Definition of Metagaming

[fusangite]

When I say something is "metagaming", it doesn't mean it's not part of the game. That's not what I meant. I said that for me, asking for advice to other players while your character is talking to an NPC is metagaming. "Metagaming" here, for me, is "gaming" too, I thought my first intervention on this thread showed it plainly enough.

It just seems weird to me that 100% of a game like Axis & Allies is metagaming; indeed, 100% of most games is metagaming. It just seems like it's weird to give this name to the main activity that makes up gaming. But I do get how you are using the terminology. It just seems unnatural to me to define stuff that you only do in RPGs as "gaming" and stuff that you do in all games "metagaming."

Knowing common description of monsters and even DR vulnerabilites is not Knowledge(Planes).

I agree with the overall thrust of your post and find it to be pretty much in tune with my own thinking. But this is, frankly, a house rule of yours and should be understood as such. Much as the Know(*) skills get on my nerves, they are nevertheless part of the core.

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.

Now I think we're going somewhere interesting. Maybe this is a debate about verisimilitude in representing how knowledge works in fantasy/premodern societies.

I tend to see premodern/fantasy societies' worldviews as essentially empirical and accurate. Sure, the theories used to stitch these things together were often incorrectly premised but the fact is that Ptolmaic astronomy could have got us to the moon. But many people see premoderns as people with no real acquaintance with the physical laws of the world in which they were situated. They see premodern folklore with its monstrosities and saints as a sign that premoderns had a tenuous grip on the most basic aspects of reality.

I wonder if this difference in assumptions about how non-modern people think might be underpinning some of our debate, which is, fundamentally, a debate about how to approximate the level of knowledge a character might have about the laws and contents of the physical 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?

I can't speak for painandgreed but I would find acting on this information to be an egregious breach of the social contract of my games.

The whole reason players give eachother hints in my games is because we all recognize it's so damned tough to play a character authentically that we need all the help we can get. My appreciation of hints is premised on how different and separate my character is from me. It seems to me that if one thinks one can do a decent job solo inhabiting such a radically different being, this comfort is premised on the character being, in certain fundamental ways, more like the player than not.

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

Hear hear! Hence my willingness to have "secret" information out there for everyone to hear.

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.

How do you like my theory above? Could this be about replicating a sense of ignorance and superstition on the part of the PCs?

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.

The more I learn about the social dynamic at your games, the more I am struck by its similarities to the level of immersion and sociability of my groups.

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.

You see: I have exactly the same motivation as your DM. I want people to learn how to play their characters. We just have totally opposite pedagogies.

If the player knows, he should be paying more attention.

Again, opposite pedagogy, same goal. What I want is for people to pay attention to details they notice in the game. And the way I motivate them to do this is to create situations in which they can discuss them with one another.

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.

Go ahead. I'd be most entertained, even more so if you can get them to join ENW and liven things up.

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.

But why should this be? Given the fundamental unknowability of one's own character, why shouldn't you get all the help you can to guess what he would think?

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?

Here's where I would split the hair: if the instruction to flank is predicated on the PC also moving into a position at a future point in the round, it is cheating. But, if the PC who is doing the flanking is already in position, it is not. This is because one entails giving the other player foreknowledge of his character's moves that the PC could not reasonably have, whereas the other simply entials reminding the other player of the immediate application of the laws of the universe.

One thing I'm curious about: does your group use spells like Status and Rary's Telepathic Bond more because of the general spirit of the game?

 

[Rothe]

Let's keep this one going a bit longer.. I'm curious to hear some more opinions. So far it seems we have two main camps:

1) Those who believe that it should be considered metagaming for another player to remind you of something your character would reasonably remember, and that such things should be the DM's domain (i.e. the DM gets to decide if you would recall it or not)

2) Those who feel that the above constitues a "cooperative game" and shouldn't be considered cheating as long as the information in question is something the character would be privy to.

I would have to say I'm of the second camp for many of the reasons earlier in this thread. We end up playing our cahracters for 5 hours every two weeks, what a player with a family and job remembers and what a character remembers are two different things to me.

The only time I might chime in as GM and "decide" if a character remembers is if the character has a very low Intelligence or similar mental stat (say 6 or less).

