A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Shasarak]

Hi Shasarak -

Dropping in due to the mention. I think that there's a different definition of metagaming that I subscribe to which is ever so slightly different than the definition of the OP. Additionally, I've not read the first 28 pages aside from the OP, so there's a good chance this is going to go tangentially to the original reason for your post.

Definition of metagaming for me is: Player makes a decision that his or her character could not reasonably make because it requires player knowledge of the rules that the character could not logically make due to lack of similar knowledge in game.

So a player building his character out for 20 levels in advance with all bells and whistles before game start is definitely metagaming.
The same player making plans for his character five levels out because the character has developed his or her relationships with their guilds or trainers and knows more or less where they want to spend their time is not metagaming.

The difference is obvious, but it's not likely to come up unless you've got an older school DM that bakes that stuff in due to habit from the old days. I've some players in my contacts list that prefer it, and many more who would look at me funny if I suggested it.

Be well
KB

If you are looking at ADnD classes then there is no effective difference in metagaming between playing any class and playing a character class that you have designed yourself. In either case it does not matter what happens during the actual campaign.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I got your point; but Author and Director stance point away from playing the character as a person and more towards playing it as a pawn...which while fine for playing the game as a game doesn't meet my definition of playing a role.

You didn't write the blog, but as you're who quoted it in here who else am I supposed to reply to?

Yes; and in my opinion a veggie-burger isn't a real hamburger, it's a fake.

Well, yes.
First off, note than when I say "speaking in character" I'm not referring to using a different voice or accent or whatever, I'm referring to simply saying the actual words that your character would say rather than using player-speak.

I'm playing Jocinda in a combat situation, Falstaffe is one of my fellow party members. The DM has just informed me that I've noticed an enemy sneaking up on unaware Falstaffe...

1. "Falstaffe, look out on your left!"
2. "I warn Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."
3. "Jocinda warns Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."

See the difference? The first puts me in the action - I'm playing the role of Jocinda and saying what she would say. The other two leave me remote from Jocinda the character, the third a bit more so than the second, and in some situations (probably not this specific example) both might even bog things down if the DM or another player for whatever reason needs to know exactly what words I'm using.

The first is role-playing. The third is game-playing. The second is somewhere in between.

Lanefan

p.s. Another aspect to this: at times in the past a hard-line enforcement of "if you say it, your character says it" has been the only way to shut down all the disruptive side-chatter and table talk.

All three are roleplaying.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm sorry, Emerikol, but there are low-impact maneuvers that can only be used in specific circumstances but are highly effective when pulled off.

The debate is who controls those circumstances. The player? If so then it is unlike the real world. Such circumstances in the real world are presented as opportunities. This is why I actually like the Pathfinder concept of any roll exceeding the to hit score required is a critical. It reveals talent beating inferior talent without going metagame.

The problem with a fixed number of encounter powers is that these powers come into play regardless of the skill of your adversary. The reality is that against really bad enemies you'd pull of special manuevers a lot more often and against someone super skilled you would not.

This is what limited use martial exploits represent. Now, yes, you could represent these maneuvers by making a melee combat system that is incredibly detailed and complicated and give specific fictional triggers for when to pull these off. However, at that point you are asking for way more cognitive load than even complicated systems like Pathfinder are typically willing to adhere to.

Actually my idea of "triggered" effects is exactly what they seem to be doing in Pf2e.

Just as you have previously argued for in this thread in regards to Armor Class and hit points, its an abstraction. I mean, seriously, I could nitpick why armor doesn't reduce damage from received blows to argue why Armor Class doesn't "make sense" --- and I would have just as much standing as your position on limited use martial abilities. The only difference between Armor Class and Martial Exploits is one is an abstraction that you have internalized and familiarized yourself to such a degree that it doesn't register as "metagame" to you while the other one does.

Abstractions always sacrifice verisimilitude for simplicity and ease-of-use. Its a trade off you accept when you use them.

