adventuring with the party? If they're really THAT much of a coward and always will be, why don't they run off and try to hide out somewhere? Their story arc should be them trying to overcome their crippling fear; transitioning to a disadvantage, then to normal play, and perhaps ultimately to a willing and intentional sacrifice to save others.
Seems we could translate, "We've paid attention to the way you (Matt) tend to run the game and the things you tend to like", into the game as "This is how the world is... this is what the world tends to do...". If we look at it that way, it makes a lot of sense when it comes to players seemingly preparing for things like the "Colville Screw". This is indeed rewarding, and does indeed indicate they are paying attention which is cool.
weemcast Exactly! In the same way his players prepare for the "Colville Screw," my players know how I run my games and prepare/play accordingly. This is only natural in a sense. It also is really cool because, as you said, they are paying attention.
If our players DIDN'T do this, they'd probably not survive long. And then they'd have no one to blame but themselves. 😁
This. Unless the PC is actually stupid and wouldn't use rational thinking or logic? It doesn't matter that the player says "Maybe we should get some more XP and loot." At that point you come down to the semantics of how you "properly" say something in a given situation.
It doesn't matter whether the logic is "we need more XP" or "The place we're going to is dangerous, we could use an extra edge." when the end-result is the same. This is an action that the PCs would reasonably take so it isn't metagaming.
---
In fact, if the way you phrase something is what makes it metagaming. Then it'd be an easy task for a metagamer to rationalize "How would my character come to this conclusion?" and bring it in an in-character way.
Sure, you may not be aware that gelatinous cubes exist. But you could easily deduce that water wouldn't "act" like that and pursue some investigation to prove that it isn't water.
The end result is the same. The PCs do not jump down in what they'd assumed is water.
But then this addresses his problem with players asking each other "What does DM Matt want us to do?" That might be translated into in-game role-playing as characters asking "What do the Gods [or whatever else they attribute the way the world works] want us to do?" Isn't that a legitimate question for heroes to ask? Maybe they get no answer. If they're religious types, and it's fun or fits into the game, maybe they could receive some divine inspiration or an omen. Or a false omen from an unfriendly spiritual power. Maybe the difference between the two questions lies chiefly in whether the players are just trying to get the DM to slip and give a hint, or whether they can reasonably be assumed to be role-playing.
So pretty much the D&D version of "WWJD?"
Weem watches Running the Game? Small world. I'd totally watch a game where Weem DMs a Strongholds and Followers type D&D campaign.
I don't think players noticing patterns in the DM's storytelling or personal tropes is metagaming, because the PCs would notice the same things. If the DM throws low value minions to bait the paladin into wasting smites, it might works twice or maybe three times, but eventually a PC is going to twig to it and say "Mike, don't use your smite, don't you remember what happened last time?" The DM's patterns are real to the PCs and they will learn from them just as players would.
Bob Johnson I agree. Players learning their DM translates into the PCs learning how the world around them works. It's not really metagaming. It's players being smart which translates into PCs being smart.
That brings up an interesting question: we talk about PCs metagaming, but what about DMs? Is the idea that monsters are aware enough that the paladin has a finite amount of smites, and that they have certain weak compatriots that are willing to suicidally charge this paladin hoping he'll "waste" his precious smites on them by ending their lives...isn't that even worse metagaming?
Robert Blank The question, the answer to which which will vary, is "What does this being reasonably know or believe about the world?". If you are facing beings that would reasonably understand that magic is something you can run out of, than getting PCs to waste it is reasonable. If your PCs are nearing the villian's lair and "Oh look! A room with food and water that we can lock from within, allowing us to rest. And, hey! A chest with health potions!" They might expect something bad is going to happen because the last two times they had such a lucky find, someone nearly died.
Mr Norrell Exactly. If the PCs find a crazy good strategy or spell, you'd better believe the villians will know about it, especially at higher levels. Villains then have encountered and defeated more than their fair share of adventures.
I've had high level Villains scry on the party. "Wow! That goblin had a +3 sword!!! What luck!" Or . . . the villain gave you something he knew you'd keep so he could target it. Thanks! High level villains have the resources to plan ahead. They didn't become high level by being dumb.
"What's your HP?"
"Your player doesnt know its HP"
"On a scale of 1-76 Im feeling like a 14"
In all seriousness, you could always lay out the "I dont think Im ready for this" rather than the "Im not high enough level"
I always help players put with this one because yeah technically it's meta gaming but this is a time when the Character has information the player does not. Not everybody is great at describing how they look/feel with knife and magic wounds. So if a player says their HP I jump in and say "You can tell by looking at them that [insert wound flavor text]" so they can have the number and it's not really meta gaming
Me as DM. "Sorry, I think you're feeling more like a 1 or 2. Really." Punishing players for metagaming (in a wanky way) is satisfying but not always well-received. (Actually, when I gave this example to my players, they thought the GM overhearing this should say something like "0" because they are crueler than I!)
The topic of "should players know their HPs, or at least communicate this?" came up in an FB group and at least for some, the answer is, "hell yes! I need to know because that's part of my enjoyment and it creates tension." Of course, not knowing your exact HP number except in a descriptive way (flavour text) can also create tension and suspense, not through knowing, but by not knowing.
This came up in my sit-down group. Most are new players with maybe 1 or 2 ttrpg vets. We started with Dungeon Crawl Classics, a standard D&D retro-clone with standard HP. For the last year plus we've been playing Boot Hill (2nd ed from 1979) and basically no one knew the rules. But without magic or powers (and basically just sixguns, shotguns, Sharps Buffalo rifles, etc.) actions were easy enough to describe and resolve. (After all, the inhabitants of New Mexico Territory are all normal-ish mortal humans or animals.) Basically, the Boot Hill rules are ancient and clunky and no one bothered to read them except me. Although the rules easily allow for 1-shot or quick kills, there is an HP system. But, no one knew it and I never thought to mention this, I just tracked HPs for everyone (instead of just the NPCs) and then described wounds narratively. When informed there actually was an HP system after over a year of play they were surprised! They are now generally ok with not knowing their actual numbers, just knowing narratively (some were more enthusiastic than others depending on the game).