Not saying that any school of thought is better than the others, just trying to solicit more opinions as to why it's percieved that another player cannot remind you of something you would know. In my own group I've been accused of metagaming for reminding another player OOC that they could move to a certain square and be able to turn some skeletons (the player could clearly see that the square was open, but I guess it slipped her mind).

That's getting closer to "questionable" metagaming to me, but since we play at night, players helping each other out his way doesn't bother me since sometimes we are tired and not at our sharpest. I actually prefer them to make smart decisions and don't mind if they discuss it. Again, for reasons stated by others so well before. I imagine the characters have talked and discussed tactics many time before and allowing such OOC chat simulates that.

It also works both ways, my players sometimes point out to me mistakes I make, like when I moved some monsters over a square with a trap, one the monsters knew about. In that case, I decided the monsters in their panic forgot about the trap, as had I. They were pretty dumb critters to begin with so it made sense.

I do not believe that everything spoken during the game needs to be "In Character" and that there's no room to remind someone of abilities (i.e. "game-speak") as a player and not the PC. In fact, I think such things are detrimental to good tactics. If you're required to say in character "Thorgrim, you can flank the bugbear from that corner!" rather than "Hey Bob, if Thorgrim moves to that square in the corner he can flank the bugbear" you just telegraphed to that bugbear that he's going to be flanked, and he's going to move away (assuming he acts before Thorgrim does), thus ruining your tactic. Assuming that Thorgrim is a competant warrior who has fought in many battles, he should be intelligent enough to realize that if he moves a bit to the northwest he's in a more advantageous position.

To me this is 100% OK. In fact, if the character had enough experience as a GM I might suggest things to reflect this.

My group, however, feels the opposite way, but I have also had a player say to me when I mentioned D&D was a team game that it was a team game "In [my] opinion".

So they don't help each other? I've some of the same players as decribed above by others. They may discuss things and talk about OOC knowledge but several times they have said thing like "but my character doesn't know that" and decided on a course of action trying not to use OOC knowledge.

 

[Rothe]

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.

I see where your coming from but isn't what you describe, one party member telling others how to react in combat called leading? If squad leaders can do it why not PCs? I'd certainly allow this as long as the orders are shouted out and the leader is not directing character's based on knowledge he does not have. Just try to shout your orders in a language the monsters don't know or use "code words" just like in basketball or american football where the team captain or quarterback calls out the play in "code" or instructions to adjust tactics (usually not in code such as just recognizing the opponents play).

 

[Menexenus]

Some amount of metagaming is unavoidable and welcome I think to have a sort of social cement that ties the players together in their enjoyment of the game. Let's face it: RPGs are social games. It is what differenciates them from computer games...

QFT.

If you want your players to not say anything other than what their character says, then you might as well be role-playing via computer. Why bother sitting around the same table if you can't work together?

This is like a teacher sitting a group of teenagers around the same table to take a test and then telling them not to cheat.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

It depends on how much the PCs know about each others' abilities, and how willing your group is to have a leader-type character who can keep an eye on the situation and offer in character suggestions.

For example, your PC could have said something like "Over here, we've got him right where we want him!" to the rogue PC. Or "Look at that, all bunched up! *winks to the wizard*" or something like that. I encourage that kind of thing. I think it adds to the fun of the game to have in character banter during combat.

Are they opposed to that kind of thing as well?

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.

For me it mostly depends on the situation. If its something that will be more dramatic to reveal in game later, then I like it to be kept secret from Players. So, lets say a wizard researches a cool new spell and wants to show it off in spectacular form in game, wowing everying. I think that would be a great opportunity to keep it secret from the other Players until its big reveal.

Or, if it will lead to a circumstance where a Player has to deliberate whether he's being influenced by his ooc knowledge or if he would do the same in character anyway. So a monster with fire weakness that the Player knows but the PC doesn't know is something that I consider more annoying than anything. So keeping something like that secret is best.

Then there are times when it doesn't really matter. The rogue went off to gather information and he's going to share his findings when he gets back. It doesn't matter that the others know how he found out. Or if its not something that will directly affect another PC or if the Player just doesn't care if he knows or not.

So in one game it can go both ways multiple times depending on the situation.

Now I think we're going somewhere interesting. Maybe this is a debate about verisimilitude in representing how knowledge works in fantasy/premodern societies.

