A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

It corresponds to an in-game reality, but the PC can't know that it has 18000xp, or that he's level 3 vs. level 5. Those numbers are representative of metagame ideas. The PC has them and uses them, but doesn't really have a basis for knowing them. He can just know that he's capable of doing more now and has learned a bunch of stuff since he started.
The numbers are arbitrary, but the ideas they represent exist wholly within the game world. You could replace every number on the sheet with a paragraph describing how it looks to the character, if you really wanted to.

It's a true fact of their reality that a particular wizard may need to slay fifteen more goblins before he is capable of casting fireball, and there's no reason why the wizard couldn't know that. All of the variables involved - how many goblins a given wizard has overcome, and how powerful of spells they can cast - are observable to the character. The chain of causality is as real within the narrative as it is within the mechanics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
No, this really isn't something that the character can know. It's nonsensical that you can only ever have one, and as an in-game thing, it defies reason. It's purely a metagame ability that the player uses that the PC doesn't know about. People can't decide, "Hey, I'm now going to get my second wind!!"
It seems absurd to say this when this is on the same level as, "Hey, I'm going to cast one of my level 4 spells, and then I will be out of spell slots of that level." The resource management of Vancian casting is simply part of the metagame. Call it a "necessary evil" if you like, but let's face it: metagaming is an intrinsic part of the D&D spell system.

This is true. There is a reasonable in-game explanation for why this happens, so PCs can know it.
Again, lipstick on a pig.

This is one of those necessary evils. Combat just doesn't work without some metagame happening. Realistic combat is impossible to achieve without bogging the game down in hours or days(real life days) of combat. The PC really can't know where everyone is at all times. That's another thing that fails to have an in-game explanation, so is purely a metagame player ability.
But it is still a metagame, which is my point here.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The numbers are arbitrary, but the ideas they represent exist wholly within the game world. You could replace every number on the sheet with a paragraph describing how it looks to the character, if you really wanted to.

It's a true fact of their reality that a particular wizard may need to slay fifteen more goblins before he is capable of casting fireball, and there's no reason why the wizard couldn't know that. All of the variables involved - how many goblins a given wizard has overcome, and how powerful of spells they can cast - are observable to the character. The chain of causality is as real within the narrative as it is within the mechanics.

You act as if they've gone out and scientifically researched how many goblins it takes to "level up." It's not like they tested 15 goblins with a wizard solo, then added wizard and one companion, all the way up to a party of five. A wizard isn't going to have any idea how many more of anything it will take to gain a level. They will be aware when their power increases, though.
 

You act as if they've gone out and scientifically researched how many goblins it takes to "level up." It's not like they tested 15 goblins with a wizard solo, then added wizard and one companion, all the way up to a party of five. A wizard isn't going to have any idea how many more of anything it will take to gain a level. They will be aware when their power increases, though.
The Forgotten Realms does seem to operate on the notion that Adventurer is a well-established and well-understood profession. It's a pretty weird place, and based on the novels I've read, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone had actually performed such tests.

More generally, though, the basic premise of a class-and-level system is that you're doing all sorts of things all the time. A level is a long enough period that you should have used all of your skills and spells along the way, before gaining the next level. (You don't get better at casting spells by killing goblins; you get better at casting spells by casting spells, which you are assumed to do in proportion to how many goblins you kill.) To that end, a wizard who is almost to level 5 will be more knowledgeable and more competent than one barely past the level 4 threshold; it's just that the game mechanics are insufficient to reflect that difference.

To the wizards who actually live in that world, it seems reasonable that one might be able to figure out that they can almost cast Fireball. Narratively speaking, they are almost competent enough - in terms of magical energy, or skill - to prepare it. They're certainly better than they were two weeks ago, when they finally mastered Flaming Sphere. They're aware of the in-game reality which corresponds to Experience, because it's literally just experience.
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
So a short definition: Metagaming.
Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.

So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things. What house rules have you developed? Is the game salvageable for someone like us?
The complaint, if I'm reading it right, is that characters are all but required to act on metagame elements.

I think that's a problem shared by every game that uses character sheets to record anything other than character backstory.

Since rules are metagame elements, is it really possible to write a rule that fixes the problem?
 

5ekyu

Hero
When I played/ran games using pre-mem I saw it just about every time casters did their prep while in the field. Players would use info they had as players (e.g. knowing the DM's preferred monsters, seeing the module cover, etc.).

