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

[The Crimson Binome]

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)

I'm sure that some of it comes down to the battles being fought over definitions, and which ones can be saved versus which ones are lost causes.

I think I can try to save the definition of "Role-Playing Game" if I really try, or at least slow its descent into meaninglessness. I don't want it to mean "Any game with individual characters, regardless of whether you're acting as the character or telling stories about the character"; that definition is so inclusive that it isn't useful anymore. If you just say that anything is an RPG, without regard to actually role-playing, then there's no way to differentiate between traditional RP-centric RPGs and modern story-based games, and that distinction is ridiculously important to a significant number of people.

The community really isn't that large, and these forums are a big part of it. If we can work out some sort of consensus here, then it has a non-negligible chance of spreading to the rest of the community. That's why I'm not giving up.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I go by the second definition: Metagaming is the in-game use of knowledge that one's character does not have.

Most players are willing and able to separate themselves from their characters to some degree, but it's naive to think that anyone is totally immune to the temptation to metagame when presented with the opportunity.

If a PC can accomplish some goal by falling from a high place which the player knows she has the HP to survive, don't be surprised if she does. This is one reason why I like HP to be an in-game thing.

If the party ends up fighting a dragon, don't be surprised if the casters conspicuously avoid using otherwise-effective paralyzing spells, regardless of what they do or don't know.

If the party is confronted by a known vampire, don't be surprised if the players start looking for holy symbols, wooden stakes, and coffins, regardless of what the PCs do or don't know. I once played in a game where the DM expected us to do just this, but this is in general why I don't like monsters with well-known quirky traits.

If one player rolls notably worse stats than the other players, don't be surprised if the resulting character seems to be crafted to be the party's first early casualty. This is one reason I like point buy stats.

One can argue that good players have the integrity to never metagame, but that's looking at the small picture. Why fight human nature when player knowledge can be matched to character knowledge? Why rely on the honor system when desired behavior can be encouraged with appropriate rulings, rules, house rules, or explanations?

 

[Pickles III]

I'm sure that some of it comes down to the battles being fought over definitions, and which ones can be saved versus which ones are lost causes.

I think I can try to save the definition of "Role-Playing Game" if I really try, or at least slow its descent into meaninglessness. I don't want it to mean "Any game with individual characters, regardless of whether you're acting as the character or telling stories about the character"; that definition is so inclusive that it isn't useful anymore. If you just say that anything is an RPG, without regard to actually role-playing, then there's no way to differentiate between traditional RP-centric RPGs and modern story-based games, and that distinction is ridiculously important to a significant number of people.

The community really isn't that large, and these forums are a big part of it. If we can work out some sort of consensus here, then it has a non-negligible chance of spreading to the rest of the community. That's why I'm not giving up.

I recognise & try to respect that you have specific tastes in your gaming. I believe these to be niche as I can't recall anyone else I've played with having them however this is somewhat self selecting.

I suppose that I mostly take exception to being told that a term I have been using for 35+ years to mean one thing now means something else & that I am doing it wrong.

I agree there has been a development from moving pawns in a giant puzzles though method acting* to meta game story systems (or at least meta-character/metarole systems as the out of character mechanics exist within the game). These are all quite distinct and maybe deserve their own terms but to me & mine they are all sub categories of RPGs.


* I noticed in some other thread you distinguished roleplayers & combat monkeys. I prefer the terms "wannabe method actors" & "tactical geniuses"

 

[Pickles III]

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.

This is why I find it very hard to enjoy typical COC games, when i am not supposed to be a seasoned investigator. My metagame Mythos knowledge is there front & centre & its hard & often tiresome to have to try to pretend you weren't expecting gribblies, people who don't believe you anyway or a fate of madness, prison or early demise.

For D&D I have pretty much the same metagame knowledge but it is less invasive & undermines my pleasure less (partly as my AD&D MM knowledge seems more vivid than my 5e )

 

[GX.Sigma]

I disagree with some of the definitions that have been posited thus far. Let's step back a little. Here are some definitions, from a non-TRPG perspective:

Game (1): noun. An activity, for recreation or competition, wherein the participants ("players") are challenged to accomplish a given goal and must work within a set of rules to overcome obstacles. Traditionally, to accomplish the goal is to "win" the game.

