Definition of Metagaming

[fusangite]

Towards the end of another thread, ThirdWizard, Crothian, wayne62682 and I got into an interesting discussion of metagaming. As a result, I thought I would start this thread to solicit other people's opinions about where they draw the line between gaming and metagaming.

Here's how part of the dialogue went:

I'm talking about a player making positive contributions when the players collectively make decisions based on the shared information of the party, or making positive contributions when a particular player is tongue-tied in an interaction with an NPC.

I consider that metagaming.

Whereas I consider it to be gaming.

Each Player plays his own PC.

Who says they cannot request advice or assistance from someone in doing so. Isn't it up to the player and the player alone as to which tools she uses to play her character? I happen to be someone who enjoys and appreciates getting advice from others on how I can play my character more effectively.

Think of the magnitude and difficulty of the task of playing a person living in another time, in another culture, in another occupation from a totally different family. People with formal dramatic training find it extremely challenging to do this even when all of their character's words and actions are spelled-out in a script. Even then, attempting to approximate another human being is extraordinarily difficult.

Now throw in the D&D. Not only is this person living in another culture, in another time, in another occupation. They are also living in a universe with radically different physical laws. I don't know about you but I find such a task daunting in the extreme. Even if I'm a psychological genius at putting myself in others' shoes, I'm going to do, at best, a totally half-assed job.

The way you're describing it sounds kind of like all the PCs are run by the entire group with one Player being in charge of one character's actions after the ooc discussion by the Players.

That's how my games sometimes go. But there is no sense in which a PC is run by the entire group -- a player can involve the rest of the group in her decision-making about her character as much as she likes. Other times, people don't feel the need for consultation. I like to give my players all the tools I can to help them role play their characters, something I consider to be pretty challenging.

In my game, if you want to confer something to another PC, you have to do it with your own PC.

Even leaving aside my reasoning above, I just wouldn't do that. This sort of thing kills a friendly table talk dynamic in my experience.

If you think someone should say something, you can't tell the Player out of character what they should say. They control their own PC and you control yours.

That's no different in my campaign. Of course the person playing the character makes all final decisions about what the character does. All I do is enable them, by producing background material, answering questions and allowing them to bounce ideas off other players is give them the opportunity to make as informed a decision as they wish to.

Take this example:

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.

That just won't fly in my game. If Player2 notices something and Player1 doesn't, his PC had better tell Player1's PC in game. Otherwise, they're communicating in plain view of the NPC without actually having to say anything to give it away.

Now, add in the fact that Player2 is dead, and he will never be able to confer that information. His PC is dead, and thus so is his connection to the game and communication with other PCs. If he points it out, it has disrupted the game. The other Players must now play their PCs as if they didn't realize it, and we'll never know if they would have figured it out. It creates a very awkward gaming environment. Best for him to say nothing.

This is exactly the kind of situation I am trying to address. While the players spend 4 hours a week playing their characters, the characters spend 168 hours a week being themselves. The actual characters would be far less likely to forget absolutely crucial life and death information than their players are.

If all a character can remember about her life is all her player can recall, unaided, you're not simulating a bunch of fantasy heroes; you're simulating a group of fantasy Alzheimer patients.

In battle situations, do you let your Players discuss tactics ooc then let them perform said tactics in battle without any in character speech going on? If Player 1 notices that Player 2 can avoid an AoO by taking an extra step to the side, do you let Player 2 point that out without his PC making any kind of comment in game?

It depends. If it is something that would be covered by a combat telepathy spell in the PHB, then no -- clearly that kind of communication you have to pay for with such a spell; I take a dim view to people coordinating flanking straegies and the like. On the other hand, if players are simply reminding eachother of the rules or giving advice on how a fellow player's character could make the best possible use of his abilities, I have zero problem. After all, the characters know way way more about fighting than all the players put together.

 

[buzz]

FWIW, here's the deinfiiton from RandomWiki.

A broadly-used term with multiple meanings. (1) Most commonly, this means dealing with concerns of the players and GM, as opposed to the characters in the gameworld. Examples of metagame concerns could include spotlight time, plot scripting, and who brought the munchies. i.e. External to the diegesis. (2) Within GNS theory, this is a Character Component including all positioning and behavioral statements about the character, as well as player rights to override the existing Effectiveness rules. (3) Within Ron Edwards' layered model, all aspects of play that concern non-Explorative matters or priorities -- i.e. Social Contract and GNS mode (aka Creative Agenda).

 

[Odhanan]

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, for instance. That's part of their core identity. If you don't allow a healthy amount of metagaming at the game table, then the synergy of the party's enjoyment of the game may be fractured or even destroyed.

That's a first point.

Now, I consider that the enjoyment of the game requires also some personal challenges and an immersion into the game world, among other ingredients. The amount needed to reach a peak of enjoyment of the game will depend on the players (meaning: players+DM here) tastes and personalities.

