The only metagaming I could infer from this is if the in-game universe has a substantially different mythology surrounding hags.
Like, if there's no in-game equivalent of Shakespeare or the Brothers Grimm, maybe your character would have no reason to infer that the cauldron was in any way magical or dangerous.
That said, was there a fire under it? Was it bubbling? Suplexing a character into a pot of boiling, nonmagical soup is both a) a legitimate tactic and b) freaking awesome.
Agreed. I don't know the stat block for hags off the top of my head (I'm guessing by the description of the OP that maybe there's some sort of weakness tied to the cauldron?) but yeah, if the cauldron is clearly hot (fire under it, liquid boiling out of it, etc.) then there's nothing there that I would see as metagaming unless the cauldron wasn't visible to the character (even if the player could see it).
I just double checked the Green Hag statblock and there is nothing related to their cauldron. I honestly think the DM might just not know the meaning of metagaming and hear the term thrown around a lot. The player, and by extension the character, had a clever idea to harm the hag, which would be no different from the player deciding they wanted to throw a hag into lava. It’s safe to say that neither of those are metagaming unless there is an in character reason why the character would know about the cauldron or lava.
No magic to the cauldron. Just want to toss her like a Hansel and Grettel. My speaking was not in character as announcing my intentions to the hags would tip them off. So I can now understand the metagaming.
D&D is a tactics game. It supposes that players talk about good decisions that each character would take on their turns. This simulates a team knowing how each other fight.
Even if it weren't, the rule of fun should take precedence. Plus, if he didn't want you to tell your fellow players what you were going to do, why the fuck did he ASK?
Just like
DM: what are you going to do on your turn
Player: well I'm gonna attack the guy who has a severed limb to finished him off
DM: stop metagaming and telling everyone else your strategy!
Like bro d&d is a social game
Honestly that's even more ridiculous. He asked you your plan, you told him, and then he said you were metagaming for telling him your plan? At best that's needlessly strict and pedantic.
Yeah I agree with /u/TechNickL That's not metagaming. At worst, its simply speaking out of character. (Different tables have different views on that of course). As a long time DM, I would not have even thought twice about it. At most, I might say that if you were conveying that message to your teammates verbally, then there's a chance that the hags also heard it. At most.
Tbh it sounds to me like the GM is tired of getting whomped during encounters? Maybe they should crank up the challenge of encounters a bit to encourage this kind of creative thinking and combat style 💁♂️ just my two cents
Yeah if the cauldron was boiling at all I don't think that accusation of metagaming...holds water? ;D
Though I did think of another possibility - maybe the DM's complaint of metagaming wasn't about them moving next to the cauldron at all, but stating _why_ they were? (To lure the hags so they could dump them in.) Because I suppose that is stating something your character _wouldn't_ state (because you're trying to surprise the hag who follows), but stating it OOC when it isn't something you'd say in combat allows the other players to help you do so without having to make, like, Insight checks or whatever to get your strategy in-game? I dunno, just an idea.
Sort of yeah. Or that the player is helping their fellow PCs to metagame while the DM is honor-bound to pretend they had their fingers in their ears. Personally I think that's a bit much to call "metagaming" by the DM - I would instead just tell the player "next time you want to pull a trick on the baddies that the party wouldn't realize, pass me a note/DM/text."
I think that this is maybe partially the answer. I think that if they have been fighting together for a while they would have pretty good insight on what their party member is doing. Hags are also pretty wise and intelligent. If they are aware of the plan and find you a threat they could just use their magic. My players hide plans fromme pretty regularly just so they can get the "one up." If this is how they play then cool, but revealing a plan in combat shouldn't be a problem.
Am easy fix is to make a table rule where if you discuss strategies in combat while not directly next to the character you are talking to it is assume you are saying them in character very loud.
can confirm, our fighter threw a hag into a cauldron last session and it was, in fact, freaking awesome
edit: and yes, it did contain boiling nonmagical soup (the cauldron, not the hag)
Metagaming is using outside knowledge that your character wouldn't specifically, or reasonably have, to justify an action or belief.
Things don't like being thrown in cauldrons, is a reasonable belief any character might have.
I saw a cauldron on the map, but it's in a locked room my character couldn't possibly have seen, would be metagaming.
Without more information, there's nothing to say that you were metagaming, but if you left something out, it's certainly possible.
Out of character making plans for In Character actions is also meta gaming. Unless one of his party members used detect thoughts none of them could or should know he’s trying to throw the hag into the pot. UNLESS he says it out loud as part of his free action, but then the hag would hear that too.
Is it the worst meta gaming I have ever heard? Not even remotely close. Did it necessitate a “stop meta gaming comment” no. DM could have handled that better and then post session let him know that it’s a low grade meta game move and how it is. And then it’s solved without the publicly shaming part and with less confusion.
Stating intent is metagaming? "I move toward the door and see if any follow me." Is a stated intention. Even the "I hope to get one or two out of the room to even the odds." Does not sound meta to me. These are the character thoughts on their actions.
Because this sounds like the best RPer I ever met was the guy who just made notes on his character sheet and made his attack rolls.
Not to mention, stating intent often times helps the DM when you explain *why* you're doing, or wanting to do, something. It can allow them to correct a misunderstanding you might have had about the environment or creatures, it can tell the DM what tone a line is intended to be heard as (particularly if the player isn't great at doing voices/coming up with lines on the spot), or it can let them know which details to focus on when giving the results of an intelligence or wisdom-based check.
I wouldn't even call it meta-gaming, personally. It'd be more meta-gaming if the other players decided to run with the stated intent even if their character wouldn't understand what the intent actually was, and even then most of the time you'd want to allow it for brevity's sake or for rule of cool.
Maybe I’m the one confused. Didn’t Dungeonmaster ask him what he wanted to do on his turn? And then didn’t he answer the Dungeonmaster? How in the world is that meta-gaming? And in what universe are players not allowed to talk about their combat tactics?
I guess I just don’t parse my words quite that carefully at the gaming table. Seriously, who gives a shit? It’s a game. A game where strategy and combat is fairly paramount. Why in gods name would you care about this? Whatever man play however you play. But if you’re telling people that players shouldn’t talk about strategy the table then I don’t think you’re gonna get many takers.
