What is Meta-gaming anyways?

[Shallown]

I think Meta-Gaming is like Porn. You can't quite define it but you can recognize it when you see it. That having been said, as a GM I expect and allow (therefore encourage) a limited amount of Meta-Gaming (As I define it). I Meta-Game myself to set up reasonable logical encounters that will be challenging to my players. If a player expresses things in game terms then that is usually okay with me. Sometimes it is the shortest most clear way to say something. But I also try to keep it under control. My players often ask for knowledge rolls to see if their character knows something the have guessed using slightly out of character info. I just chalk this up to most characters being more experienced/ living on the edge with killer instincts then most players are. I think it is mostly a matter of finding the group and GM's level of acceptance.

Later

 

[Henry]

Re: Re: What is Meta-gaming anyways?

Meta-gaming is not "wrong" to me, but it is less fun, in my opinion, which is why I try not to. It's the equivalent of a mulligan in golf - it's a "cheater's advantage between friends" that most people don't seem to mind.

 

[Goobermunch]

Re: Re: Re: What is Meta-gaming anyways?

This could only apply if you play "DM against players". Nothing wrong with it, but it is not my cup of tea. I will neither play in such a game, nor DM it - I have better uses for my time and creativity than to spend it in an arms&tactics race against my players.

IMHO metagaming is using OOC knowledge, be it game mechanics, stats or general knowledge, instead of character knowledge to make your character's decisions. I also include using "player experience" instead of character experience in my definition of metagaming - I don't think that players should "learn lessons from TPKs" and apply them to the next batch of 1st level PCs.

Of course, the problem with your definition of metagaming is that none of us have taken the time to play every second of our characters' lives. So there's a gap in the character knowledge. Necessarily, we fill that gap with player knowledge. This is, of course, the result of having our own lives and not enough time to game.

Metagame knowledge is inescapable in that respect.

I also want to take issue with the idea that taking time in combat and coordinating strategy is a bad way to play the game. The simple fact is that most of us have not spent a whole lot of time in large scale melees. Our characters, on the other hand, probably have. In addition, in an ongoing campaign, our parties have fought together for a long time (especially in the later stages). It's very likely that in all that time, people have learned how other people fight and how to act together as a team.

To say otherwise is to deny the possibility for Jackie Chan-esque fight scenes. It would be very difficult to replicate cinematic fight scenes without some level of coordination and preplanning (or choreography). However, such fight scenes can add to the quality of the story and the fun for the players.

Finally, some tactical input from the group just makes sense. Very few of us have spent our lives training for martial combat. When I, an 8th level student, state that my 16th level fighter is going to do X, verisimillitude suffers if X is a tactically stupid action that is out of character for the PC. But, since I'm not a great duelist, I could make a mistake. I don't feel that it hurts the game to get some input into those decisions. I also don't think it hurts the game to get corrected if I miss something.

I'm not the world's most observant guy. It's the reason I don't play a whole lot of chess. But that doesn't mean I can't play a character who is a master tactician.

--G

 

[Jenale]

To me, meta-gaming is any use of something outside the game events to influence the behavior of the characters.

One example that I can think of is the "PC forehead tattoo" syndrome. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has seen it--a new PC is being introduced to the party, and no one in the party has ever seen the PC before, the party is in a situation in which they should be deeply suspicious of anyone they meet (for example, sneaking up on a chapel converted to the production of undead), but instead greet the new PC with a "hi, how do you feel about being our scout?"

Or the converse: treating important NPCs without much regard because the player knows they're NPCs. (Of course, as DM, there are penalties in my game for this--though it doesn't matter now since I booted the offending player for that and a multitude of other offenses.)

Things like information about certain monsters' vulnerabilities--that's a little trickier. I think if the DM says "you've never heard of this creature," and the players go on to use the info that they were told their characters didn't have, that's meta-gaming. But I'll also throw in a bit of misinformation sometimes "during those months you hung out in taverns listening to every bit of gossip, you had heard stories about werewolves, and the need for silver and garlic to defeat them." So if they don't get garlic, which the player knows isn't needed, but the character thinks is--I'd have a little chat w/ them. (Or I just might make the garlic necessary after all.)

