Yes. It’s so annoying. A lot of good roleplaying is imagining a way your character would have/know something. Obviously you can take it too far, but it’s an important skills for keeping the game moving. Like, say one character is obviously falling for some sort of trap by a doppelganger. OOC you either know or are suspicious, but IC you don’t. You want to go with them so they aren’t alone. But you can’t just say that. Say something like, “I’ll tag along, I’m getting stir crazy and could go for a walk.” It’s technically metagaming but it’s a very different situation than doing something like telling that character not to go because the other person is suspicious when you genuinely have no reason to think they are.

Another good example of metagaming that so many people view as okay that they don’t even view it as metagaming is telling your party OOC how many hit points you have remaining the healer choosing who to heal and with what spells based on the information. Your character doesn’t know that number. A lot of times all you really know IC is if someone has less than half of their hit points remaining and a vague idea that barbarians can take more hits than wizards.

Obviously there are scenarios where this doesn’t hold but I find in general that metagaming which benefits everyone, doesn’t completely ruin encounters, and is done with an excuse that your character would actually reasonably do is typically okay.

Another example. I remember in one game we were trying to open a creaky rusty door quietly. Someone asked if anyone had oil. We all checked our inventory and nobody did. He explained that my character in heavy armor would likely have some because regular maintenance of it would require that. Which seemed fine. The DM agreed. So my character hands his character some oil.

Yeah people complaining about “fire on trolls” as metagaming is a huge bugbear of mine because it’s so ubiquitous across RPGs that it’s virtually part of the definition of what a fantasy troll is. Imagine actually living in a world where they exist, becoming a professional mercenary, and still not knowing you need fire.

“Don’t worry, it’s just a name!”

Gets attacked by trolls.

“I thought it was just a name!”

I have time to stop at ye old library before the journey?

Plenty of systems have something for that, often with a variety of options.

A bookish Exalted character might roll Intelligence + Lore to remember having learned about the weakness to fire before. Or maybe Intelligence + Occult if the weakness is supernatural in nature. A combat-oriented character might roll Wits + War to deduce that fire is needed based on the knowledge of old battle reports involving trolls. Maybe even something involving Survival if they’re familiar with a region trolls can appear in.

A game with a flexible skill system has a lot of room for such things.

Without looking it up, I’m fairly certain that Arcana, Nature, and maybe even Survival checks can all be employed to fill this “character knowledge” confirmation, and have always been used for this and more. 🤦🏼‍♂️

It’s really as simple as asking your GM if your character would know this. “Hey GM, would my character know if the troll is weak to fire?” and you’ll either get “No, your character is unfamiliar with this region and it creatures” or “Yes, your friend in the town guard recited his tale of falling such a beast at your last posting”. A lot of people enjoy this game to role-play, and using knowledge your character wouldn’t have can take the fun out of it.

Metagaming is fine, actually.

To some degree, this is why Knowledge Checks exist. If you’re going to Troll Canyon and you make your Know(Local) check to have an idea about what a troll is and does and you get a high enough roll, you know. If you don’t, maybe you forgot. Maybe trolls aren’t common to your neck of the woods. Roleplay your reasons.

That said, I believe DMs reserve the right to mix it up a bit. As an anecdote, I had a friend play in a game in which they were hunting a White Wyrm in the glaciers of the north. The experienced players, knowing that White Dragons breath frost, fully stocked up and pre-buffed with anti-cold gear. When they arrived, they positioned themselves on a large ice-flow and pushed off towards the mouth of the cave. But the cracking of the ice awoke the dragon. Dragon came flying out, spotted the players, and immediately engulfed them in a plume of fire. The ice flow melted, the party floundered in the freezing water, and two of them died to a happy dragon who’d just been offered an easy meal.

The players were initially upset, but the DM tisk-tisked. “Everyone knows that dragons breath fire”.

If you want to play let’s pretend with dice, that’s fine. just be honest about the kind of game that you’re running from the get go so I know not to join your table.

If you’re not playing “Let’s Pretend” with dice, I’m not sure what kind of D&D game you’re actually playing. A dumb-as-rocks barbarian should presumably see the troll as some big meat sack to be repeatedly bludgeoned into a fine paste. And that may possibly work, at least to the degree that the threat is neutralized for the purposes of the combat. A savvy Bard probably has a song or two about the proper remedy for persistent trolls - and a clever player might even dash off a cute little poem or song to help the rest of the party recall.

The dice keep the game spicy, but you shouldn’t be shy about leaning into the cinematics of the situation.

