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

[innerdude]

Meta-gaming and cheating share a common component, which is they are designed to manipulate an outcome within the game.

Cheating manipulates the outcome by directly altering the "fortune" mechanics or the numbers being applied to the fortune mechanics --- Claiming to roll a 20 when you actually rolled an 11, using weighted dice to roll max damage all the time, or adding 5 additional feats and 25 extra skill points to your level 2 character that he or she shouldn't have.

Meta-gaming manipulates the outcome by altering the fictional circumstances in which the "fortune" checks are made, or by eliminating the need to make fortune checks altogether to achieve the desired outcome. For example, reading an adventure and using that knowledge against the GM doesn't change the outcome of your dice rolls, it simply changes the circumstances in which you'll be called upon to make a roll in the first place. Meta-gaming most closely approximates "cheating" when the use of meta-game knowledge means players no longer have to expend other meta-game resources to achieve an outcome than if they hadn't used their meta-game knowledge. For example, the player's knowledge of the dungeon/adventure means the party completely avoids a set of traps or encounters, allowing the party to preserve healing potions, keep spell slots full, and so on.

Ultimately though, both are a form of manipulation, and they're not mutually exclusive. Your "cheating" player with the 5 extra feats and 25 extra skill points who constantly claims he's rolling 20s can also "meta-game" by using his prior knowledge of the adventure to eliminate the need to make rolls entirely, or ensure he's only making rolls that give him overwhelming advantage.

To me the definition of "meta-gaming" is, "The use of knowledge about the mechanical constructs of the game to manipulate outcomes in the game in such a way that the outcomes a) do not fall within a reasonable spectrum of in-fiction causality, or b) break the agreed-upon social contract of how outcomes should be resolved."

Now, the real question is --- does anyone involved in your gaming group CARE if game circumstances are being manipulated through either mechanism? Because if no one cares if game outcomes are being manipulated through cheating or meta-gaming, then to quote the incisive wisdom of @JamesonCourage, "Play what you like."

(As a side note, I'm not even going to address the "Characters being played implausibly," because I think it's a totally orthogonal subject.)

 

[Big J Money]

I want to carefully read the entire thread before reposting, so thanks for the input so far!

But I want to say that "myth" was maybe the wrong word. I think maybe "meaningless" is a better word for what I mean? My point is that the concept of meta-gaming doesn't accomplish or communicate anything of value. At least, my hypothesis is that if a person wants to talk about role-playing in a useful way, there is usually a better set of words to use to communicate meaning than to go with meta-gaming. The only reason to talk about meta-gaming would be for meta or reasons, like talking about the philosophy or theory of role-playing.

But like I said I want to reply to posts later when I have more time.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you guys are going to need to define 'metagaming'. The term is inherently broad, but it is also used to mean some very particular sorts of behavior. People often use the word without specifying in which sense they mean it. It is in that sense I could agree that merely saying "metagaming" doesn't communicate anything of value.

But just because people misuse or misunderstand the term, or commonly use the term in vague and sometimes incoherent ways, does not mean that the term doesn't have meaning. It just means that you have to take particular care to make sure your audience understands what you mean by it.

Not every behavior in the broad umbrella of metagaming is dysfunctional. Some aren't even avoidable or undesirable.

But there are some very specific examples of metagaming which are.

Reading some prior threads might be useful:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?454915-Let-s-Talk-About-Metagaming!/page2
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...e-a-couple-of-common-terms-I-see-used-on-here

 

[ccs]

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")

So it's cheating when something you say stands out to me for whatever reason & I decide to have my character act on it?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

The Fate example is not a case of you inhabiting the head-space of your character - of role-playing - because your character doesn't actually want to get drunk. Your character knows that they have a problem around alcohol, and that this sort of thing can cause problems, and they really should try to avoid alcohol whenever possible. It's just that sometimes they don't have the willpower to resist, and then bad things happen.

The metagame mechanic of Fate Points puts the player directly in conflict with the character. The character doesn't want to get drunk or experience the negative consequences of getting drunk, but the player wants the Fate Points and is encouraged to want a dramatic story, so the player is forced out of actor-stance and into author-stance. To contrast, the GURPS example puts the player and the character in the same place, making the same decisions for the same reasons - neither the player nor the character wants the character to get drunk, because they both know that only bad things can come from it.

 

[Big J Money]

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

Hah, bonus points for managing to fit a TNG episode into your explanation.

 

[Zelofcad]

So it's cheating when something you say stands out to me for whatever reason & I decide to have my character act on it?

Right, it wasn't very clear. I'll try to explain myself.

Once my players found a little shrine dedicated to a demon lord inside a dungeon they were exploring. In that shrine there was, among many other things, a pecurliar statue made of black stone and gold, which I took some time to describe because I didn't want them to think that it was "just another statue of an evil deity or whatever".
It had really no other importance in the plot but one of the players decided that, because I had described it, it *had* to be fundamental, and when it became clear that it was of no use to them he accused me to waste his time on useless details.

I do not complain if the PCs concentrate on a secondary detail they come to think it's important, since investigation is part of the fun, and sometimes it can lead to a wrong path. But in this case he insisted that I actually tried to mislead them, just because "if the DM mention it, it must be important".

I am aware this is not the firs kind of example that come to mind when someone says meta-gaming, and that's why I said it was "subtle".

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think you guys are going to need to define 'metagaming'. The term is inherently broad, but it is also used to mean some very particular sorts of behavior. People often use the word without specifying in which sense they mean it. It is in that sense I could agree that merely saying "metagaming" doesn't communicate anything of value.

"Role-playing" is defined as "Making decisions as your character would."
"Meta-gaming" is defined as "Making decisions based on information not available to the character, such as the fact that the world isn't real and you're actually playing a game."

Meta-gaming is bad because it's the opposite of role-playing, and we're playing a role-playing game so we can role-play.

Sometimes, meta-gaming is the lesser of two evils, and should be permitted in small doses where necessary. If a PC dies, then that player doesn't get to role-play at all until their new character can be introduced. If the GM has to meta-game in order to get that new character into the game more quickly, then that is usually an acceptable form of meta-gaming. Likewise, if one character could split off from the group and resolve the whole situation single-handedly, it might be better to meta-game some reason for the other characters to tag along anyway, rather than have the other players sit on the sideline for hours at a time.

 

[Celebrim]

"Role-playing" is defined as "Making decisions as your character would."
"Meta-gaming" is defined as "Making decisions based on information not available to the character, such as the fact that the world isn't real and you're actually playing a game."

Meta-gaming is bad because it's the opposite of role-playing, and we're playing a role-playing game so we can role-play.

I know where you are coming from, but before I write lengthy essays showing why you missed an important point, can you back up from that a little bit and see that there are cases where the game depends on the players realizing fact that in fact the world isn't real and you're actually playing a game?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I know where you are coming from, but before I write lengthy essays showing why you missed an important point, can you back up from that a little bit and see that there are cases where the game depends on the players realizing fact that in fact the world isn't real and you're actually playing a game?

I think I did, while you were typing that.

Meta-gaming is always bad, but sometimes it's less bad than the alternatives.