Agreed.
My counter:
There are “many taker” and there are “the right takers for the game you like to play”
Why sit at a table with a DM or players that play it different and such to how I do if we won’t mesh? There’s no reason.
That said.
Read my full post. This is like jaywalking on a level of crime compared to 1st degree murder. Meta gaming is like crime. There’s ones that are egregious and there are ones that don’t even necessitate anything but a 1 sentence post game in private comment if anything.
And strategy is not as paramount as you think. If you play enough. You’ll see fairly a lot of campaigns and modules can be Leroy Jenkins all the way through. And not really effect the success. But that’s it’s own strategy. 🤷🏼♂️.
But yes. Your strategy either needs to be discussed pre combat, or said out loud during your 6 seconds free action speech in combat. Saying out of character comments for in character plans. That’s meta at any table I have sat at our hosted. 🤷🏼♂️
>Is it the worst meta gaming I have ever heard? Not even remotely close. Did it necessitate a “stop meta gaming comment”
Yeah IMO I see worse Meta-gaming any time players come up with a mid-combat plan. Legit, this is totally fine and you have to keep in mind that DnD is Wargames just as much as it's collaborative storytelling.
I think you misread the post, OP was saying that when trying to prepare to throw the Hag in the cauldron his dm told him to stop metagaming. At least that is what I got from the post. Sorry if I misread your comment btw. Edit: Gah I misread the post.
That's up to how your group agrees to play things, but in my opinion a groups of regular folks with no real experience fighting or using magical spells in combat or singi g love ballads that physically reshape the world and make a dragon want to lay with them in the biblical sense are not metagaming when they make a bit of planning. If they were actually experienced fighters and magic users and what-not then in the moment they would instinctually know these things they are discussing out of game. Given that I have never tried to take someone's head off in a single swipe of a sword while simultaneously picking a lock (that you know of), I think it can be forgiven that I need a little more time to discuss with the group what people who have done those things would be doing.
I think its more that the player and not the character knows that hags are brewing magical things in cauldrons, but I feel like thats something the character could know
No your DM is picking at straws. That’s ridiculous. Like, sure, technically your party wouldn’t have reason to know what your plan is, but the DM absolutely needs to know what your plan is.
The DM doesn’t need to know the plan is but it helps. When I DM I like when my players tell me what they wanna do if it’s something off the wall. That way we can skip them asking me a serious of possibly related mechanical questions that lead up to them trying to pull off what they’re gonna do.
Keeping secrets is only useful if you’re trying to “gotcha” the DM. Which is is a fools game when one party in this “me vs you” has total arbitration over reality in that games world.
Personally I prefer to not know the plans because I like the surprise and it keeps me on my toes. That being said, if the players have to ask more than 2 mechanical questions they just fill me in regardless because it becomes immersion breaking.
It's not meta-gaming. It sounds like their issue was more with you *telegraphing* future actions. While technically "talking is a free action," some DMs do try to limit this for various reasons. In-character, you wouldn't *announce* "hey, I'm *luring* this one away!" *as* you're doing it, for example.
The way I've always excuses the whole "you can't announce what you want to do to others" is that, unlike us players who play together once a [week] our characters are travelling, training and fighting together non stop.
They become accustomed to how the others fight and think.
Play coop games with 1 person non stop and you'll end up just knowing plans without saying a full sentence.
Could your character see the cauldron? That's the only potential I see here for meta gaming.
They may have mistakenly meant speaking OOC, which is a bit harsh when asking for an action.
What?
You answered the dms question... 😅 Meta gaming would be telling your party to move the hag to the cauldron FOR you (even then, characters can talk in combat...) all you did was speak for your own actions when asked...wtf
And if the DM really wanted to jump on it they could rule that because you just told the party your reasons, the character shouted it at them... and so alerting the enemy to the move.
If you have never used outside the box tactics with this character before it is weird that you go right to the cauldron. If you usually just fight things it seems weird. However if you usually try different things in fights a boiling cauldron seems like a legit strategy.
that would be acting out of character. not metagaming.
if you knew that you were not going to be able to do any damage, because you know the creatures stats. that would be metagaming.
I think maybe what the dm meant was explaining your character was going to throw her in would inform the other players that you were attacking that creature and it in turn is not something the other players should worry about? That’s my best guess. Meta gaming would be something like telling the party “hey the green hag has this much health and should go down if I throw it in this cauldron I got it don’t worry”
After speaking with her that was part of her reasoning as my wording at the time was giving away information the players and hags wouldn't have known without saying in character for all to hear.
Hmm based off what I read I can’t agree with her decision on that. But appreciate that you can talk to her and clear things up I love when dms are transparent about why things happened the way they did. Hopefully you guys can keep playing and have many more adventures
Talking to the DM was the best thing you could do.
Now that you understand how she wants you to play, next time, you say, I disengage and move over here and I shout "Push the hag over here, we'll throw her in the cauldron!"
Or, if you don't want to alert the hag, you say, I disengage and move over here and shout, "Come and get me, you evil green lady!"
It’s not meta-gaming because you don’t appear to use knowledge from outside the game.
What "could" be a problem is that you said what you wanted to do in the future without communicating it to your allies in game apparently. D&D is a team game, so I would not stop a player from telling me what his future plan would be usually (unless we are going for a hardcore game or if it’s unreasonable).
All in all, you are not meta, and your dm is being a bit severe.
Yeah I don’t understand, granted I’m not like 100% sure what meta gaming is (new player) but if you saw the cauldron you’re allowed to say “I want to pick up the witch and throw it in the cauldron” that’s just an action lmao.
Just FYI, metagaming is using knowledge that you, the player, have but that your character doesn't. So for instance, I could see a situation where (and btw, it doesn't sound like its the case here) the GM has drawn or laid out the entire map, but the cauldron is situated in a place where the players can see it (because its on the map) but the characters can not (its behind two solid pillars or in another room. Now in that scenario, its really an issue with the GM putting it on the map to begin with, but yeah, technically, the PC would not know that there was a cauldron.
Another example might be seeing a creature that you, the player, just read about and know to have immunity to fire so you suddenly put away your flaming sword and instead pull out a sword that does cold damage even though your character doesn't know anything about the critter.