I do think that meta-gaming detracts from the game to varying degrees, but I don't think that every instance of meta-gaming is equal.

 

[Fenes 2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is Meta-gaming anyways?

Of course, the problem with your definition of metagaming is that none of us have taken the time to play every second of our characters' lives. So there's a gap in the character knowledge. Necessarily, we fill that gap with player knowledge. This is, of course, the result of having our own lives and not enough time to game.

Metagame knowledge is inescapable in that respect.

I also want to take issue with the idea that taking time in combat and coordinating strategy is a bad way to play the game. The simple fact is that most of us have not spent a whole lot of time in large scale melees. Our characters, on the other hand, probably have. In addition, in an ongoing campaign, our parties have fought together for a long time (especially in the later stages). It's very likely that in all that time, people have learned how other people fight and how to act together as a team.

To say otherwise is to deny the possibility for Jackie Chan-esque fight scenes. It would be very difficult to replicate cinematic fight scenes without some level of coordination and preplanning (or choreography). However, such fight scenes can add to the quality of the story and the fun for the players.

Finally, some tactical input from the group just makes sense. Very few of us have spent our lives training for martial combat. When I, an 8th level student, state that my 16th level fighter is going to do X, verisimillitude suffers if X is a tactically stupid action that is out of character for the PC. But, since I'm not a great duelist, I could make a mistake. I don't feel that it hurts the game to get some input into those decisions. I also don't think it hurts the game to get corrected if I miss something.

I'm not the world's most observant guy. It's the reason I don't play a whole lot of chess. But that doesn't mean I can't play a character who is a master tactician. --G

I may have been misunderstood - I define metagaming as basing the character's decision on information the character couldn't have. Tactical time-outs, planning etc. are fine for characters that would act in such a manner, and imc I tell players when I think their PCs should know something the player does not know, be it the right adress for a lord or the average price of a weapon.

I take issue with Bob the wonder adventurer, who has the collected game-experience of 23 high-level characters and 3 editions of D&D's worth of Monster Manuals when he leaves his father's house at level 1.

 

[senodam]

I'd agree that OOC information about monsters can be a problem in some games, but the Troll example does remind me of our old DM. See, a few years ago, while I was somewhat burned out on D&D he took over the game and we ended up battling Trolls. When we pulled out torches to burn them- at 7th level- he slapped us with XP penalties, and insisted we didn't burn them, on the basis of our not knowing about Trolls. The result? A pack of a half dozen invulnerable Trolls who simply could not be killed- a bad DM? Yes, but also a warning about taking the limits on OOC knowledge to far. Pay heed young DMs, lest ye fall to the dark side..

 

[Trainz]

Here is what we do IMC...

I created a new class of knowledge skills:

Knowledge Aberrations
Knowledge Nature (for animals, already a PHB skill)
Knowledge Beasts
Knowledge Constructs
Knowledge Dragons
Knowledge Elementals
Knowledge Fey
Knowledge Giants
Knowledge Humanoids
Knowledge Magical Beasts
Knowledge Monstrous Humanoids
Knowledge Oozes
Knowledge Outsiders
Knowledge Plants
Knowledge Shapechangers
Knowledge Undead
Knowledge Vermin

They are all class skills for the wizard and bard. Wizards spending a lot of time in tomes and libraries learn these things, and it fits with the image of the wizard beeing a pool of knowledge. Same with bards. Knowledge Nature is a class skill for the Ranger and Druid. Knowledge Undead is a class skill for Clerics.

Whenever the PC's meet a critter that falls in the category of their knowledge skill(s), I let the PC roll as a free action. If he beats DC 10, I give him very superficial info about the critter. If he beats DC 15, I give him general info about the critter. If he beats DC 20, I tell him all he needs to know.

