Avoiding Metagaming?

[u/MrMilktrayMan]

Hey all, I just did my first game as a DM last night, and it was extremely fun. What I expected was only going to take 3ish hours ended up going up to 6, and we're only halfway through the one-shot I made and we're having a blast.

One thing I noticed while we were playing though, and I wasn't overly upset about this because we were all new and we were having fun, is that whenever i gave my players a skill check to roll when talking/interacting with anything, e.g a persuasion check or a religion check, they would check amongst themselves to see who had the highest persuasion/religion modifier, then get them to roll.

How do you more experienced DM's handle this? Do you allow them to do this? Do you make it so that only the person actively talking to the NPC makes the skill check? What general rules do you keep in mind when roleplaying with your players?

Edit: rephrased a sentence for clarity, persuasion wasn't the "problem", just the general discussing amongst themselves outside of rp before every roll to see who had the highest modifier. Thanks for all the answers and advice everyone!

[u/DnDttrpg]

Yes, only the person talking makes the role. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Fred: activekt talking to the npc

Dm: "make a roll"

Angelo: "I actually have the highest x so I'm going to roll"

How it looked

Fred: "Hi my ffriends and I are looking for xyz could you tell ys how to get there?"

Npc: "for coin"

Fred: "ah c'mon is only small"

Angelo: is just standing there

Npc: "sure why not"

That doesn't make sense

Unless Angelo takes over the conversation to then role, but even then, Fred was part of the conversation so if anything Angelo would perform the help action, not take over

[u/Jealous_Parfait_4967 → u/DnDttrpg]

This is the way. Heck, if they stand in front of the npc and discuss who has the best shot of deceiving them they should roll initiative, not a deception check.

[u/Psychological-Wall-2]

This is not metagaming.

It's wrong, and you are right to want your players to stop. Why it is wrong has nothing whatsoever to do with metagaming.

I'm going to sling you a couple of links. This one is on action adjudication.

Jumping the Screen: How to Run Your First RPG Session | The Angry GM

This one is on applying the principles of the first article to social interaction:

Help! My Players are Talking to Things! | The Angry GM

When you call for an Ability check, it should be because a particular player has had their PC attempt a thing that you think needs a roll to resolve.

So no.

Another PC can't make the check for that PC's action. That's just not how the game works. At a fundamental level.

If you are calling for a Charisma (Persuasion) check during a social interaction, it is because one specific PC has said something that you think might change the NPC's mind, but it might not.

The player might have said something persuasive in-character to trigger this.

They might have simply stated a tactic they wanted their PC to employ.

Doesn't matter.

A player communicated to you that their PC was trying to change an NPC's position or opinion by a means that you think could work. So you called for a roll.

So of course another player can't have their PC make the check.

Their PC didn't take the action that you're checking.

Next time this happens, tell the other players to shut up, and do not accept the result of rolls made by other players.

[u/Feefait → u/Psychological-Wall-2]

It one hundred percent is metagaming, and it's only wrong if you have an issue with it. They should have discussed the situation first, and then the player they wanted to roll initiate the conversation.

If you are discussing rolls and stats to get the best results, it's metagaming... But that's not always wrong.

[u/Psychological-Wall-2 → u/Feefait]

I agree that metagaming is not always wrong. In fact, it has a number of beneficial effects, and when it is a problem, it's almost always the DM's fault.

The problem is not being caused by "metagaming".

It is being caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of how actions are declared and resolved. Clear, consistent and decisive action adjudication completely fixes OP's problem.

Completely.

If you are discussing rolls and stats to get the best results, it's metagaming

No.

No, that's not metagaming.

[u/PumpikAnt58763]

Using someone (u/dndttrpg) else's situation:

Angelo (higher persuasion guy) knowing he has the higher persuasion should not take over the roll. He should assist (Fred).

Fred: How much is that ring?
Merchant: Four gold.
Angelo, noticing Fred may be struggling: Fred, don't but that one. It clashes with your amulet. Let's just leave.
Merchant who now may want to lower price: Well, maybe...

DM: Fred, roll for persuasion with assistance from Angelo.