Metagame (1): noun. "The game around the game." The larger experience of interacting with the game, beyond the actual playing of the game itself. Examples: Building decks, creating characters, reading about strategies, trading/buying cards, painting minis, talking to other players about the game, coordinating schedules for game night, agreeing on snacks and beverages for the gaming table, etc.

Metagame Knowledge: noun. Information about the metagame, or gained through the metagame, that may become relevant while playing the game. Examples: I've heard Affinity is the best deck in Standard. My friend Alice likes to combine Laboratory and Throne Room. Ever since that tournament, this one strategy is very popular.

Game (2): verb. To play a game, i.e., to attempt to accomplish the goal by working within the rules. In other words, gaming implies trying to win, using whatever resources are available within the game.

Metagame (2): verb. To game more effectively (i.e., increase likelihood of winning) by using metagame knowledge. Example: I'm playing StarCraft against my friend Bob. I haven't seen what he's doing yet, but I know he likes to attack very early at the start of the game, so I'd better get my defenses up as soon as possible.

Obviously, nobody complains about metagaming in StarCraft or Magic. It's not considered "cheating," and it's well within the "spirit of the game." So why do we dislike it in TRPGs?

It's because TRPGs don't have the same kind of "goals" and "winning" as in traditional games. To quote the first page of the most recent edition of D&D:

There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.

So, in D&D, the goals are to "create a memorable story" and "have a good time." Notice how those are not in-game goals, but actually metagame goals? The goal of the actual game is to "complete an adventure successfully," which can succeed or fail just like any game. "Having a good time" is not part of the actual game itself. It exists in the metagame.

So, D&D is already a very "meta" game. There are two levels to it. A lot of conflict among TRPG players comes from reconciling these two levels. When someone tries to "win" the adventure at the expense of the metagame, it conflicts with the meta-goals of the other players. We actually have a term for that in TRPGs:

Powergamer: noun. A TRPG player who focuses on "winning" the scenario (e.g., surviving the dungeon, killing the monsters, defeating the villain), rather than on participating in the metagame (e.g., portraying a memorable character, contributing to a believable and enjoyable story, making sure everyone has a good time).

When we talk about metagming in TRPGs, we're talking about an extreme form of powergaming.

Metagame (TRPG): verb. To use metagame knowledge to attempt to "win" the adventure (i.e., powergame) more effectively.

Example 1: The DM is running a Ravenloft game, so I'll make a Ranger with Favored Enemy: Undead.

Example 2: I've read the Monster Manual, so I know that this monster has a particular weakness (even though my character wouldn't necessarily know that). I exploit that weakness, so that I can more effectively kill this monster / survive the battle.

This activity is within the rules of the game, but is arguably "meta-cheating," as it contradicts the goals of the metagame.

Of course, the best D&D players know how to use the metagame to everyone's benefit, but I wouldn't call it "metagaming." Example: I vaguely want to play a charismatic Wizard, but Carol rolled a high charisma, and wants to play a Wizard much more than I do. Our experience will be more fun overall if I play something else and let her have that niche.

 

[Big J Money]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], I think your definition of role-playing would simply be my definition of being "in character (IC)". My RP journey didn't start until the 90s, so I can't speak for groups in the late eighties. But I can say that I've read texts from the 80s and before, and I have yet to find a definition for role-playing that requires one to make the attempt to always be in character, wherever possible, and to minimize meta-gaming. In fact, I don't believe I've ever read an RPG that mentions meta-gaming at all (I wouldn't be surprised if some newer ones do, by now)

Even if you could find a single source that defines role-playing as you do, it would be up for disagreement since so many RPG books do not. I'm curious what part of the world you gamed in during the late 80s, if this is something that was common where you were.

I agree that your style of role-playing is done in some places. I came across it in the mid 90s myself, particularly in online text games known as MUDs.

Rather than call this "role-playing", it probably would be less confusing to most people if it were given a descriptive name, like "character immersed role-playing" or something like that. I wouldn't be surprised if it already has a name somewhere, where people practice it and recognize that it doesn't constitute the one correct definition of the activity.

But man this thread has gone off track! I'm going to try to get back to discussion of meta-gaming, specifically.

 

[Big J Money]

I go by the second definition: Metagaming is the in-game use of knowledge that one's character does not have.

Most players are willing and able to separate themselves from their characters to some degree, but it's naive to think that anyone is totally immune to the temptation to metagame when presented with the opportunity.

