A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Guest 6801328]

I have observed that when people just simply don't like certain aspects/rules/behaviors in an RPG they will concoct elaborate...and sometimes impressively sophisticated...theories to explain why this is not just their opinion, but that these things are objectively bad. In particular, people will latch onto arguments invoking "realism" and "metagaming" to prove why they are right.

I remember Emerikol from the old WotC forums. IIRC, he hated...hated...any non-magical power that wasn't at will. Effectively, "If a fighter knows how to do something, why can't he do it twice?" He's ok with the sheer improbability of a "whirlwind" attack allowing a Fighter to attack all targets within reach in one attack; what he can't abide by is that the number of uses is somehow restricted. In other words, it's the "at-will martial abilities" sinkhole.

And it's a fair question, philosophically: "If I know how to do it, why can I only do it once per day?" I would have thought a satisfactory answer would be "because if all non-magical abilities were at-will, all non-magical abilities would have to be relatively weaker, for game balance, and you wouldn't get cool moves like Whirlwind attacks" (a.k.a. "this is why we can't have nice things").

But given all the ways we have to metagame to play these games, it strikes me as somewhat odd to latch onto this argument to justify the aesthetic preference. You don't have to justify it: you don't like it. That's cool.

Personally, I'm fine with the "narrativist" answer: circumstances rarely align in which you get to do this cool thing, both for game balance and storytelling reasons (cool things are only cool if they are relatively uncommon). You, the player, are given narrative control to decide when that occurs. Yes, your character would do it every "round" (omg metagame construct warning!) if he could, but he can't. You are hereby empowered to narrate the reason why not.

 

[pemerton]

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.

As are experience points and levels. A few things you kinda just have to accept. I don't agree about vancian casting itself, though. It's entirely in character.

There is no need for combat reslutoin to involve metagame, just as there is no need for (say) climbing resolution, or swimming resolution, or resolving a friendly game of darts, to involve metagame.

For instance, in combat each combatant makes a roll, adjusted appropriately by armour, weapon, etc, and the higher roll wins. Much as one might resolve a game of darts.

The fact that D&D resolves combats in rounds, thereby imposing some metagame from the start, is a legacy of wargaming. It's not inherent to RPGing.

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!!"

A characterknowing that s/he has one second wind between rests is no more or less absurd than knowing that s/he has one second level spell slot between rests. It doesn't "defy reason". And deciding that now is the time to try all out is, in fact, something that a person can decide. (This point has already been made upthread by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].)

If the character knows about something, the character making a decision based on the knowledge cannot be metagaming.

<snip>

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.

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.

If Vancian slots aren't metagame, then the wizard, in the fiction, knows exactly when s/he has the ability to memorise more spells of a given level. Which means that s/he can identify the levels s/he is earning as s/he earns them. There is no "gradually growing stronger" at all.

But in any event, none of this goes to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point. Vancian spell casting is a wargame mechanic, that creates a little sub-game of choosing the right spells to defeat the anticipated obstacles. The fact that a veneer of in-fiction rationale is layered over the top doesn't change that about it.

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.

On the first thing, my players know that I prefer undead, demons, cultists and the like as opponents, and make choices based on that.

On the second, this is an example of mechanics and gameplay parting ways, yet the mechanics lingering on. In the game for which Vancian casting was invented (Chainmail and early D&D), there is no such thing as it being key to cross an obstacle quickly. If an obstacle can't be crossed, then the players simplhy can't get that treasure, or defeat that opponent, or whatever it might be. That's part of the point of Vancian memorisation as a mechanic - it puts the players to the test in this way.

If gameplay has changed, though, so that the GM is establishing a story that the players must progress through, and that progression requires crossing certain obstacles, which in turn requires having certain spells memorised - then why would one even use Vancian casting? What is it adding to the game?

And if we stick with Vancian casting, but the GM takes steps to mitigate the costs of bad memorisation decisions, then what is the GM doing to correspondingly power-up fighters? (Who don't get the benefit of this partiular bit of GM mitigation.)

 

[Maxperson]

A character knowing that s/he has one second wind between rests is no more or less absurd than knowing that s/he has one second level spell slot between rests. It doesn't "defy reason". And deciding that now is the time to try all out is, in fact, something that a person can decide. (This point has already been made upthread by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].)

