Something i don't quite get about "Metagaming"

[Draconi Redfir]

So semi-recently, my group's DM chewed us out a bit for using the wrong terminology on something when re-capping something to a player who wasn't at the previous session.

What happened is, we encountered an enemy who, when very close to death, spontaneously teleported away without visually casting a spell. This happened multiple times for multiple enemies in that encounter, so naturally we all thought "Okay, it's a contingency spell thing". Someone made an arcana check, and determined what was happening was something involving infernal magic, or that one of them was using infernal magic while disguising it as divine.

So we describe the event as "they had some kind of contingency spell or something, as they all teleported away when they were close to death" and later on the DM chewed us out for calling it "Contingency" when we SHOULD (apparently) have been calling it "Infernal magic" (So what, it's impossible for infernal magic / infernal casters to cast contingency spells?) and that calling it "Contingency" was metagaming.

What i don't understand is... How? A good 90% of our party at the time is or as at some point been some kind of caster, we've got arcane, divine, even psionic. these people range from halfing is their 20's to Elves in their mid-hundreds. is it somehow impossible that, in all of their combined experience in learning, casing, and knowing about magic, that maybe SOMEONE learned about the existence of contingency spells at some point? Like this is very basic information isn't it? "If something happens when someone is near death, it's probably contingency" etc?

heck i had this while DMing awhile back, i had the party encounter a Troll, and somehow none of the characters knew about it's regeneration and weakness to fire, like how is that not DAY ONE stuff you would learn when even mentioning them offhandedly? Would it be metagaming to know a red dragon breathes fire? Metagaming to know that mind flayers have tentacles on their face and eat minds? Metagaming to know that hey, wild cats don't usually fight in packs, someone is probably controlling or manipulating them somehow?

Basically, what i don't understand is how basic ground-level information that you would immediately pick up from even a minute of hearing about a thing, or having it so that your character is at least somewhat vaguely AWARE of a things existence, is somehow "Metagaming".

Like... what's up with that? Would it be metagaming to say the sky is blue ooor???

[weckar]

It feels odd to say 'metagaming' about an OOC recap of all things. It was OOC right?

[Frozen_Feet]

Your GM is being nitpicky, possibly because your guess was too on-point

To wit, the idea here is that calling it out as "contingency" is so specific that you must be using player knowledge to make that guess. It's not the problem tbat you "don't get this". You simply disagree.

Your reply to any form "but you don't know it's contingency!" ought to be "we also don't know it's NOT contingency, and that's what everybody thought it is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

Your GM's case isn't helped by the fact that "contingent spell" has plain English meaning which is near identical to the rules, but would not actually require any rules knowledge to use.

[Pelle]

The issue seems to be that your GM wants you to use the in-universe fiction term "infernal" magic, while you use the game mechanic rule term "Contigency". It might very well be the same, and your character may be aware of it. He may be using the term metagaming wrong, but I think your GM just wants you to engage with the fiction. It's like saying "my character do this Combat Action", instead of describing what happens in the fiction. Both styles are valid, but seems like a mismatch in expectations.

For the other issue, troll regeneration and dragon breathing fire etc, that depends on the setting if it is metagaming or not. In mine, the former is false for example. If I were to include mind flayers, that would be as some kind of alien, and hence no one would know anything about them, it depends on how common things are. You seem to assume a lot of things are basic ground-level information, when they in fact may not be in that setting. Or they might.

[Frozen_Feet]

The general standard here is that if you feel your GM jumped the gun with the accusation of metagaming, walk them through the steps of how your character figured this or that out. If your GM is reasonable, they will either admit your chain of logic is sound or they will point out where you assumed too much.

If your GM is evil, they will nod and bop their head and be like "I see..." - and then next time, you will find everything you believed in to be a lie.

[Mordaedil]

I mean, it triggered by some sort of event without his involvement? Calling it infernal magic seems more metagaming to me, but maybe he says that because you couldn't succeed the roll to identify the spell? I mean, OOC you can describe it as an effect similar to a contingent spell, that shouldn't be a problem.