It is a joke in my game for characters with zero or negative strength modifiers to ask enemies
"About how many punches do you think it would take for me to kill you." lol
lmaooooo i make the "on a scale from 0 to 176 the monster is feelin abt a 49" joke all the time to my players, once they've gotten some hits in already
Bravo
every time i think of this video im reminded of my first dnd game with my current online group.
my gunslinger gnome had an ability that would allow her to grant temporary hit points to another creature that can hear her. i knew that the fight was going sideways, but i didnt know if the sorcerer or druid (our party composition was a little wacky lmao) were hurting more, so i asked the players, "hey, what are your hitpoints at?" to which everyone, INCLUDING the DM, responded, "you wouldnt know that, thats metagaming."
this response is absolutely baffling to me, because of the same reason that matt brings up here about characters knowing their own skill check values.
sure, i may not know that you have 3 hit points out of 9 currently, but i would be able to tell which of us are hardiest, which of us are currently hurting the most, and therefore who currently needs help the most as of right now. obstructing my knowledge of your current hit points does nothing other than make the game harder to play, and make your character more likely to die.
EDIT: i learned recently they still think this way. dark gods end me
that is true, but maybe to avoid such wuestions, you should have worded it differently: not 'what are your hitpoints at?' but 'how hurt are you?'
I get why people would object to it, but this should never be an issue. Healers have to know how bad it is before they treat the wound, especially paladins who drain points from a pool instead of rolling dice. Numbers are just the way our character sheet quantifies the reality of the game world.
The fact that the video with the """bad""" audio is one of my favorite RtG videos in a while says a lot about the importance of content vs presentation.
Roses are red, the audio's fine.
The video starts at 1:29
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
When it comes to Monster meta gaming, I think it makes sense for there to me a "monster manual" in the world. Academics will have books, notes and essays on various monsters; outlanders and clansmen would have stories and tales of strange beasties; bards, rogues, urchins and such would hear rumours about strange monsters from other adventurers or travellers.
I doubt anyone remembers the exact stats and abilities of every monster, but they would have a general clue from the stories (cubes are invisible, don't hit rust monsters with a metal weapon etc.).
The monster manual can be thought of as what is known. All other monsters haven't been discovered yet (or at least no one has come back to write about them...)
Ooh! an in-game Monster Manual! I'll be off typing...
I'd argue there should be some sort of roll involved to see if the information is accurate.
Roll well & you get details equivalent to the medical drawings of Leonardo da Vinci.
Roll poorly & you end up with a medieval-like bestiary; where elephants looked like long nosed dog-pigs, lived monogamously & ate mandrakes from the Garden of Eden.
I tell them to make a history/nature check and if they succeed i tell them they may use any player knowledge they have about this situation as character knowledge.
I go a step further and say the world is rich with stories and anecdotes about the dangerous creatures of the world, so the characters have plenty of reason to have knowledge of standard creatures.
Matt's first example of the Gelatinous Cube isn't really so egregious.
Keep in mind that in most settings, people KNOW about monsters. Even back in olden times, people would be aware of all sorts of dangers, because it's a matter of survival.
Gelatinous Cubes are a huge danger, because the special knowledge of their nature is critical to avoiding them. Also, they're very interesting and unusual creatures, which makes it even more likely that traveling minstrels and bards or adventurers would tell about them.
Now, even though in our real world, we might pass that off as hyperbole, the people in a D&D setting likely are keenly aware of the fact that fantastic creatures exist, and people who set off to be adventurers ESPECIALLY would take this information to heart.
So to me, I feel like even a low level PC knowing about a Gelatinous Cube is really a very fair thing to do.
It's another thing to know the Frightful Presence DC of an Adult Red Dragon, obviously.
If metagaming is characters acting on knowledge only the players know, what Matt did in the Gelantinous Cube example is like reverse metagaming. He took something that his character learned, and thought about it as a player and came to the OoG conclusion that it was a gelantious cube. It makes sense that experienced players would do this, and sometimes probably without realizing it, but it can definitely break immersion or ruin a surprise that the DM was excited about
To add on to your point of about "experience points and levels", even in the real world you know (or would learn very quickly) what "level" you are.
If you're a rookie boxer and you think you can go up against Mike Tyson, you'll learn quickly that you need to go train, or "level up", before you face him again. Once you have an idea of what you and he can do, you are then able to judge what "level" you need to be to face him and have a chance of succeeding.
Good comparison, though I would add that in his case, where the party decides to go down one tunnel to fight a weaker enemy in the hopes of leveling up before going down the other tunnel to fight the main enemy, is like scheduling another fight half an hour before your Mike Tyson fight in the hopes of getting stronger. Chances are, you will only be tired and beaten up going into your main fight. I would understand if the party embarked on a few months long quest to travel far away and fight many battles in order to get stronger before coming back and facing their main enemy in a year or two, that would make sense.
@@francois6915 realistically they should find knowledge not adventures, punching people don't magically give you a new skill, that is why gold exist to pay for books, tutors and itens and get stronger in a way that makes sense, maybe for example they know there is a monster, but not what it is, and it is to risky to check, so what about finding some hero that can get rid of it, and on the journey they get levels, them that hero could even die, and out of necessity they would fight the monster anyway, but they actually had an objective other than "level up"
But you dont know how much experience you need to Level up
Audio quality isn't too perturbing, good video Matt!
22:15
I can't agree more. I'm pretty new to DnD, as are most of my friends, but we all enjoy the game quite a bit. There was an occasion in a game I was playing where the DM told us a strange person came up to the party and started spouting off nonsense. Though we were not particularly pressed for time, one player said out loud, "We all know [the DM]. He just wants us to move along." It looked like the DM just got shot. He was so shocked she said that.
It all turned out alright in the end, thankfully. Another player and I (both of us having DM'd before) went to her after the session and told her, hey, it's not about what the DM wants. Everything that they do is for the fun of the players. From the rocks to the cities to the gods, everything is made with the fun of the players in mind- something I learned from Matt. And it turned into a really nice moment, because from then on, she really changed her outlook on the game and seemed to be able to relax more and ease into her character.
As a player, one of my favorite questions to ask the GM in an encounter with Something New (tm) is: "What common knowledge do I know about this creature?"
I've been the tactician before. I was playing with a friend, who was really roleplay-heavy. I was irritated because she played a druid, but never used her wild shapes, or spell slots. All she was doing was throw knives in combat, and sometimes cast a cantrip. I was probably insufferable with my constant "why are you doing that?".
Why was she doing that, though? Was there a good roleplay reason for her character not to be using the spells?
@@conlon4332 nah yeah youre kind of spitting, bc there's roleplaying and then there's just being actually useless. she could have played a ranger, thrown her daggers, and gotten all her skills except wildshape and contributed infinitely more to the party in almost every way by the sounds of it. It probably was just a new player who decided to play druid, the common blunder. I think this specific section of the video could almost entirely be written off, because it is fine at some tables, not fine at others, because to an extent, its a blurred line between teaching inexperienced players how to play and being an asshole, and it comes down to how you handle it.
