Out-of-character/metagame knowledge

[Malmuria]

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

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

It would also be worthwhile asking whether anyone here takes the above positions. From this thread, it doesn't seem like anyone does. Posters are ok with some types of metagaming and perhaps not ok with others, depending on context, system, play culture. Thus it might be more helpful to look at specific types of metagaming and when and why they might be problems.

Per my earlier example, I would guess that trad players are generally ok with the out of character knowledge that they are playing a published adventure, but still prefer for their characters to have plausible hooks into the story in order to "suspend disbelief." And definitely would not be ok with anyone at the table besides the gm reading the adventure book itself.

 

[pemerton]

Thats a tough spot to be in. The encounter and escape is a classic literary event. However, I think when you script it in an RPG, it loses some trust factor from the players. When I am creating an adventure this is something I avoid if at all possible. Any conflict should be faced on its own value. If the baddie gets away, they better be able to do it through ability and good set up and not fiat. The better approach is to write for both instances of bad guy escape and death. The story continues based on how the dice roll. YMMV.

There are (at least) two aspects to this.

One is purely mechanical - does the resolution system of the game create an opportunity for the escape to happen? In Classic Traveller, the answer is "yes" - if the character moves out of the last range band for "very long" range then they have escaped the encounter. In Prince Valiant, the answer can also be "yes" - the last time I did this it was opposed Riding vs Riding to see if the PC could ride down the fleeing NPC (the player's roll beat mine, and so the answer was "yes").

The other is about expectations/practices around how dramatic events are established - are twists and setbacks going to be scripted in advance (which is what @hawkeyefan and @James Gasik have experienced)? Or do we rely on the resolution system to throw them up? At least since the DL modules, a mainstream approach to D&D adventure prep has assumed the first answer. As @hawkeyefan has noted, there are RPGs that deliberately set out to ensure that the second answer can be provided reliably and effectively. I think he has in mind Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark and games that those have influenced; RPGs I think of in the same general ballpark are AW and its offshoots, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, and my PbtA-ish approach to Classic Traveller.

 

[payn]

There are (at least) two aspects to this.

One is purely mechanical - does the resolution system of the game create an opportunity for the escape to happen? In Classic Traveller, the answer is "yes" - if the character moves out of the last range band for "very long" range then they have escaped the encounter. In Prince Valiant, the answer can also be "yes" - the last time I did this it was opposed Riding vs Riding to see if the PC could ride down the fleeing NPC (the player's roll beat mine, and so the answer was "yes").

The other is about expectations/practices around how dramatic events are established - are twists and setbacks going to be scripted in advance (which is what @hawkeyefan and @James Gasik have experienced)? Or do we rely on the resolution system to throw them up? At least since the DL modules, a mainstream approach to D&D adventure prep has assumed the first answer. As @hawkeyefan has noted, there are RPGs that deliberately set out to ensure that the second answer can be provided reliably and effectively. I think he has in mind Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark and games that those have influenced; RPGs I think of in the same general ballpark are AW and its offshoots, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, and my PbtA-ish approach to Classic Traveller.

I was thinking in terms of the character escaping the encounter no matter what because its predetermined for the story that they do. I know many mechanical systems can determine this. I recall a Pathfinder adventure I ran had three witches trying to steal an item form the party. They had very little in the way of challenging the party, but loaded in get away abilities. After the 3rd or fourth encounter the PCs were just done with it. So, there is something to be said about escaping characters and diminishing returns.

 

[James Gasik]

When I DM, there are things I want to happen. So I try to set up events so that is the likely outcome. But sometimes things don't go according to plan. What a DM I admired once told me is that if that happens, you need to step back and look at the big picture.

If the players walk in and ROFLstomp the BBEG inside of two combat rounds and prevent him from escaping, you have two options. You can either appeal to the players to accept a "Comic Book Death", ie, "no one could survive that!" and then trot out the villain later to continue the campaign.

Or you can ask yourself what the consequences will be. Did the BBEG have allies? Was he the minion of a greater power? Are there rivals of his who will now look towards your players and realize they are more of a threat than previously thought, and up their timetables?

The DM literally has a whole world to draw on for challenges and new enemies. If your Ranger insists on shooting anyone who has a "villain speech" to end their monologuing, fine, they might miss out on an important clue.

And certainly, no one will ever show him quarter or mercy.

 

[pemerton]

I think the point that @pemerton was making and why he cited these examples from my play was because in both cases, ultimately the GM did what he did to ensure the game elements he had prepared were preserved, and that the players largely had to accept them as "part of the game" or "that's what the adventure says happens".

Right.