[Misereor]

GM: "As the man in the strange robes waves his arms dramatically and utters disturbing syllables, a ball of fire manifests between his hands and hurtles towards your party. Make a save."
Player 1: "I save. How about you player 2?"
Player 2: "How about what?"
Player 1: "Did you get hit by the Fireball?"
GM: "Metagaming, eh?" *slaps Player 1 with XP penalties*
Player 1: "Aww, I should have said fire ball. Damn his excellent hearing..."


contingency (kənˈtɪndʒ(ə)nsi), noun
"a provision for a possible event or circumstance."

So a contingency spell and a Contingency spell may be two different things, and unless your GM is able to hear how you capitalize letters when speaking, he has no case. (And incidentally, my favorite contingency spell is Fireball.)

[Glorthindel]

There is nothing wrong with making reasonable assumptions, and then using common terminology to explain it. Honestly, telling your friend that "they used infernal magic" is useless in and of itself, unless you added "which kinda acted like a contingency spell", since firstly, it did, and secondly, its a more efficient way of conveying the facts.

As far as monsters go, I assume that a world is going to have its own legends, fireside tales, and myths about a lot of the creatures out there. I mean, just ask anyone on the street in real life what the abilities of a Vampire or Werewolf are - I would be amazed if anyone couldn't give a couple of the big facts, and we don't have real Vampires and Werewolves. A world where those creatures are actually real things are going to be even more likely to pass on the info.

To me there is a definite difference between saying "Werewolves are vulnerable to silver, Vampires are destroyed by sunlight and can change into bats, and Trolls regenerate unless set on fire" and saying "Bears have an AC11, 19 hit points, and +3 to hit". The first is potentially common lore (and possibly incorrect in individual cases) while the latter is specific game mechanic numbers. To me, only the latter is metagaming.

[Darth Ultron]

I think in this case your DM is being silly.

First off talking player to player OOC the DM should never say anything thing about the words you use. Players will use game terms and words that are in the rulebooks.

It's a bit odd your DM wants you to be vague and say ''um, some infernal magic'' and not ''some contingency magic''...guess you could say ''infernal contingency magic'' , but it's all nit picking really.

And even more so if you had any characters with a skill that can know just about anything about magic.....really knowing about contingency magic is like a DC 10.


In my games I do the ''meta'' differently: all players are free to use whatever they know fully in character. And the game rolls on.

[jojo]

I'll jump on the popular bandwagon here and agree that your DM sounds like he's being unreasonable. I don't really quite understand how it's possible to "meta-game OOC" in fact even attempting to comprehend such a conundrum makes my brain weep for your DM.

Most reasonable DMs and players will constantly make assumptions about what's going on and will often even act on them in-game. As long as, when you're doing something without a skill or ability check your DM can't point to the 8 Intelligence score on your character sheet and you are ready to accept that you could be wrong based on assumptions that you're making....

What's the problem?

People make assumptions all the time IIRL and leap to conclusions. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't do so.

[Scripten]

Metagaming is a really annoying concept that should just die off. The Angry DM did a really good article about it, which I greatly agree with. My players are so scared of being accused of "metagaming" that they will spend five minutes trying to hedge around just saying what it is that they observed. It's especially bad with HP. Your average conversation goes like this:

Player 1: "Player 2, on a scale of 1 to an arbitrary number, how are you feeling right now?"
Player 2: "Well, Player 1, on a scale of 1 to, say, 72, I'm feeling I'm about at 32."

I've had moderate success just telling them that their characters are talking in their own language and in their own terms such that the gist of the conversation is happening.

DM's that play "Gotcha!" games are ridiculous. DM's that do it OOC are obnoxious.

[Pelle]

Using game mechanic terms OOC is ok. Some players/DMs prefer to spend more of the game time in character. I don't find that obnoxious, just different preferences.

[Frozen_Feet]

"Metagaming" is a very usefull concept and much broader in meaning than the usual RPG version of "using out-of-character knowledge to inform character actions".

The problem is the idea that all metagaming is bad. Not even all metagaming of the RPG subtype is bad. For example, regardless of whether HP is considered game or metagame knowledge, players should be allowed to use the term to communicate among each other. Or, at least, merits of hidden HP game need to be established beyond just "but saying HP would be metagaming!"

[tensai_oni]

Nope, I'm with the DM on that one.

The existence of contingency spells is not the same as knowing dragons breath fire or that cats don't hunt in packs. It's not common knowledge. Unless your characters encountered such spells before (and from your description it sounds like they didn't), the only way they'd know about contingency spells is if they've read or leant about them somehow - which means an arcana check, and if you rolled high enough, the DM would tell you: yep, it's contingency.