I believe that would be inacurate. After all, I allow Knowledge skills to be 100% accurate practically all the time. Those who actually study things and take the time to try to learn something will learn them well and will be able to find the answers to thinks they seek.

Those who just pick up their histories, monster stories, and such by word of mouth are going to have a jumbled understanding of things. If a person doesn't have the Knowledge skill, I would assume they had only secondhand exposure to what those skills represent. What they know about Monster X is from adventurers coming through town and boasting about how they killed Monster X or from stories passed down by their grandmothers or whatever.

If they want to really know the truth about things they can go learn about them... and thus take a Knowledge skill.

One PC in my games writes papers, disseminates the information to his collegues, and reads about the ones that they publish (Planescape so it isn't your basic fantasy setting). He's got Knowledge in several different areas, and if you ask him a question, he's going to know the answer more often than not.

The whole reason players give eachother hints in my games is because we all recognize it's so damned tough to play a character authentically that we need all the help we can get. My appreciation of hints is premised on how different and separate my character is from me. It seems to me that if one thinks one can do a decent job solo inhabiting such a radically different being, this comfort is premised on the character being, in certain fundamental ways, more like the player than not.

Here's an aside that might make a difference. There are only three of us (counting the DM) in our games. One DM and two Players, meaning that there's a lot more individual attention given to each person. Do you think that might have something to do with it?

Beyond that, in my case, and I don't know why I haven't made this point yet, but: I wouldn't want someone to help me in the game of, say, Risk either. If someone said that I should attack with two armies instead of one, I would not appreciate that being pointed out to me, for example, no matter how good or bad the advice was. I would rather win or lose by my own merits.

Now, I don't mean to imply that I play D&D to win or to lose. There's no competition within the group, and there's no trying to one up each other. I have a competative streak, but it doesn't come out in D&D, it comes out in other games. However, there's still that nagging "do it on my own" feeling that I get when I play. I can't speak for the other group members, though.

To further qualify, this isn't that acting as a group is discouraged. It's just handled almost totally in character. If another PC yells out "Help me flank him!" that's fine, because he's expressing himself through his PC to my PC, a valid form of communication in my mind.

Again, opposite pedagogy, same goal. What I want is for people to pay attention to details they notice in the game. And the way I motivate them to do this is to create situations in which they can discuss them with one another.

He's a sink or swim kind of teacher. Skip the lesson, toss them in and let survival take over. I can't say I exactly agree with this, but I understand where he's coming from.

We have been thinking about having a one shot game where tactics would be important and we would discuss things out of character in order to help everyone get better at tactics and working as a team in our usual games.

One thing I'm curious about: does your group use spells like Status and Rary's Telepathic Bond more because of the general spirit of the game?

Status sometimes, but its main use is to monitor the health of someone who is away from the group. We consider it fairly easy to look at someone and determine how injured they are, relatively speaking. We never call out our exact hp figures, though. If someone asks we can say something like "He looks hurt, but it doesn't look like anything serious" or "He looks like he might be on his last leg" or something akin to that.

We usually just call out any tactics we want to communicate in character and live with any consequences which that might bring up. So if someone wants to flank a particular enemy, that enemy might very well back into a corner or something. But, we haven't really taken extreme measure to try to do anything more.

I see where your coming from but isn't what you describe, one party member telling others how to react in combat called leading?

My thoughts exactly. Language and code words work well, and are happening within the confines of the game. In fact, I would go as far as to not make the Players memorize the codes and what they mean but to be able to do the "gloss over" thing I mentioned before even in combat. "I call out the code for flanking with me!" or something like that.

Of course if you're in a silenced area, or your enemies learn the codes or have tongues if you use Terran or something like that, then you have to deal with the in character consequences of that.

*phew* Responding is almost tiring.

 

[wayne62682]

I'm going to have to try that and coordinate tactics in character... I admit though I'm reluctant because it allows the enemy to hear it and take the appropriate countermeasures. But, I will see what happens. Thank you for an enlightening debate and helpful suggestions

 

[fusangite]

I believe that would be inacurate. After all, I allow Knowledge skills to be 100% accurate practically all the time.

I meant small-k knowledge not Knowledge (*) skills. I meant the general theory of knowledge in the society as in

Those who just pick up their histories, monster stories, and such by word of mouth are going to have a jumbled understanding of things. If a person doesn't have the Knowledge skill, I would assume they had only secondhand exposure to what those skills represent. What they know about Monster X is from adventurers coming through town and boasting about how they killed Monster X or from stories passed down by their grandmothers or whatever.