It absolutely is different. On one hand you have a magic system explained in the game world that allows the wizard to know about his spells. On the other hand you don't have that for the fighter. He has the power, but no such in game explanation for how his character could or would possibly know about it.

If Vancian slots aren't metagame, then the wizard, in the fiction, knows exactly when s/he has the ability to memorise more spells of a given level. Which means that s/he can identify the levels s/he is earning as s/he earns them. There is no "gradually growing stronger" at all.

This is objectively false.

You start with 2 first level spells, then gradually increase to 3. Then you gradually increase to 4 and gain 2 second level spells. Then you gradually increase to 4 first and 3 second. And so on. There is nothing in the game world that says that there is even a single level involved, let alone 3 or 5 or however many levels, with that gradual increase in magical power.

But in any event, none of this goes to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point. Vancian spell casting is a wargame mechanic, that creates a little sub-game of choosing the right spells to defeat the anticipated obstacles. The fact that a veneer of in-fiction rationale is layered over the top doesn't change that about it.

You are assuming that they are picked due to anticipated obstacles. A great many of them are picked because they are generally good, not because of any obstacle the player thinks is coming. Metagaming could happen, but is not in any way an inherent part of vancian casting.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You're reading too much into this. I pulled that example out of my ass to show that some DMs do have predictable behaviors. It could have been dragons in the mountains, kraken on sea voyages, or any other such behavior. Myself, I tend to use more undead than is probably healthy. There are just so many good ones out there and tombs and such would have them roaming about. I'm trying to use them less and add in more variety.

 

[5ekyu]

There is no need for combat reslutoin to involve metagame, just as there is no need for (say) climbing resolution, or swimming resolution, or resolving a friendly game of darts, to involve metagame.

For instance, in combat each combatant makes a roll, adjusted appropriately by armour, weapon, etc, and the higher roll wins. Much as one might resolve a game of darts.

The fact that D&D resolves combats in rounds, thereby imposing some metagame from the start, is a legacy of wargaming. It's not inherent to RPGing.

A characterknowing that s/he has one second wind between rests is no more or less absurd than knowing that s/he has one second level spell slot between rests. It doesn't "defy reason". And deciding that now is the time to try all out is, in fact, something that a person can decide. (This point has already been made upthread by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].)


If Vancian slots aren't metagame, then the wizard, in the fiction, knows exactly when s/he has the ability to memorise more spells of a given level. Which means that s/he can identify the levels s/he is earning as s/he earns them. There is no "gradually growing stronger" at all.

But in any event, none of this goes to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point. Vancian spell casting is a wargame mechanic, that creates a little sub-game of choosing the right spells to defeat the anticipated obstacles. The fact that a veneer of in-fiction rationale is layered over the top doesn't change that about it.

On the first thing, my players know that I prefer undead, demons, cultists and the like as opponents, and make choices based on that.

On the second, this is an example of mechanics and gameplay parting ways, yet the mechanics lingering on. In the game for which Vancian casting was invented (Chainmail and early D&D), there is no such thing as it being key to cross an obstacle quickly. If an obstacle can't be crossed, then the players simplhy can't get that treasure, or defeat that opponent, or whatever it might be. That's part of the point of Vancian memorisation as a mechanic - it puts the players to the test in this way.

If gameplay has changed, though, so that the GM is establishing a story that the players must progress through, and that progression requires crossing certain obstacles, which in turn requires having certain spells memorised - then why would one even use Vancian casting? What is it adding to the game?

And if we stick with Vancian casting, but the GM takes steps to mitigate the costs of bad memorisation decisions, then what is the GM doing to correspondingly power-up fighters? (Who don't get the benefit of this partiular bit of GM mitigation.)

If a gm is so predictable that the choices, goid choices, made in character using campaign in game info are being bypassed by his players and their assumptions of gm bias are being used instead, i think the problem is not anything to do with definition of metagaming.

Players who decided to ignore the info in front of their character's faces and take a choices based on what i did in some other game would find those bad choices in my games.

What does Vancian prep add for a game where sometimes specific abilities are needed? Well, it provides meaningful choices and trade offs and to a large extent rewards advance research and scouting.

It allows, for example, one archtype of large toolbox but prep time vs another with smaller toolbox on the fly.

Whether its vancian spells, which armor to wear, which weapons to learn, what gear to carry, on foit or on horse... A lot of choices can lead to delays due to mismatch between plans and expectations.