As a GM, it definitely brings a smile to my face whenever PCs adapt to something I tend to do that has hamstringed them before and they manage to bypass or prepare properly for it. I'm not even sure it's metagaming in my head at that moment; it is the players and PCs both learning from past experience and problem solving from that place. I think it is wonderful.
I run a game where all the players are DM's in other games. They are constantly trying not to use their knowledge and I'm constantly saying it is reasonable that your character would know something about this. It's this weird struggle against metagameing in reverse.
DMs send mixed messages in metagaming. Relying on player knowledge and intelligence to solve riddles, but not knowing things about critters.
Yes that's a key element. Sometimes I figure things out because I'm invested and trying to understand things about the story. Sometime I end up being right about very important story things, "ruining" some dramatic moments. But I don't know, if I can figure out in advance what these moments are going to be, I don't think I'm the one at fault, after all it only means I picked up on the queues that were given to me. If, as players, we're supposed to not try and understand some things, and work very hard to understand other things, then we're at a very big risk of ending up not knowing what the hell we're supposed to be doing at any given time
In my games, if your character is canonically good at solving puzzles or riddles, you can use your check to solve it.
That's not a mixed message, that's two different modes of play
I expect my players to know at least the basic stuff about monsters and puzzles. Hit trolls with fire. Dragons breathe different energy types, and you can tell which one by the color of their scales. If the dungeon corridors are sparkling clean, there's probably an ooze of some sort around. These are the things that their characters grew up hearing, in nursery rhymes and stories told about previous adventurers.
It's a fantasy world, everything in the monster manual exists, and has for a very long time. Other people have killed trolls, or dragons, or gelatinous cubes before. And brought home, along with the treasures won in these encounters, the tales of how they did it. The characters are not ignorant of the world.
@@DimT670 y e s
Matthew has returned to us.
About f•ing time!
Like a Phoenix he rises from the ashes to bring us DM goodies once again.
But is going away for a while now :(
Matt, for the rolls thing, well, the easy way to get players to stop is to pretty much have a random pile of random info about the area written down along with just random rolls.
Having the druid make the check might give some insight to what is actually going on, but the bard might just get the "insight" that the tree they just passed was where some random brigand who ended up in a story was hanged fifty years prior and has nothing to do with the adventure.
Also random perception checks for the party is very useful there as well for just upping paranoia
I have a group that does this all the time and ignores my arguments against it- I've just started telling people who make a roll I didn't ask for that they don't know anything/see anything.
The way I always deal with it is even simpler. Here's how this went in my game a few days ago:
Me: [Druid], make an Arcana check.
[Druid]'s player: *makes an Arcana check and fails*
[Sorcerer]: Can I make an Arcana check?
Me: No.
The players don't decide when they make checks, the DM does. If you haven't let a player make a check, don't let them make the check. There's no reason to think about things to say if a player makes a check you don't want them to make when you can just not let the check happen. (If a player skipped directly to rolling the dice in this situation I would say something along the lines of "Sorry, but there's no way you would know this".)
Personally, the way I get around that is I only allow rolls if the character is trained in that skill, or if it makes sense for them to get a roll (ie a ranger or druid making a perception roll in a forest). Anyone else who rolls and tries to get into it gets disadvantage on their next roll. Stopped the whole "group roll" thing real quick
If you really want to up paranoia. Just roll a d20. Not rolling for anything. Just roll it, look at the die, and nod. If you really want to freak them out, then ask them to do a Perception check. As long as none get a crit, they're going to be freaking out.
I think it's reasonable though, if a player is making a perception check, that the PCs see the character perk up and look around. That might make them want to do likewise. Or if they stop and stare at an inscription on a wall and stroke their chin, they might wander over and see what they can contribute. It isn't always necessarily metagaming. Honestly I think this is a good use for advantage/disadvantage. Someone might have a better chance to catch something than the others because of their background--they get advantage. Someone fails to notice something right when it happens and others perk up, but just a second too late and now have to cue in on subtler clues--so they get disadvantage. Simple.
I would love to play a computerized RPG in which "you can sneak your way around most/all of the encounters but when you meet the boss you'll have to fight them all at once" is a possibility.
Super late, but maybe try Divinity Original Sin 2, or Balder’s Gate 3 (made by the same studio) when it comes out.
It’s not always going to happen, but you can occasionally be surprised by retreating to higher, or otherwise advantageous terrain, and finding another encounter over the ridge. Or simply spending so long in combat that another guard patrol comes across the combat. If you’re trying to be stealthy, and you split the party, and one gets caught, the others might trigger a different encounter trying to reach them. There’s a lot of scenarios where combats may merge in that game.
Boss fights generally have their own arena where you’re unlikely to merge encounters, but it’s something like what you wanted~
I guess, if you just wanted to do a super encounter, you could just drag a bunch of enemies into the boss room with you.
I am a simple man. I see Matt, I click Matt.
I think it's a proven, scientific fact that if your name is Matthew your ability to DM raises by roughly 50%.
it means gift of god, from the Hebrew name matityahu
I guess that explains why I've been nominated as the group dm
This is a reference to Matthew Mercer, for anyone that didn't get that 😂
My first born son shall be named Matthew, then I shall legally change my last name to Matthew. He will come become the ultimate DM and create 7th edition!
I hope that counts in every version of the name!
The skill dogpiling issue is solved very elegantly in Pathfinder Second Edition by using secret checks with critical failure effects. When a character attempts to Recall Knowledge, for instance, the rule is that you, the GM, roll the check secretly, and you don't tell the player the result, just what they know. On a critical failure (failure by 10 or more) they recall false information. The players *can* dogpile, if they want, but when the characters all disagree on the truth, the party will not be sure who crit failed and who succeeded and they'll quickly learn to simply trust the expert in the party and not dog pile.
He is a river unto his people yet again.
31:02 I think it is realistic that occasionally people will have a random piece of knowledge, even if it's not related to something they're an expert in. Maybe they just happened to hear it somewhere. As a real world example, a Zoologist is far more likely to know about some obscure animal most people have never heard of, but there's still a decent likelihood they won't have heard of it, meanwhile it's much less likely, but still possible, that some other person hasn't studied any relevant field, just happens to have heard of it somewhere. I think a reasonable simulation of this is that all players get to roll the knowledge check, but those that have no particular reason to know about it have to make a much higher roll, maybe even a 20, to happen to have this knowledge they have no real reason to have.
