Why do you hate meta-gaming? (And what does it mean to you?)

[Big J Money]

Update (with my conclusion so far): It's no surprise that I found metagaming to be a myth. There are at least two very different definitions of the term, presented below the OP. When I wrote the OP, I was going by the second definition, and had no knowledge of the first. Well, I had the knowledge I think, but never connected the dots to the wider term. I have yet to decide which definition I'm going to take going forward since it seems the TRPG community hasn't even agreed. One thing is clear, when people speak about metagaming, they should be very clear on what they mean, because their audience may have something different in mind. So I do stand by the intent of the OP, which was that it's often the case that when people are using the term, it effectively has no useful meaning in their conversation. My personal conclusion is to always ask what people mean by it, if they mention it.

I think meta-gaming is a myth. Cheating is a real problem. Implausible character narration is a real problem. But I think meta-gaming means nothing, and can't be proven anyway since we can't read each others' minds.

However, rather than try to explain why to people who are already convinced that I'm wrong before I start, I want to ask all of you: what is it, specifically, that you hate about meta-gaming? Convince me.

Bonus points if you can avoid conflating meta-gaming with cheating or implausible narration, which I already realize are genuinely undesirable things for most (if not all) role-players.

Edit: If you want to give an opinion on why you hate it, then it would be extra helpful if to do it like:
1. "I think metagaming is..." (definition)
2. "I don't like it because..." (personal opinion)

Here are some definitions that have emerged from the thread so far (leave comments if you disagree with them!)
[sblock]
Definition 1:
Meta-gaming is broader than pen and paper RPGs. It involves the manipulation of rules to gain an advantage that isn't apparent from the rules or the stated goals of the game themselves. Such advantage is often deemed either “cheating” or “against the spirit of play” by other players in the group.
Definition 2:
Meta-gaming, in role-playing games, is making decisions for one's character based on information not available to the character

There seem to be two main stances from those who hold the second definition. 1) Meta-gaming is bad; it goes against the purposes of role-playing, and/or immersion. 2) Meta-gaming is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes. Even some of those who take the first stance admit that some amount of meta-gaming is a necessary evil in order to make the game work.

Some of those who hold the first definition admit that it is also possible to use "metagame knowledge" (or out of character knowledge) in a way that affects play, yet does not follow the definition of metagaming. This activity doesn't seem to have an agreed upon name, based on the information in this thread.


[/sblock]

 

[Lanefan]

I think meta-gaming is a myth. Cheating is a real problem. Implausible character narration is a real problem. But I think meta-gaming means nothing, and can't be proven anyway since we can't read each others' minds.

However, rather than try to explain why to people who are already convinced that I'm wrong before I start, I want to ask all of you: what is it, specifically, that you hate about meta-gaming? Convince me.

Bonus points if you can avoid conflating meta-gaming with cheating or implausible narration, which I already realize are genuinely undesirable things for most (if not all) role-players.

Before answering, and to avoid or sidestep later arguments over whether conflation as you see it is occurring or not, I'll first ask:

How do you define meta-gaming as opposed to cheating as opposed to implausible narration? Where are the dividing lines?

If a player has her character do or not do something in the game only because the player - not the character - has prior knowledge that it's the right move (example: the player has played through the same adventure before and knows there's a bad trap down the left hallway, therefore insists on going right), is that cheating or meta-gaming or implausible narration? To me, that's meta-gaming.

To me, just about all examples of meta-gaming (as opposed to anything else) come down to players using information or knowledge to their benefit that their characters would not and-or could not have.

Lanefan

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Metagaming interferes with my immersion. A lot of the fun of RPGs for me comes from trying to experience the game from the viewpoint and mental state of my characters. Metagaming is the antithesis of this, making decisions from the viewpoint of the player. If someone at the table is metagaming, I can't help but be aware of it, and it pulls my attention away from my character's viewpoint, which decreases my fun.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think meta-gaming is a myth. Cheating is a real problem.

You're wrong.

Convince me.

Why should I? You're the one with the outrageous claim.