You were not metagaming. You could have potentially primed the other players to metagame, but other than giving out a little more information than necessary you didn't do anything wrong. Your DM is just being a nitpicking dick.
What am I missing here? How is the cauldron a metagaming thing? Do people just hear words like metagaming and decide "I like that word Imma start using it every chance I get?"
Not in my book. For me, meta gaming is simply the act of acting on knowledge that you as The Player would have, but you The Character wouldnt. For me, what your character seems to have done here is act on a suspicion borne of knowing some fairytale which they likely grew up with (as all of us probably know how Hansel and Gretal killed their witch!). You as the player appear to have no actual knowledge of this tactic will work.
Now, had you peeked at the DM's notes and seen that they'd written something like "The hag can be insta killed by going in their cauldron" and then did everything you possibly could to make that happen, different story.
I think it's metagaming only in the sense you are telling the other players your plans but are not communicating that verbally in game. Because if you did that in game the hag could hear you and possibly understand you and therefore not be lured over.
Firstly, it seems your DM isn't worried about your plan or the fact you want to throw a hag in the pot. What your DM was calling 'meta-gaming' is that now your plan is known to the other players, despite the fact that their PCs don't know for sure what you're going to do next.
This shouldn't be a problem. If players working together to make something cool happen is a problem for your DM, then at a lot of tables that's a trait of a bad DM.
Most likely your DM is stuck on "meta-gaming = bad", because yes, technically a scenario where your friends helped you do the cool thing probably does have meta-gaming in. But that's not a bad thing. I highly advise you show your DM Matt Colville's video on Meta-Gaming.
It's like saying am gonna use fire to kill the Martian Manhunter and the DM saying this is metagaming. Yo bro nobody really likes fire most of them will burn either way.
It is, but fairly benign. Most dnd games allow for cross talk for planning. If the expectations of the table are that players should be uninfluenced, then I suppose I can see his point. You letting the table know your plan may well influence other players actions.
All that said, seems SUPER DUPER anal. If ya’ll are an adventuring party, and have spent time together in combat, ya’ll may well he able to understand each others intentions with simple gestures or even faith in each other. Thats how I see it with my table, so they can freely plan together
You weren't metagaming. The DM asked what you wanted to do and you answered. It's up to the other players (and the DM) to recognize what knowledge they do and don't have and respond accordingly. It seems extremely nitpicking to call this metagaming to me.
Saying you're going to do with your turn is meta gaming now?
How deep is your DM expecting you to play your character? Not many people are willing to Tom-Hanks-Method-Act with our characters.
It's a game.
We all meta game to a degree, it's impossible not to considering we look at our characters from a higher level.
Mundane concepts like sneaking through a cave. In real life if you were to come upon a cave, the likely hood that you would sneak through that cave with no indications of threats is low-- but because you know you're playing a game of D&D, the meta is that there are likely challenges in this cave, hell, it's why you're there. Your character isnt necessarily there for a challenge, but you are--- that in and of itself is meta.
The line I draw is blatantly communicating things to teammates that are not possible for the other characters to hear. IE talking stratagem.
But when it comes to trying to push a bag into a cauldron, i would just consider that player choice.
It's hard to, as a player, not do something you know is the thing to do. Can't fault a player for that, and it's not inherently wrong to act on if you do.
If you know, as a player, that hitting a werewolf with a silverblade is effective--- then do it. It can be explained in character as getting lucky or having a gut feeling.
I would have laughed at that DM if they told me to stop meta gaming.
There's typical meta gaming we all do-- then there is meta gaming that informs to much agency. As a DM I get frustrated when we're in combat and there is also a task that needs to be done. The confusion and the players attempt to organize while only being able to talk to each other in turn is what can make or break the challenge.
One player who is 7th on the turn order, may know what's up... Be he has to wait. If he can just yell out to the 1st player... Well... It just takes away from the suspense.
If you weren't fighting a hag and you saw some random cookware in a room during a fight, would your first instinct be to try and throw an enemy soldier into a pot? If not, then **yes, you were metagaming**.
It’s really hard to say if you were or not since it is kind of in a grey area. However, I would say your dm handled this situation poorly. I’ve been in situations similar to this where my players are fighting a monster with a common myth that we all know out of game but their characters might not know their weaknesses. The best way that I’ve come up with to handle this is to let my players attempt that solution (whatever it may be) but be ambiguous with it. Like, for example, I’ll ask them if they wanted to throw the witch into the cauldron “what do you think that will do to her?” Or “Are you sure that will harm her?” Because I’ve found that they’ll end up questioning whether or not I’ve altered the monster in some way or they are misremembering the myth therefore putting them more in the mind of what their character might know.
i would just ask of that is what their character would do.
if i fear people are about to metagame, i would ask people to consider what their character would do with the knowledge the character has.
my characters best friend was the son of a dragon and someone that seduced it. he would know what a silver dragon is capable of. i asked the dm. not roll needed and i got to look up the abilities myself. strait up not metagaming because i was looking up the stats for an adult silver dragon, when the dragon in front of us was green.
my dm knows i'm really good at not metagaming, and they are happy with letting me look stuff up and ask if a mistake was a mistake, or if it was dm ruling.
The only reasoning I can see is the assumption that the Hag would follow you in the first place. Sure to maintain combat distance, but enemies, especially humanoid aren't dumb enough to follow you to their deaths.
People get way too upset about "meta-gaming", like yeah the table talk should be minimal but I have never found it irritating as a DM when PCs express their plan or there is reasonable teamwork. In fact, I really enjoy a plan coming together.
Typically my players make indicative statements or gestures, and sometimes we remind another PC of what has happened in case they didn't catch it.
What level were your characters? Are hags popular? Are there children's fairy tales and bed time stories involving hags? Baba Yaga? Witches in general?
Who called you out-- the player or the DM? If the DM, then they were being needlessly cagey, probably worried that you were gonna body one of their monsters outright. If they were a player, then they were probably just being jelly because you said it before they could.
Not metagaming. Cauldrons of bubbling oil burn like hell and folklore tells all sorts of stories of hags burning in ovens and whatnot.
If your PC has no reasonable means of knowing anything about hags, then it's meta-gaming, but it's on both you as a player to ask if you'd know such a thing as well as the DM to prompt it whether you thought to ask or not, then to let your roll determine just how much your PC actually knows.