24:42
"The mystery of life isn't a problem to solve, but a reality to experience."
- Frank Herbert, 'Dune'.
In Critical Role, Talesin metagames. I've seen Mat call him on it, and I've seen him try to cut back on it when he realizes he is doing it. However, I have also seen him use metagaming knowledge to enhance the roleplay and create some awesome character moments. My examples would be in campaign 2 because I have not seen much of campaign one (and I do not know if campaign 2 had started when this video came out).
One example is that scene where Mollymock confronts Nott about stealing from Ford. The character shouldn't know what she was looking for but the player did so he held up something that looked like what she was looking for something.
Just when you wonder what's gonna help you sleep at 2.10am and then BOOM heeeeeere's Colville!
I think in regards to tactics vs roleplaying, and playing optimally vs playing sub-optimally because it makes sense for your character, I don't think there's one right answer, I think it depends on what you want out of the game, but that's something that everyone should agree on, or at least if they don't just make that decision for themselves.
It's interesting that I saw this video now. Only last night, my character had to decide if the current quest was too high of a difficulty for our party level. Once I decided that we wouldn't be able to help any more than a guide, the DM said, "If this were a Witcher game, there'd be a giant red skull over the quest line." Basically confirming the decision my character had made. But my character is pretty reasonable and rational and came to the conclusion on his own accord. So, it was a similar situation to what spurred this video. lol
I think the "What does the DM want us to do" way of thinking can also be something that's reinforced in the minds of players who have played before with a railroady GM (railroady as in 'the kind of GM who says no too much and only allows problems to be solved in exactly the way they planned for during prep'). When you play for a GM like that, and you start hearing 'no' every time you deviate from the prep, you clue in rather quickly that there's a correct answer, and the GM won't let you move forward until you think of it. I wouldn't be surprised if many such players carry those habits forward even to GMs who don't run the game that way, whether they mean to or not
Excellent video and very reasonable look at how meta-gaming works. The players discuss the world in words that resemble the rules books that we read and consult in order to figure out how things operate in the fictional reality but that doesn't constitute meta gaming.
Saying, "I'm low on spell slots and we have no more healing so we should probably rest." is basically a shortcut for a character saying, "I'm barely on my feet, Glondal is still bleeding from the last battle and our Cleric over there looks like she's unconscious. We rest, then we move on." I don't think its a distinction that most people need as we sort of automatically understand whats happening even if we don't actively register it.
On the same token, as you stated, your characters discussing in game that they're not ready to storm an ancient red dragons lair isn't meta gaming as it's not a far leap of logic that four or five fairly green adventurers shouldn't be trifling with powerful elder beasts or a dangerous unknown. Exploration and adventuring are core to the very bedrock of D&D, noting that you may have missed a passage back a way that you'd like to go investigate is just a good habit to be in if for nothing else to make sure you aren't going to be attacked from behind.
The awareness of style thing is something I LOVE when I see it at the table, as I describe a room I see five sets of eyes narrow at me because they feel suspicious. I think there is some space to argue that this isn't necessarily always meta-gaming as I might place that in the realm of the characters themselves using things they have come up against before to inform the things they see now. It's fun to see the players and their characters get smarter along the way, plus that sort of soft-meta gaming forces me to get better and change my ways, because if they know me that well it's going to start getting boring. Thats my queue to watch how I design things going forward.
To your point of guessing what the DM wants I've always described as trying to "Know the will of god". You can bang your head against that wall all you want but if you do then we're pretty much done playing D&D cause you'll be busy with that for all time. The gods in the game may talk to people but the DM is not one of them so don't talk to me, just tell me what you're doing.
Anyway, way too much rambling for a TH-cam comment! Great video! Awesome discussion, well done!
Had a good group I was in and the rule was once initiative was rolled you could only talk on your turn. Couldn't give advice unless something quick like kill that guy, help etc. Could plan if had knowledge before the fight, someone scouted or something but those discussions between characters was in real time, so if it took 5 minutes, then what was scouted could be changed. It was great!
....and the players should not have to play stupid
Jim Murphy! The man of legend! :) 👍🏼
Should they have to play weak characters if they have low stats? If so, why one and not the other? I think the "niche protection" applies for that as well.
We need more videos with Jim!
Depends on the game and expectations. Heroic fantasy sorta demands optimal, strong characters which is the D&D default.
Eric Vulgaris I think that if the Gnome wizard can't plausibly ignore low str & con then the Dragonborn barbarian with 8 int can't choose to ignore it either, but his knowledge is played as combat focused, not worldly. He also has input out of character.
One thing I love about this channel is Matt is constantly telling us his process and how he is going about getting better content for us it's really cool
I have a group full of newbies that can't stop saying things in character, such as "hi my name is thema, I'm a 5th level wizard" which is not ideal. it would be like Matt saying, "hi, I'm a 10th level writer" tough habit to break
The thing thatfeels metagame-y to me in this example is the assumption (perhaps incorrect) on the part of the players that the side-quest will be less dangerous than the main quest, despite all of the information about how many people the side quest killed. Perhaps the characters had information that established the main quest as even more dangerous, but none of that is established in this video. So it seems like, in addition to the metagaming Matt identified, there's one based on the "main quest" being the hardest part of the module.
We have all had that one guy who hits every inanimate object because he just fought a mimic in another campaign, even though his character has no knowledge of that creature.
Lots of really good points, Matt. As a player one of my most used phrases, (either addressed to myself or another player that is struggling with a choice, metagaming, controlling, or being pressured), is "What would [character] do?" It's a really simple phrase that allows everyone at the table to take that step back from being a player playing a game, and instead take a step forward in the game world and imagine what that character would actually want to do in that situation. And as you stated, it's that reassurance that they are allowed to make sub-optimal decisions. That phrase has diffused many arguments between players, moved us along in over-analyzed combats, and led to some of the most memorable character moments I've seen. So, if you or someone at your table is struggling with a choice or leaning too far into their own knowledge as a player, don't be afraid to say, "What would [character] do?"
Thank you, 18:00 i needed to hear this. I often find myself getting bothered with people at my board not doing the most optimal. I have never brought my frustration to my team mates, but it makes a lot of sense to me now. Its their story, not a tactical game.
The explanation of a character understanding getting experience (equivalently gaining levels) is very true. I have a character currently who has a symbiote inside his brain who watches everything he does. At a certain point it mentioned that pain is good. I asked why. It then explained that pain (from combat and exploration) seem to push my limits and then make me stronger. It was just a fascinating realization for the character due to it being so true.