For example, lets say the group is attacked by a Barbazu. If a PC has the Knowledge Outsider skill, he can roll with varying results. If he beats:

DC10: The beast is a devil (thus immune to fire and poison, and resistant to cold and acid) called a Barbazu;
DC15: As above and it takes a magical weapon to hit it and it has some spell-like abilities, but they are mild (easy to save against...);
DC20: As above but it has average spell resistance, poor armor class, can Wound, go in a Battle Frenzy, it's Beard can inflict a disease and it can summon Lemures or other Barbazu once per day.
Fail the check: It looks as a humanoid beast with a rough metallic beard and a polearm. If a player goes:" It's a Barbazu, a Devil ! Mage, it is immune to fire and it takes a magic weapon to hit it, so the elf, don't use your bow, but use your +1 short sword...), I would give the mage a 50/50 chance to cast something else than a fire spell if he usually makes use of it, and would force the elf to shoot arrows at it until he hits a few times with no apparent damage to the beast. If the OOC player shuts up but acts metha-gamingly, I will give him a 50/50 chance to go ahead with his intended action.

I do not let them use OOC knowledge if they don't have the skill. They know a troll regenerates, but maybe not their PC's. If they insist, I will let them make a level check on a d20 to know about obvious generic things (a Blue Dragon breathes lightning, it takes a magical weapon to hit a Gargoyle, a Zombie is an undead (and thus can be turned), but NOT such things as a Mohrg's paralyzing touch or a Nightcrawler's energy drain).

Most of my campaigns have at least the following skills taken by my PC's: Knowledge Outsiders and Knowledge Undead. Sometimes, a bard or wizard will put at least one point in each Knowledge Monster skill and boost Knowledge Outsiders and Knowledge Undead. It varies....

 

[Fenes 2]

To me, meta-gaming is any use of something outside the game events to influence the behavior of the characters.

One example that I can think of is the "PC forehead tattoo" syndrome. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has seen it--a new PC is being introduced to the party, and no one in the party has ever seen the PC before, the party is in a situation in which they should be deeply suspicious of anyone they meet (for example, sneaking up on a chapel converted to the production of undead), but instead greet the new PC with a "hi, how do you feel about being our scout?"

Our party once cheerfully asked a stranger to help them raid a slaver camp when planning said raid in the tavern of the tent town the camp was located at. Unfortunately for them the stranger turned out to be the second in command of said slaver camp... at least it shows the treat PC and NPC alike.

 

[Sixchan]

Well, I define Meta-Gaming as it happens. I've found you can never place a blanket definition over things and brand them Meta-Gaming. Using the troll example, I'd say that even a commoner would know that trolls can be killed by fire, since it's probably in one of them folk tales about heroes and stuff. But a commoner probably wouldn't know that Acid works too, and I doubt low level characters would either. But who's to say? A Ranger might. A high INT Wizard might. A character from a troll infested area probably would.

So I call it when I see it, and not before.

 

[Pbartender]

To all you ENWorlders out there:
1. What is meta-gaming to you?
2. Is it all that bad?
3. Should we try to stop using it as an insult?

1. For me it's the simply difference between what a player knows versus what a character knows. When the former gets intorduced to the latter, that's meta-gaming.

2. No, it's not necessarily, but it can be.

NOT BAD: Sometimes, what the player knows IS what the character knows... Perhaps he's heard fairly tales about how trolls can only be destroyed by fire.

BAD: Sometimes what the player knows ISN'T what the character knows... A character that closes his eyes to avoid the gaze of a monster he's never met or heard of before.

NOT BAD: And sometimes what the player knows ISN'T what the character knows, but it still needs to be used to resolve a game mechanic... A character won't specifically know the range increment of a bow, but square still need to be counted to determine whether or not you hit the target.

3. I don't know if it's being used as an insult, per se, but it certainly does seem to have a negative connotation. Mostly because of complaints of meta-game misuse, I think.

One of the best solutions I've personally found for creature ability meta-gaming is this...

Keep the creature's stats and abilities the same, but change the description.

Turn a Beholder into a 10-headed Wyvern that breathes a different breath ray from each head. Is that leathery dessicated corpse a skeleton, a zombie or a mummy? Turn stirges into flying lampreys. Is that stone-skinned humanoid an Animated Statue, a Stone Golem, an Earth Elemental, or a very short Stone Giant? And so on...