Again, it's not about realism. Every time you make a realism argument you are not understanding the point. It's play mode. Actor, Author, Director are stances that players take. I don't want to be in any mode other than Actor. I hoped that page would make that clear. I know D&D is not realistic. It's high fantasy and that isn't realistic. I've said that a half dozen times on this thread but people keep making the same arguments.

It's starting to feel like I'm dealing with color blind people. I keep talking about red and green colors and some of you look at me with a blank stare uncomprehending that they are different to me. They are and if you are only seeing gray that is fine. For some of us the red and green are definitely there.

 

[Emerikol]

Sure, but the problem IMHO is that I think that 100 percent pure Actor Stance is an inherent impossibility. In the context of theatrical drama, the Actor is a also a part-time Author and Director. The Actor is interpreting the character, but that interpretation will be guided by their own Authorial sense. And we may take "Authorial sense" here as a conglomeration of the Actor's understanding of the author's intent, the director's intent, and their own reading of this character. And I think that when roleplaying, Author stance becomes even more prominent while Acting than in a theatrical production. Because the person will be forcing the character to do things that may align more closely to the social contract that actually may deviate from sense of character: e.g., follow the GM's adventure, don't be a dick to the party, follow along with the party, gold/killing monsters helps you level-up, etc.

Edit: The author of the blog post you quoted even has a similar position:

I don't want mechanics that force me out of actor stance. To me roleplaying games are pretty poor games without that immersive actor stance. If you are playing it like a board game where you are just moving pieces around that is perfectly fine but in those cases I'd prefer to just play something else. RPG's have so much more potential to me and I don't want to ruin the fun my group has with mechanics that are constantly bothering them.

 

[Aldarc]

I got your point; but Author and Director stance point away from playing the character as a person and more towards playing it as a pawn...which while fine for playing the game as a game doesn't meet my definition of playing a role.

(1) Pawn is a separate stance that the blog author details. (2) Playing a role when acting often does involve role switching as the actor is an interlocutor of the character. The director has a sense of character. The author has a sense of character. The actor has a sense of character. Neither director, author, nor actor inherently has a sense of character as pawn. This is why I find such arbitrary categories unhelpful. As the blog writer says, we often switch as players between these stances seamlessly and unconsciously.

Saying that we should stay in Actor stance does not seem like a useful ethic for roleplay. It seems instead like an enforcement of "onetruefun." Roleplay of a character "as a real person" involves far more depth than merely what the Actor role in itself would suggest. I think that Actor stance seeks to impose an incredibly rigid and unrealistic stance on what roleplay should be that seems naively unaware of the complexity of the human agent. It's not that the Actor stance is wrong or badwrongfun, but, rather, that we should embrace the complexity of human agent as a roleplayer who engages in all stances. I would personally appreciate a system that embraces such forthright honesty of this layered complexity more than one that demands a dogmatic adherence to one mode or stance. It's why I have come to embrace systems like PbtA and Fate. When a player has great authority to be both author and actor, they paradoxically possess a greater sense of embracing their role as actor.

You didn't write the blog, but as you're who quoted it in here who else am I supposed to reply to?

How about the guy who originally both posted and quoted it in this thread?

Yes; and in my opinion a veggie-burger isn't a real hamburger, it's a fake.

Nah. Because as cognitive linguistics also tells us, "burger" has also developed into its own metonymic unit of cognitive meaning even though it the word derives from Hamburg. And 'hamburger' has taken on its own sort of Platonic ideal separate from its origin. I say this as a "flexitarian" dating a vegetarian so my perspective is weighted.

Well, yes.

More "nah." That's far too snobbish and impractical for my tastes. IMHO, the goal of roleplay should be fun and developing a grasp of character within the experienced world. A roleplay game is also a game ideally played with friends.

First off, note than when I say "speaking in character" I'm not referring to using a different voice or accent or whatever, I'm referring to simply saying the actual words that your character would say rather than using player-speak.

