A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Lanefan]

IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'

Vancian pre-memorization isn't really meta in and of itself; one can if one wants quite easily justify it within a setting as being how magic functions - you have to prepare the spells now that you're going to unleash later.

But it almost inevitably becomes meta very quickly, as players try to guess what's coming up that day using information their caster character doesn't have. On the flip side, there's the inevitable annoyance (both in-character and meta) when you get to a spot that needs a particular spell to continue and nobody memorized it, so the party grinds to a halt for the day.

I don't mind Vancian slots - way better than spell points, and I've used both - but I've come to detest Vancian pre-memorization in any form.

 

[pemerton]

The character (via its player) has for the time being decided to focus it's activities on, say, thieving and sneaking (Rogue) more than on martial action (Fighter).

<snip>

We don't break it down to that degree, but there's the occasional time when a batch of xp will be forced into one class - our usual example is a 25% fighter/75% MU who defeats a foe solely by use of physical combat might get the xp for that combat forced to her Fighter side only.

Most of the time, what I find is that some double-class characters will often tend to use mostly one class in one combat and mostly the other in the next, such that it vaguely evens out in the end. And I don't even think this is intentional on the player's part - it just works out that way.

That, and many double-class characters in effect mostly use one class just to support and augment the other, as in a Thief/MU who mostly uses her spells to help with her sneaking and thieving.

I don't see what your issue is, then, with the ranger/cleric in 3E. The cleric does the odd bit of melee fighting, and wanders through some interesting terrain! Which is what a ranger does.

 

[Maxperson]

IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'

How is it metagame for the PC wizard to say to his companions, "We are about to set foot into the Mountains of Unfriendly Giants. I'm going to memorize rock to mud in case we need to clear out some stone, reduce in case I need to shrink a giant to manageable size, and flight in case we need to cross a chasm?" The player making the decision on what to memorize as the PC and based on what the PC knows about his environment. That's not metagaming.

 

[Maxperson]

But it almost inevitably becomes meta very quickly, as players try to guess what's coming up that day using information their caster character doesn't have.

Right. It would be metagaming if the player in my example above had said, "The DM likes to hit us with invisible creatures in the mountains. I'm also going to memorize see invisibility." Vancian casting itself is not metagaming, but how you use it can be."

On the flip side, there's the inevitable annoyance (both in-character and meta) when you get to a spot that needs a particular spell to continue and nobody memorized it, so the party grinds to a halt for the day.

Been there! More times than I can count.

 

[Nytmare]

So yeah how you generate attributes is a topic many have debated for years. Not related to metagaming but obviously people from both groups overlap (as they do with most game elements).

Like I said before, they wouldn't have used the term at the time, but their complaint would have most certainly been that it was metagaming. What stuck in their craw was that it didn't emulate "real life" and a person didn't decide, after they were born, what their charisma or intelligence was. This was a choice that the player was making outside of the world that they thought the rules were trying to imitate.

More to the point, I think that what I was trying to illustrate was that maybe the concept of what metagaming "is" has more to do with what the person writing the definition is used to, and what the new version of the game is doing differently.

 

[Ted Serious]

Have you even been paying attention to our conversation?

IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'

I don't like metagame. If I like something, it must not be metagame.

Contraposition.

Valid in form. Assumes perfect consistency in a subjective judgement.

Vancian old memorization or 3e or Pathfinder preparation is not metagame. Memorizing or preparing spells based on player knowledge is.

5e slot casting sounds metagame. The slots don't represent anything.


Are characters in Fate able to tamper with the workings of Fate somehow? If not calling it fate would still leave it metagame.

 

[Aldarc]

Vancian pre-memorization isn't really meta in and of itself; one can if one wants quite easily justify it within a setting as being how magic functions - you have to prepare the spells now that you're going to unleash later.

Part of the issue is that the entire vancian magic system works in the meta economy of spell slots and levels where you can cast X number of times per day.

I don't mind Vancian slots - way better than spell points, and I've used both - but I've come to detest Vancian pre-memorization in any form.

I usually prefer magic as "skill" rolls/checks (e.g., Blue Rose, True20). Keep casting until you fatigue yourself. This would also be fantastic for a fail-forward or success-with-a-cost subsystem. So the caster could "fail" the ability check for the casting roll, but then force themselves to cast it no matter the cost to themselves because of its necessity to the mission.

How is it metagame for the PC wizard to say to his companions, "We are about to set foot into the Mountains of Unfriendly Giants. I'm going to memorize rock to mud in case we need to clear out some stone, reduce in case I need to shrink a giant to manageable size, and flight in case we need to cross a chasm?" The player making the decision on what to memorize as the PC and based on what the PC knows about his environment. That's not metagaming.

Because there is a player awareness of most effective spells that are often best or most useful in the meta of D&D play, and that player awareness will form part of the strategy of "character choices." You can justify it as "character knowledge," but it still fundamentally operates as part of the metagame of D&D. Also, the entire spell organization of spell slots and spell levels is pretty darn metagame.

Are characters in Fate able to tamper with the workings of Fate somehow? If not calling it fate would still leave it metagame.

Sure, why not? Spending fate points represents the character exerting themselves in the narrative or influencing the narrative.

 

[5ekyu]

Vancian pre-memorization isn't really meta in and of itself; one can if one wants quite easily justify it within a setting as being how magic functions - you have to prepare the spells now that you're going to unleash later.

But it almost inevitably becomes meta very quickly, as players try to guess what's coming up that day using information their caster character doesn't have. On the flip side, there's the inevitable annoyance (both in-character and meta) when you get to a spot that needs a particular spell to continue and nobody memorized it, so the party grinds to a halt for the day.

I don't mind Vancian slots - way better than spell points, and I've used both - but I've come to detest Vancian pre-memorization in any form.

Inevitable use of info the character doesnt have to prepare spells?

Please provide examples?

I certainly have not seen this occur at all often enough to classify itcas inevitable.

What info the character doesnt have are they using to pick/guess?

 

[5ekyu]

Right. It would be metagaming if the player in my example above had said, "The DM likes to hit us with invisible creatures in the mountains. I'm also going to memorize see invisibility." Vancian casting itself is not metagaming, but how you use it can be."

Been there! More times than I can count.

Are you saying the player is drawing conclusions here from other games in other settings... So that the invisibles in mountains is not established in the setting?

Sounds like a very bad bet to make, based on my experience.

Your games see this as inevitable?

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see what your issue is, then, with the ranger/cleric in 3E. The cleric does the odd bit of melee fighting, and wanders through some interesting terrain! Which is what a ranger does.

I don't have any issue with the idea of a Ranger-Cleric...in fact the level numbers I've been quoting (R-8/C-2) are from a character I actually played up to that level. He went straight to R-8 as a single-class then due to some in-game developments he flipped to Cleric.

I do have an issue - well, a series of issues - with how 3e's mechanics interact with the concept, and with 3e's multiclassing in general.