And you assume that this is generally inaccurate. The point I was making in my last post is that I have the opposite assumption because I have a different idea of how accurately non-modern people perceive(d) the world.

Do you think that might have something to do with it?

Could do. I've never been in a game so small, although, when I only have 3 players, they spend a lot of time collaborating ooc.

Beyond that, in my case, and I don't know why I haven't made this point yet, but: I wouldn't want someone to help me in the game of, say, Risk either.

I think the analogy would be Axis and Allies; wouldn't you want the German player to share any insights he had if you were playing Japan?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm going to have to try that and coordinate tactics in character... I admit though I'm reluctant because it allows the enemy to hear it and take the appropriate countermeasures. But, I will see what happens. Thank you for an enlightening debate and helpful suggestions

I do hope it helps you relate to your group. Good luck!


Here are some thoughts from another member of the group, as a transcript from AIM. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. Appologies if he sounds blunt, he was talking to me after all.

Me: Why is metagaming bad?
Him: metagaming?
Me: Yes.
Him: its breaking the fourth wall
Him: against the spirit of rping
Him: its as close to cheating as you can get without fudging on your sheet or using loaded dice
Me: How about, more specifically, giving advice in combat. Why is that bad? And, remember, this is for publicity.
Him: if you can work it into in character fine like say Malbi saying Move! before he hurls a fire ball or Jackal saying pull back its too strong or something like that
Him: or say someone saying their weak against fire use fire
Him: thats fine
Him: but saying rogue tumble through his square feint and sneak attack him while he's flat foots thats not cool
Me: Hmm it looks like you said what metagaming was, but you never said why it was bad.
Him: cheating in multiplayer games is bad
Me: That's what I've been struggling with.
Me: They don't consider it cheating.
Him: it is
Him: it cheapens the experience
Me: Okay how do you respond to the statement that it is just pointing out things the character should know. Say you point out to the rogue that there's an opportunity for flanking that he missed, he should know that right?
Him: no thats something you should point out after game
Him: even experts make mistakes and miss things in the heat of the moment
Him: and sometimes people choose not to do the best thing
Him: like say hitting someone grappled with a aoe spell instead of a magic missle on the grappler
Me: Should you give the other Player the option?
Him: nah
Him: assume he knows what he is doing
Him: now I repeat after its over no problem pointing out he could have done it then
Me: Okay, here's a situation I came up with.
How would you respond to this happening in game?
DM: The man before you smiles after you help him kill the goblins raiders. "Hail!" He says. You notice a strange tatto on his right arm in the shape of a flame and he carries a sword with engravings made of some strange metal. "It's good to see a helpful face about."
Player1: "Hail! Where are you headed?" I smile back at him and wipe the blood from my sword.
Player2: Hey isn't that tatoo the same as the evil assassin brotherhood had.
Player1: Hey, I had forgotten about that! I warily look for any concealed weapons he might have on him.
Him: if player 2 can ic find a way to point that out ot him sure
Him: otherwise thats cheating
Him: You yourself has said so before
Me: Yes, yes I did. I'm trying to explain my perspective, but I find it difficult to give a reason that I think of it as cheating when someone else doesn't. I mean, to me that's just how it is.
Him: the gamers thing you showed me had some valid points along that line
Me: Which parts?
Him: the surprised part
Him: and the your still asleep part
Me: Heh, the alseep part was great.
Me: Remember when they were giving him advice on how to Backstab the guy?
Him: exactly thats metagaming bad
Him: in the long term metagaming will cheapen the experience and lessen the feeling of accomplishment
Him: metagaming is just like beating a game with infinite ammo cheat codes activated
Him: sure your not guaranteed to win with that on but really a large chunk of the challenge is gone if you have infinite ammon and every gun
Me: Wouldn't it be more like looking up something on gamefaqs.com to see how to win?
Me: In the context of Players helping Players that is.
Him: depends on how far the metagaming goes
Him: the sliperry slope concept
Me: What do you think would be the worst kind of metagaming?
Him: looking up the monster your fighting during combat
Him: or peeking at the DMs notes before game while he's out of the room
Me: What about the most harmless?
Him: don't we get saving throws against Ghoul Paralyze?
Me: Yes.
Him: no thats my example
Me: Ahhh
Him: asking the DM a question
Me: Well, I encourage that because you remember that one time...
Me: *cough*
Him: aye

