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

[GMforPowergamers]

there was a time when we were really consirdned with meta gaming... then the big blow up happened.

We use to pass notes, take players in other rooms for explanations, and in general keep secrets out of game. It lead to some good RP and some bad experences... then came the two big LIES...

[sblock=2big lies]the first was 3.0 almost at the beginning, I pulled a player aside to tell him his character died and how. (He had litertarly gone off on his own, and found a umpteenth level vampire with all of his host of undead at 9th level...he was warned in and out of game and made the choice to continue on his own. He begged me the DM to let the vampire have a dopplganager replace him so he could play 1 or 2 more sessions before the PCs killed him) when the reveal came out he was a doplganger he killed another PC before dieing, then said "It was his idea" pointing to me the DM and then told a wopper of a lie that he begged me NOT to make him do it... no one belived him (His story was pretty out there) but that laid the seeds...

about 6 months later we were playing in the Scarred Lands with a group of 16 people, 2 DMs and 14 players. There was a lot of secrete keeping going on, and PVP was far from unknown. At a key point it was reveled that a PC was working for the main big bad... The player swore he had changed, that was before we meet him...you know big debate started... I missed the next game but came back to 3/4 the group trusting the character again because in a zone of truth he said he was loyal... but both in and out of game I called BS (The player in question was bearly trustworthy let alone his character that had been shown to be a traitor). I had half the players swaed to the 'don't trust him' camp when the DM stepped in. he said "Look out of game he couldn't lie in the field and I really want to put a lot of the BS PVP behind us... just belive him" so in game... until 3 sessions later in the climax he switched sides and game got called to a hault...

"What happened to the zone of truth" and we players got given a whole "tecniqly not lieing but choosen words to make you think what he wants" excuse... that fight mid combat ended along with the entire campaign... even the DM realized he was wrong and appologised, but that was the last straw...[/sblock]


so now adays we do everything at the table and the players know everything...no secerets at the table. We police metagaming as "Hey come on your character doesn't know that."

or at least we did... we are currently on a break with D&D

 

[Pickles III]

Metagaming is broadly the playing "the game outside of the game".

In RPGs specifically it is usually used to refer to making decisions or taking actions based on player knowledge as opposed to character knowledge. Without clarification this is what I would assume someone meant when they talked about metagaming in an RPG.

It may also refer to people making decisions independent of their character eg choosing what class to play to fit the group.

People's comments in this thread have lead me to postulate as follows

What seems to be acceptable in RPGs is making metagame decisions for the good of the group of players.

What seems to be seen as bad or as cheating is when metagaming is done for the benefit of the characters

 

[GMMichael]

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.

This one's pretty good. I like to draw a line though, because Big J Money's second definition of metagaming deserves its own name, and is often referred to as such: "player knowledge."

"Player knowledge" refers to what a player knows but a character doesn't. It's a type of metagaming, but so prevalent that it really deserves its own name. In this context, player knowledge refers to all things that are not game rules.

When I think of metagaming, it applies to the more literal definition of "gaming the game," or playing for the sake of the rules instead of the story. The rules are in place, and campaign settings provided, in order for players to experience a story. When you metagame, you're not after that story - you've stepped back from it in order to just play with the rules.

I don't hate it. But I feel that players who do it are missing out on the bigger experience (no pun intended).

In case an example might help, metagaming is:
- sprinting from behind cover while the lich's ice-aura is still up, because according to the rules, that aura ends in exactly X rounds.

Player knowledge is:
- sprinting from behind cover while the lich's ice-aura is still up, because you heard the GM accidentally mention on which round it would end.

 

[iserith]

I fully expect players to use the hard-won knowledge they have to overcome challenges in the game. If I seek to present a challenge where their lack of knowledge is a key component in the level of difficulty, then I can design the challenge that way e.g. changing a monster's vulnerabilities or presenting monsters I have created myself. To expect a player to play dumb in the face of a classic vampire (or whatever) is folly in my view.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

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.

there are things that if people don't metagame could get me to walk out of or just never come back to a game...

the biggest is "Hey the other PCs are your team mates and played by people with emotions in the real world...don't be a jerk"

I used to have a boyfriend who called it the Wolverine/batman rule. "Your an anti social loner who keeps coming back to the team."

On a similar level is the "Why wouldn't my thief steal form the PCs" the answer is simple "You figure out the why in game, but don't do it..."

 

[Maxperson]

I fully expect players to use the hard-won knowledge they have to overcome challenges in the game. If I seek to present a challenge where their lack of knowledge is a key component in the level of difficulty, then I can design the challenge that way e.g. changing a monster's vulnerabilities or presenting monsters I have created myself. To expect a player to play dumb in the face of a classic vampire (or whatever) is folly in my view.

Not the same way we do it. Your challenge, while it may represent the unknown, will never equal one where the players play appropriately and don't have their characters use knowledge those characters do not have.

I don't believe in having quasi-omniscient PCs. If I wanted to run a game where the PCs were nearly godlike, I'd make them demigods.

 

[iserith]

Not the same way we do it. Your challenge, while it may represent the unknown, will never equal one where the players play appropriately and don't have their characters use knowledge those characters do not have.

Which of these is better in your opinion:

1. A challenge where the players have information that could give them an edge and they are expected not to use it because it is established the characters do not have said information; or,

2. A challenge where the players don't have information that could give them an edge in the first place.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Which of these is better in your opinion:

1. A challenge where the players have information that could give them an edge and they are expected not to use it because it is established the characters do not have said information; or,

2. A challenge where the players don't have information that could give them an edge in the first place.

I say 1 is better but both are OK

 

[iserith]

I say 1 is better but both are OK

Why?

 

[Nytmare]

I fully expect players to use the hard-won knowledge they have to overcome challenges in the game. If I seek to present a challenge where their lack of knowledge is a key component in the level of difficulty, then I can design the challenge that way e.g. changing a monster's vulnerabilities or presenting monsters I have created myself. To expect a player to play dumb in the face of a classic vampire (or whatever) is folly in my view.

Though I agree with you, I've always felt as though changing a monster's vulnerabilities in an attempt to catch a metagaming player in a trap is almost a double sin.

I almost always prefer assuming that the characters know, assuming that they don't know but they're fed the exposition about the vulnerabilities at the same time that they discover what the creature is, or just avoiding the entire situation by not putting a vampire, werewolf, or troll in the encounter.