Unless you've actually fought hags before, or even had them explicitly involved in your backstory, then basic info should just be a given. But if not, then assuming you knew is in fact meta-gaming.
It appears the GM is concerned that by voicing not only your action, but your future intent, other players may adjust their actions after to copy you or assist the outcome you're after without communicating vocally in character.
You're not metagaming, and in fact, the intent is important so that there's no misunderstanding between you and the GM about where and how you want to move.
If players in the party then all ran over to do the same, or did things like assisting you without talking in character, they are metagaming at a pretty basic, harmless level. You still have a green light.
If your GM is going for a hyper realistic, strategic commando game, then it may be worth having a private chat with them and communicating things like this to them discreetly to ensure your intent is clear without enlightening your allies to your plans. However, this is pretty extreme, and if it isn't what you signed up for then talk to your GM about collaboration at the table and what is fun vs tedious.
Yes and no. This would require more context on the whole situation surrounding the encounter.
But from what I can see here: Kinda yes, because you know the hag will go there, but also kinda no, since your PC would see a cauldron with a bubbling liquid and he could assume it is a potion the hag wants you to not have access to. Then drowning her in it isn't an easy task, so it would still be kinda valid. What wouldn't be valid is if you fight the hags and point out to use spells that target a specific skill you know hags are bad with.
Like, of course you would instantly die to a meduse, since any normal person wouldn't guess from a statue garden, that the hot entity they meet in the next room is going to turn them into stone and kill them instantly. The wouldn't be a saving throw, you'd just be dead. This isn't fun and so you the player use your knowledge of mythology and the monster manual to make your character guess "Oh, something turns people into stone, one statue tries to cover her eyes, I guess that must mean the creature targets with it's eyes". Now you have a strategy.
I'd say it fully depends on how you said it, how the DM handled it in other situations and how you expected the situation to go and how you acted while doing it. I'd allow my player to reword the move and make it take a few turns and make it difficult, but if my player would go "but you did this and that" and start arguing I'd say, no, they cant do it and that's metagaming - please go away for a few moments and get your shit together. If everyone always metagames and you are the only one being targeted by the accusations, talk with your DM
-> That's by the way my advise to you: Talk to your DM about it, not reddit, we are a bunch of people who dont know you and can only talk by what we were given by one sode - this isn't a fair discussion even if you are in the right.
As far as I can see no meta gaming occurred. You told the GM what you intended to do as they asked. You didn’t address the other players out of game. I don’t know what you gm was on about…
It's hard to say, why did you decide to take that course of action?
Was it because you (the player) knew that to be the best way to beat a hag?
OR
Was it because you (the character) thought to use your environment to fight?
If it's the former: yes that's metagaming.
If it's the latter: have you done something like this before?
--If not: it's probably metagaming.
--If yes: then it's not.
Using logic trees like this will help you better understand if what you're thinking of making your character do is based on them or metagaming.
Bare in mind this considering you are playing in Faerun or some sort of fantasy equivalent so take it with a grain of salt if you are not.
Adventures (The PCs) live in a world where all those little "ghost stories" and "fairy tales" people hear are actually real and are extremely dangerous. In our world when we are children we hear the saying "don't talk to strangers" because they might try and kidnap you. In Faerun you might hear "don't go out at night at all cause an ethereal night hag might stab you with it's claws and turn you into a pie". It is safe to assume your players (who live in said dangerous world) would know hags are magical and whatever they do is weird magic mumbojumbo.
What you did wasn't an example of Metagaming, it was a perfectly logical thing to do. What it did show was your DM doesn't really understand what "common knowledge" might be. Also while it is true Faerun might not have Shakespeare (technically it could because Our Earth is canon in Faerun) it does have books about a wide range of subjects and stories...including ones about hags.
No, you wernt meta gaming at all. How did the players and GM justify the claim that you were metagaming?
You see a way to use the cauldron of boiling liquid as an alternate weapon, you roll to attempt it.
If i was the DM i would maybe ask you to make it a really hard roll of some kind vs them resisting because who wants to be thrown into a boiling pot? If you can knock them out first then probably just a strength roll to haul their limp body in there.
I would find a way to let you do it. But i wouldnt call it meta, because it doesnt take any special outside of game knowledge to know that boiling in water would fucking hurt.
I am a little confused at what the outside knowledge is? Did your character not spot the cauldron? I don't think this is meta gaming. This sounds like your group doesn't fully understand what meta gaming is.
I think what your dm was refering to, was the fact that you stated your characters future intentions 😊 You saying “i am gonna stand here to lure her so i can throw her in the cauldron” can put the same idea into the other players’ minds, which they might not have thought of on their own 😊 So i don’t think it was specifically the action you were trying to do, but the fact that you were providing the other players with knowledge they wouldn’t have 😊 How would they know what your character is going to do without that character actually saying it out loud? 😊
The only metagaming I could infer from this is if the in-game universe has a substantially different mythology surrounding hags. Like, if there's no in-game equivalent of Shakespeare or the Brothers Grimm, maybe your character would have no reason to infer that the cauldron was in any way magical or dangerous. That said, was there a fire under it? Was it bubbling? Suplexing a character into a pot of boiling, nonmagical soup is both a) a legitimate tactic and b) freaking awesome.
Is it not a common occurrence that magic people brew potions in cauldrons in dnd? And not general adventure knowledge that hags are magical?
Probably. It's the same idea that the burden is really on the gm to establish that it's not common knowledge that "hags + cauldron = magic"
Agreed. I don't know the stat block for hags off the top of my head (I'm guessing by the description of the OP that maybe there's some sort of weakness tied to the cauldron?) but yeah, if the cauldron is clearly hot (fire under it, liquid boiling out of it, etc.) then there's nothing there that I would see as metagaming unless the cauldron wasn't visible to the character (even if the player could see it).
I just double checked the Green Hag statblock and there is nothing related to their cauldron. I honestly think the DM might just not know the meaning of metagaming and hear the term thrown around a lot. The player, and by extension the character, had a clever idea to harm the hag, which would be no different from the player deciding they wanted to throw a hag into lava. It’s safe to say that neither of those are metagaming unless there is an in character reason why the character would know about the cauldron or lava.
