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

[Emerikol]

I hate metagaming

I hate metagaming but that doesn't mean I condemn people who like it. It's not a personal character issue. I think that everyone needs to find groups that cater to their own interests. For me it's all about the world and immersion in that world and acting in character. I don't like the player intruding. That is why I dislike many modern rulesets. They are too player focused instead of taking things from the character perspective.

Metagaming is making decisions for your character that your character could not or would not make. Obviously this is often subjective and where it's fairly unclear I can live with it. It doesn't hurt immersion when it is unclear. Often though it's obvious and when it is it ruins the fun of people like me. I think it is valid for a player to ask the DM on behalf of his character..."have I seen that sort of creature before?"...and if so the DM should give him the info he needs.

So let me reiterate. I'm not saying DO NOT METAGAME. I am saying DO NOT METAGAME WITH ME and be courteous enough to let your intentions be well know before joining a game. I will absolutely do the same with my own preferences.

 

[iserith]

I don't give a flumph about "metagaming"

How you make decisions for your character is none of my business as a GM or player.

What is my business is that the choices you are making are fun for everyone and contribute to the creation of an exciting, memorable story. Do that, and you and I are good. Do it not and we might have to part ways.

As a GM, I warn you, however: Assumptions are risky. If you want to mitigate that risk, take action in the game world to confirm your assumptions or be prepared to face consequences when your assumptions prove untrue.

 

[Pickles III]

The definitions I gave have been standard since the late eighties. You can play an RPG as a game without role-playing, but you're doing it wrong. Literally, it says in the book (depending on the book) that you are supposed to be role-playing, and they use as many words as are necessary to convey that concept to their perceived target audience.

A wargamer can play an RPG as a wargame, with various degrees of success and enjoyment (depending on the game at hand), but it's not role-playing unless they actually play the role. You should only take that as an insult if you falsely claim to care about role-playing when you actually care about wargaming or storytelling or something else. I'm also not going to claim that role-playing is superior to wargaming or storytelling, because they really are different things entirely, but personally I am a fan of role-playing and that's why I play RPGs rather than wargames or FATE.

I've been playing since well before the late 80s & I am alarmed to find this out.

The point you overlook is that PRGs are games that feature role-playing they are not simply exercises in role-playing

I guess they might be if you never interact with anything on a mechanical level & the GM somehow adjudicates every interaction on his own & describes the results but that would be an even more extreme position than your own narrow one.

"A few brief words are in necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form that he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school."

Oh that I had taken on these words when I first read the AD&D DMG in 1980! I gave up the game as unrealistic unlike my beloved Runequest2. When I came back to the game a few years later & played a campaign on with rules pretty close to RAW (with xp for gold despite this making no sense whatsoever &c) it worked well on its merits as a game.

I guess since it never seems to call itself an RPG & indeed the covers of ODD refer to it as a wargame, or as a campaign system for such maybe it is not one? (perverse as this conclusion appears)

On a separate issue I think "roleplaying game" is, or was, used to distinguish a game where you control one character as opposed to an army of imaginary metal men. This contrasting using roleplaying to indicate trying to inhabit the persona of a character as opposed to manoeuvring a toon round an imaginary world.

And on a third point you are trying to force your quixotic definition of roleplaying by intension rather than taking the word as it is used by extension.

 

[steenan]

For me, metagaming is "taking actions motivated mainly by factors external to the fictional world". It is very wide spectrum; some of it positive (even necessary), some neutral and some detrimental to the game.

A simple rule of not being a dick to other players requires metagame thinking - one needs to think about how their actions affect the fun of other participants and take it into account in their decisions.

Most of the traits of a good player describe how they interact with metagame. Taking just a right amount of spotlight (being neither passive nor a prima donna), engaging other players through in-game actions, not bringing up topics that others are uncomfortable with, taking dramatic and interesting choices etc. In other words, there is a lot of "positive metagaming" that is essential to good gaming.


There are also some things that are positive in some games, but not in others, like "accidentally" showing up where something interesting is happening (despite having no in-character information about it), divulging something one should keep secret and in general playing into genre-relevant tropes.


And, of course, there are kinds of metagaming that diminish the fun. Using out of game knowledge to circumvent challenges or negate moral dilemmas leads to a boring game (especially if facing challenges or moral dilemmas is what the group finds most fun). Doing things that are obviously inconsistent with character's motivations, personality and knowledge destroys the suspension of disbelief (this does not mean that the metagame factors shouldn't be taken into account - just that it should be done in a way that makes sense in the fiction). Trying to do things that thematically don't fit the setting hurt the mood in the best case and become outright silly or disturbing in the worst case.


In other words, trying to judge metagaming as a whole, loving or hating it, has no sense. There's a lot of things that are metagaming, some good and some bad. And the divide between good and bad depends on the game.

 

[cmad1977]

For me, metagaming is "taking actions motivated mainly by factors external to the fictional world". It is very wide spectrum; some of it positive (even necessary), some neutral and some detrimental to the game.

A simple rule of not being a dick to other players requires metagame thinking - one needs to think about how their actions affect the fun of other participants and take it into account in their decisions.

Most of the traits of a good player describe how they interact with metagame. Taking just a right amount of spotlight (being neither passive nor a prima donna), engaging other players through in-game actions, not bringing up topics that others are uncomfortable with, taking dramatic and interesting choices etc. In other words, there is a lot of "positive metagaming" that is essential to good gaming.