Thanks for the information nuggets!
Didn’t think I’d see kugo here
There's a nice (and often overlooked) feature of 3.X that a character can only use knowledge skills untrained to find out information of DC 10 or lower. Since the DC to learn useful information about most monsters is 15 + CR, PCs can make all the knowledge checks they want...they won't know anything beyond common knowledge, like, "That's a goblin, they're crazy."
I’m usually fine with character’s having general knowledge of a monster’s appearance and I believe characters should be able to plan out what their characters’ tactics should be, but rather than a timer on the characters making a decision I combat discussion meta-gaming by allowing all my npcs nearby to ‘hear’ anything that the players say as if their characters are saying it!
This puts much more importance on telepathy skills and whatnot because they allow for secret messages to be sent between players.
On the other hand I try to keep the discussions happening in real time, so if there is a hostage being held and the players are trying to come up with a solution and they go quiet for a few minutes, welp there goes the hostage because the bad guy got impatient and killed him lol
Matt, you are such an inspiration! My boyfriend and I haven't played in over a decade, but getting back into it (with the recommendation of your videos from a friend) have not only allowed out creative nerdy side to come out, but I'm also keeping in touch with family across continents (through D&D) and helping some secret nerds show their beautiful side. You are so great, I can't thank you enough!
On characters' understanding of their own levels:
In a character level game, any character that is a member of a casting class knows that casters (in a typical world as I've experienced them as a player) periodically go to sleep one night able to memorize (say) 6 spells of two different difficulties and wake up in the morning able to memorize (say) 9 spells of three different difficulties. Whether they would use the word "level" to describe that isn't really very important, but they would use _some_ word to describe that phenomenon. Skill/power in the world is obviously granular. You can make an argument that non-casters don't have the same experience, but even there character power jumps from plateau to plateau.
Since the game describes this revealed phenomenon using the word "level", I think it's entirely reasonable that the characters use the same word. But if you think that "grade", or "rank", or whatever other synonym you pull out of Roget is better, fly, be free.
As to how that change happens? Again, there's a tremendous amount of in-world experience by thousands of characters (at least). I suggest that there's plenty to be able to speculate with more or less accuracy on what might cause the change. Quibbling that "the characters have no concept of 'level' or how or why they should increase it" is just silly.
I’ve never consider leveling up to be this spontaneous thing that happens one day but rather the culmination of constant study and practice ‘off screen’.
As in the wizard doesn’t wake up suddenly knowing how to cast fireball at level 5, He decides to look into learning how to cast it at level 4.
Which is fine, except the result is still that one day he can't cast 3rd level spells and the next day he can. Now, if you're handing out level bennies a bit at a time (bonus to saving throw at 1/3 of the way to the next level, increase in BAB at 2/3 of the way, one skill point for every 15% of the way, or whatever), then the argument is stronger. But even in that situation, one day you can't cast fireballs or any other spell of similar power and the next day you can.
If you're playing a game like Fantasy Hero, where you gain a couple of character points every session, then the concept of "level" wouldn't really have any in-game meaning. But in a class and level system like D&D or Pathfinder, levels would be obvious in the world.
Doug Sundseth As the other guy said, I view it with the implication the mage has been researching "off screen" and eventually completed research/figured it out. Not an overnight magical conflux, more like you learning to backflip. Days of almost managing, until one day you wakeup and it's the day you succeed.
I think the whole idea of tying a spellcaster's sudden ability to cast new spells to how many orcs he's stabbed is just ridiculous.
How accomplished you are in spellcasting has to do with how well versed you are in various theories of magical lore upon which learning different spells is contingent--like algebra compared to calculus. You can learn spells of your level of learning by copying them down, you can prepare a certain number of them and keep track of the different finishing components, words and gestures. This is, like folks have said, pretty much entirely an off-screen study phenomenon. The upshot is though, that at a certain point you have a breakthrough and are just better at retaining more prepared spells or you've mastered enough of the next level of magic that you can start making heads or tails of the spells from that level.
Tying this to XP from killed monsters though, that's silly. This is why as a DM I grant per session XP. I use level as a measure of where a character is in their career as an adventurer and XP as a measure of where they are within that level--it goes up as time passes with some bonuses for special things that happen that advance their craft. It makes a lot more sense to me and it encourages playing the adventure at hand rather than stalking the dungeon room to room like a murder hobo to get XP.
@Wolf 616: "Days of almost managing, until one day you wakeup and it's the day you succeed."
Which is an observable, in-universe quantum change. It also coincides with a variety of other quantum changes. That quantum state is your level, and it is obvious to people in the universe.
@Robert Blank: It doesn't matter so much how you justify the change, whether as a result of monster whacking, gold gathering, puzzle solving, or off-screen study. One day you have a specific set of abilities and the next you have a new, better set that is very similar to the changes of everybody else in your "class".
"Level", by whatever name, is an observable and obvious feature of the universe that could not be missed by anyone paying attention.
So not exactly on topic here, but I wanted to thank you for making these videos. Because of them i was actually brave enough to try my hand at GM'ing for some friends online in Table Top Simulator even though I've only played Table top RPG's a few times. We're playing with a super rules light thing called Deck quest(all-be it rather modified by myself) so it's not D&D 5E but still we've been having a blast and I've really enjoyed making the campaign and running it with them. We have one who's played more table top RPG's than me, one who's played just about as much as I have and two who've never played at all, one of which is around 60 years old and doesn't know the first thing about games like this (although he does play video games) and we've all been having a lot of fun with it. So thanks again for all the work you've put into doing this, I really appreciate it.
Had your character, previous to the torch incident, run into a gelatinous cube or other ooze or jelly? If they had, it would be reasonable for them to deduce this possibility. Was your character a Bard, or Lore-Master? If so, then again, they might have heard tales of such creatures, possibly cautionary, or read arcane tomes on such creatures. What level was your character? I imagine higher level characters chatting up other adventurers in the pubs of Waterdeep, and exchanging stories...
I often go out of my way to avoid low level characters acting on information they wouldn't have had access to, but then let my mid-to high level characters just be wiser to the ways and creatures of the world, without feeling the need to justify each interaction, precisely because the character is more "experienced".
Regarding the characters who were willing to split the party to explore the end of the map, past which point, none had returned from, my complaint is more that both sides were willing to split the party over this decision. I assume, having properly warned the party that nobody, including adventuring parties with magic items, had returned from this area of the map, you killed them all when they eventually did indeed explore down he corridor of no return, yes?
