Definition of Metagaming

[painandgreed]

It also breaks versimillitude. Why does Bob the fighter know the weakness of random demons when his skills are in Jump and Climb? He's never even read a book before. But, because he's read all the Monster Manuals, he knows all about the monsters?

I disagree. It breaks versimillitude to think that a man trained in combat has never been taught how to fight. In a world where there is DR, then people who are expected to come up against it surely would be warned. In a world where there are monsters, it can be expected that there would be many tales of such detailing their weaknesses and how heroes over came them. In a world where adventures sit all night in inns and drink, it makes sence for them to seek and share information. It doesn't make sence for them to know that the armory sells silver and cold iron weapons but for them not to know why unless the go take an elective at the local wizard college.

Knowing common description of monsters and even DR vulnerabilites is not Knowledge(Planes). It may be part of that skill, but the skill would be so much more dealing with culture, history, physics, methods of travel, eniromental risks, etc. In a world with versimillitude, it seems likely that such monsters and their vulnerabilties would have been collected into a song or cadence that good trainers would have made every 0th level fighter recite as they do their drills. Just as learning a song is not a rank in preform, learning such tidbits is not a rank of Knowledge(planes). Of course, some teachers are better than others and some students worse than others.

At least, that's my take on things. The players are not the characters and they don't know for sure what their characters talked about at night around the fire for the countless hours they have spent on watch together. The players don't know the songs and stories their characters have been told since childhood. They don't know the local gossip and bits of trivia that everybody knows. A large part of this is estimated by metagaming, and by what the players remember and choose to use. Some monsters will be recognizable event though the character has never seen on in real life before. Some knowledge about them has spread into popular culture.

How much might be too much is up to the DM. I allow players to use most information they know for the above reasons. I allow some discussion in the heat of battle between players because I would assume that an adventuring party who has lived together for possibly years has discussed strategy and tactics much more than the actual players. Some times, it crosses a line. I don't allow them to look in books for answers, and at some point, I just tell them to stop kibitzing and that I need an plan of action decided upon by the acting player alone. For the most part, I allow all player knowledge as character knowledge. If they wish to keep something from the other players they need to write a note or talk to me as the DM in the other room. If they don't want the other players (and thus characters) to know they might be up to something, they need to be sneaky about it. A well told lie by PC1 to PC2 about being LG, would not offset the countless times PC2 has seen PC1 commit evil acts or say evil things.

This is one of the reasons I use a homebrew. If I want to keep things secret from the characters, I keep them secret fromt he players. I also don't like it when they use knowledge about the setting that may not be correct IMC. It's confusing for both of us and they feel cheated (even when I've told them numerous times that things are different to what they are used to). If there is a monster that the PCs would have never heard of or seen, then I make one up.

 

[wayne62682]

Here's what my DM has to say about it (I asked him flat out since we seem to disagree; names have been changed to protect the innocent):

Giving other players advice on game-mechanics is usually fine, like reminding someone of how to best get an AoO (or avoid one). I do that too... not everyone knows the rules as well as others.

Reminding a player of an incriminating tattoo is not so much a big deal either, because the PC would reasonably know it (but I might require an Intelligence/Wisdom check... even PC's forget stuff).

Tossing out an idea that a character acts on, while you aren't anywhere near that person, is a problem, however. For example, if you had told "Susan" to do a particular thing down below, like sweep the hallway with an Invisibility Purge (if she had it) when nobody was around to help her, I'd have a problem with that. Sharing ideas or in-game tactics when there's no physical way of doing so is meta-gaming, IMO. I guess it comes down to communication between characters, not players.

Some of this gets blurred, since offering advice on game-mechanics can change a battle and falls into several categories. Sometimes people DO forget the most advantageous position in combat. But if your PC is right there, he could reasonably be expected to motion for his ally to move to a specific spot. But if you're NOT there, how would that info be conveyed? Using the example of the troll, a player might forget to douse it with oil after the fight. If your PC isn't there, you can't remind that person to do it. I would, however, allow an Intelligence check based on what you've said.

Basically, it's all play by ear... sorry to say. Reminding "Mary" that she should move "here" to flank is fine. Reminding her to pick up a gold ring off the floor is not ok

Does this clear up anything, or just muddy the waters?