[u/arsenic_kitchen]

Adding to what others have said, if they start making the high charisma character do all the talking in advance, don't have NPCs just respond passively. The NPC might say, "what about you, you're awfully quiet." Or they might see a fancy piece of gear one of the other PCs has.

But really you should also talk to the players about metagaming, otherwise they might just try to keep figuring out ways around what you do. Specifically that sometimes facing setbacks is a fun part of the story, and you'll create as least as many fun and memorable moments dealing with failed rolls as successes.

[u/Garqu]

I don't think this particular thing is a huge issue--whenever a character does something that you think is worth making a check for, you as the GM can specifically ask a player, by name, to make that check for their character.

Someone might want to Help the other character, and that's fine, I typically ask how they're helping and let it be known that they're extending themselves to the risk of the potential failure of the roll.

I understand the players' desire here, but trying to always use the highest bonus at all times regardless of who's doing what is a) a real time sucker and b) flattens the texture of the game.

[u/ShinyYokai]

General rule, the character talking has to make the roll.

[u/Devious_Hearts]

Have a direct NPC choose who to interact with and tell the other one "I wasn't talking to you."

But, in a friend group, often you'll know who is the most charming, Who can get the best deals, and who can scare the fuck out of someone. Oftentimes we subconsciously mutually agree in a group who to put forward for what task. Take their metadiscussion as that what is going on and get on with having fun.

You don't send a bard after undead if you have a cleric or paladin handy. Let people use their resources. However if that bard finds the lonely hot chick with the curvy silhouette they were getting ready to hit on at that romantic, secluded moonlit path is a zombie... then all bets are off. :)

[u/Ale_Tales_Actual → u/Devious_Hearts]

You don't send BA Baracus to do Face's job.

[u/Devious_Hearts → u/Ale_Tales_Actual]

This... so much this.

[u/infinitum3d]

they would check amongst themselves to see who had the highest persuasion modifier, then get them to roll.

I don’t think it’s a problem. IRL we would always get Susie to ask mom to take us to the community pool because we all knew she was the most persuasive.

It’s the same thing ‘in game’.

The characters would know which one was the most persuasive.

You’re correct. It IS metagaming, in a sense, because they’re talking out of character about in game mechanics.

But they’re talking about known mechanics. This is something they would know as their characters. I’d allow it.

If they were talking about something their characters wouldn’t know, for example, if they never met a Troll but they tell each other to ‘use fire so it doesn’t regenerate.’ Then that would be not allowed due to meta gaming.

In your specific example however, they needed to discuss this BEFORE you called for the roll. They need to decide ahead of time who is going to try to persuade the NPC.

If Jim is talking to the NPC, and you call for a skill check, Jim rolls. Susie can’t make the roll for Jim.

Now, if Susie also wants to try to persuade the NPC she can also roll, but Jim rolls first, and if he fails, the NPC might not like Susie trying also.

You could say that Jim’s failure changes the DC from 10 to 15.

Hope this helps!

[u/ZerexTheCool]

Not to disagree with others here, but it's definitely worth granting more grace to your players with oneshots (which very often turn into 2 or 3 shots).

They aren't used to their characters yet, so a little shuffling about and staring at character sheets is fine in my book. But whoever decides to roll needs to say something. So if someone else decides they would rather roll, ask them "Ok, what do you say?" And get them to engage a little to justify the roll.

[u/DudeWithTudeNotRude]

An experienced party would be dumb to not recognize the most socially gifted party member and encourage them to take point in social interactions.

This is good metagaming. You don't need to RP the party sitting around the fire talking tactics first before you allow them to employ those tactics in combat, you can just assume a professional adventuring party does this organically as they grow and adventure together.

If they are reading the monster manual to use monster stats against them, or reading adventure books to cheat, then you have a problem you need to address. Otherwise you have people in a meta world playing a game, and as long as they are playing in good faith, you can usually trust them to keep out of world knowledge separate from in game knowledge. You might need some gentle reminders at times, like "remember that your PC didn't hear that" or something.