Yes, I recognized that, but I still disagree. Some people are more comfortable with player-speak over character-speak, and I refuse to dismiss their roleplaying capabilities or give preferential treatment to others, especially after some of the horribad character-speak I have experienced. Some players are simply more comfortable roleplying from a position of player-speak than character-speak, but in this position, I have seen some better roleplay than character-speak. This is a clear-cut case of correlation does not equate to causation.

p.s. Another aspect to this: at times in the past a hard-line enforcement of "if you say it, your character says it" has been the only way to shut down all the disruptive side-chatter and table talk.

Which says more about your law enforcement on extraneous chatter than what should be the goals or means of roleplay.

 

[Emerikol]

Saying that we should stay in Actor stance does not seem like a useful ethic for roleplay. It seems instead like an enforcement of "onetruefun."

Is insisting chess players at a tournament all play chess a form of "onetruefun"? Even if a checkers tournament is being put on by a different group just down the hall?

No one on this thread as far as I know is saying EVERYONE has to play THEIR way. I posted the thread to begin with to seek advice on playing my way. Instead I am getting a running attack on my style of play and how I shouldn't embrace it. It's kind of obnoxious. I've probably been playing roleplaying games longer than a lot of you have been alive. I know what works for me and my groups. I could care less what other groups do. And yes if you play in my campaign you will play my way or you will be bounced out of the group and on your way.

Advocating for a style for one group is in no way imposing a playstyle on any other group. I am assuming there are all kinds of groups out there with a whole bunch of different playstyles. It doesn't bother me at all. In fact I'm happy our hobby can attract so many different and innovative ideas for having fun. But taste is hard to dispute as the philosophers say. My taste is actor stance (and a host of other things but for this thread that is the one we are discussing).

Roleplay of a character "as a real person" involves far more depth than merely what the Actor role in itself would suggest. I think that Actor stance seeks to impose an incredibly rigid and unrealistic stance on what roleplay should be that seems naively unaware of the complexity of the human agent. It's not that the Actor stance is wrong or badwrongfun, but, rather, that we should embrace the complexity of human agent as a roleplayer who engages in all stances. I would personally appreciate a system that embraces such forthright honesty of this layered complexity more than one that demands a dogmatic adherence to one mode or stance. It's why I have come to embrace systems like PbtA and Fate. When a player has great authority to be both author and actor, they paradoxically possess a greater sense of embracing their role as actor.

That is why they make different games and in some cases games that can be played in a variety of different ways. But I think your use of the term "should" goes a bit far. We "should" do one thing with a game. Have fun.

More "nah." That's far too snobbish and impractical for my tastes. IMHO, the goal of roleplay should be fun and developing a grasp of character within the experienced world. A roleplay game is also a game ideally played with friends.

There is nothing snobbish about desiring a certain type of game. It's only snobbish to assert that we "should" not play the way we do. That is snobbish.

Yes, I recognized that, but I still disagree. Some people are more comfortable with player-speak over character-speak, and I refuse to dismiss their roleplaying capabilities or give preferential treatment to others, especially after some of the horribad character-speak I have experienced. Some players are simply more comfortable roleplying from a position of player-speak than character-speak, but in this position, I have seen some better roleplay than character-speak. This is a clear-cut case of correlation does not equate to causation.

Which says more about your law enforcement on extraneous chatter than what should be the goals or means of roleplay.

But if his group, guided by his principles, is having a lot of fun and deriving satisfaction from their play experience who are you to question him? I'm not questioning you or any of the other players on this thread. I'm not saying any playstyle is inferior in an absolute sense. Those who enjoy all three stances should play with all three. I just don't prefer all three. I prefer one.

If there is any one true wayism going on in this thread it is those trying to say that some playstyles are bad and should be avoided or that they are invalid in some way.

 

[Lanefan]

(1) Pawn is a separate stance that the blog author details. (2) Playing a role when acting often does involve role switching as the actor is an interlocutor of the character. The director has a sense of character. The author has a sense of character. The actor has a sense of character. Neither director, author, nor actor inherently has a sense of character as pawn. This is why I find such arbitrary categories unhelpful. As the blog writer says, we often switch as players between these stances seamlessly and unconsciously.