@Tequila_Sunrise
What do you think of steenan's definition? It seems to be virtually the same as yours, yet you come to different conclusions. You seem to agree with Saelorn that meta-gaming is a temptation, or perhaps a necessary evil for some. Yet steenan states that OOC knowledge is neutral until it's put to use, which could equally be good or bad.

Edit: Also, what rubs you the wrong way about the vampire scenario you mentioned? Is it that it breaks immersion for you, or because you feel the players are getting an unfair advantage, or that the resulting story isn't living up to your standards or expectations (i.e. a story about new adventurers encountering a vampire ought to involve a period of time where they learn the creature's weaknesses)?

Here's the post, in case you missed it:

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.

 

[Big J Money]

[MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]

Your post was very well-written and easy to understand, thanks.

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.

I have a question for you about what some people call "ret-conning". What if this happened at the game table: Melias the thief missed an earlier conversation about a large gem kept in a secret stash behind one of the rocks that make up the base of an altar. During a long fight with a guardian in the altar room, the thief slips away and goes straight for the altar and begins inspecting it, because the player knew about the conversation. The player didn't do this to take the gem for himself; he did it because in case the fight went poorly, the party would at least get away with some treasure.

The player realizes that characters should act off their own desires, so he says, "Melias believed that the altar was the most distinctive furnishing in the room, and so he thought there might be some important secret there. That's why he inspected it." This is a plausible explanation, and we'll never know if the thief would have tried this if the player had not heard the conversation; however it's clear that the initial motivating force here was based on player knowledge. And later the reasoning was "ret-conned".

How much would this situation bother you, if at all?

 

[Big J Money]

[MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION], [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]

GX, great post! Thanks for all the detail.

My definition of "meta-authoring" would be[..].

Metagame (1): noun. "The game around the game." [...]

Metagame Knowledge: noun. Information about the metagame[...]

Metagame[-ing] (2): verb. To game more effectively (i.e., increase likelihood of winning) by using metagame knowledge[...]

When we talk about metagming in TRPGs, we're talking about an extreme form of powergaming[...]

Of course, the best D&D players know how to use the metagame to everyone's benefit, but I wouldn't call it "metagaming."

Interesting ideas. innerdude, have you seen anyone else use "meta-authoring" or is that your own term to help describe the difference? I believe what you and GX are saying is very similar, if not the same. Essentially, metagaming follows closely to the definition 1 in the OP, and "the act of using metagame knowledge, although not for the purposes of metagaming" would be sometime else entirely. innerdude is calling it meta-authoring. Meta-playing might also work.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

What do you think of steenan's definition? It seems to be virtually the same as yours, yet you come to different conclusions. You seem to agree with Saelorn that meta-gaming is a temptation, or perhaps a necessary evil for some. Yet steenan states that OOC knowledge is neutral until it's put to use, which could equally be good or bad.

Hm, I'm on board with steenan here. I agree with his definition and overall conclusions. Metagaming can be good or bad, depending on the situation and the preferences of those involved. I guess my kneejerk reaction to the word 'metagaming' is 'temptation!' because when it's good (or not bad), I'm not really aware of it. Like if I'm playing a character who doesn't have any really compelling reason to set out on a particular adventure, I'm not really aware that I'm metagaming as such when I say "Yeah sounds fun, I'll tag along!" Because otherwise I'll either spend the session twiddling my thumbs, or holding everyone else up while I make a character who does have some compelling reason to tag along.

If it sounds like I'm disagreeing with steenan here, it may be because I have a different focus. I'm a DM and an amateur designer, so I not only ask "Is this behavior good or bad?," but also "How can I set things up in order to encourage good outcomes and behaviors, and discourage bad?" I have a habit of thinking about things systemically.

Edit: Also, what rubs you the wrong way about the vampire scenario you mentioned? Is it that it breaks immersion for you, or because you feel the players are getting an unfair advantage, or that the resulting story isn't living up to your standards or expectations (i.e. a story about new adventurers encountering a vampire ought to involve a period of time where they learn the creature's weaknesses)?

Basically, I like knowledge of monster traits to be a matter of character knowledge rather than player knowledge, and monsters with quirky traits create a strong temptation to use the latter. Those monsters that can be looked up in a MM or referenced in pop culture, at least.

Ideally, if there's a monster with quirky traits, that monster is the DM's own creation and so the players know no more about it than their characters do.