Having said that, I definitely don't tolerate cheaters at my table, and I don't actually mind meta-gaming if a player manages to reasonably portray it as being within a character's sphere of knowledge.

 

[delericho]

I think meta-gaming is a myth... Convince me.

Nah. I've been through this debate with another poster fairly recently, and have no desire to go around it again.

Bonus points if you can avoid conflating meta-gaming with cheating or implausible narration, which I already realize are genuinely undesirable things for most (if not all) role-players.

Meta-gaming is a subset of cheating. Since you acknowledge cheating is genuinely undesirable, that should answer your question as to why metagaming is undesirable.

 

[Zelofcad]

I think meta-gaming is a way of saying "cheating", but with a narrower meaning.

Cheating is a broader term: when you play, you can cheat in obvious ways like fudging your rolls. Meta-gaming is instead when you use your knowledge of the game or your knowledge of the people you are playing with, to reach your goal. It's just terminology.

There are subtle ways to "meta-game". For instance, if the GM mentions some particular item (objet, NPC and so on) and a player thinks or says "It has been mentioned: then it must be important, let's discard everything else and let's concentrate on that" (and I had a player who talked that way once at my table), it is not a blatant cheating, but it is meta-gaming (or what I define "meta-gaming")

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think meta-gaming is a myth. Cheating is a real problem. Implausible character narration is a real problem. But I think meta-gaming means nothing, and can't be proven anyway since we can't read each others' minds.

However, rather than try to explain why to people who are already convinced that I'm wrong before I start, I want to ask all of you: what is it, specifically, that you hate about meta-gaming? Convince me.

Bonus points if you can avoid conflating meta-gaming with cheating or implausible narration, which I already realize are genuinely undesirable things for most (if not all) role-players.

In my experience most claims about metagaming come from DMs being precious about their worlds, their cliche'd surprises and cheap knockoff plots. It's the petulance of the naked emperor. For example [MENTION=6792325]Zelofcad[/MENTION] mentions focussing on something the DM has just described as something to concentrate on. Either the player is wrong (which has its own consequences) or they are right - in which case either the DM needs to up their game or they've just dropped the right amount of hints to hook. (That said I'd have asked them to find IC justifications rather than saying that OOC).

Metagaming interferes with my immersion. A lot of the fun of RPGs for me comes from trying to experience the game from the viewpoint and mental state of my characters. Metagaming is the antithesis of this, making decisions from the viewpoint of the player. If someone at the table is metagaming, I can't help but be aware of it, and it pulls my attention away from my character's viewpoint, which decreases my fun.

And not metagaming interferes with my immersion. A lot of the fun of RPGs for me comes from trying to experience the game from the viewpoint and mental state of the state of my characters. My characters who actually live in the world and will therefore have at the very least legends of most monsters in the gameworld that will be at least as accurate as my memories from the Monster Manual, and will have a clearer understanding of the physical situation than a few sentences of description and possibly placement on the battlemat can give you on their own. Therefore a hard anti-metagaming stance forces me to play someone who doesn't know a thing about the universe they supposedly grew up in.

But a well written RPG (like oD&D and its XP for GP rules) is designed and developed with the metagame in mind. Such that smart play from the player by the rules of the game is indistinguishable from the desired aim of the game. This is, to me, a big part of the art of writing a good RPG.

(I've seen the claim made by OSR fans that producing a Monster Manual was a huge mistake because it standardised worlds for both player and DM).

 

[delericho]

For example [MENTION=6792325]Zelofcad[/MENTION] mentions focussing on something the DM has just described as something to concentrate on. Either the player is wrong (which has its own consequences) or they are right - in which case either the DM needs to up their game or they've just dropped the right amount of hints to hook.

Yeah, that's maybe not the best example.

But consider a stronger example: the PCs find a book in their travels at which point Brian declares, without any further detail, that they burn the book (as in Knights of the Dinner Table). He doesn't know anything about this book, and burning a book found is hardly a normal response, but he knows that he's playing a game, and in a game any found book is obviously a Tome of Eldritch Lore (warning: link to TVtropes), so it gets burnt.