In the context of this thread, I'm not saying anything about whether or not the GM is metagaming. Or doing a good or bad job. I'm talking about players making decisions for out-of-character reasons. And in these examples of escape (your hag example, and @James Gasik's dragon example) the players' action declarations in response to the escape are shaped by the players' understanding that "this is what the adventure says happens". (I think the decision-making structure of your Folk Hero example doesn't so obviously involve OOC decision-making; but maybe I've missed something?)

@Manbearcat's example around not splitting the party is another example. Instead of basing action declarations on "what would my character do?", the players factor in metagame understandings and expectations about the necessity for party play, PC synergies, etc. In fact, in another recent thread on PvP I suggested that that sort of metagaming is typically necessary if PvP is to be reconciled with party play:

PvP in various forms - PCs fighting, PCs binding one another to oaths (so as to resolve clashes of agenda), PCs pursuing different or even opposing agendas, etc - has been a fairly common part of my RPGing for decades.

I don't agree that it can only work in short arcs. But in the context of a game which is based around party play - as is the case for many RPGs - then the players have to come up with various sorts of self-limiting devices to make sure the conflict doesn't make the party completely fall apart. As someone mentioned upthread, super-hero comics provide a bit of a template for this.

The Classic Traveller campaign that my group has been playing over the past few years is less party-based than typical FRPG play, but it still depends on the PCs being crew and passengers on the same starship(s). This means that some PCs make loans to others to help pay their fares that would be implausible from a purely in-character perspective. The decision-making has a heavy metagame component, of the players knowing that this is necessary to keep the various characters within the "locus" of play - Classic Traveller doesn't really have the mechanical resources to produce satisfactory play with one PC being at one end of the galaxy and the rest at the other end of it.

 

[pemerton]

It would also be worthwhile asking whether anyone here takes the above positions.

Well, I take the position that getting rid of the metagaming described in the OP requires departing from the traditional approaches to "adventure hooks" that the OP describes!

And definitely would not be ok with anyone at the table besides the gm reading the adventure book itself.

This seems to be more closely related to cheating - that is, getting unfair access to information that is meant to be hidden from the game participants - than it does to metagaming. Or in the context of a module like Dead Gods or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, where the players' decisions make no difference to what happens next, rather than "cheating" the concern might be about some form of "spoilers".

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, players hate recurring villains. As cool as they are from a GM's perspective, players just go, "wonderful. There's this guy with evil intent, tons of resources, and now he's going to strike when we least expect it. And we'll have to take it, because we don't (or can't) bring the fight to him."

I was playing a VtM game a thousand years ago, when my character was attacked by a vampiric contract killer. His Clan was known for being methodical and fanatical about taking out their targets. When I managed to defend myself, he tried to run away.

I used an ability I had that let me attack him, even though I could no longer see him, and basically turned him into smoldering ash. The Storyteller threw a fit, and ended the game right there, asking me if it was really necessary to "power game" his NPC and end his story right there.

"If your story is to threaten me with Destruction, and then have my enemy run away to try again, when I might not get so lucky to defend myself, then maybe I should just hand you my character sheet."

What we both, at that time, failed to see, was he was trying to tell an interesting story, and I thought he was trying to kill my character unfairly. Trust is an important issue here- if you can't trust the person running the game, you probably shouldn't be playing in it.

But by the same token, trust, once lost, will never be regained, so you need to be very clear with your players what you are up.

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to share another story. My friend Garrett invited me to his house to play D&D with his group. We used to play a lot back in the day, but he now lived an hour away. I was having fun, but then during the third session, we were in town, and we split apart to investigate various things. One by one, he pulled groups into another room for like an hour at a time. The players would come back and not talk about what happened, but they were grinning like fools.

Then it was our turn. Mysterious armed men appeared in our path and tried to take us out. I dropped a Fog Cloud and ran like hell, using Invisibility (I was a Trickery Cleric). Then I, along with our party Wizard, cobbled together some disguises, and ran for the one place we believed was safe- the tower of our Wizard ally. We were 4th level, by the way.

As we evaded the armed men, a Wizard tried to hit my ally with Enervation, a spell that had a 25% chance to instantly kill him! But that didn't happen, and we escaped.

The other players looked OUTRAGED. This whole escapade took two hours. Garrett admitted that his whole plan was to kill all the PC's, then begin an adventure in the afterlife. Rather than just tell us this, he went through this whole scenario, which I "ruined" by refusing to die.

Now he said he'd have to completely change his campaign. I looked at the Wizard player (who was my ride) and said "I have a better solution. We won't be coming back next weekend." And we left.

If the DM had trusted us, his players, it wouldn't have gone down like that, but instead, he decided to try and railroad us, then act like it was somehow "our fault" that he failed.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

Right.

In the context of this thread, I'm not saying anything about whether or not the GM is metagaming. Or doing a good or bad job. I'm talking about players making decisions for out-of-character reasons. And in these examples of escape (your hag example, and @James Gasik's dragon example) the players' action declarations in response to the escape are shaped by the players' understanding that "this is what the adventure says happens". (I think the decision-making structure of your Folk Hero example doesn't so obviously involve OOC decision-making; but maybe I've missed something?)