Here's the thing: you made your checks and the DM didn't tell you it's contingency. Therefore, your characters don't know it's contingency. Maybe in this setting, this kind of spells are more rare than you assumed. Maybe the DM even soft banned them except for very specific circumstances (infernal magic, for example?). Whatever the reason, you're making an incorrect assumption about the game world, and when the DM corrected that assumption you acted like he's wrong somehow.

[Florian]

First, the difference between "game mode" and "simulation mode". In "game mode", the dice decide everything and the game system itself is build around that. There's no assumption that a "200 year old elf wizard" knows anything based on backstory, there's the knowledge skill check and that shows whether or not something is known. Want to model that better? Take the "Breadth of Knowledge" feat for elves 200+ year up to gain +2 on all knowledge checks.

Then, it can be a contingency spell, it could be something entirely different. Template or Prestige Class power? Bound Devil with a ready action to teleport? Endless possibilities there. In PF, there's a cultist feat that simply incinerates the body and equipment on hitting 0 hp, zero contingency involved.
Did you try, say, Arcane Sight to actually check whether there is a Contingency or did you just make your rolls when the effect activates?

[Tinkerer]

Then, it can be a contingency spell, it could be something entirely different. Template or Prestige Class power? Bound Devil with a ready action to teleport? Endless possibilities there. In PF, there's a cultist feat that simply incinerates the body and equipment on hitting 0 hp, zero contingency involved.
Did you try, say, Arcane Sight to actually check whether there is a Contingency or did you just make your rolls when the effect activates?

Yeah but they did mention that it was "some kind of contingency spell or something", not "they used Contingency" during an OOC recap. The intent being (I'm pretty sure) "they had some sort of auto-ability that triggered when a certain condition was met".

[kitanas]

Nope, I'm with the DM on that one.

The existence of contingency spells is not the same as knowing dragons breath fire or that cats don't hunt in packs. It's not common knowledge. Unless your characters encountered such spells before (and from your description it sounds like they didn't), the only way they'd know about contingency spells is if they've read or leant about them somehow - which means an arcana check, and if you rolled high enough, the DM would tell you: yep, it's contingency.

Here's the thing: you made your checks and the DM didn't tell you it's contingency. Therefore, your characters don't know it's contingency. Maybe in this setting, this kind of spells are more rare than you assumed. Maybe the DM even soft banned them except for very specific circumstances (infernal magic, for example?). Whatever the reason, you're making an incorrect assumption about the game world, and when the DM corrected that assumption you acted like he's wrong somehow.

The problem with that is that it also means that basic deductive reasoning is meta-gaming. Like, if I was aware that to cast a spell you needed spell-casting, and I saw a spell like effect go off without any spell-casting, is it really so unreasonable to assume that they had a spell pre-cast, set to go off when some pre-set conditions were met? and would it be wrong to call it a contingency spell, seeing as t looks like it was set up to be a contingency plan if things went poorly?

[Anymage]

In this particular case, "contingency" could be used as both a real English word and as a clear understanding of in-game terms. He spontaneously disappeared when heavily beat up without taking any specific action, you can make reasonable guesses there has to be some form of magical effect powering it. Metagaming would be someone trying to steal/destroy the focus statuette before the party brainiac made the roll to remember finer spell details.

(As an aside, there's good metagaming as well as bad metagaming. Bad metagaming is pulling out the books to try and gather the specific details of whatever you're facing. Good metagaming is going along with the party and/or plot because the alternative is bringing the session to a screeching halt. Assuming that metagaming is automatically evil is one of those old habits that needs to die.)

And as mentioned above, if the DM really feels that you're exploiting player knowledge, he's better served changing some details than he is by throwing a snit. Going back to the too specific detail of the Contingency statuette, having a decoy statuette while some other item is the real focus should help discourage players who rely too heavily on memorizing the rulebooks.

[Frozen_Feet]

The problem with that is that it also means that basic deductive reasoning is meta-gaming.

You only need one metagame observation to enter the chain of logic for basic deductive reasoning to become metagaming. Nevermind that the player's deductive skill is primarily a metagame resource.

