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

[iserith]

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.

I don't see it as a sin, just another way to increase difficulty. I frankly don't care about "metagaming," so I've no issue with throwing a vampire into an adventure and watching players gather up stakes and garlic without additional prompting. But it's a wonder why those who do care frequently (at least in my experience) resist changing monster vulnerabilities or the like to remove the possibility of it occuring.

I also always telegraph a monster's strengths and weaknesses so that observant players have an opportunity to create an edge for themselves. I don't care for gotchas.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Why?

because I'm much more immersive of a role player then I am a power gamer...

Sometimes I play characters that don't know X or Y because that's part of my concept. Sometimes I even make mistakes my character would make even if out of game I know they are wrong...

now that's not to say I NEVER meta game it also doesn't mean that my way is better then yours.

again there are some types of meta gaming I even want infroced...

 

[iserith]

because I'm much more immersive of a role player then I am a power gamer...

Do you imagine it's possible to be both "immersive" and a "power gamer" at the same time?

And if you consider "immersion" to be emotionally identifying with your character, does not "immersion" seem easier to achieve if you have the same knowledge as your character rather than a conflict where you know more than the character does (as established)?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I don't see it as a sin, just another way to increase difficulty. I frankly don't care about "metagaming," so I've no issue with throwing a vampire into an adventure and watching players gather up stakes and garlic without additional prompting. But it's a wonder why those who do care frequently (at least in my experience) resist changing monster vulnerabilities or the like to remove the possibility of it occuring.

I also always telegraph a monster's strengths and weaknesses so that observant players have an opportunity to create an edge for themselves. I don't care for gotchas.

the vampire one I could go either way with... but I have a counter question since you don't care about meta gaming...

lets say you sit down to play a Ravenloft mod that involves a broken mirror, and each time the PCs touch a shard they find out a little more about the plot, and the history of the house the mod is built around, BUT there are some bad things that happen as you touch the shards. the idea of the mod is that you need to figure out the clues and the lore with as few touches of shards as possible. One trick the mod suggests is that multi players touch the shards and share info and the down side.

the first game you and 5 players sit down, and one of them is acting a little weird. Then long behold as the adventure gets going that guy says "Hey I played this before and the answer is X Y and Z" how do you react?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Neither one is better than the other. Both are appropriate and do not involve what I consider to be cheating.

 

[iserith]

the vampire one I could go either way with... but I have a counter question since you don't care about meta gaming...

lets say you sit down to play a Ravenloft mod that involves a broken mirror, and each time the PCs touch a shard they find out a little more about the plot, and the history of the house the mod is built around, BUT there are some bad things that happen as you touch the shards. the idea of the mod is that you need to figure out the clues and the lore with as few touches of shards as possible. One trick the mod suggests is that multi players touch the shards and share info and the down side.

the first game you and 5 players sit down, and one of them is acting a little weird. Then long behold as the adventure gets going that guy says "Hey I played this before and the answer is X Y and Z" how do you react?

Carry on with the adventure. Knowing the information probably affects difficulty, but not challenge. I'd also ask, since the player has played it before, whether the table wants me to change up any other details of the adventure.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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).

Did you not read the part at the beginning of every book, where it explains what an RPG is? You take on the role of a character, and it might take half a page to explain how you don't need to do voices and you can totally talk in the third person if you want to, but there was never anything that suggested you should do anything other than make decisions as your character would make them. It's right next to the part that says there's no winning or losing. Early games didn't have that section, because they were wargames that hadn't really moved onto role-playing yet, but it was in pretty much every game from the late eighties up through the early aughts.

And the reason why they rarely bothered to even mention the concept of meta-gaming is because it was so obviously anathema to everything about role-playing that there's no reason to even consider it as a possibility. There's role-playing, which is what that section tells you is how you play the game; and then there's not role-playing, of which meta-gaming is a significant subset.

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.

On a basic level, that term seems redundant; there is no way to role-play without making decisions from the perspective of the character, because if you're making it from any other perspective then you are meta-gaming rather than role-playing.

Furthermore, that term already sees some use, to distinguish people who use voices and/or costumes and/or sound effects to go beyond just a basic investment.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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..

It is a highly questionable premise to assume that the rules are in place to facilitate the story, or that the players should care primarily about the story.

I mean, it's a role-playing game, not a story-telling game. I'm there to play a role. And sure, I care about what happens as much as my character does, but the story is just whatever happens as an outcome of playing the role.

 

[Herobizkit]

I've been playing D&D for over 25 years now; meta-gaming, and politely ignoring it, comes easy to me. Worse to worst, I usually ask the DM for Knowledge or other checks before I allow my characters to act on my foreknowledge.

 

[Nytmare]

Do you imagine it's possible to be both "immersive" and a "power gamer" at the same time?

Not to answer for her, but as these same sentiments frequently mirror those of my best friend, I think I know what she meant. When my friend says it, he means that he considers himself both a role player and power gamer, but character and role playing choices trump and outnumber the numeric and mechanical choices he makes.