So, those are his thoughts. They don't want to post to the thread, unfortunately. The first is too arogant for me to want to associate myself with him officially, and the other is lazy and/or going through an anti-message board phase.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I meant small-k knowledge not Knowledge (*) skills. I meant the general theory of knowledge in the society as in

And you assume that this is generally inaccurate. The point I was making in my last post is that I have the opposite assumption because I have a different idea of how accurately non-modern people perceive(d) the world.

Without specifics, it will be impossible to know, and it will be entirely setting dependant.

Are trolls nearby in the Swamp of Horrors? Are they on the other side of the world across an ocean and no one the PCs have ever met has actually seen one? That's going to change how its approached.

But, I don't see how it applies to ooc talking for in character things, especially combat. Having an understanding of the workings of the physical sciences isn't going to mean you you always see the flanking opportunity, or that you'll remember what the tatoo of the assassins of the silver flame looks like. I think you're going to have to explain to me what you mean a bit more before I understand what you're trying to get at.

 

[Quickleaf]

Interesting topic, thanks for starting it Fusangite.

My answer...

d20/D&D is a tactical game with competition built into it (mostly between player and GM, but in tournament play also between players) - the hassle-free way to use the game is as a tactics game. When a GM accepts this framework and enters into competition with the players the GM's goal is to "win" where "winning" means challenging the players to think tactically (puzzles, problem-solving, complex battles) because this is what's fun for tactical play.

So when a GM gets frustrated because Bob's Player provides information that his character could not provide, what's really happening is...the GM feels the situation is no longer challenging enough (and hence, un-fun) after being "disarmed" by Bob's Player. This action is derogatorily dubbed "meta-gaming."

Those players who prefer tactical gaming are glad Bob's player remembered. Too bad Bob's dead, I really could have relied on his tactical mind right now, but good thing his player is friendly enough to help us plan the battle. Thinks the tactical player.

Those players who prefer strong identification with their characters (we call this "immersion") become frustrated because they feel Bob's player's comment brings them out of their character's head-space and back to the gaming table. There goes Bob's player again, having to prove his vastly superior perception. I swear he takes notes on the GM's plans. Shoot! Now I'm totally out of character...

For his part, Bob's player was thinking tactically just like the GM. He saw the situation as a challenge for his fellow players to overcome. Wanting to contribute to their fun (overcoming the challenge and feeling a sense of accomplishment), but unable to do so through the vehicle of Bob (alas, slain by kobolds!), Bob's player reminded the other players about the funny looking tattoo being a sign of a villainous secret society. Bob's player thinks: Oh shoot! The GM played that NPC so smoothe. I'd better warn them about that tattoo before he can take one of them out.

It seems unrealistic for the deceased Bob to convey critical plot information to his living allies from beyond the grave. The GM was counting on the subtle comment about the fiery tattoo being overlooked or else requiring a difficult Sense Motive check (making sure the NPC's alignment was masked magically to prevent spells from revealing incriminating details), but Bob's player blew the dramatic moment, and now the GM feels his hand of cards has been exposed - there go those plans for a dramatic betrayal down the line. The GM is already beginning to cringe at the thought of a really neat bad guy getting beat-up by the party again. Why can't they just play along? The GM wonders in exasperation.

So, how is the situation reconciled?

I think the GM and other players need to expand their "tactician" hats to the fantasy campaign setting. The PCs live in the fantasy world and if a player forgets something chances are it's no fault of his character. It's natural to forget things in a game as complex as D&D, and you want your friends to enjoy the game as much as you do, so you'll help remind them when something slips by them.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that Bob's player was providing NEW information (not simply reminding the other players) based on a discovery Bob made before he died. In essence, the party just got the benefit of a speak with dead spell to communicate with Bob.

If I was in this situation, and there wasn't a plausible reason the other PCs would have the information, I would turn to Bob's player. "What? How do they know that?" Then I'd turn to the other players. "Can you think of a way the rest of you would have that information?"
If a convincing explanation was provided, then it would be on with the game.