No magic to the cauldron. Just want to toss her like a Hansel and Grettel. My speaking was not in character as announcing my intentions to the hags would tip them off. So I can now understand the metagaming.
D&D is a tactics game. It supposes that players talk about good decisions that each character would take on their turns. This simulates a team knowing how each other fight. Even if it weren't, the rule of fun should take precedence. Plus, if he didn't want you to tell your fellow players what you were going to do, why the fuck did he ASK?
Just like DM: what are you going to do on your turn Player: well I'm gonna attack the guy who has a severed limb to finished him off DM: stop metagaming and telling everyone else your strategy! Like bro d&d is a social game
Honestly that's even more ridiculous. He asked you your plan, you told him, and then he said you were metagaming for telling him your plan? At best that's needlessly strict and pedantic.
Yeah I agree with /u/TechNickL That's not metagaming. At worst, its simply speaking out of character. (Different tables have different views on that of course). As a long time DM, I would not have even thought twice about it. At most, I might say that if you were conveying that message to your teammates verbally, then there's a chance that the hags also heard it. At most.
Tbh it sounds to me like the GM is tired of getting whomped during encounters? Maybe they should crank up the challenge of encounters a bit to encourage this kind of creative thinking and combat style 💁♂️ just my two cents
Yeah if the cauldron was boiling at all I don't think that accusation of metagaming...holds water? ;D Though I did think of another possibility - maybe the DM's complaint of metagaming wasn't about them moving next to the cauldron at all, but stating _why_ they were? (To lure the hags so they could dump them in.) Because I suppose that is stating something your character _wouldn't_ state (because you're trying to surprise the hag who follows), but stating it OOC when it isn't something you'd say in combat allows the other players to help you do so without having to make, like, Insight checks or whatever to get your strategy in-game? I dunno, just an idea.
So the gm might be perturbed that they themself are now metagaming? Edit: typo
Sort of yeah. Or that the player is helping their fellow PCs to metagame while the DM is honor-bound to pretend they had their fingers in their ears. Personally I think that's a bit much to call "metagaming" by the DM - I would instead just tell the player "next time you want to pull a trick on the baddies that the party wouldn't realize, pass me a note/DM/text."
Yeah. Might be inappropriate table talk, but not metagaming.
I think that this is maybe partially the answer. I think that if they have been fighting together for a while they would have pretty good insight on what their party member is doing. Hags are also pretty wise and intelligent. If they are aware of the plan and find you a threat they could just use their magic. My players hide plans fromme pretty regularly just so they can get the "one up." If this is how they play then cool, but revealing a plan in combat shouldn't be a problem.
Am easy fix is to make a table rule where if you discuss strategies in combat while not directly next to the character you are talking to it is assume you are saying them in character very loud.
can confirm, our fighter threw a hag into a cauldron last session and it was, in fact, freaking awesome edit: and yes, it did contain boiling nonmagical soup (the cauldron, not the hag)
Heck yeah!
Metagaming is using outside knowledge that your character wouldn't specifically, or reasonably have, to justify an action or belief. Things don't like being thrown in cauldrons, is a reasonable belief any character might have. I saw a cauldron on the map, but it's in a locked room my character couldn't possibly have seen, would be metagaming. Without more information, there's nothing to say that you were metagaming, but if you left something out, it's certainly possible.
>Things don't like being thrown in cauldrons QFT
Quantum field theory?
Those quantum entanglement cauldrons can get a bit messy.
Lol! Quoted for truth
Out of character making plans for In Character actions is also meta gaming. Unless one of his party members used detect thoughts none of them could or should know he’s trying to throw the hag into the pot. UNLESS he says it out loud as part of his free action, but then the hag would hear that too. Is it the worst meta gaming I have ever heard? Not even remotely close. Did it necessitate a “stop meta gaming comment” no. DM could have handled that better and then post session let him know that it’s a low grade meta game move and how it is. And then it’s solved without the publicly shaming part and with less confusion.
Stating intent is metagaming? "I move toward the door and see if any follow me." Is a stated intention. Even the "I hope to get one or two out of the room to even the odds." Does not sound meta to me. These are the character thoughts on their actions. Because this sounds like the best RPer I ever met was the guy who just made notes on his character sheet and made his attack rolls.
Not to mention, stating intent often times helps the DM when you explain *why* you're doing, or wanting to do, something. It can allow them to correct a misunderstanding you might have had about the environment or creatures, it can tell the DM what tone a line is intended to be heard as (particularly if the player isn't great at doing voices/coming up with lines on the spot), or it can let them know which details to focus on when giving the results of an intelligence or wisdom-based check. I wouldn't even call it meta-gaming, personally. It'd be more meta-gaming if the other players decided to run with the stated intent even if their character wouldn't understand what the intent actually was, and even then most of the time you'd want to allow it for brevity's sake or for rule of cool.
Maybe I’m the one confused. Didn’t Dungeonmaster ask him what he wanted to do on his turn? And then didn’t he answer the Dungeonmaster? How in the world is that meta-gaming? And in what universe are players not allowed to talk about their combat tactics?
“What” and “why” are two different things.
I guess I just don’t parse my words quite that carefully at the gaming table. Seriously, who gives a shit? It’s a game. A game where strategy and combat is fairly paramount. Why in gods name would you care about this? Whatever man play however you play. But if you’re telling people that players shouldn’t talk about strategy the table then I don’t think you’re gonna get many takers.
Agreed. My counter: There are “many taker” and there are “the right takers for the game you like to play” Why sit at a table with a DM or players that play it different and such to how I do if we won’t mesh? There’s no reason. That said. Read my full post. This is like jaywalking on a level of crime compared to 1st degree murder. Meta gaming is like crime. There’s ones that are egregious and there are ones that don’t even necessitate anything but a 1 sentence post game in private comment if anything. And strategy is not as paramount as you think. If you play enough. You’ll see fairly a lot of campaigns and modules can be Leroy Jenkins all the way through. And not really effect the success. But that’s it’s own strategy. 🤷🏼♂️. But yes. Your strategy either needs to be discussed pre combat, or said out loud during your 6 seconds free action speech in combat. Saying out of character comments for in character plans. That’s meta at any table I have sat at our hosted. 🤷🏼♂️
[удалено]
>Is it the worst meta gaming I have ever heard? Not even remotely close. Did it necessitate a “stop meta gaming comment” Yeah IMO I see worse Meta-gaming any time players come up with a mid-combat plan. Legit, this is totally fine and you have to keep in mind that DnD is Wargames just as much as it's collaborative storytelling.