Again this is where I disagree... in the case with "Susan" and Invisibility Purge, I'm not telling her character, I (i.e. Wayne, the player) am telling her (i.e. Susan, the player) because she (Susan, the player) might have forgotten she had Invisibility Purge.

 

[ThirdWizard]

At least, that's my take on things.

That's pretty much the complete opposite of my games. If I'm at one extreme, you seem to be at the other. All player knowledge as character knowledge? I just can't see how that would be fun. But, then, I doubt how you can see my way as fun.

I find it difficult to describe exactly why I find it fun. Why do I enjoy anything I enjoy? There are reasons, yes, but once you get past those, it gets more and more esoteric. For example, you say that fighters would have heard of stories of monsters and learned how to fight them, but I say that half or more of those stories wouldn't have been true or embellished and are useless to them in the real world.

Here's a question that might help. If PC1 is off screen and PC2 is alone, and PC2 does something evil (burns down an orphanage or something), would you find it wrong for PC1 to act on the information because the Player was present? Or would you expect the Player of PC1 to have their character not aware of what PC2 did? From your post it sounds like you wouldn't mind PC1 acting on information he wasn't present for, but I can't see how that would make sense in game.

Pretending not to know stuff can be fun, too, though.

As an example, I play a Paladin in one game, and another PC got a mission to go retrieve some information from some experiments with negative energy that a member of his group was doing because something went wrong. Now, as far as my Paladin knew, we were going to slay some undead. I knew, of course, the real job. But, my character was all about the killing of the undead there.

It proved to be great fun dancing back and forth, my character pushing forward, talking about what a noble cause he was a part of, and his character having to keep us searching everywhere for the research and keeping up his act. It made for some great roleplaying, and it was a really great session.

As another example, he kept using suggestion on me, and I failed the save for about 4 sessions being none the wiser to his tricks.

I'm still a little baffled that either of these things would be problematic. But the Cure Light Wounds thing seems especially peculiar. All the player is doing is reminding her team mate of the physical laws of the world, something the character would clearly know, given how much time they spend being governed by these laws.

That's interesting. Hmm... combat is a sticky point for us. We used to offer bits of help fairly often, and we've actually curbed this back. So, its a concious decision to avoid it when playing that we've trained ourselves on. I can't say we ever stopped to debate why it was a bad thing. It just was. We never looked deeper into it than that.

(a) The players I have who have been most upset about this have tended to be people who enjoyed immersive gaming. I do think that for people who like immersive play, this sort of thing is damaging to their suspension of disbelief whereas it doesn't damage mind. But I don't think Third Wizard is part of that group.

Right, it's not immersion. Not that we consider the PCs as puppets (I think that was a playstyle at least). It's somewhere in between. In fact, we often skim over conversations in game when they aren't interesting to roleplay. Something like "The PCs decide its best to bring the prisoner in" or something like that, where its implied that they talked about it, but we don't want to play that out. Then we'll have the in character conversation when we think it would be interesting to play out.

I talked to one of the group members who is also currently DMing a game for us. His reasons aren't exactly in line with mine, but I might as well post some of his comments, since his conclusions are the same as mine anyway. They might be interesting to read. I should probably note that sometimes the things he says shock even me.

Its hard to get into it if people are all talking about random stuff in the game ooc. It worse if their helping each other, as it doesn't encourage people to learn how to play their characters.

If the player knows, he should be paying more attention. Metagaming like that would have made the last battle Quell fought much easier, as you would have basically played the other characters. Which would probably have kept you alive...

Quell is my PC. Yes, I sat back and watched while the cleric with the Sun domain didn't use his innate uber-turning ability against the undead. And died. I got better.

And that's the point, it makes it more fun/difficult if you don't metagame. You're then really reliant on your group, like D&D should be.

If I can, I'll get some comments from another group member, who is pretty much the opposite of this guy, to really confuse things.

Again this is where I disagree... in the case with "Susan" and Invisibility Purge, I'm not telling her character, I (i.e. Wayne, the player) am telling her (i.e. Susan, the player) because she (Susan, the player) might have forgotten she had Invisibility Purge.

Hmmm, now I'm wondering if there is a certain immersion to it, but in a different way than the term is usually considered. It isn't what you think is what your character thinks. It isn't that what your PC thinks is what you think. However, it is somewhere in between. What you think is used to determine what your PC thinks. What another Player thinks is used to determine what his PC thinks. And never the twain shall meet, unless there is in character communication going on.

