this is peak GMing
At the very least it helps prevent meta-gaming to an extent. If you're second guessing the GM then you're second guessing the situation which, as a player, you should be. You shouldn't have all the info.
I think it is - in fact - the exact opposite of it. It's gaslighting and player vs. DM mentality. If I was a player, I would have a serious word with the DM afterwards and when I am the DM, I refrain from such actions altogether.
My response was (is?) tongue and cheek.
Generally, I think it's best for the GM to give the players an accurate, understandable, and consistent view of the world. If the local townsfolk have said The creature up the hill turns people to stone when they gaze upon it! then this is a perfectly reasonable course of action, even if the monster doesn't have a gaze attack, so long as the PCs trust the villagers. The villagers just happen to be wrong in this case.
If the PCs have a reason to doubt their senses (in D&D/Shadowrun that might be due to a charm, etc; or in Cyberpunk/Shadowrun it could be cyberpsychosis) then it's also pretty reasonable.
Can the GM do it once to troll the players? Sure.
Would it be annoying if the GM made a habit of it? Probably.
Is it funny for a meme? Yes.
Every table is different but I don't think this would fly at my table. It's a little metagamey to ask unless you have reason to believe they would, so if they were told in character to look away but maybe the players themselves forgot where it's not something the PCs would forget. It feels a little adversarial. Combat is often rough to begin with and imposing disadvantage for no reason other than it punishes them for taking cues from the DM seems like it's stretching it unnecessarily. But every table really is different and it may have been super fun for everyone, I don’t know.
The context of this meme (which I didn't fully lay out in the title, so that's on me) is also setting the monster up ahead of time as having a deadly looking gaze. The meme is reflecting back the immediate assumptions that people will make based off of a description of a monster, much like how your characters should also react in the same situation.
The DM needs to use language to describe a situation and put the same feeling into you that your characters are also experiencing. By referring to a monsters gaze, that could mean a hundred different things. Referring to it within combat is just adding to that anxiety your character is experiencing. Are they just piercing eyes? Or is it something more?
If anything, this is the most accurate way I can think of to get you as a player to feel the same thing that your character also feels.
You say adversarial but it isn't the DMs job to hold your hand through combat. It is your DMs job to provide a thrilling and engaging experience that pulls you in. Its your job as a player to make the decisions based on the information given you. If everytime that question is ever asked is only for a monster with a gaze attack, then you as a DM are doing a pisspoor job of disguising monster abilities by telegraphing everything they can do ahead of time.
Totally understandable take. Definitely have had townspeople giving differing accounts of the beast they encountered in the woods so players aren't sure if it's a vampire or a ghost or werebeast etc so they're on their toes and keeping an eye out for anything (this is an oversimplification but you get the point).
I would never ask a player if they are averting their eyes unless I had reason to believe they would (like I said above maybe they were already warned). If they touch a poisoned object I'm not asking if their hand is gloved or if they're using a cloth. If they are doing something out of the ordinary I expect them to say as much unless it's already established that their character always wears gloves or something.
Setting the tone is important and also a good time to give them some information on the monster. If it can shoot spikes I might refer to the spikes as like the quills of a porcupine or something to try to telegraph that if it's bright enough and their skills are high enough to normally make that connection. If they misconstrue tone setting for actual information I generally do not correct them unless I think their PC would know better in which case I will sometimes outright correct them or have them roll for additional clarification. It's hard to know what their PC would actually be able to gather if they were a real person, so I try not to penalize them for what may at some point just be my failure to describe what they see as a DM.
Different play/DM styles are good though. Lets everyone find a table that's right for them.
It depends. I'm playing at a table where it isn't any of the players' first game and several players have wargaming experience. I can easily see the DM doing something like this and I wouldn't fault them for doing so.
Yea, like I said, every table is different. I'm sure some people would love that and think it's great. Others might not. Diversity in the space is really good for the hobby in my experience.
The DM can not metagame, definitionally
Really depends on your definition, but by most online consensus and generally by most definitions I've seen, a DM can indeed metagame. If you personally don't feel that way, that's fine, but a DM is considered a role player in my experience so the following definition holds: The act of a roleplayer making use of knowledge that they have learned out of character (and which their character does not know) while they are in character
If I have a random shopkeep tail the rogue of the party through the shop, even if their character does not give off rogue vibes, I'm being metagamey. I know they're going to try something so I use that to change the behavior of the shopkeeper. To me and to most other people according to a quick search, that's metagamey. You can feel differently, but I believe that puts you in the minority.
Sometimes I roll dice just to mess with my players.
I thought all us DMs were doing that
Did you also get the eyeless dice, so you can roll a whole handful even if you only need to roll like two?
Eyeless dice?
Yep