This was fantastic Matt. I really appreciate you posting this as is, rather than re-recording.
I've played with the same core group for nearly a decade at this point in at least weekly games. One of the things that I love with this particular group is have willing we are to screw ourselves over. We played flawed, sometimes tragic characters. We often make decisions that we know are bad as players, because our characters would not think the same way or would act on impulse. It's a always been a delicate balance, where this group seems to have know where to draw the line - how not to de-rail a game.
Also, our regular GM, has a handful of setups that he likes to use. He both loves it and hates when we can figure it out. He loves a big reveal, but also thinks its especially cool if us as players can find clues in character that reasonably allow them to suss it out. He'll tell us, give us a gut check feeling on the character's part that they have it; an epiphany.
The majority of metagaming I've seen while playing is when players act on information that other characters have learned of but have either not shared or have not been present to share yet. Basically their characters would have no way at all of knowing what the others have been told or have discovered, but the players heard this information shared at the table thus know the "correct" course of action, even though their characters don't actually have that information themselves.
When it comes to knowing kinds of enemies, chasing after loot, trusting certain NPCs or not, and so on, I can typically see where such decisions/occurrences can be reasonably understood by the characters as well (even though I do think you should be understanding enough to roll for such things regardless of what knowledge you have). I just get irked when a player acts on information someone else learned, feels very "spotlight hoggie" to me :P
This here's the problem with the gelatinous cube example. It's not that Matt said it, it's that his character didn't and yet everyone at the table saw the DM react and so now they all know what's down there and will probably use that knowledge in character. And that's where it turns into metagaming.
Yeah I'm aware, but thanks :)
This is also what I typically think of when someone says meta gaming, I’m surprised it was address in the video haha
Honestly, there’s even an argument that a player who’s been living in Matt Colville-land for their whole life would pick up on the patterns of how deadly it is or what kinds of traps exist. To them it wouldn’t even be a weird thing, it’s just how their world works.
When you said that the boss was gonna "Ring the Dinner Bell" I busted out laughing.
I'm a little late to the party, but I think my least favorite "I want to stop being a DM" level of metagaming is when the players make an assumption about the adventure to try and bypass the roleplay part of the roleplay game.
Something like setting up a torched village for the players to find and explore for clues, only for one of them to immediately say "I'm going to follow the trail to find the bandits that did this."
It's happened twice and I struggled to explain to both players that this was an unfair assumption.
Wow. That's a nice water bottle. I promise that's not the only thing I noticed from this video, but just had to say that is cool. lol. Random, cool, useful gifts that you never would have thought to get for yourself are always nice.
Matt at approx 31:40 you talk about asking for a knowledge check from a specific player because they have a specific backstory and other players jumping in when the check fails.
My suggestion for this situation is to give some info on a fail, basic info on a success and extensive info on a fantastic success. That way the character protects that niche in the game that you want protected.
And here I thought I was going to get 8 hours of sleep tonight...
Dude, as long as we can understand the words you say in the video, I don't think 95% of us would mind. Maybe even more. I'm glad you stuck with what you recorded, it has a lot of pertinence to most dnd games.
"Who watches TH-cam videos at 3 in the morning?"
*Me:* "OH BY 3 AM!"
I love Matt's style, but one area we differ in is timing. If in combat, I move on if a player is not ready straight away. They have not missed their turn - it just happens later in the round. (We have a variant initiative systems that better suits this). Also, for count downs (such as when the guards show up), here is a great idea (from WOIN?), drop a bunch of d6s and have players role each round. When a 1 is rolled, you remove that dice. When all are gone, the time is up. This is great because it cannot be measured and players don't know exactly when something happens. Great tension builder.
I take the Sage background and choose the Monster Manual as my book of lore. Checkmate DM.
I do like bringing sportsmanship into the meta discussion. That is usually a good metric for meta gaming.
Care not about audio, care yes for content.
(Bad English is on purpose)
That part about the tactition, and his: "what you want to/ should do..." input is so true. Great advice on dealing with it though.
I find myself becoming frustrated with our tactition, and I can see that when he dishes out loads more damage than the other players, it can be tiresome for them too. I usually have to reel my neck in, and remind myself he's maybe playing for a different reason to the others. It's a bit like spinning plates, and it's my first time ever doing it, but I'm loving the challenge; it's extremely rewarding (for all of us) when it works.
Hate when GMs metagame in the sense that the GM knows my cleric has X amount of turn undeads a day so they make sure I use all my turn undeads before fighting the big bad guy
What I think was most important to me in this video about METAGMING is the two or three times Matt brings up "Sportsmanship", it's just like when to Fudge a die roll or not, the intention and the sportsmanship is whate truly matters!
Great video. The players all piling on to make rolls once you ask for one is an issue at most tables I DM or play at. I have been giving it some thought lately and I think I am going to add Trained skills to each character's initiative card. That way I can say "Jose, Sally, and June you guys make Nature checks for me." Going to try it out on the next campaign.
Said this on another comment, but the way I deal with it is just not letting characters make checks I haven't asked for. If I tell a specific person to make a check, and other players ask me if they can also make that check, I just say no.
This is such a problem in the current edition. Bounded accuracy makes the skill system a mess. It's impossible to actually be any good at something unless you are a rogue/bard with the expertise class power. A druid can't actually be that knowledgeable about Nature, and a Sorcerer isn't actually that smart about Arcane matters. The untrained Fighter with even a *slightly* luckier roll will beat them in skill checks routinely over the course of a game. Skills are my biggest disappointment with 5e.
Ghost why? As mentioned, if you don't feel they would know, then don't tell them to roll. DM determines when a skill check is required. The same applies when they should know outright, they don't need the roll to succeed.
A DM can do that, and they should in this edition. In 3.x we got used to the DM just calling out for anyone to make an arcane check (for example) and it was never a problem in that edition. The characters who were trained in arcane would have, you know, a +10 or +15 or even higher (+30 wasn't unreasonable once you got to the high levels) to their skill check - the untrained people would have just their ability modifier so +0 or maybe up to +5. It was a big enough difference that you felt like game mechanics supported the trained person being much much better at the thing. In 5e the bonuses are so small compared to the d20 roll that it often doesn't feel like the trained person is better at all. It feels like luck more than skill.