 

[wayne62682]

Hmmm, now I'm wondering if there is a certain immersion to it, but in a different way than the term is usually considered. It isn't what you think is what your character thinks. It isn't that what your PC thinks is what you think. However, it is somewhere in between. What you think is used to determine what your PC thinks. What another Player thinks is used to determine what his PC thinks. And never the twain shall meet, unless there is in character communication going on.

I don't follow.. are you saying that's how it should be, that's how my group thinks it should be, or something else? My whole argument is that it shouldn't be limited to in-character communication; it shouldn't matter if my PC is there to determine if I can remind another player of something they forgot. There should be a difference between telling Thorgrim something and telling Bob.

 

[wayne62682]

Hmm.. apparantly according to my DM, it's "metagaming" because I would be telling "Susan" tactical advice that PC can use, not a rules question. Which brings up this point: If it's NOT metagaming to say it when your PC is there, then essentially you have free reign to metagame (as far as giving tactical advice, anyway) in games like d20 Modern or anything where you have walkie-talkies or communicators.

So "metagaming" in respect to offering tactical advice to another person is only an issue in games like D&D where communication devices don't exist or are not readily available. And that sounds like bollocks to me. I fail to see how "You can move here and flank" is any different than "Don't you have Invisibility Purge memorized?"

 

[ThirdWizard]

Do you really not see the difference (any difference mind you, not a subjective quality difference) behind me telling another player at the table that his PC should flank the enemy with me, and my PC yelling out that we should flank the enemy?

To me (now we're into subjectives) the first is bad and the second is not bad in our games. Why? Because the first allows PC to PC communciation (flanking tactics being communicated) without any negative effects. The second communicates flanking tactics, but allows the enemy to hear what you're talking about.

I run NPCs like this as well when I DM. They don't all act in perfect concert with each other typically. If they want something done, they have to communicate it in character as well.

 

[wayne62682]

No, I do see the difference. I don't see why there should be negative effects for wanting to coordinate tactics when your characters would know this without you reminding the other player of it in the first place. I'm not talking about pointing something out that the other person wouldn't know; I'm talking about reminding them of something in game-terms (i.e. move here instead and you can flank) that the character sees with his own eyes but the player forgot for a moment.

It seems like you equate 100% the player and the character, so that if I forget something, my character does as well regardless of the fact that my character would be more apt to remember it than I as a player. Again, I only spend a few hours as my character whilst my character spends his entire life. He should be more aware than I can represent him in the game, so I see nothing wrong with another player reminding me of something that I happened to forget.

And again, that would limit such "bad" actions only to D&D and medieval style games, because in any quasi-modern genre you have headets and communicators and other things that let you do exactly what in D&D is considered bad (i.e. communicate something to someone else without everybody hearing it).

 

[ThirdWizard]

No, I do see the difference. I don't see why there should be negative effects for wanting to coordinate tactics when your characters would know this without you reminding the other player of it in the first place.

What about more complicated tactics? What if I think the fighter with the higher AC should move in on the hill giant before the barbarian with the low AC so that the AoO is less likely to hit the fighter? Is that still fine to communicate out of character? What if I noticed the giant has combat reflexes, but no one else did, should I communicate that so that they know it doesn't matter?

Do you draw the line there?

And then what's the point? Am I now playing everyone's PCs? Because I could. I'm far more tactially minded than the other Players, and when one person is controlling everyone tactics improve dramatically. Do this, do that. For every action a certain person takes, I could probably think of a way to improve it.

Where do you draw the line? In this, I'm interested.

I draw it low. You play your own PC. They play their own PC.

And again, that would limit such "bad" actions only to D&D and medieval style games, because in any quasi-modern genre you have headets and communicators and other things that let you do exactly what in D&D is considered bad (i.e. communicate something to someone else without everybody hearing it).

Not at all. There's telepathy. And, if you want to gain the ability to telepathically speak to friends without being heard, you are expending resources to gain an advantage. What's wrong with that?

 

[wayne62682]

I draw the line solely at communicating things that the other person wouldn't know but you do. For example if your PC knows that the mysterious stranger is an assassin but you aren't in a place to communicate it, I consider THAT metagaming.