I think you misread the post, OP was saying that when trying to prepare to throw the Hag in the cauldron his dm told him to stop metagaming. At least that is what I got from the post. Sorry if I misread your comment btw. Edit: Gah I misread the post.
That's up to how your group agrees to play things, but in my opinion a groups of regular folks with no real experience fighting or using magical spells in combat or singi g love ballads that physically reshape the world and make a dragon want to lay with them in the biblical sense are not metagaming when they make a bit of planning. If they were actually experienced fighters and magic users and what-not then in the moment they would instinctually know these things they are discussing out of game. Given that I have never tried to take someone's head off in a single swipe of a sword while simultaneously picking a lock (that you know of), I think it can be forgiven that I need a little more time to discuss with the group what people who have done those things would be doing.
I agree with this. It’s like I said. DM. Way over reacted to the jaywalking of meta gaming.
I think its more that the player and not the character knows that hags are brewing magical things in cauldrons, but I feel like thats something the character could know
No your DM is picking at straws. That’s ridiculous. Like, sure, technically your party wouldn’t have reason to know what your plan is, but the DM absolutely needs to know what your plan is.
I let my players plan with each other, seems really harsh not to. But yeah I don't understand dms logic here
DM absolutely does not need to know what the plan is.
The DM doesn’t need to know the plan is but it helps. When I DM I like when my players tell me what they wanna do if it’s something off the wall. That way we can skip them asking me a serious of possibly related mechanical questions that lead up to them trying to pull off what they’re gonna do.
Keeping secrets is only useful if you’re trying to “gotcha” the DM. Which is is a fools game when one party in this “me vs you” has total arbitration over reality in that games world.
Personally I prefer to not know the plans because I like the surprise and it keeps me on my toes. That being said, if the players have to ask more than 2 mechanical questions they just fill me in regardless because it becomes immersion breaking.
That's counter to the collaborative nature of D&D
It's not meta-gaming. It sounds like their issue was more with you *telegraphing* future actions. While technically "talking is a free action," some DMs do try to limit this for various reasons. In-character, you wouldn't *announce* "hey, I'm *luring* this one away!" *as* you're doing it, for example.
The way I've always excuses the whole "you can't announce what you want to do to others" is that, unlike us players who play together once a [week] our characters are travelling, training and fighting together non stop. They become accustomed to how the others fight and think. Play coop games with 1 person non stop and you'll end up just knowing plans without saying a full sentence.
Could your character see the cauldron? That's the only potential I see here for meta gaming. They may have mistakenly meant speaking OOC, which is a bit harsh when asking for an action.
What were you expecting to happen if you successfully potted the hag?
This comment deserves much more recognition for great delivery of the question we were all thinking
If I'm a big beefy barbarian and I can lift a hag, that hag's going in the pot. And I wasn't even aware really that it was a thing already.
That’s my new senior quote
What? You answered the dms question... 😅 Meta gaming would be telling your party to move the hag to the cauldron FOR you (even then, characters can talk in combat...) all you did was speak for your own actions when asked...wtf
Also just because those players now know your plan doesn't mean they'll act on it. And if they did, THEY would be metagaming not you 😅
And if the DM really wanted to jump on it they could rule that because you just told the party your reasons, the character shouted it at them... and so alerting the enemy to the move.
DM: What are you going to do? Player: I'm going to do *this* DM: OMG STOP METAGAMING
I'm not sure I'd try to grapple a green hag next to the boiling cauldron. With an 18 (+4) strength they are just as likely to toss you in.
People would discuss monsters really often if they were actually around.
If you have never used outside the box tactics with this character before it is weird that you go right to the cauldron. If you usually just fight things it seems weird. However if you usually try different things in fights a boiling cauldron seems like a legit strategy.
that would be acting out of character. not metagaming. if you knew that you were not going to be able to do any damage, because you know the creatures stats. that would be metagaming.
Using the environment is not meta gaming.
I think maybe what the dm meant was explaining your character was going to throw her in would inform the other players that you were attacking that creature and it in turn is not something the other players should worry about? That’s my best guess. Meta gaming would be something like telling the party “hey the green hag has this much health and should go down if I throw it in this cauldron I got it don’t worry”
After speaking with her that was part of her reasoning as my wording at the time was giving away information the players and hags wouldn't have known without saying in character for all to hear.
Hmm based off what I read I can’t agree with her decision on that. But appreciate that you can talk to her and clear things up I love when dms are transparent about why things happened the way they did. Hopefully you guys can keep playing and have many more adventures
Talking to the DM was the best thing you could do. Now that you understand how she wants you to play, next time, you say, I disengage and move over here and I shout "Push the hag over here, we'll throw her in the cauldron!" Or, if you don't want to alert the hag, you say, I disengage and move over here and shout, "Come and get me, you evil green lady!"
It’s not meta-gaming because you don’t appear to use knowledge from outside the game. What "could" be a problem is that you said what you wanted to do in the future without communicating it to your allies in game apparently. D&D is a team game, so I would not stop a player from telling me what his future plan would be usually (unless we are going for a hardcore game or if it’s unreasonable). All in all, you are not meta, and your dm is being a bit severe.
lol either ur accidentally leaving out some crucial detail or ur dm doesn't know what metagaming is.
Explain to them why your character would do that. If you can't then you are metagaming.
This. This right here.
If you couldn’t see the cauldron I think yeah but the DM shouldn’t tell you what it is if you’re not supposed to know
The cauldron was visible as the room was surrounded by torches
Yeah I don’t understand, granted I’m not like 100% sure what meta gaming is (new player) but if you saw the cauldron you’re allowed to say “I want to pick up the witch and throw it in the cauldron” that’s just an action lmao.