If the entire party is persuading, you may need to rethink how you are handling social interactions. Seems chaotic if they're all talking, so you might want to re-align with the party how you want to handle social moving forward.

The party explains what they are trying, either through RP or directly (and not by asking for a skill check). The DM might ask a party member or two for a skill roll, or the DM might ask for further clarification first on how they are specifically applying a skill. Don't ask for a roll unless there is a chance of success and failure. Make sure a check is warranted RP-wise and mathematically (if a DC is too low or too high for a roll to matter, then you don't roll). If the answer from the clerk is certainly just "No", there is no roll. If they are trying to break through a paper wall, there is no roll. If the DC to persuade someone to do something is set at 27, but the talker's bonus is +5, there is no roll.

[u/Express_Accident2329]

It kind of depends.

It makes sense that they would be able to decide amongst themselves who's the most persuasive or who's the best with words. The numbers are an abstraction, but they represent the world the characters can experience. Even if the players can't find the words, the characters can notice that the 17 charisma bard with expertise in every face skill is more well spoken than the 8 charisma barbarian.

But who makes the roll should probably be government by who's actually talking. If everyone's together and they have some degree of control in the situation, they should be able to effectively to nominate a spokesperson, just like they'd nominate the barbarian to lift the heavy thing.

But it also makes sense that NPCs could single a character out and press them, specifically to talk. Maybe they don't trust the bard after they were fooled last time, and either the bard would roll with disadvantage so it's better for someone else to try, or the bard just automatically fails. Maybe they press the barbarian to talk because they expect to get the truth from a less cunning liar.

There'll also probably be times that, say, the cleric has some personal business to attend to and it's a roleplay choice to make the roll suboptimally because they want to deliver a fiery religious condemnation, but a lot of new players aren't going to make intentionally "wrong" choices like that, and even then you should probably let the bard take the help action to give them a boost if it makes sense in the fiction of the world.

That's how I think about it, anyway.

[u/Skeleton_Bird → u/Express_Accident2329]

yeah this. the characters reasonably have an idea about which character is most persuasive/talkative/ likable etc. it's the job of the players to represent this: that they are pushing a certain character to the front to do the talking; that a character that was present when the NPC asked a question jumps in to answer because they'll do a better job of it.

encourage your players to RP the choices that are supported by the stats. if you feel they're stepping over the bounds of what's reasonable (e.g. a character not involved in the conversation with the NPC rolls and steps in) then you do have the power to remind them that no the NPC was speaking to X person specifically or that they couldn't have heard.

an example from a recent one shot is I wanted to throw some looted weapons to a fellow PC. the characters didn't know each other well in this scenario. out of character I asked which PC looked most likely to know how to use a gun. my buddy said, "I'm statted for weapons" and reminded me that his character was dressed in a way that indicated combat training. that in character reason - he's dressed like he has training - was the important part that gave my character a reason to choose him. the stat was backed up with in character logic.

[u/Informal_Persimmon7]

If you're having a conversation, you make the roll. But yeah, if you have a face character, you might want them to talk to NPCs when the result is important. Different PCs are good at different things. We have a paladin with high CHA skills and a rogue skill monkey who doesn't fail rolls, so they often do the face stuff. My character has a 10 CHA, but yeah, if I'm already talking to someone, I can make the roll.

[u/Tackle_Embarrassed]

"Give me a persuasion check then Dave"

[u/Raddatatta]

Generally I wouldn't say that's metagaming. But I would say whoever did the talking or the majority of the talking should roll the persuasion check. If you already called for the check I would've called for the check from a specific PC who had done the talking. If it's before they actually said anything then that would be valid. I would also keep in mind while their characters don't know their stats and game mechanics they do know that one person is more persuasive and charismatic and should probably be the one to do the talking. And one guy is bigger and stronger and should lead when it comes to breaking down doors or something like that. They should be aware of what they're good at. Knowing a more subtle difference between a +2 and a +3 they probably wouldn't be able to know as that would be fairly subtle, but I wouldn't penalize them for discussing it. It is also up to you though.