The bottleneck is far more likely and problematic in the small toolbox non-prepare sorc than the prep wizard or cleric.

 

[5ekyu]

You're reading too much into this. I pulled that example out of my ass to show that some DMs do have predictable behaviors. It could have been dragons in the mountains, kraken on sea voyages, or any other such behavior. Myself, I tend to use more undead than is probably healthy. There are just so many good ones out there and tombs and such would have them roaming about. I'm trying to use them less and add in more variety.

But is the metagaming bothersome because in your games you use more undead than the setting makes reasonable to expect?

Do you have townsfolk saying "undead, we never see those" yet have undead lurking round every basement in town?

If your game actually has that many undead, in fact, is it metagaming fir foljs in that campaign to prrpare for undead as a general rule?

If there have bern three robberies in my neighborhood in the last six months is my buying a home security system metagaming? Or just prudent?

Is the problem the players expecting lits of undead from your games and being right or you as GM not reflecting the lots of undead in the game world as a reasonable observable thing?

In my games whatever us really there likely is what is observed and reported in character as a lot of different signs and rumors often enough that they have in game info to draw on.

 

[Maxperson]

But is the metagaming bothersome because in your games you use more undead than the setting makes reasonable to expect?

My players don't metagame, so it's not bothersome to me at all. I'm just pointing out how it COULD be used to metagame, not how it is used in my game.

Do you have townsfolk saying "undead, we never see those" yet have undead lurking round every basement in town?

If your game actually has that many undead, in fact, is it metagaming fir foljs in that campaign to prrpare for undead as a general rule?

In my games, monsters are exceedingly rare. If they were not, the PC races would have been wiped off the map thousands of years ago. Monsters just seem more plentiful to PCs, because their job takes them to places where such things can be found, and their fate is to become powerful by overcoming these creatures. The players know that I use a lot of undead, but new PCs don't. Fortunately, my players don't use knowledge that their PCs don't have.

 

[5ekyu]

My players don't metagame, so it's not bothersome to me at all. I'm just pointing out how it COULD be used to metagame, not how it is used in my game.



In my games, monsters are exceedingly rare. If they were not, the PC races would have been wiped off the map thousands of years ago. Monsters just seem more plentiful to PCs, because their job takes them to places where such things can be found, and their fate is to become powerful by overcoming these creatures. The players know that I use a lot of undead, but new PCs don't. Fortunately, my players don't use knowledge that their PCs don't have.

We both agree players can try to metagame.

That was never in dispute.

If thats what your point boils down to then hey we agree.

I dont see it as inevitable or tied to vancian magic inevitably as others seem to.

 

[Lanefan]

I dont see it as any more or less meta. Infact I had a discussion with [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] regarding planning out 20 levels of your character progression in advance, is that not what a multiclass Cleric/Ranger has done? It effectively does not matter what they do to earn their XP because you know that you are going to level up in Cleric first irregardless of how much Rangering that you have done. And then you have an adventure where you are Clericing your heart out and get enough XP to level up in Ranger.

Though I'm just one example, that's not at all how it worked for my R-C.

My original intent with him was that he'd be a Ranger all the way: I was trying to see if 3e would let me have the heavy tank-style Ranger I so loved in 1e. He was about 7 levels into his career before any thought of religion or Clericism came along, and once he got his 8th some things happened in-game that strongly pointed toward his becoming a Cleric. (and to a deity of oceans at that; for some reason random chance just over and over again kept pushing him toward marine stuff - wasn't my idea) But it was a fine example of organic growth of a character in a direction initially unforeseen by its player.

I didn't do, and quite dislike the concept of, the 1-20 plan-out before starting out with him or any of my other 3e PCs.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

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

No, it's more key to me the player. Me the DM doesn't care as much, other than I know my players are as frustrated as I would be were I in that situation.

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.)

True. I just took a bigger hammer to the problem: bye-bye pre-mem. And so far it's worked out not too badly - the main thing I need to tweak is how many slots they get at what levels, but nothing major.

(for added info: we took all Clerics off pre-mem 30+ years ago; the new development for us is taking it off all Mages as well)

Of course, sometimes they don't have the required spell available at all (a chasm to cross and the wizard never learned Fly); and then they do have to get creative...or skip that bit of the adventure.