My characters who actually live in the world and will therefore have at the very least legends of most monsters in the gameworld that will be at least as accurate as my memories from the Monster Manual, and will have a clearer understanding of the physical situation than a few sentences of description and possibly placement on the battlemat can give you on their own. Therefore a hard anti-metagaming stance forces me to play someone who doesn't know a thing about the universe they supposedly grew up in.

That's fair. But who decides when that "most monsters" translates to "this particular monster"?

But a well written RPG (like oD&D and its XP for GP rules) is designed and developed with the metagame in mind. Such that smart play from the player by the rules of the game is indistinguishable from the desired aim of the game.

Agreed. I'm a big fan of the concept of associated mechanics, where so far as it is possible the mechanics eliminate metagaming... because what you're doing is simply "gaming".

 

[delericho]

Incidentally, for a good explanation of why metagaming can be problematic, you might look up the old ST:TNG episode "Elementary, Dear Data".

The metagaming in that one is an extreme case - Data has "read the 'adventure" and uses that knowledge to skip over the whole of the mystery and jump straight to unmasking the culprit. Which is fine for him (he gets to 'win'), but sucks for Geordie (who was looking forward to seeing is all play out).

 

[Neonchameleon]

But consider a stronger example: the PCs find a book in their travels at which point Brian declares, without any further detail, that they burn the book (as in Knights of the Dinner Table). He doesn't know anything about this book, and burning a book found is hardly a normal response, but he knows that he's playing a game, and in a game any found book is obviously a Tome of Eldritch Lore (warning: link to TVtropes), so it gets burnt.

It's not like Brian to burn treasure like a spellbook. Which means they must have for once been playing CoC rather than Hackmaster - and burning what might be Mythos summoning tomes that will blast your sanity strikes me as a perfectly sensible thing for a seasoned investigator! Once bitten, twice shy. Twice bitten, cackling at the moon and taking extreme precautions.

That's fair. But who decides when that "most monsters" translates to "this particular monster"?

Then either the DM took it straight out of the MM or it's just the baseline example. In the first case then the legends are accurate. In the second you have incomplete information.

Agreed. I'm a big fan of the concept of associated mechanics, where so far as it is possible the mechanics eliminate metagaming... because what you're doing is simply "gaming".

And this I'd call sheer nonsense. The Alexandrian started using the term "associated mechanics" as the first blast of the edition war trumpets quite literally because he couldn't understand why when a demonic leader pointed at a PC and told its minions to get them that they might gain bonusses for this.

Process Sim mechanics do not in any way prevent metagaming (using your own definitions above, how exactly would they prevent Brian burning the book?) What they do is to say "These are the only factors that are important" - and more to the point what they do is reduce the world to the level of versimilitude lampooned in Order of the Stick because what the approach says is "We only put values on things we can directly measure - and what we can't directly measure is not important". The alternative - an outcome sim - accepts that if you want a world that fits the game category then there are too many details and factors to work in individually without making a game that makes GURPS look like Lasers and Feelings, and so you need to seek to align the macroscopic outcomes and the characters' incentives.

To illustrate the difference I'm going to use my standard GURPS/Fate alcoholism example.

In GURPS when I play an alcoholic (disadvantage) the very last thing I want is to go somewhere where there is alcohol. If I get drunk (IC) it's in the evenings when it might not affect anything; there is no incentive for me to drink in character. It's a disadvantage I try to get the best out of by no-selling; by making sure it has as little affect on me as possible, and when my character has a drink in game it is only because it's a huge setup or I've failed a roll.

In Fate, precisely because the outcomes are disassociated you'll find my alcoholic character propping up a bar, fishing for Fate Points. "Jusht one more. I can *hic* handle it!" The emotional resonance is amazing; my alcoholic character in Fate actually wants to get drunk. But this works elegantly precisely because Fate Points are disassociated and a unit of metagame currency.

In both cases I'm arguably metagaming. But you either need a ridiculously detailed psychological model that will bog the game down or active metagame currency to make self-destructive behaviour in character something you want to do.