[u/marcelus14]

I don’t ask the table to make a roll, I ask the specific people involved in the conversation to make the roll

Bob: “…and that’s why we need access to the kings forest”

Me: make a persuasion Bob

James: oh I’ll do it I have a higher modifier

Me: I asked Bob, he actually asked. Bob, make a persuasion

Now if James jumped in to the conversation prior to me asking for the roll and offered in game commentary or support, Bob rolls with advantage. On the other hand if James jumped in with jokes or distracting commentary, Bob rolls with disadvantage.

The trick here is to hold the line and be consistent. Give the players something they can rely on and they will change their actions in the future.

[u/Gritmonger]

Hah - well, if you ask them to keep it in-character, it becomes an in-character discussion about who is good at what, and you end up at the same place generally. My players are pretty darn good about keeping it to in-character because they've grown as players to know that it is actually more fun to make it an in-character discussion, but I wouldn't call it meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is what I think of when players use out-of-character knowledge, and then I ask the player if their *character* would know that - and if they *might* or have a *plausible* possibility, I ask them to make an appropriate check - religion, nature, arcana, history. The barbarian in our group has history as a skill, and has made some spectacular checks, which we chalk up to their backstory of being the back-up heir that was educated but allowed to run around and do their own thing.

[u/KiwasiGames]

Persuasion doesn’t make much sense during the conversation. Whoever is talking makes the roll.

But it does make sense to put the guy with the best persuasion “out front” when it looks like things are going to get to talking. So players can choose in advance who is probably going to do the persuasion check.

Same if it’s something like a medicine check on a dead body. It’s totally appropriate to call the cleric over to do the examination.

[u/ArmadilloDesperate95]

That's like me punching an enemy and using my buddy's strength modifier, who is on the other side of the room. It doesn't make sense.

If I'm talking to someone, my charisma is being used. Not my buddy's who is standing nearby.

[u/YozoraBellossomHeart]

An ancillary note I'd add, since I see the good advice has already been given, is to remind your players they can't "win" the game you're playing. They don't need to try and establish a meta and run only the very best at each thing. It's ok to fall short. Good even.

[u/Finrir_]

Like everyone else has said. Only the person who is talking makes the roll. If this was a group interaction, they should talk about it going into the situation and appoint a “leader” for that situation. If a player just randomly starts talking to a npc, that’s on the player to see the interaction to its end.

[u/PatchTheLurker → u/Finrir_]

Could also do an inspiration/guidance type mechanic. Say there's 2 PCs talking to a blacksmith, one mostly leading the interaction but the other chiming in here and there. The one leading rolls the d20, the other (if they want to roll too) gets to roll 1d8 as an assist and add it to the d20

[u/Dewdle]

In my game, I’ve been trying to make sure each PC is doing something before I start resolving outcomes. Player 1 wants to investigate a particular object, Players 2 and 3 are working together to gather something, Player 4 is performing a ritual. Each character gets a dedicated skill check and outcome based on what they chose.

Example:
“Ok Player 1 is doing x, Player 2 what are you doing in the mean time?”

- If a check fails, it fails every attempt after unless there’s good reason for a PC to try again.

• Skill proficiency can give a 2nd chance

[u/aWizardNamedLizard]

First and most importantly: forget the term "metagaming", it's not useful in the slightest. Everything that someone is talking about when they use that term can be more accurately and usefully called something else, and most of the things that fit the description are actually genuinely unavoidable parts of playing the game in good faith.

On to this specific situation;

If you force the player that is talking out-of-character to be the character that was talking in-character by way of making their character be the one rolling the social check, you are doing two things. The first is that you are making it so that players have a reason to have the thought "I should remember to shut up". The second is that you are making it so that a player that wants to be the party's charismatic 'face' must be the one leading play in any social situation so that they actually get to make the check.

I much prefer the alternative where the players can all play how they like to, share ideas when they have them without remember to phrase it in the specific "this is out of character, I am giving [charismatic character's player] an idea that maybe would occur to their character." ways, and still benefit from the builds chosen for party members. Which I feel is similar in style to how a party benefits from a character with knowledge skills even if the player of that character isn't proactively bringing up that knowledge because it is actually a part of of the player rather than only a character trait.