Agreed that the pigeonholes are a bit too much hole and not enough pigeon. That said, most players are going to kind of default (vaguely) to one stance, use that as a base to drift from, and then return.

I guess I see the difference as being while both the author and director have a sense of character in that they've (usually) got a clear idea of what their characters are all about, what motivates them, etc.; only the actor has a sense of character in terms of actually being the character, inhabiting its personality and looking through its eyes. That's (ideally) what I'm after.

Saying that we should stay in Actor stance does not seem like a useful ethic for roleplay. It seems instead like an enforcement of "onetruefun." Roleplay of a character "as a real person" involves far more depth than merely what the Actor role in itself would suggest. I think that Actor stance seeks to impose an incredibly rigid and unrealistic stance on what roleplay should be that seems naively unaware of the complexity of the human agent. It's not that the Actor stance is wrong or badwrongfun, but, rather, that we should embrace the complexity of human agent as a roleplayer who engages in all stances. I would personally appreciate a system that embraces such forthright honesty of this layered complexity more than one that demands a dogmatic adherence to one mode or stance. It's why I have come to embrace systems like PbtA and Fate. When a player has great authority to be both author and actor, they paradoxically possess a greater sense of embracing their role as actor.

Simple game mechanics dictate we can't stay in actor all the time - no character ever says "I rolled a 6, plus 2 for strength and three for magic weapon - did I hit?" to her opponent! But barring these considerations, I'd far rather say what my character says and have others do likewise than play in the third person.

How about the guy who originally both posted and quoted it in this thread?

Someone else already hit it? Must have missed that - sorry. First I noticed it was in your post.

Nah. Because as cognitive linguistics also tells us, "burger" has also developed into its own metonymic unit of cognitive meaning even though it the word derives from Hamburg. And 'hamburger' has taken on its own sort of Platonic ideal separate from its origin. I say this as a "flexitarian" dating a vegetarian so my perspective is weighted.

If I walk up to a food truck and ask for a hamburger it's only natural for me to expect to get handed a bun with some ground beef in it, along with some optional extras (sauce, lettuce, cheese, etc.); and if I get handed something else e.g. a fishburger or tofuburger or whatever I'm within reason to ask "What the hell is this?". Right?

IMHO, the goal of roleplay should be fun and developing a grasp of character within the experienced world.

Agreed. And the quickest way to develop said grasp of character is to become that character, to the extent that game mechanics and other considerations allow.

A roleplay game is also a game ideally played with friends.

Again agreed, and preferably all in the same physical place.

Yes, I recognized that, but I still disagree. Some people are more comfortable with player-speak over character-speak, and I refuse to dismiss their roleplaying capabilities or give preferential treatment to others, especially after some of the horribad character-speak I have experienced.

I'll take horribad character-speak over player-speak any day; as at least the horribad character-speaker is trying, and the results are almost always amusing and-or entertaining.

I'm also more than capable of giving back horribad character-speak, as many who have gamed with me can attest.

Some players are simply more comfortable roleplying from a position of player-speak than character-speak, but in this position, I have seen some better roleplay than character-speak.

All three are roleplaying.

And here's where I disagree with both of you: player-speak can give some excellent game play but in the end that's all it is - a player playing a game. The player isn't even trying* to inhabit the character, think what it thinks, speak the character's words, etc. LARPs have it right - you become the character whose role you're playing. A tabletop game ideally is the same sort of thing, only without the costumes and active movement.

* - at least, not to an observer. Internally to herself the player might be quite actively doing all of these things, but if it's not reflected in her actual play then what's the point?

Lan-"speaking from an idealist point of view here, well knowing reality always blunts ideals"-efan

 

[Ovinomancer]

And here's where I disagree with both of you: player-speak can give some excellent game play but in the end that's all it is - a player playing a game. The player isn't even trying* to inhabit the character, think what it thinks, speak the character's words, etc. LARPs have it right - you become the character whose role you're playing. A tabletop game ideally is the same sort of thing, only without the costumes and active movement.

