When reading a novel or playing a game of D&D, we could directly infer the next event to come from the tropes and the psychology of the author, but we tend to naturally hallucinate a whole coherent world with imagined people as if it existed really, and predict the future of the story based on that.
It’s not just that we tend to hallucinate. The D&D rules themselves actively instruct players to do that. The Dungeon Master’s Guide has this entire paragraph intended to explicitly discourage players from metagaming:
“I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,” a player says to the others, “because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters’ actions on logic that depends on the fact that they’re playing a game; they’re using metagame thinking. This behavior should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real role-playing and spoils the suspension of disbelief. Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose the other side of the pit has a lever, for example, but it’s rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don’t let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. You have figured out the reason why the trap exists, and the PCs will need to do the same. In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it.” In fact, this is wonderful—it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.
It’s not just that we tend to hallucinate. The D&D rules themselves actively instruct players to do that. The Dungeon Master’s Guide has this entire paragraph intended to explicitly discourage players from metagaming:
“I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,” a player says to the others, “because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn’t deactivate somehow.” That’s an
example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters’ actions on logic that depends on the fact that they’re playing a game; they’re using metagame thinking. This behavior
should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real role-playing and spoils the suspension of disbelief. Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose the other side of the pit has a lever, for example, but it’s rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don’t let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. You have figured out the reason
why the trap exists, and the PCs will need to do the same. In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is “I figure there’ll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it.” In fact, this is wonderful—it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.