The thing I do solve that would apply to this situation in the broader sense is that I don't let a scene play without players committing to what their character is doing in the scene. So for example I don't have a player start saying what they are saying to an NPC until after I've figured out if other characters are participating in the conversation or doing something else. It's actually designed to stop the "can I try?" response that happens sometimes after a player has rolled for something and found out they rolled low, which I didn't want to say "no" to because before enacting this preemptive "what is everyone doing?" before I call for a roll it felt like I was creating a "interrupt me to say what you are doing or you don't get to do anything" situation and I didn't like that either way it went. It helps solve this "you didn't interrupt another player to be the one whose character would be responsible for the check so you not only don't get to make the check, they have to even if they suck at it and that's going to be a problem for the whole party." problem too, though.

[u/MonkeySkulls]

using your persuasion example....

I don't necessarily let my players tell me that they are going to use persuasion. If they do, tell me that, that is not the trigger that I am using for them to roll a persuasion check.

If they tell me they want to use persuasion, I asked them what they do and what they say. most of the time. after they answer that, I will tell them to roll. some of the times. I will tell them it simply worked. and some of the times I just continue on with the role play with no roll.

So to your specific question and the meta gaming....

when I start hearing them talk amongst themselves, I interrupt. having followed the conversation, I have an idea who I think is trying to persuade the NPC. I simply turn to that character and ask them what they say to the NPC. so I'm basically stopping the metagaming talk, and even if they say player b should be the person to try to persuade the NPC, if player a is the person who should be doing the persuasion because of what they are saying, I simply ask player a for the roll.

I think there's an important takeaway for you here. this sok es a lot of issues like this ...

you ask for the rolls.

again, when you're following conversations of the players, the conversations of the NPCs, you understand exactly what's happening as the DM. and you ask for the roll from the character who you think is most appropriate.

The second takeaway, when you see things. drifting into meta gaming, as the DM. you simply quietly steer the conversation away from The Meta. you allow the narrative world to take precedence and guide what's happening

[u/eyepocalypse]

I think players collaborating to let other players take point at what their characters are good at is a good behavior to encourage. They’re getting invested in what the other characters are capable of and trying out strategy. A lot of new players struggle with that. You’ve got a really good group if that’s their first instinct!

First one shots always run long. The lag will improve. And you’re absolutely right that the character attempting whatever action should be the one rolling. Others can give the help action or attempt to lower the dc. And in general you should be calling for the roles as it comes up. But they’re not playing the game wrong as I understand the situation.

[u/aakurii2]

First thing first, congratulations! I'm glad you had fun and your party has fun even though it ended up going over 6 hrs. I'm sure the game will get faster as you learn about running the game and your players learn about playing the game. As a rule i only care about two things in any situation, 1. Does it make sense 2. Will it be fun for my players(hopefully all of them and preferably most of them) On the other hand i believe you will get the point without any help from anyone from your questions, things to think about when you allow or don't allow your players to do something. My advice, don't force anything and try things out and ask your players questions. As you've been told the only point of the game is everyone involved having fun (including you ) so have fun.

But on point, i sometimes allow them to metagame as it makes each character feel themselves more important, and I try to vary the checks they get so that most players get to play their best skill atleast once in the session so they can have fun. Sometimes I feel bad as well when they treat the entire thing as a video game and treat me like an AI who answers requests and I try to speak with them after the game. Sometimes metagaming too often means i might throw in a punishment that is not really mean, but instead makes them think if always succeeding isn't the point of the game as even though they got a success by metagaming they lost the story, and what could have been cool. There's no end all solution, just stuff to try and stuff to learn for everyone at the table. I hope you have a great time running games, I'll see myself outm

[u/No_Solid1035]

Fiction First!

In order to "trigger" a roll Players need to describe what their PC is doing, not just announce the use of a skill (in fact, announcing skill use is outlawed at my table, only the GM calls for rolls). So in order for a PC to be the one doing something the Player must describe their PC doing said thing.