But, this is to me a minor issue compared to this: with pre-mem a caster is often stuck with spells she can't use and a party is often stuck because the spell they need to continue wasn't memorized. It's these things that eventually led me to drop pre-mem entirely.
I have not seen as i recall players in games i played in or gmed every saying anything like "this gm likes abc so...". They sure might say "these show signs of..." Or "we keep encountering" or "the travelkers we passed said they heard..." etc etc etc.

As for both that and the wrong spells ready, if its key to you the gm that they move quickly past whatever is blocking their progress, the most obvious ways to deal with that are them getting info along the way that lets them know (we came thru there yesterday and the bridge was out) or finding another resource (this troll we kilked, looks like he has been killing and we found this scroll of flying as well as a partial map of our destination.)

If its not key they cross it quickly, it sets up an overnight stay and encounter opportunity.

Each gm has their own peeves and preferences so, to me, not having the right tool prepared all the time has not been to me a large gaming problem... Any,more than say any other meaningful choice they can get wrong is.

If they always have to be right, not that meaningful a choice to me.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The Forgotten Realms does seem to operate on the notion that Adventurer is a well-established and well-understood profession. It's a pretty weird place, and based on the novels I've read, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone had actually performed such tests.

More generally, though, the basic premise of a class-and-level system is that you're doing all sorts of things all the time. A level is a long enough period that you should have used all of your skills and spells along the way, before gaining the next level. (You don't get better at casting spells by killing goblins; you get better at casting spells by casting spells, which you are assumed to do in proportion to how many goblins you kill.) To that end, a wizard who is almost to level 5 will be more knowledgeable and more competent than one barely past the level 4 threshold; it's just that the game mechanics are insufficient to reflect that difference.

To the wizards who actually live in that world, it seems reasonable that one might be able to figure out that they can almost cast Fireball. Narratively speaking, they are almost competent enough - in terms of magical energy, or skill - to prepare it. They're certainly better than they were two weeks ago, when they finally mastered Flaming Sphere. They're aware of the in-game reality which corresponds to Experience, because it's literally just experience.

I get all of that. My point is that to the wizard, fireball might happen at level 2, 6, 12 or 18 for all he knows. All he is aware of are those changes as he gradually grows stronger. In fact, to the wizard there probably are no levels at all. He just gradually gets stronger and more knowledgeable. Think of yourself in your career. If you have been in it for any length of time, you are very much better at it than when you started, but you couldn't truly name me a level that you were at.

The levels themselves are metagame.
 

5ekyu

Hero
Character knowledge isn't a justification. It's quite literally the entirety of whether something is metagaming or not. If the character knows about something, the character making a decision based on the knowledge cannot be metagaming.



I disagree. The entirely of the system exists with reasonable game world explanations of why it happens that way. Those explanations take away any metagame aspects of the system, because the PC is making all of the choices in character for in character reasons.
I would tend to assume a GM using invisible monsters in mountains is a setting element... Not sure i have ever seen such a bias across multiple games with different settings.

But hey, maybe enough gms are seen by some to be so cross campaign biased as to make it seem inevitable.

You and i agree tho it seems - metagaming is not inevitable as others have said it is.
 

5ekyu

Hero
It seems absurd to say this when this is on the same level as, "Hey, I'm going to cast one of my level 4 spells, and then I will be out of spell slots of that level." The resource management of Vancian casting is simply part of the metagame. Call it a "necessary evil" if you like, but let's face it: metagaming is an intrinsic part of the D&D spell system.

Again, lipstick on a pig.

But it is still a metagame, which is my point here.
In a scifi version of the same type of 5e the slots represent implanted power cores that can be used to power devices and that recharge with long rests. So there are easy ways to express the same kind of "slots" into fantasy if one is really really hung up on the "metagaming" fixation.

Admittedly, perhaps easier with a point talent system like presented in the DMG optional rules. I personally would use that for sorcs and let wizards use fixed slots.
 

5ekyu

Hero
You act as if they've gone out and scientifically researched how many goblins it takes to "level up." It's not like they tested 15 goblins with a wizard solo, then added wizard and one companion, all the way up to a party of five. A wizard isn't going to have any idea how many more of anything it will take to gain a level. They will be aware when their power increases, though.
There are multiple non-goblin counting advancement options for gms who dont like goblin cpunting xp based systems for whatever reason. So, its a choice, not a mandate.
 

Remove ads

Top