A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

5ekyu · Jul 2, 2018

Imaculata said:
I've never been bothered with meta-game concepts in the game design of any game, or with meta gaming in general. I guess it is a sliding scale, but most of the time I don't mind my players thinking as gamers. There's nothing wrong with approaching the game like a game. Whether that means using game rules that have no real in-game explanation, or thinking about the game strategically (instead of what your character would do), it's fine.

And on the latter: I've had situations in my campaign where a player wanted to prepare spells, but as a player he expected undead, while his character did not have any in-game reason to expect those. So I just said to him: Bring what ever spells you as a player want to bring. It's only a game, and it is okay to approach it as a game every now and then. I think this relaxed attitude of mine towards meta-gaming in general, explains why I feel equally relaxed about meta-game mechanics.

Does it really matter in regards to the metagame side of the discussion, what we call these game mechanics? Whether they be special class rules or feats, they are still special abilities that a character can unlock by leveling.

As it just so happens, I'm currently working on a semi-realistic board game, in which the game mechanics all need to be justified by realism in regards to its subject matter, while still trying to keep the game light on rules and easy to understand (and remember). So, although there is some clear balancing being done in the rules, I try to have a logical explanation for everything, that is also internally consistent. And I find that is quite a challenge. I have done away with hit points entirely, and with armor values, or tracking ammunition. This abstraction seems to work in this game's favor, because it means there is less to keep track of, and it simulates a certain degree of deadliness in combat that is in line with the realism goal. I've basically replaced hit points, with either being wounded, not wounded, or dead.

"And on the latter: I've had situations in my campaign where a player wanted to prepare spells, but as a player he expected undead, while his character did not have any in-game reason to expect those"

Just curious, can you give any sprcifics on the undead prep case? I am curious as to why a player would want to prep for or expect undead but the character have no in-game sense of it.

Was it player saw other scenes playing out his character was not at and had no input from and so he knew but character didn't or something less divergent?

Flexor the Mighty! · Jul 2, 2018

Emerikol said:
What about you old schoolers? There is a lot to like in some of the old school games but I find them not systematic enough for me. Heck 5e probably isn't as much as I'd like. Everything is a special class rule. I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e. But I am also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.

Thoughts?

I can't help you much, I'm an old schooler playing an OD&D clone and I have no issues with metagaming. But I wish you luck on finding what you need to max your fun at the table.

Emerikol · Jul 2, 2018

Flexor the Mighty! said:
I can't help you much, I'm an old schooler playing an OD&D clone and I have no issues with metagaming. But I wish you luck on finding what you need to max your fun at the table.

So what drew you to old school gaming over say 5e? I kind of thought a lot of old schoolers where like me. They prefer old style healing and no metagame. Of course I loved Gygax's writing as well. He never wrote like he was inventing anything. He wrote like he was revealing something that already existed.

.

Umbran · Jul 2, 2018

Emerikol said:
To me there is a style of play, let me call it story creation, that I'm not a fan of personally. Where the players, thinking as players, are moving their characters around with the intent of making a cool story. So they might make suboptimal choices intentionally for the good of the story.

In my experience, that doesn't happen in FATE games. I think you are in fear of a bugaboo.

The player is still always making optimal choices - they want a cool story in which their character succeeds and is a hero. Sometimes, the optimal choice in FATE games is for the player to accept a minor difficulty now, so as to have the FATE points later to more thoroughly stomp the bad guy with later. But the aim is still to make optimal choices.

The point to remember is that, while in D&D your character is probably at their most resource rich at the start of the adventure/day. While you may gain some resources at various parts along the way, an adventure overall is a challenge of resource conservation, to make sure you don't spend too many resources before their final climactic encounters. While in FATE, an adventure is a challenge of resource *building*, so that the character is at peak resources just as they enter climactic encounters.

In my style of play, the players do things that their characters would do to win. I admit I can't enforce this absolutely but it definitely trends that way. In the undead example above, if my players knew undead were coming, my characters would too.

Yes. Did you somehow come to the conclusion that in FATE, if players knew undead were coming, they would conspicuously *not* prepare for them?

Flexor the Mighty! · Jul 2, 2018

Emerikol said:
So what drew you to old school gaming over say 5e? I kind of thought a lot of old schoolers where like me. They prefer old style healing and no metagame. Of course I loved Gygax's writing as well. He never wrote like he was inventing anything. He wrote like he was revealing something that already existed. .

Mostly simplicity and I personally found 5e to be easy mode D&D at my table, after about 5th level there wasn't much challenge unless they rushed an obvious TPK. So i was having to rework a lot of published material that I used since I lack the time to really write up full campaigns and at that point I was spending as much time reworking as if I was writing it myself. Old style healing is part of it, when you embrace the healing nature of 5e it becomes a bit too over the top for me. The running joke was a good nights sleep cures cancer. I started with red box basic and while 5e had a lot of nods to the classic game it had a bunch of stuff that I found hard to take seriously.