@Manbearcat's example around not splitting the party is another example. Instead of basing action declarations on "what would my character do?", the players factor in metagame understandings and expectations about the necessity for party play, PC synergies, etc. In fact, in another recent thread on PvP I suggested that that sort of metagaming is typically necessary if PvP is to be reconciled with party play:



The Classic Traveller campaign that my group has been playing over the past few years is less party-based than typical FRPG play, but it still depends on the PCs being crew and passengers on the same starship(s). This means that some PCs make loans to others to help pay their fares that would be implausible from a purely in-character perspective. The decision-making has a heavy metagame component, of the players knowing that this is necessary to keep the various characters within the "locus" of play - Classic Traveller doesn't really have the mechanical resources to produce satisfactory play with one PC being at one end of the galaxy and the rest at the other end of it.

I would put things like this (party splitting, avoiding PvP knowing other players don't like it etc) as remembering you are playing a game (with other people) rather than metagaming.

To my mind metagaming makes me think of using outside knowledge the character wouldn't know to get an in game advantage.

Of course if you made your character act a certain way they may not normally do to avoid player disagreement and conflict because you know you'll need one of them to give you a lift home after the next session is that meta-meta gaming?

 

[pemerton]

I would put things like this (party splitting, avoiding PvP knowing other players don't like it etc) as remembering you are playing a game (with other people) rather than metagaming.

To my mind metagaming makes me think of using outside knowledge the character wouldn't know to get an in game advantage.

I don't associate "metagaming" with "getting an advantage". But anyway, in the OP I tried to make it clear what I had in mind by also referring to OOC knowledge as a basis for decision-making.

Of course if you made you character act a certain way they may not normally do to avoid player disagreement and conflict because you know you'll need one of them to give you a lift home after the next session is that meta-meta gaming?

It's certainly OOC, but I'm not sure it's metagaming as the outside knowledge is about broader social dynamics!

Whereas in the OP examples, or the examples of not-splitting the party, the outside knowledge is still knowledge about the demands of the game play.

 

[payn]

Yeah, players hate recurring villains. As cool as they are from a GM's perspective, players just go, "wonderful. There's this guy with evil intent, tons of resources, and now he's going to strike when we least expect it. And we'll have to take it, because we don't (or can't) bring the fight to him."

I was playing a VtM game a thousand years ago, when my character was attacked by a vampiric contract killer. His Clan was known for being methodical and fanatical about taking out their targets. When I managed to defend myself, he tried to run away.

I used an ability I had that let me attack him, even though I could no longer see him, and basically turned him into smoldering ash. The Storyteller threw a fit, and ended the game right there, asking me if it was really necessary to "power game" his NPC and end his story right there.

"If your story is to threaten me with Destruction, and then have my enemy run away to try again, when I might not get so lucky to defend myself, then maybe I should just hand you my character sheet."

What we both, at that time, failed to see, was he was trying to tell an interesting story, and I thought he was trying to kill my character unfairly. Trust is an important issue here- if you can't trust the person running the game, you probably shouldn't be playing in it.

But by the same token, trust, once lost, will never be regained, so you need to be very clear with your players what you are up.

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to share another story. My friend Garrett invited me to his house to play D&D with his group. We used to play a lot back in the day, but he now lived an hour away. I was having fun, but then during the third session, we were in town, and we split apart to investigate various things. One by one, he pulled groups into another room for like an hour at a time. The players would come back and not talk about what happened, but they were grinning like fools.

Then it was our turn. Mysterious armed men appeared in our path and tried to take us out. I dropped a Fog Cloud and ran like hell, using Invisibility (I was a Trickery Cleric). Then I, along with our party Wizard, cobbled together some disguises, and ran for the one place we believed was safe- the tower of our Wizard ally. We were 4th level, by the way.

As we evaded the armed men, a Wizard tried to hit my ally with Enervation, a spell that had a 25% chance to instantly kill him! But that didn't happen, and we escaped.

The other players looked OUTRAGED. This whole escapade took two hours. Garrett admitted that his whole plan was to kill all the PC's, then begin an adventure in the afterlife. Rather than just tell us this, he went through this whole scenario, which I "ruined" by refusing to die.

Now he said he'd have to completely change his campaign. I looked at the Wizard player (who was my ride) and said "I have a better solution. We won't be coming back next weekend." And we left.

If the DM had trusted us, his players, it wouldn't have gone down like that, but instead, he decided to try and railroad us, then act like it was somehow "our fault" that he failed.

Right, if you are going to follow a literary trope, its best not to find a mechanical way to jack in the box it on your players.