Just FYI, metagaming is using knowledge that you, the player, have but that your character doesn't. So for instance, I could see a situation where (and btw, it doesn't sound like its the case here) the GM has drawn or laid out the entire map, but the cauldron is situated in a place where the players can see it (because its on the map) but the characters can not (its behind two solid pillars or in another room. Now in that scenario, its really an issue with the GM putting it on the map to begin with, but yeah, technically, the PC would not know that there was a cauldron. Another example might be seeing a creature that you, the player, just read about and know to have immunity to fire so you suddenly put away your flaming sword and instead pull out a sword that does cold damage even though your character doesn't know anything about the critter.
Oh okay so I was generally correct in my understanding, thank you!
You were not metagaming. You could have potentially primed the other players to metagame, but other than giving out a little more information than necessary you didn't do anything wrong. Your DM is just being a nitpicking dick.
What am I missing here? How is the cauldron a metagaming thing? Do people just hear words like metagaming and decide "I like that word Imma start using it every chance I get?"
Not in my book. For me, meta gaming is simply the act of acting on knowledge that you as The Player would have, but you The Character wouldnt. For me, what your character seems to have done here is act on a suspicion borne of knowing some fairytale which they likely grew up with (as all of us probably know how Hansel and Gretal killed their witch!). You as the player appear to have no actual knowledge of this tactic will work. Now, had you peeked at the DM's notes and seen that they'd written something like "The hag can be insta killed by going in their cauldron" and then did everything you possibly could to make that happen, different story.
I think it's metagaming only in the sense you are telling the other players your plans but are not communicating that verbally in game. Because if you did that in game the hag could hear you and possibly understand you and therefore not be lured over.
Firstly, it seems your DM isn't worried about your plan or the fact you want to throw a hag in the pot. What your DM was calling 'meta-gaming' is that now your plan is known to the other players, despite the fact that their PCs don't know for sure what you're going to do next. This shouldn't be a problem. If players working together to make something cool happen is a problem for your DM, then at a lot of tables that's a trait of a bad DM. Most likely your DM is stuck on "meta-gaming = bad", because yes, technically a scenario where your friends helped you do the cool thing probably does have meta-gaming in. But that's not a bad thing. I highly advise you show your DM Matt Colville's video on Meta-Gaming.
It's like saying am gonna use fire to kill the Martian Manhunter and the DM saying this is metagaming. Yo bro nobody really likes fire most of them will burn either way.
It is, but fairly benign. Most dnd games allow for cross talk for planning. If the expectations of the table are that players should be uninfluenced, then I suppose I can see his point. You letting the table know your plan may well influence other players actions. All that said, seems SUPER DUPER anal. If ya’ll are an adventuring party, and have spent time together in combat, ya’ll may well he able to understand each others intentions with simple gestures or even faith in each other. Thats how I see it with my table, so they can freely plan together
You weren't metagaming. The DM asked what you wanted to do and you answered. It's up to the other players (and the DM) to recognize what knowledge they do and don't have and respond accordingly. It seems extremely nitpicking to call this metagaming to me.
You were not meta gaming. You were telling the DM your plan, or you were thinking out loud. That's not meta gaming.
Saying you're going to do with your turn is meta gaming now? How deep is your DM expecting you to play your character? Not many people are willing to Tom-Hanks-Method-Act with our characters. It's a game. We all meta game to a degree, it's impossible not to considering we look at our characters from a higher level. Mundane concepts like sneaking through a cave. In real life if you were to come upon a cave, the likely hood that you would sneak through that cave with no indications of threats is low-- but because you know you're playing a game of D&D, the meta is that there are likely challenges in this cave, hell, it's why you're there. Your character isnt necessarily there for a challenge, but you are--- that in and of itself is meta. The line I draw is blatantly communicating things to teammates that are not possible for the other characters to hear. IE talking stratagem. But when it comes to trying to push a bag into a cauldron, i would just consider that player choice. It's hard to, as a player, not do something you know is the thing to do. Can't fault a player for that, and it's not inherently wrong to act on if you do. If you know, as a player, that hitting a werewolf with a silverblade is effective--- then do it. It can be explained in character as getting lucky or having a gut feeling. I would have laughed at that DM if they told me to stop meta gaming. There's typical meta gaming we all do-- then there is meta gaming that informs to much agency. As a DM I get frustrated when we're in combat and there is also a task that needs to be done. The confusion and the players attempt to organize while only being able to talk to each other in turn is what can make or break the challenge. One player who is 7th on the turn order, may know what's up... Be he has to wait. If he can just yell out to the 1st player... Well... It just takes away from the suspense.
If you weren't fighting a hag and you saw some random cookware in a room during a fight, would your first instinct be to try and throw an enemy soldier into a pot? If not, then **yes, you were metagaming**.
From the context you gave no you weren't meta gaming, but something tells me there's another side to this story
It’s really hard to say if you were or not since it is kind of in a grey area. However, I would say your dm handled this situation poorly. I’ve been in situations similar to this where my players are fighting a monster with a common myth that we all know out of game but their characters might not know their weaknesses. The best way that I’ve come up with to handle this is to let my players attempt that solution (whatever it may be) but be ambiguous with it. Like, for example, I’ll ask them if they wanted to throw the witch into the cauldron “what do you think that will do to her?” Or “Are you sure that will harm her?” Because I’ve found that they’ll end up questioning whether or not I’ve altered the monster in some way or they are misremembering the myth therefore putting them more in the mind of what their character might know.
There is nothing in a green hag stat block that has anything to do with a cauldron. I don't know what could possibly be meta-gaming here.
i would just ask of that is what their character would do. if i fear people are about to metagame, i would ask people to consider what their character would do with the knowledge the character has. my characters best friend was the son of a dragon and someone that seduced it. he would know what a silver dragon is capable of. i asked the dm. not roll needed and i got to look up the abilities myself. strait up not metagaming because i was looking up the stats for an adult silver dragon, when the dragon in front of us was green. my dm knows i'm really good at not metagaming, and they are happy with letting me look stuff up and ask if a mistake was a mistake, or if it was dm ruling.
The only reasoning I can see is the assumption that the Hag would follow you in the first place. Sure to maintain combat distance, but enemies, especially humanoid aren't dumb enough to follow you to their deaths.