And this is where an "unhealthy" amount of metagaming may come in. Depending on this or that tabletop RPG group, the immersion into the game world will be more or less important for the enjoyment of the game. Depending on people's focus with the game, they will want to be able to sheer and laugh as the game unfolds or they will want to remain in-character to better appreciate the feelings it may inspire. So the optimum amount of metagaming for the best enjoyment of the game will vary with people.

Second point.

Now, do I consider that a player asking for advice to other players in a RP situation with an NPC is metagaming? Yes, because the advice obviously influences the situation in-game and it will challenge my suspension of disbelief, personally. Is it "good" or "bad"? Depends on the situation and people, as explained above.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

While the players spend 4 hours a week playing their characters, the characters spend 168 hours a week being themselves.

This is the main "excuse" I use when I feel the need to jump in as a player. I think it's fair to assume that the characters would talk to each other much more than the players have the time to roleplay out. If there's a situation that I'm unclear on, I'll ask the player ("Hey, Gene, I know Dante wants to become a Lich at some point, but is that something you've metioned to my PC?") to clarify.

In the example of the tatoo given, I've got no problems with someone reminding the player of something that should be fairly obvious to the PC. A PC would have to be pretty stupid to forget an assassin guild's sigil, but it's very easy for a player in a game to forget it. To enforce a strict rule in this sense seems to me to a kind of metagaming in itself - in that example, it probably would behoove the DM to add "you recognize the symbol as the Guild of Knives, etc" if it is in fact something the PC would know.

 

[Lockridge]

I agree with Odhanan. I'm a player in his 30s with children. The other players in my group are in a similar stage of life. I don't have time to memorize or review the game outside of game time.
The ooc communication is certainly metagaming but it would be allowed (perhaps even encouraged) at my table. If our DM tried to enforce a rule against this then we would have at least 4 others players who would drop out due to lack of fun.
As a matter of fact we often ask whomever is DMing to give us a review of what has gone before at the start of some sessions.
We enjoy D&D but can't devote as much time to it as we used to.
Lockridge.

 

[Reynard]

Towards the end of another thread, ThirdWizard, Crothian, wayne62682 and I got into an interesting discussion of metagaming. As a result, I thought I would start this thread to solicit other people's opinions about where they draw the line between gaming and metagaming.

Where you draw the line is only half the question. the other half is whether you feel metagaming is bad.

Metagaming is any activity related to playing the game that occurs out-of-character. Choosing skills or feats when you level is metagaming. Moving your mini on the battlegrid to avoid an AoO is metagaming. Taking notes on NPC names or adventure goals is metagaming.

I don't think too many people apply the 'metagaming' label to these activities, though, because most people give metagaming a negative connotation.

The fact is that metagaming in and of itself is not bad. it is part of playing the game. Metagaming is only problematic when a) the player(s) and the DM have differing views on what constitutes and acceptable level of metagaming, and/or b) there's nothing but metagaming going on. The first is a function of poor communication (the killer of most campaigns and groups) and the second is a function of expectations and playstyle.

When I GM, I tend to draw the line and say "You're not there!" or "Let him do it!" when one player starts to overbear another. Everyone should get spotlight time, and sometimes spotlight hogs -- whether in role-playing situations, tactical situations or otherwise -- need smacked down, and timid players need to be encouraged to make their own decisions. But reminding other players of what has happened before, or making occassional diplomatic or tactical suggestions is helpful and improves the game IMO.

 

[Fenes]

If needed to settle an issue you could always roll Int to check if your character would remember something/know something you don't know.

 

[buzz]

I think Reynard is pointing in the right direction.

I don't think the defintion of metagaming is the issue; we all seem to haev a good grasp on its basic meaning. The issue is really: How much metagaming is acceptable to your group?

IMO, this is obviously going to vary depending on play style. A group that emphasizes immersion is going to have a low tolerance for metagaming. A group that emphasizes butt-kicking is going to have a high tolerance.

 

[Vrecknidj]

As a DM, I allow some degree of metagaming (definition intentionally left out for now) at the table. Most of my players are veteran players. Sometimes they want to be in character, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they want each others' advice, sometimes they don't.

If a situation comes up and I don't want there to be any metagame thinking involved, I'll let my players know. Otherwise, it's all about having a good time. If I were too stern, my players wouldn't have as much fun; if I were too lenient, my players wouldn't have as much fun.

This is one of those middle-ground issues that is DM- and player-dependent.

If I were judging an RPGA event, I'd establish my rules upfront, so no one would be surprised. In that case, things can go a little differently than in the home environment.

Dave

 

[Lanefan]

If needed to settle an issue you could always roll Int to check if your character would remember something/know something you don't know.

I use this one quite frequently, usually when I as DM remember that character x has seen/done/encountered something relevant in its played career and the player has clearly forgotten; the PC's memories will likely be better than the players'.

Lanefan