S&W is more seat of my pants but I don't mind that at the table and I want less staring at sheets trying to perfectly time feat combos and more tell me what you want to do and we will figure it out. Plus meat grinder dungeons work better in the older editions and this is a game that is more players vs dungeon/referee. And it hits my nostalgia button no doubt.

But my opinion on meta-gaming is that I expect players to use their knowledge to improve their chance of succeeding and having fun at the table. I view it as a game first and foremost. A fun game with action, adventure, exploration, and story that comes out of all that. I don't sweat why a player uses action surge at this point and why he can't do it again until he gets some shut eye. I just figure he had the last little bit of reserves to throw at it when the key moment arrived. Later when the story comes together its not that important to me why the fighter had that burst, but that he did and evil was vanquished.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 2, 2018

Umbran said:
In my experience, that doesn't happen in FATE games. I think you are in fear of a bugaboo.

FATE is pretty explicit with its goals. There are points in the rulebook where it actually tells you to do what will make for a better story, because the mechanics will reward you with points that you can use to contrive coincidences later on.

That's not me trying to connect the dots with the reward mechanic, either. It literally says to take certain actions because you will get points for it.

Umbran · Jul 2, 2018

Saelorn said:
FATE is pretty explicit with its goals. There are points in the rulebook where it actually tells you to do what will make for a better story, because the mechanics will reward you with points that you can use to contrive coincidences later on.

That's not me trying to connect the dots with the reward mechanic, either. It literally says to take certain actions because you will get points for it.

Yes. And you do get rewarded. So... the choice that gets you the reward.. that's the optimal choice, now isn't it?

Do you define "optimal" in some way other than, "the one that is most likely to get you what you really want"? Yes, it is optimal from the player's perspective, not the character's. The player accepts difficulties for the character, because they make play more interesting, and they pay off in the long run.

Those choices still have to result in things that make sense in the fiction. If the PCs hear there's vampires coming, they're going to prep up for vampires. You are not asked to do stuff that makes no sense for yo to do - it is more like accepting that the Universe isn't going to play nice with your attempts to prepare for vampires.

GM: "So, as you are prepping, you discover... the grocer is out of garlic! *hands player a Fate Point*."
Player: *takes Fate point* "Oh, well, I wasn't looking forward to a fight that smelled like scampi anyway. Let's focus on the UV strobes instead...."

Emerikol · Jul 2, 2018

Umbran said:
In my experience, that doesn't happen in FATE games. I think you are in fear of a bugaboo.

The player is still always making optimal choices - they want a cool story in which their character succeeds and is a hero. Sometimes, the optimal choice in FATE games is for the player to accept a minor difficulty now, so as to have the FATE points later to more thoroughly stomp the bad guy with later. But the aim is still to make optimal choices.

I'm probably just not clear enough in explaining my view. Choosing to accept something bad now in a metagame way to pave the way for future success has to be player thinking. A character would not think that way. On every action he is trying to do his best.

Umbran said:
The point to remember is that, while in D&D your character is probably at their most resource rich at the start of the adventure/day. While you may gain some resources at various parts along the way, an adventure overall is a challenge of resource conservation, to make sure you don't spend too many resources before their final climactic encounters. While in FATE, an adventure is a challenge of resource *building*, so that the character is at peak resources just as they enter climactic encounters.

Even in a fantasy world, doesn't the D&D way seem more realistic given the fantasy assumptions? Getting more powerful as you go is perhaps a tv trope. Meaning the hero seems to face defeat a few times before finally succeeding. It does feel right to me.

Umbran said:
Yes. Did you somehow come to the conclusion that in FATE, if players knew undead were coming, they would conspicuously *not* prepare for them?

No. I'm saying that in my style of play character knowledge and player knowledge is the same. So whatever you choose to do you are already basing it on character knowledge alone because as DM that is all I'm giving you.

Emerikol · Jul 2, 2018

Umbran said:
Yes. And you do get rewarded. So... the choice that gets you the reward.. that's the optimal choice, now isn't it?

Do you define "optimal" in some way other than, "the one that is most likely to get you what you really want"? Yes, it is optimal from the player's perspective, not the character's. The player accepts difficulties for the character, because they make play more interesting, and they pay off in the long run.

I should have waited on this post to respond. This disconnect between player and character is what this thread is about. I don't like it and others do like it. I'm taking ideas on the best approach to get the style I prefer. YMMV.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 2, 2018

Umbran said:
Yes. And you do get rewarded. So... the choice that gets you the reward.. that's the optimal choice, now isn't it?

It's the optimal choice for the player, but it's not necessarily the optimal choice for the character. But it's a role-playing game, so I should be doing what the character wants, rather than what the player wants.

Although, honestly, I'm not keen on any mechanic that puts the goals of the character and the goals of the player at odds with each other. I know that the correct choice in that circumstance is to do what the character wants, rather than what the player wants, but I still can't help but feel somewhat conflicted about it.

A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

5ekyu

Hero

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

Emerikol

Adventurer

Umbran

Mod Squad

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Umbran

Mod Squad

Emerikol

Adventurer

Emerikol

Adventurer

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Similar Threads