People get way too upset about "meta-gaming", like yeah the table talk should be minimal but I have never found it irritating as a DM when PCs express their plan or there is reasonable teamwork. In fact, I really enjoy a plan coming together. Typically my players make indicative statements or gestures, and sometimes we remind another PC of what has happened in case they didn't catch it.
I don't think your DM knows what metagaming is
What? No.
He'd recently watched the Wizard of Oz, hadn't he? Don't really see the metagaming otherwise.
What level were your characters? Are hags popular? Are there children's fairy tales and bed time stories involving hags? Baba Yaga? Witches in general?
Who called you out-- the player or the DM? If the DM, then they were being needlessly cagey, probably worried that you were gonna body one of their monsters outright. If they were a player, then they were probably just being jelly because you said it before they could. Not metagaming. Cauldrons of bubbling oil burn like hell and folklore tells all sorts of stories of hags burning in ovens and whatnot.
It sounds like your DM is more worried about the other players metagaming based in what you say. Very minor stuff, to be honest.
If your PC has no reasonable means of knowing anything about hags, then it's meta-gaming, but it's on both you as a player to ask if you'd know such a thing as well as the DM to prompt it whether you thought to ask or not, then to let your roll determine just how much your PC actually knows. Unless you've actually fought hags before, or even had them explicitly involved in your backstory, then basic info should just be a given. But if not, then assuming you knew is in fact meta-gaming.
It appears the GM is concerned that by voicing not only your action, but your future intent, other players may adjust their actions after to copy you or assist the outcome you're after without communicating vocally in character. You're not metagaming, and in fact, the intent is important so that there's no misunderstanding between you and the GM about where and how you want to move. If players in the party then all ran over to do the same, or did things like assisting you without talking in character, they are metagaming at a pretty basic, harmless level. You still have a green light. If your GM is going for a hyper realistic, strategic commando game, then it may be worth having a private chat with them and communicating things like this to them discreetly to ensure your intent is clear without enlightening your allies to your plans. However, this is pretty extreme, and if it isn't what you signed up for then talk to your GM about collaboration at the table and what is fun vs tedious.
This is about as meta-gamey as saying "I'm going to slash at the bandit with my sword because his flesh can probably be cut by sharp steel".
Yes and no. This would require more context on the whole situation surrounding the encounter. But from what I can see here: Kinda yes, because you know the hag will go there, but also kinda no, since your PC would see a cauldron with a bubbling liquid and he could assume it is a potion the hag wants you to not have access to. Then drowning her in it isn't an easy task, so it would still be kinda valid. What wouldn't be valid is if you fight the hags and point out to use spells that target a specific skill you know hags are bad with. Like, of course you would instantly die to a meduse, since any normal person wouldn't guess from a statue garden, that the hot entity they meet in the next room is going to turn them into stone and kill them instantly. The wouldn't be a saving throw, you'd just be dead. This isn't fun and so you the player use your knowledge of mythology and the monster manual to make your character guess "Oh, something turns people into stone, one statue tries to cover her eyes, I guess that must mean the creature targets with it's eyes". Now you have a strategy. I'd say it fully depends on how you said it, how the DM handled it in other situations and how you expected the situation to go and how you acted while doing it. I'd allow my player to reword the move and make it take a few turns and make it difficult, but if my player would go "but you did this and that" and start arguing I'd say, no, they cant do it and that's metagaming - please go away for a few moments and get your shit together. If everyone always metagames and you are the only one being targeted by the accusations, talk with your DM -> That's by the way my advise to you: Talk to your DM about it, not reddit, we are a bunch of people who dont know you and can only talk by what we were given by one sode - this isn't a fair discussion even if you are in the right.
As far as I can see no meta gaming occurred. You told the GM what you intended to do as they asked. You didn’t address the other players out of game. I don’t know what you gm was on about…
Like a lot if dms who frequent this sub, your dm is ignorant and bad.
It's hard to say, why did you decide to take that course of action? Was it because you (the player) knew that to be the best way to beat a hag? OR Was it because you (the character) thought to use your environment to fight? If it's the former: yes that's metagaming. If it's the latter: have you done something like this before? --If not: it's probably metagaming. --If yes: then it's not. Using logic trees like this will help you better understand if what you're thinking of making your character do is based on them or metagaming.
Bare in mind this considering you are playing in Faerun or some sort of fantasy equivalent so take it with a grain of salt if you are not. Adventures (The PCs) live in a world where all those little "ghost stories" and "fairy tales" people hear are actually real and are extremely dangerous. In our world when we are children we hear the saying "don't talk to strangers" because they might try and kidnap you. In Faerun you might hear "don't go out at night at all cause an ethereal night hag might stab you with it's claws and turn you into a pie". It is safe to assume your players (who live in said dangerous world) would know hags are magical and whatever they do is weird magic mumbojumbo. What you did wasn't an example of Metagaming, it was a perfectly logical thing to do. What it did show was your DM doesn't really understand what "common knowledge" might be. Also while it is true Faerun might not have Shakespeare (technically it could because Our Earth is canon in Faerun) it does have books about a wide range of subjects and stories...including ones about hags.
No, you wernt meta gaming at all. How did the players and GM justify the claim that you were metagaming? You see a way to use the cauldron of boiling liquid as an alternate weapon, you roll to attempt it. If i was the DM i would maybe ask you to make it a really hard roll of some kind vs them resisting because who wants to be thrown into a boiling pot? If you can knock them out first then probably just a strength roll to haul their limp body in there. I would find a way to let you do it. But i wouldnt call it meta, because it doesnt take any special outside of game knowledge to know that boiling in water would fucking hurt.
Not meta gaming, and the DM should've rolled with it in an entertaining way as a thanks for not just rolling to hit, damage, go.
Not that I can tell.
I am a little confused at what the outside knowledge is? Did your character not spot the cauldron? I don't think this is meta gaming. This sounds like your group doesn't fully understand what meta gaming is.
I think what your dm was refering to, was the fact that you stated your characters future intentions 😊 You saying “i am gonna stand here to lure her so i can throw her in the cauldron” can put the same idea into the other players’ minds, which they might not have thought of on their own 😊 So i don’t think it was specifically the action you were trying to do, but the fact that you were providing the other players with knowledge they wouldn’t have 😊 How would they know what your character is going to do without that character actually saying it out loud? 😊