So arbitrarily, I’m not allowed to use fire damage on the trolls until some npc tells me that trolls are weak to fire?

You say arbitrarily but it’s not arbitrary. It is dependant on the situation. If trolls aren’t super common and your characters have never dealt with a troll? It makes zero sense that you would know that they’re weak to fire damage. Question. Do you know how to escape a car that’s upside down and submerged in water? Because if you don’t, there are a lot of things that are going to get you killed due to not being aware of what the issue is. Now, you might have learned it in the past due to some particular event or due to reading it in something or being aware due to work stuff or whatever else. But the point is that it’s a danger that not everyone on the earth is familiar with despite the fact that it is a hyper common vehicle and water covering the vast majority of the earth’s surface.

Now instead of cars and water being everywhere, it’s a specific monster in a specific location you’ve probably never visited and the internet doesn’t exist. Want to explain to me how it’s “arbitrary” that your character would know the vulnerabilities of a specific creature that is from an area you’re not from? That you’ve got no crossover with? That your character has no experience with?

Your perspective comes from that of a player that is frustrated but not of someone who is looking at the world as a whole. Your whole comment talks about how angry you get from being prevented to do certain things but none of it reflects anything from how the world would work internally.

You call it asinine but it’s way more ridiculous to think that as a lower level character from the middle of nowhere that you’d have intimate adventuring knowledge of a creature that isn’t super common in most situations.

If you want to play let’s pretend with dice, that’s fine.

I mean that is literally the game… Fun fact on the definition of metagaming.

Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It’s like when a character in a movie knows it’s a movie and acts accordingly. For example, a player might say, “The DM wouldn’t throw such a powerful monster at us!” or you might hear, “The read-aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door — let’s search it again!”

For a lot of us this isn’t a game first. It’s a Roleplaying Game first. The way that you want to play is rejecting a lot of the roleplay aspect of it in favor of mechanical benefit. Phrasing that as “play lets pretend with dice” just feels bizarrely tone deaf considering that is literally the entire core concept of the game.

The thing about your comment here that is frustrating to me as a DM is that it doesn’t factor in anyone else. It’s all about how your plan was ruined and about how things prevent you from doing various things but there’s no consideration or reference to anyone else in the party. How enjoyable do you think it is for other players if someone in the party is consistently saying “I would know the thing” and providing no reasonable explanation for why you’d know the thing?

EXACTLY.

People in this thread keep saying that they should be expected to keep the information that they as a player have because it’s obvious. No one is really giving an argument other than the fact that it hurts my fun. No one else who is making that argument is thinking about how the fact that that hurts other players fun because it makes it all about them.

You are hitting the nail on the head. You are able to have your cake and eat it too if you combine the roleplay with learning the information. You know you’re going to a place called Troll Canyon? Go do the research. Suddenly you now do know that they are weak to fire. No one can argue that fact, and everyone can prepare. Moreover, you’re also going to be in an area where you could probably get some extra fire stuff to help take care of them. It’s also the type of cleverness that a DM will actually reward instead of just going. Oh yeah, of course you would know the thing for no reason.

There’s more than the two alternatives of playing “Myself, a person who games a lot and knows things a veteran gamer would know, but with D&D powers” and “The personification of chaotic stupidity that is my alter-ego, an insufferable piece of shit, but with D&D powers”.

The “My Guy” syndrome is the inexperienced person’s experimentation of Improving in RPGs. The meta-gamer is the experienced-but-tactless person’s desire to play the game straight up as a board game, rather than a social experience.

There’s a third - even more experienced - kind of player, who can seamlessly integrate the rules they’re very familiar with into the story of their character that they’re trying to tell. The player who says “I’m going to play a kleptomaniac Rogue” and proceeds to steal the belt off a rampaging Ogre to trip him with his own pants as a combat maneuver. Or the player who says “I’m going to play a Stubbornly Self-Righteous Knight” and is as rigid in his morals as he is tankie in his ability hold the line when the party needs it most.

These players lean into their conflicts for a comedic interlude, then squad up to form a deadly duo when its time to crack heads. And that makes the game both more fun for everyone at the table (especially the DM) than someone mired in the technicalities of a feat description or obsessed with being the center of attention.

slightly neurotic diviner who almost always knows what’s optimal, and struggles between doing the obviously ideal thing or rejecting that and knowingly doing something suboptimal so they aren’t just a puppet to the magic

Is this meta- metagaming?

No, that’s Johnny Gat.