The actual problem is, again, the idea that metagaming is automatically bad. There's no problem with identifying basic deductive reasoning as metagaming as long as you acknowledge that this does not itself mean a game move is invalid.

[Florian]

The problem with that is that it also means that basic deductive reasoning is meta-gaming. Like, if I was aware that to cast a spell you needed spell-casting, and I saw a spell like effect go off without any spell-casting, is it really so unreasonable to assume that they had a spell pre-cast, set to go off when some pre-set conditions were met? and would it be wrong to call it a contingency spell, seeing as t looks like it was set up to be a contingency plan if things went poorly?

As I pointed out earlier, the game has a function that simulates whether _your character_ manages the deductive reasoning, that's the knowledge skills. Keep in mind: You are not your character.

[tensai_oni]

The problem with that is that it also means that basic deductive reasoning is meta-gaming. Like, if I was aware that to cast a spell you needed spell-casting, and I saw a spell like effect go off without any spell-casting, is it really so unreasonable to assume that they had a spell pre-cast, set to go off when some pre-set conditions were met? and would it be wrong to call it a contingency spell, seeing as t looks like it was set up to be a contingency plan if things went poorly?

Basic deductive reasoning, you say? If I see a spell effect go off on someone who didn't cast it, my assumption isn't that they had some kind of contingency effect going on - it's a mechanic that very, very few RPGs have, and even in DnD I was always under assumption it's meant to be a niche and rare thing that became overused on a meta level due to how versatile and powerful it is. Anyway, basic deductive reasoning would tell you that if the person didn't cast the spell, someone else did. Maybe they have an ally scrying on them, ready to teleport them out if things go sour?

Assuming a contingency spell went off makes sense only if you, in-character, know contigency spells exist. Once again, the DM made it clear that the player characters don't.

[Tinkerer]

Basic deductive reasoning, you say? If I see a spell effect go off on someone who didn't cast it, my assumption isn't that they had some kind of contingency effect going on - it's a mechanic that very, very few RPGs have, and even in DnD I was always under assumption it's meant to be a niche and rare thing that became overused on a meta level due to how versatile and powerful it is. Anyway, basic deductive reasoning would tell you that if the person didn't cast the spell, someone else did. Maybe they have an ally scrying on them, ready to teleport them out if things go sour?

Assuming a contingency spell went off makes sense only if you, in-character, know contigency spells exist. Once again, the DM made it clear that the player characters don't.

Wards are probably one of the most famous magical spells (and rightly so since mages rely on knowledge of them to deter would be snoops) and they are a form of contingency spell. So is magic mouth. Contingency spells are all over the place. And to repeat in the initial example the player was describing something OOC to a player who had missed the session and said "they had some kind of contingency spell or something, as they all teleported away when they were close to death".

EDIT: And I'm not entirely sure how one would think that it is a niche and rare spell. Most spells from the main book are assumed to be fairly common.

[tensai_oni]

Was the recap IC or OOC? I assumed it was characters talking to each other and describing what happened, not the players themselves.

Metagaming by definition is when OOC knowledge flows into IC actions. Using OOC knowledge during OOC conversations is completely fine, so if that's what happened then yes, the DM was being a jerk.

[JeenLeen]

If one of you made an Arcana check (or was a wizard or other spellcaster who had access to Contingency), I would think it a reasonable IC assumption to believe that the Infernal magic was a contingency spell. If that's the case, that deduction IC is not metagaming.
If, IC, you did not have knowledge of Contingency (as the spell itself), it seems metagaming to use your OOC knowledge of that spell to influence IC deductions.

Whether or not you know that IC depends on how the DM handles knowledge. (Likewise, what is common knowledge -- red dragons breathe fire, large cats not pack animals -- seems reasonable for DM decision. Red dragons=fire is technically Arcana if you are in 3.5, but seems fair common knowledge. I'd put the large cats things in Nature, although if a player OOC knew it I wouldn't care about that being known IC regardless of the roll.)

However, I think the DM is being a bit nitpicky and (if your definition of 'chewing out' is similar to mine) a bit of a jerk. It would be fine for him to point out that you don't actually know that, maybe even as a friendly reminder so the player who missed the last game isn't confused, but to get angry about it seems improper. This metagaming seems minor, since it's basically professional adventurers knowing stuff about professional adventurer class abilities (here, wizard spells.)