Something rough about requiring training is that in this edition, short of burning a feat on it, there's a lot of skills you will just never have a chance to train in. You just don't get the choice. If they aren't part of your particular race or background and not in the sublist of skills you get with your class (or just get crowded out by other equally crucial skills) you can't just pick them up later. You will never get them. That's fine, if as intended, skills give a relatively minor boost to stat rolls, but could get frustrating if you don't have training in a particular skill you could never have been trained in.
Few things get me as excited about DnD like Matt Colville's videos. I very much appreciate you Matt! There is an abundance of knowledge within your channel, and I am quite amazed almost every video.
Audio isn't a big deal, Matt. We just want your knowledge!
Nice of you to acknowledge the sound problem but after a few minutes, I couldn't even notice anything wrong so it's not that bad. Great video Matt!
Wolfman Jack is back 💯 Preach brother...videos=😊
I think the biggest example of metagaming that everyone does is riddles. You're always expected to solve riddles with out of game intelligence and knowledge rather than having your character make a knowledge check.
I don't worry too much about what is or isn't metagaming at my own tables, simply because it is inevitable. Someone will likely clue in on what's going on, and I like rewarding players for doing so, as it means they're paying attention to the game. Likewise, I find the game of "do you know what this is, or don't you?" a waste of time. If I want them to have no idea what something is or what it can do, I'll reskin a monster or make a new one.
The only time metagaming pisses me off is if they're reading from the adventure books or monster manual *in my face.*
I totally agree. Being a intuitive and attentive player should be rewarded.
That's all well and good, but the 7 int Barbarian shouldn't be the one identifying crazy obscure arcane items or traps or what have you. At some point there needs to be a limit on what is player or character knowledge.
Rosetta Foster I agree with you. I couldn't care less about metagaming at my table. Everyone does it to a certain extent -- as you said -- and worrying about it just slows things down. Use fire against the trolls. Do it! I dare you! No, they still burn... (DM bluff.)
Some of the most annoying conversations at the table have been when player A accuses player B of metagaming, and then 20 minutes later player A metagames by casting a sleep spell such that he hits several goblins whose positions only player C is aware of.
So, yeah, let's just play the game and not worry about it. It's mostly a pointless exercise.
Blue skinned trolls that are weak against lightning are my classic reskin
I like the idea of making a creature that's basically a flameskull but works in Lightning instead of fire, but I need to find a good skin for it so that difference isn't obvious
I feel like the narrative that's missing and get's buried in this conversation is... What are the other players at the table supposed to do when the person not being tactical is being the wang rod. We always look at the person as getting "bullied" and/or the "victim" rather than seeing that person as the wang-rod. But I've found often enough, there's one player that either doesn't know how to play but wants to keep putting on the front that they do, or they like never helping the team because they want their character to shine or becuase they'd rather be silly and goofy... and like you said in the begining of the video, the one player isn't taking the game as serious as the rest of the table.
Another thing to consider is the idea of positive metagaming. My best example is the Margaret Weis productions Marvel Heroic RPG, which is very story and role play driven. You generally only gain experience in that game by triggering what are called Milestones; built in character arcs unique to the character you're playing, or the story arc you're playing in. Often you just get a bump of XP by referencing your motivation in a plausible way. So does Spider-Man know he gets an XP bonus for cracking wise at his opponents? No, of course not. But the players do, so having other players set Spider-Man up to make a joke is something the game encourages.
The same can be totally true in a D&D game. He may not get any immediate reward for it, and my character might have no knowledge of it, but I as a player know the party's bard has a tragic backstory hidden behind their mirthful exterior, so if my character chides their character for not taking things seriously, or running from trouble at the first chance, both directly paralleling what I as a player know about their history, it must sting them that much more sharply. It adds to the drama of the encounter, and it helps validate their choice to make this information part of the character they're playing. Their character might hate being reminded of their past failures, but the player is likely to love that someone else at the table is, if not directly referencing the events of that story, deliberately alluding to them.
Matthew Colville! Thanks again for a great video. I have greedily consumed all of these videos, most several times. I can't tell you how many times I've benefited from your musings.
Yay! More wisdom from a great DM, :D
Good for you Matt, its always nice to see people and geeks work in a field they actually enjoy. Rather than dying in boredom in their '9-5' office job.
Just make sure the game stays fun and doesn't become "just work". Good luck with the new office space and all :)
Thanks for the video, always a joy.
I've never had players explicitly state it, but the "What does the GM want us to do?" thought, but I could tell that a few of my previous players were very much of the mindset that if there was a choice to be made, or a set of interactive pieces to mess around with, that then there must be something in particular that I wanted them to do. Which has never been the case! And I don't know how many times I had to sit down with them and explain, "I don't care what your character is doing with the things I have laid out in front of them, so long as they are doing something! If I wanted a particular story to unfold, I wouldn't be here running a game, but instead back at home writing a novel." It took a while to get through to two of them, but I think that one of them still personally believed that I was merely saying that to create an illusion of choice, because he always seemed to be trying to "figure out" my desire and seemingly couldn't accept that I'd be okay with the players not following a particular path or story thread.
I guess what I am saying is: I can understand your frustration with that expression or line of thinking, because I too get irritated by it to the point of wanting to stop running. I just want to shout, "I want everyone to have fun and enjoy the story!"
I think that's because in most D&D games, the DM has prepared an adventure (or two) for the players to run through. The social contract is that they players will honor the hard work the DM has put into preparing those adventures and run through them.
I think your players are just operating off that social contract, even though you seem to have clearly established that your particular social contract doesn't include that clause. Sometimes, it tough to break things that have been hard-coded into us.
This sounds like the kind of thinking that comes exclusively from behind the DM screen. You may say "I don't care what you do, just do something" but really I'd wager there's things in your game that need to be done a specific way in order to succeed.
Some of the stuff the PCs find are important quest items and they need to be used a certain way (even if they look like normal treasure or worthless trinkets). Other things you've set up are just dungeon dressing, or are set up to pay off later and aren't intended to be used now or worse are deadly traps designed to look like important quest items but actually melt your face off. Some of your NPCs are secretly villains and will do terrible things if the PCs don't suss them out. Some of the monsters might actually be amenable to talking instead of fighting and be useful allies--while others might trick the PCs into "talking" so they can get them surrounded and kill them.
Most of these things look exactly the same to players on the other side of the screen. They don't have anything to go on in game to figure out the deathtraps from the genuine golden treasures, so they go off of what they do know: You.
I've been in plenty of games where we just got destroyed by an enemy or a trap and had the DM just sort of smugly smile and go "yeeeah..." or we'd feel really good about a fight where we just stepped right in and slew a whole bunch of badguys and the DM would look heartbroken and go "Dude! Those guys were awesome! They would have totally been your friends. You didn't even try to talk to them."