I don't consider tactical suggestions to be metagaming at all, because any competant fighter would know that, for example, if you face a low AC opponent it's beneficial to use Power Attack. If I happen to forget a minute that the guy I'm fighting is only wearing leather, I see nothing wrong with another player reminding me OOC and mentioning that I should use Power Attack. If you're more tactically inclined than the others, I say you are well within your rights to offer suggestions on what they should do. They may not take it, and depending on their tolerance it may become a nuisance, but the act in and of itself should not be considered "cheating", it should be considered co-operative play. My group frustrates me to no avail because nobody seems to want to play as a team and coordinate things, it's all of us going off on our own rather than working as a well-oiled machine.

Now, maybe that's the only reason I feel the way I do; because it seems as though "metagaming" is the only way to actually get us to operate in tandem. You have no idea how frustrating it is to see the rogue ignore an obvious flank to go off in the opposite direction, or the Wizard have a perfect Fireball lined up and decide to do something else entirely because their players didn't realize it at the time.

 

[painandgreed]

That's pretty much the complete opposite of my games. If I'm at one extreme, you seem to be at the other. All player knowledge as character knowledge? I just can't see how that would be fun. But, then, I doubt how you can see my way as fun.

I find it difficult to describe exactly why I find it fun. Why do I enjoy anything I enjoy? There are reasons, yes, but once you get past those, it gets more and more esoteric. For example, you say that fighters would have heard of stories of monsters and learned how to fight them, but I say that half or more of those stories wouldn't have been true or embellished and are useless to them in the real world.

Here's a question that might help. If PC1 is off screen and PC2 is alone, and PC2 does something evil (burns down an orphanage or something), would you find it wrong for PC1 to act on the information because the Player was present? Or would you expect the Player of PC1 to have their character not aware of what PC2 did? From your post it sounds like you wouldn't mind PC1 acting on information he wasn't present for, but I can't see how that would make sense in game.

Pretending not to know stuff can be fun, too, though.

As an example, I play a Paladin in one game, and another PC got a mission to go retrieve some information from some experiments with negative energy that a member of his group was doing because something went wrong. Now, as far as my Paladin knew, we were going to slay some undead. I knew, of course, the real job. But, my character was all about the killing of the undead there.

It proved to be great fun dancing back and forth, my character pushing forward, talking about what a noble cause he was a part of, and his character having to keep us searching everywhere for the research and keeping up his act. It made for some great roleplaying, and it was a really great session.

As another example, he kept using suggestion on me, and I failed the save for about 4 sessions being none the wiser to his tricks.

Well, I see it mostly as a way of getting things done. In a game where the players are being competitive, I found it trouble to keep track of what each player was up to and what the others knew. So, I simply stated in this game of intrigue that after a certain point, all player knowledge is character knowledge. If you want things secret from the other characters, you have to keep it secret from the other players. This involved lots of taking players into other rooms to play out solo encounters. I was afraid that this would distract from the game, but found it really wasn't an issue as long as everybody got their turn and it let other players gossip about RL (and kept them from doing so during the game).

In more recent games, it has been decided that they are not competitive* so it is a lot less of an issue. The players are good about policing themselves and respecting other players wishes if they state that they are trying to keep secrets from other players. Other than that, it boils down to common sence. Obviously, a player can't act on knowledge they can't possibly know such as what another player is currently doing on the other side of town. What the other character did on other side of town might become charater knowledge if a reasonable amount of game time passes, the original player didn't make an issue at the time that they were keeping their actions secret, and doesn't object if another player uses that knowledge. Even then, if the character was serious about keeping such knowledge secret from other characters, then the player has to put in the effort to keep it secret from other players. Then there is no dispute as to what each character knows.

For that matter, I think it really does make for a better game of intrigue if secrets are actually kept secret. That allows player who make leaps of logic to make them and act on them. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but at all times, they can be considered the characters thoughts and actions without dispute of what is player or character knowledge.

*Due to such issues, I usually begin any game I run by asking if the PCs want a competive or non-competitive game. It's usually a non-competive game and thus PCs don't have to worry about being killed by other PCs and can accept new PCs into the party without trying to roll play or even worry about their reasons for trusting this previously unkown person. It is meta-gaming that simply helps the game progress and gets rid of senceless interparty BS. If nothing else, it makes sure that all players are working on the same assumptions, because when one player is looking to screw everybody else because that's what his character would do and another is thinking he can be trusted because they are a PC, it can lead to issues.