* - at least, not to an observer. Internally to herself the player might be quite actively doing all of these things, but if it's not reflected in her actual play then what's the point?

Lan-"speaking from an idealist point of view here, well knowing reality always blunts ideals"-efan

Ah, you've mistaken one kind of role-playing (acting/inhabitation) with the general case of roleplaying. If I always refer to my character in the third person, that's still roleplaying -- I'm playing the role of the character in the game. Acting isn't required, although you may prefer it. Nothing wrong with that, but acting isn't the end-all-be-all of roleplaying. Defining roleplaying so narrowly is engaging in stealth one-true-wayism. Don't do that. Advocate for your preferences, sure, but don't define terms so that they only fit your preferences. We can all play roles in different ways and have fun.

If I was at your table, I'd expect my play to be judged according to your table's preferences, but don't mistake your preferences for the best or only way to play -- they're the best way for you to play, but maybe not the next table over.

There's a few posters in this thread that should heed this. Tell us how your play is awesome, but don't denigrate other's play to do that.

 

[Lanefan]

Ah, you've mistaken one kind of role-playing (acting/inhabitation) with the general case of roleplaying. If I always refer to my character in the third person, that's still roleplaying -- I'm playing the role of the character in the game.

Where my definition of playing a role is that an actor on a stage plays a role - the lines he speaks, his facial expressions, the movements he makes (subject to the spatial restrictions of the stage) are those of the character he's portraying in the stage play. The actors on stage don't speak in the third person (unless it's a really unusual play; Im sure someone's tried it).

Playing the role of a PC at a game table is, IMO, the same thing; and it's where the "role-playing" side of the game comes from.

I agree that one can play the game perfectly well while referring to one's character in the third person but I don't see it as meeting the definition of role-playing.

Acting isn't required, although you may prefer it. Nothing wrong with that, but acting isn't the end-all-be-all of roleplaying.

Acting is role-playing, by its very definition: an actor plays a role.

Defining roleplaying so narrowly is engaging in stealth one-true-wayism. Don't do that. Advocate for your preferences, sure, but don't define terms so that they only fit your preferences. We can all play roles in different ways and have fun.

We can all play the game in different ways and have fun, but some of those different ways simply don't involve playing a role.

"Jocinda will find some way of courteously telling Falstaffe to mind his own business if he asks her about her date last night." If that's how I-as-player describe Jocinda's participation in a conversation then in this instance I'm giving stage directions to a remote game piece. We can all imagine hearing her say something, and the story gets told the same as it otherwise would, but no role actually gets played - Jocinda's "lines", as it were, never get spoken.

Compare with LARPing, which almost always involves playing a role in the actor-on-stage sense.

If I was at your table, I'd expect my play to be judged according to your table's preferences, but don't mistake your preferences for the best or only way to play -- they're the best way for you to play, but maybe not the next table over.

There's a few posters in this thread that should heed this. Tell us how your play is awesome, but don't denigrate other's play to do that.

Much of the time my play isn't all that awesome.

I'm just trying to point out that the term "role-playing" doesn't necessarily mean what some might think it means.

Lan-"sometimes I pick the strangest hills to die on"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

Where my definition of playing a role is that an actor on a stage plays a role - the lines he speaks, his facial expressions, the movements he makes (subject to the spatial restrictions of the stage) are those of the character he's portraying in the stage play. The actors on stage don't speak in the third person (unless it's a really unusual play; Im sure someone's tried it).

Playing the role of a PC at a game table is, IMO, the same thing; and it's where the "role-playing" side of the game comes from.

I have to side with everyone else on this one. Your way(which is also my way) is just one way to roleplay. It's the only style where I can immerse myself into the game, so I enjoy it much more than the other methods.

I agree that one can play the game perfectly well while referring to one's character in the third person but I don't see it as meeting the definition of role-playing.

Acting is role-playing, by its very definition: an actor plays a role.

So does a narrator. It's just a different role. Heck, I've seen actors play roles where the character talks in third person. Are they not acting or playing a role?