I've become pretty callous about all this. I will often pursue my character's agendas with impunity nowadays, often going flat against what the DM wants to have happen even if I suss it out with no apologies. If a door is locked and there's a set of musical notes that appear to be carved above a golden sentient harp, I'll take out the hinges. If there's a floor covered with obscure letters in an ancient alphabet and a riddle on the far wall, I'll put some ladders lashed together across the floor and walk across the rungs.
I've found that most DMs who seem frustrated by PCs trying to decode what they want have either stymied them with obscure content they aren't sure what to do with or else have traumatized them with consequences for doing something in a way the DM considers dumb and so have become dedicated to figuring out what the DM considers smart (because they thought their original idea was fine) and only do those things from now on so as to avoid getting burned again.
TheNerdySimulation sometimes with a game players think they are trying to WIN
Jim Murphy True. I think the irony is that D&D is generally stacked in favor of the players, depending on the DM running the game, of course. I feel a good DM creates the illusion of impossible odds as it makes victory all that much more sweet. But behind the screen, it's just as much about enjoying the journey as it is about enjoying victory.
Robert Blank, I know what you mean.
I just had a situation with one of my DM's in a Harry Potter mystery game.
My character needed to hide somethings and after all the information he got those things only exploded when you trow them (he read a book about those things).
So my character as a first year student transformed part of a wall into a curtain to create a hole, put the stuff in, cut most of the curtain off and charm the rest into a wall again. My character was nearly killed, because my DM thought that this was such a obvious dumb idea that he made the wall explode. The other characters had to play a time travel mini plot to keep my character alive.
Later she told me she expected me to either just let those things lay around somewhere or confess to a teacher. But my character didn't want to do either. The teacher would mean lots of trouble and he doesn't want other students in danger of those things. additional it would allow me character the possibility to get those back if needed.
At other hand she gets frustrated when the character didn't follow the plot hooks and focus on things that would get them in the situation where they had to hide explosives in a school...
15:30 Where did the 6 seconds come from ? Cause for me, a round of action is 6 second in REAL TIME in a 30 FPS game, called Baldur's Gate, but in that, the round lenght in GAME TIME is in minutes.
Yayyy I missed Matthew's sweet sweet monologue.
Glad to see videos out there explaining the good side of metagaming noone hears about in the face of the generic "it's just bad" videos filling the search results.
I am binging your content. Just. Ya know. Wanted to say thanks for all the great videos.
This is a classic example of every table being different. Just respect each other, discuss thoughts and opinions as they arise and most importantly have fun.
I agree with you on much of the video, but I disagree on something you said for the following reasons. You said that you where not sportsman like for figuring out that there was a gelatinous cube in Jerry's campaign. This is NOT true. You where paying attention to his world and every clue he gave out, this would make me so happy as a DM, and only upset if you then used the knowledge to make decisions. Not sportsmanlike behavior is in my opinion is doing things like attempting to deceive the DM (deceiving their npc's can be fun, but don't deceive the actual person). If the players are secretly looking through the bestiary, or blaming everyone but themselves, or stealing the fun from everyone else is the not sportsmanlike conduct we need to avoid. NOT your paying attention and deduction to further understand your DM's clues.
Tl;dr I would LOVE to have what you did happen in one of my games, or at least it is not cheating. You where not cheating and the above examples are what we as players should REALLY be avoiding. Love a viewer of your videos. See you on the next video.
Yeah, personally I've always hated how some GMS have this weird idea that characters know nothing about the world they live in unless you happen to be trained in a skill. Bards and other storytellers exist, and people love stories. Parents probably tell their children bedtime stories, and that these monsters are a constant threat. The idea that people don't know things like "kill trolls with fire" is pretty silly honestly. Adventurers are even more likely to have heard these stories. I mean if you become a professional monster hunter for a living, it's probably likely you're interested in it, so the adventuring fighter probably always enjoyed hearing tales of orcs, trolls and giants. Really unless there's a good reason the character lived an extremely sheltered life or the monster is very rare, I don't really think it's out of line to ever say the PC has heard of those creatures and has a rough idea of what they are.
It was poor sportsmanship from person to person completely separate from the characters or game. He made his DM feel deflated. It was careless, avoidable, and regrettable. It was a moment and not a habit, but it still was a reasonable description.
I think part of the players thinking "what does my dm want?" Can be them being slightly worried about missing this thing the dm has put in front of them and not wanting to miss their work. I think this is easily solved by just saying "not everything is critically important to your character and that's okay." Can work really well to help those with good intentions.
I think there is a fundamental problem with these games if you want to avoid metagaming: your character does not have independent thought from you. I dont think it serves the game if you have to make an intelligence check or something similar every time you want your character to figure things out that you are already aware of, but if you dont do that how could you be sure that your character would know the same things you do? If the DM creates a puzzle he does so mainly for the players to solve, but we wouldnt know if their characters could, so the game intends for us to metagame here, but in another situation its suddenly "cheating" if the players think about the situation beyond their characters knowledge? There should be certain things that we should avoid like knowing what an unknown creature is weak to, but everything involving planning should allow certain levels of metagaming or you defeat a lot of the fun in the game.
My thoughts exactly. There is an acceptable level of metagaming, though I like to keep the threshold low. We are, after all, playing a game, and the game requires using game terms at times. I've had players say, "This is where the adventure wants us to go, so that's what we should focus on." It felt rather railroady to me, that at the time the players didn't seem to mind. Since I was running a pre-made adventure, I didn't take it personally. On one hand, it's good to have clear goals for players, particularly those who are inexperienced or may not "get" the flow of the campaign. On the other hand, I don't like to restrain player choices so much that they feel they need to do only one particular thing, but I suppose that's a different topic. In any event, good video, and congratulations on the kick starter. I'm looking forward to the book.
When my players “pile on” a skill check that I only ask one player to make, I reset the DC to a Natural 20, and the only thing I say on a Nat 20 being rolled is, “You think you see (player X) pondering something interesting.”This puts the focus back on the original player, it is quite a cinematic moment, and player X can decide how to react.
I was in too many campaigns where not going to the dead end nearly cost us TPK...
I also was in quite some when going to the dead end meant totally derailing the campaign and unnecessarily complicating the situation and sending as on fools errand and ultimately losing to the bbeg in the end... since we have given him too much time to prepare
Who cares about the audio quality the video was great!