Out-of-character/metagame knowledge

[pemerton]

Some RPGers are hostile to out-of-character/metagame knowledge.

But it seems to me that a lot of typical (what might even be called traditional) approaches to RPGing very strongly foreground such knowledge.

What I've got in mind is any approach to RPGing where the players know that their PCs are engaged in an "adventure".

In classic D&D, that sort of knowledge is the result of the GM describing the dungeon entrance, or dungeon outworks/surface works, to the players. The contrast with real life is obvious: sometimes archaeologists, treasure hunters and the like think they've found an interesting place, but it turns out to be a bit of a bust.

In more post-DL D&D, it comes from the players seeing the GM pick up the module and narrate the opening scene. Here's an example from the 2nd ed AD&D module "Five Shall Be One" (p 6):

The adventure opens with the PCs arriving the city of Rookroost . . . Read the text below to your players at the beginning of the adventure. . . . ". . . As you leave the temple, you see the half-elf mage striding down the steps before you. He falls scattering possessions and documents on the ground before him. He scrabbles desperately to retrieve them, looking anxiously about him."​

Even if the GM somehow manages to hide the fact that this is module text from the players, they will almost certainly realise this is an adventure hook, given that the GM has never before narrated NPCs tripping and dropping their files. The module provides information about what the PCs (and hence players) learn if they take and read any of the files.

Here's an example from the 3E D&D module "Expedition to the Demon Web Pits" (pp 8-11):

No matter which hook you've selected to involve the characters, get the action started quickly with the drow attack. . . . It's a few hours after dusk and the day has wound down, but the PCs are likely awake, preparing food or sharpening weapons and oiling armour. The drow and undead aren't very quiet as they approach the shelter. . . . Once the drow and zombies are defeated, the characters should notice that the drow's tracks came from the east.​

There's also an account of a clue-laden journal to be found on one of the dead drow.

Again, I think it will be fairly evident to players that this is an adventure hook rather than a random encounter - the tracks and the journal signal that even if the players don't notice the GM is reading from a 200+ page hardback book.

That knowledge that the players have, that they are being hooked into an adventure, is out-of-character/metagame knowledge - for the PCs, there is no reason to think that this clumsy file-dropping PC is anything special, or that this journal-carrying drow is any different from any randomly-encountered hostile NPC. And it plays an absolutely fundamental role in structuring and directing play.

Getting rid of this particular sort of metagame knowledge requires fairly radical departure from these typical approaches to framing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have heard deep and dark whispers that some players are not only cognizant of the fact that they roll dice, but have occasionally become fully aware that they are playing ... a game.

I find that the application of a hammer to the head often cures that. Brain trauma can have a salutary effect on metagaming.

 

[aco175]

I do not see a question.

I do not have a problem with this kind of meta-thinking. The adventure I bought was meant to be played and the players came to play it. There may need to be some forcing to get it underway.

 

[Malmuria]

Certain kinds of metagaming can make the game less fun I suppose. For example, it's one thing for the players to know that the dm is using a module, but what if they read the entire module ahead of time? What if they have the dungeon map and know where all the traps are, and where the best treasure is?

 

[payn]

I dont have any problem with the PCs being clued into an adventure hook. The only problem I have is when the players let the mechanics drive their choices instead of their interest.

For example, I once had to paths laid out before the PCs. They knew one had easier foes and the other tougher foes. They had many compelling reasons to go the tougher path first. Namely the timing for the adventure, the risk to NPCs the characters cared about, etc... They took the long route around for the easier foes because "the module expects us to fight those first and get enough XP to level..."

 

[Arilyn]

I don't see any problem with the traditional way of dangling hooks in front of players, who usually grab hold because they know that they are in a game. It is interesting however, to think of non-traditional ways to get the session rolling. Having the events tie directly into the players' motivations or even jobs can work. Keeping up a regular roster of dangerous activities is always a stretch realistically. Then again, we don't usually play games that are in any way realistic. There is always going to be an awareness of playing a game with decisions based on that awareness. I feel there is absolutely no problem with that, as long as the social contract of the game isn't being broken.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Getting rid of this particular sort of metagame knowledge requires fairly radical departure from these typical approaches to framing.

This is something that I still struggle with, even with games designed with it in mind. And although I don't mind introducing elements that we would call "hooks" or similar (I tend to think of them as prompts), the ones I like tend to be more clearly calls to action, and I tend to prefer them at the very start of a campaign, and then not at all after that. I think an overt call to action works better than these kinds of contrived scenarios that are meant to catch the characters' attention and then slowly draw them into adventure.

For my current game of Spire, I kind of established the opening scenario and then since then, my players have set the agenda entirely on their own. We opened with them being asked to investigate something, and then from that point on, they've engaged with that investigation however they want. I haven't prompted them since, and the game has gone really well so far.

 

[Malmuria]

I think an overt call to action works better than these kinds of contrived scenarios that are meant to catch the characters' attention and then slowly draw them into adventure.

I've seen some conversation in osr circles related to this about the point of false rumors on a rumor table. On one hand, you want to "organically" distribute information to the players via npcs spreading rumors. But in a way, the players need to know that some rumors can be false--that this is a convention of the game--for rumor tables to work most efficiently. In my osr game I've taken to actually writing out rumors they've heard and telling them explicitly that these could be true, false, or partially true. We only play for 2 hours every other week; we need to get stuff done!

 

[pemerton]

it's one thing for the players to know that the dm is using a module, but what if they read the entire module ahead of time? What if they have the dungeon map and know where all the traps are, and where the best treasure is?

I've seen some conversation in osr circles related to this about the point of false rumors on a rumor table. On one hand, you want to "organically" distribute information to the players via npcs spreading rumors. But in a way, the players need to know that some rumors can be false--that this is a convention of the game--for rumor tables to work most efficiently. In my osr game I've taken to actually writing out rumors they've heard and telling them explicitly that these could be true, false, or partially true. We only play for 2 hours every other week; we need to get stuff done!

What's the difference between (i) the players knowing their PCs are at the dungeon/module/adventure - rather than in a dead end or a place with no treasure etc - and (ii) the players knowing they're at the place in the dungeon/module/adventure where the best treasure is?

I think in some RPGs - I've got in mind MHRP adapted to Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy, and Burning Wheel - to the extent that the question makes sense, the answer is that there's no real difference.

In B/X D&D, I think there's a difference, but it's not about whether or not metagame knowledge is a bad thing. It's about how (i) and (ii) are differently related to the process of play, and how hidden information is a part of that process.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

Whilst breaking out of the adventure/story stereotypes can be great and can keep things fresh there is a reason that some tropes and beats exist. If you see a gun in act 1 and it isn't used in act 3 you can feel cheated. If an elf drops dead in front of you clutching an ancient scroll you expect it to be more than a shopping list.
It reminds me of the Spranos while it was a great series there were some storylines that just stopped or left you expecting an end that never came.
Which may be true to life but sometimes if a Russian escapes in the Pine Barrens you expect it to lead to something.