[Draconi Redfir]

i brought this up with the DM somewhat, merely saying how i wasn't aware that them teleporting off was in any way related to the infernal magic, and in his own words:

The Paladin took enough damage to go unconscious/disabled/dying, at which Point infernal magic was used to pull him out, immediately(it would have taken near god level power, to teleport them through the magic barrier without the caster being there.) When the rest of that party took damage, ( not enough to drop the to zero, just heavy damage, the Wizard cast a teleport spell on them

sooo i dunno. maybe we just got confused because we couldn't see the wizard when the paladin warped off.... and then artificially skipped the rest of the combat a few rounds later for some reason.

[Tinkerer]

Was the recap IC or OOC? I assumed it was characters talking to each other and describing what happened, not the players themselves.

Metagaming by definition is when OOC knowledge flows into IC actions. Using OOC knowledge during OOC conversations is completely fine, so if that's what happened then yes, the DM was being a jerk.

Hmm, I was running off the assumption that it was OOC due to the initial sentence containing "re-capping something to a player who wasn't at the previous session." Re-capping I tend to mainly hear in the context of out of character discussion and when saying that they were addressing the player it would generally indicate OOC as well. But fair enough, it is entirely possible that it was IC.

[Quertus]

Sounds like I'm late to the party, but since when has that stopped me?

I was going to list out possibilities, but it sounds like the long shot is true: the GM didn't want you confusing the player who wasn't there with unfounded (and false) conclusions. Kudos to the GM, as this is the most acceptable reason for the described behavior.

That having been said, "metagaming" is very much the wrong word for the issue here, unless it had been explicitly established that the PCs are unaware of the Contingency spell.

It sounds like it would behoove your party to choose a recap speaker who can make fewer assumptions going forward. It sounds like this GM should probably take a chill pill, and calmly correct any mistakes in the recap without resorting to name calling or chewing people out.

A good 90% of our party at the time is or as at some point been some kind of caster, we've got arcane, divine, even psionic. these people range from halfing is their 20's to Elves in their mid-hundreds. is it somehow impossible that, in all of their combined experience in learning, casing, and knowing about magic, that maybe SOMEONE learned about the existence of contingency spells at some point? Like this is very basic information isn't it? "If something happens when someone is near death, it's probably contingency" etc?

90%? Just how many are in your party?

Playground, correct me if I'm wrong, but, even if this is 3e D&D (which hasn't actually been established?), there is no listed DC to know that a spell exists, is there? Otherwise, good luck asking for healing, as characters without Spellcraft don't know that it exists...

In other words, OP, I'd have a chat with the GM about what, specifically, pushed his buttons back there vs what makes for reasonable game play.

heck i had this while DMing awhile back, i had the party encounter a Troll, and somehow none of the characters knew about it's regeneration and weakness to fire, like how is that not DAY ONE stuff you would learn when even mentioning them offhandedly? Would it be metagaming to know a red dragon breathes fire? Metagaming to know that mind flayers have tentacles on their face and eat minds? Metagaming to know that hey, wild cats don't usually fight in packs, someone is probably controlling or manipulating them somehow?

Basically, what i don't understand is how basic ground-level information that you would immediately pick up from even a minute of hearing about a thing, or having it so that your character is at least somewhat vaguely AWARE of a things existence, is somehow "Metagaming".

As I pointed out earlier, the game has a function that simulates whether _your character_ manages the deductive reasoning, that's the knowledge skills. Keep in mind: You are not your character.

As I haven't noticed it established yet that this was 3e D&D, I'll answer more generally.

Back in 2e D&D, I kept track of who trained whom, what each of my character's knew and passed on.My characters liked to chat around the campfire with other adventurers - their survival might well depends on it! This is, IM(ns)HO, the vastly superior way to handle things: you know exactly what your character knows.

In 3e D&D, such questions are subsumed by a generic knowledge/Spellcraft check. What you as a player knows, or details about what specific training your character has is irrelevant.

Metagaming would be someone trying to steal/destroy the focus statuette before the party brainiac made the roll to remember finer spell details.

(As an aside, there's good metagaming as well as bad metagaming. Bad metagaming is pulling out the books to try and gather the specific details of whatever you're facing. Good metagaming is going along with the party and/or plot because the alternative is bringing the session to a screeching halt. Assuming that metagaming is automatically evil is one of those old habits that needs to die.)