There are also some things that are positive in some games, but not in others, like "accidentally" showing up where something interesting is happening (despite having no in-character information about it), divulging something one should keep secret and in general playing into genre-relevant tropes.


And, of course, there are kinds of metagaming that diminish the fun. Using out of game knowledge to circumvent challenges or negate moral dilemmas leads to a boring game (especially if facing challenges or moral dilemmas is what the group finds most fun). Doing things that are obviously inconsistent with character's motivations, personality and knowledge destroys the suspension of disbelief (this does not mean that the metagame factors shouldn't be taken into account - just that it should be done in a way that makes sense in the fiction). Trying to do things that thematically don't fit the setting hurt the mood in the best case and become outright silly or disturbing in the worst case.


In other words, trying to judge metagaming as a whole, loving or hating it, has no sense. There's a lot of things that are metagaming, some good and some bad. And the divide between good and bad depends on the game.

Yup. Everyone meta-games. Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's cheating.

 

[innerdude]

For me, metagaming is "taking actions motivated mainly by factors external to the fictional world". It is very wide spectrum; some of it positive (even necessary), some neutral and some detrimental to the game ....

one needs to think about how their actions affect the fun of other participants and take it into account in their decisions ....

Most of the traits of a good player describe how they interact with metagame. Taking just a right amount of spotlight (being neither passive nor a prima donna), engaging other players through in-game actions, not bringing up topics that others are uncomfortable with, taking dramatic and interesting choices etc. In other words, there is a lot of "positive metagaming" that is essential to good gaming.

There are also some things that are positive in some games, but not in others, like "accidentally" showing up where something interesting is happening (despite having no in-character information about it), divulging something one should keep secret and in general playing into genre-relevant tropes.

And, of course, there are kinds of metagaming that diminish the fun. Using out of game knowledge to circumvent challenges or negate moral dilemmas leads to a boring game (especially if facing challenges or moral dilemmas is what the group finds most fun). Doing things that are obviously inconsistent with character's motivations, personality and knowledge destroys the suspension of disbelief (this does not mean that the metagame factors shouldn't be taken into account - just that it should be done in a way that makes sense in the fiction). Trying to do things that thematically don't fit the setting hurt the mood in the best case and become outright silly or disturbing in the worst case.

In other words, trying to judge metagaming as a whole, loving or hating it, has no sense. There's a lot of things that are metagaming, some good and some bad. And the divide between good and bad depends on the game.

These are all good points. I'd maybe quibble that if you want to have a "precise" definition, that the "positive" aspects you mention here about sharing spotlight time, making interesting choices, avoiding making players uncomfortable, etc. might more reasonably fall under the category "meta-authoring" rather than meta-gaming, but your point is very well taken.

My definition of "meta-authoring" would be, "Changing the in-game fiction, character motivations, or character stances to promote a particular outcome." In other words, the difference between meta-authoring and meta-gaming is that meta-authoring doesn't generally interact directly with the rules or resolution mechanics, but directly with the in game fictional state. Meta-gaming is more focused on manipulating the fiction by interacting with the rules.

It's kind of a fine line, and it may be an unnecessary distinction to make, but to me there is a slight semantic difference.

But again, very salient points made here, so thanks.

 

[billd91]

Finally! People are getting to the fact that there are positive uses of metagaming. Metagaming is as bad or as good as the purpose it is put to - if it's to further the fun of the story evolving in the game, then it can be good. I also consider following genre conventions to be, in most cases, metagaming. Villains monologuing in superhero/spy games - that's following the genre convention. Exploiting it to gain advantage (like escaping or turning the tables on the villain) is also metagaming. You're using the genre conventions the game is emulating as part of your decision-making as a player. But it enhances the game's faithful representation of the genre - so it's good metagaming.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And on a third point you are trying to force your quixotic definition of roleplaying by intension rather than taking the word as it is used by extension.

Definitions aid in discussion, if people can agree on those definitions. If not, then we have to fall back on the meanings that those definitions were supposed to convey.

Call it whatever you'd like, but the point of this kind of game is to get into character and make decisions like this was a real person, and treating the whole thing as just a game or a storytelling exercise would defeat the whole purpose.

 

[sydbar]

I usually metagame, because i find out what others are going to play, then i design a character that will fill in the holes in the party.

 

[Pickles III]

Definitions aid in discussion, if people can agree on those definitions. If not, then we have to fall back on the meanings that those definitions were supposed to convey.

Call it whatever you'd like, but the point of this kind of game is to get into character and make decisions like this was a real person, and treating the whole exercise as just a game or a storytelling exercise would defeat the whole purpose.

It is not "the whole point" though, at least not for me or pretty much anyone in my regular play groups or of anyone overtly in more casual games I have played.

It is merely part of the exercise which is playing a game that involves acting in the role of a fictional character.

Definitions are good but not if they fail to map to how words are literally used.

(which is my attempt at a play on words as sadly literally now means figuratively, per the OED)

and FWIW & OT I have just remembered the epic 100 page 4e thread where you explained your play style preferences often alone in the face of er many with different preferences.
I found it very illuminating & thought you did a great job not getting annoyed & putting your position. I think it illuminated me on what is meant by the "simulationist" style of play which is not what I used to think it meant.
I really enjoyed reading all that thread & your contribution to it.