And as mentioned above, if the DM really feels that you're exploiting player knowledge, he's better served changing some details than he is by throwing a snit. Going back to the too specific detail of the Contingency statuette, having a decoy statuette while some other item is the real focus should help discourage players who rely too heavily on memorizing the rulebooks.

For that first bit, I strongly agree in the general case. However, since this is apparently "team caster", I personally would try to get the GM to play the game as though the party was hyper competent in this particular arena, telling them everything magical with no rolls or promoting required.

For the second paragraph, yeah, this. I was taught that metagaming was Evil. This was wrong thinking. And Captain Smeck is the Wrongest.

Disagree on the third paragraph. The best move for the GM is to treat the players like adults, and talk to them about it. However, a GM so incompetent as to chew the players out for an OOC conversation, and misuse the term "metagaming", may have no viable alternative but to use the inferior method you describe.

Basic deductive reasoning, you say? If I see a spell effect go off on someone who didn't cast it, my assumption isn't that they had some kind of contingency effect going on - it's a mechanic that very, very few RPGs have, and even in DnD I was always under assumption it's meant to be a niche and rare thing that became overused on a meta level due to how versatile and powerful it is. Anyway, basic deductive reasoning would tell you that if the person didn't cast the spell, someone else did. Maybe they have an ally scrying on them, ready to teleport them out if things go sour?

Assuming a contingency spell went off makes sense only if you, in-character, know contigency spells exist. Once again, the DM made it clear that the player characters don't.

Again, what's the DC to know that a spell exists? I think Team Caster can meet that.

But, sounds like your intuition served you well on the actual cause. However, I'm confused by this outcome. Why didn't the party notice? Was the wizard invisible, casting a silent stilled spell?

Metagaming by definition is when OOC knowledge flows into IC actions. Using OOC knowledge during OOC conversations is completely fine, so if that's what happened then yes, the DM was being a jerk.

Is the GM "metagaming" for using the word wrong, just like his players did?

[Draconi Redfir]

90%? Just how many are in your party?

seven. at the time this happened, we had an artificer / sorcerer, a psion, a shadowdancer rogue with some spells from a multiclass or rogue trick of some kind, an oracle, a witch, a multiclass bloodrager who didn't have spells yet, and a fighter, who later re-rolled into a caster after this fight.

pathfinder game for the record, wasn't aware this was important sorry.

But, sounds like your intuition served you well on the actual cause. However, I'm confused by this outcome. Why didn't the party notice? Was the wizard invisible, casting a silent stilled spell?

Wizard was physically out of sight, we were on the top floor, the wizard was on the bottom floor, and the paladin and several others were on the stairs between the two.

[KillianHawkeye]

Basic deductive reasoning, you say? If I see a spell effect go off on someone who didn't cast it, my assumption isn't that they had some kind of contingency effect going on - it's a mechanic that very, very few RPGs have, and even in DnD I was always under assumption it's meant to be a niche and rare thing that became overused on a meta level due to how versatile and powerful it is. Anyway, basic deductive reasoning would tell you that if the person didn't cast the spell, someone else did. Maybe they have an ally scrying on them, ready to teleport them out if things go sour?

Assuming a contingency spell went off makes sense only if you, in-character, know contigency spells exist. Once again, the DM made it clear that the player characters don't.

An ally scrying on them, ready to teleport them out if things go sour? That sure sounds like a contingency plan, if not a contingency spell, to me. And that's where you don't seem to understand that "contingency" is a perfectly plausible word in the English language to use to describe anything that seems to happen at a predefined time or upon a predefined triggering condition.

It honestly doens't matter if the contingency spell was being used in this case or if it even exists in the game being played. If the players observed that the enemies were being teleported away in a manner contingent upon them being seriously or critically wounded, there's absolutely nothing wrong with them describing it in such a manner. Especially given that the supposed alternative, "some infernal magic", literally fails to describe the observed effect. At best, "infernal" describes the source of the effect, not the effect itself.

[Mr Beer]

So we describe the event as "they had some kind of contingency spell or something, as they all teleported away when they were close to death" and later on the DM chewed us out for calling it "Contingency" when we SHOULD (apparently) have been calling it "Infernal magic"

OK so your DM is a pretentious douche, sorry to hear that dude.