A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Numidius]

A TPK is about to occurr. One PC might give resolutive help, but dares not because metagaming. Players and Gm pause for a moment... what happens then?

I'm sincerely curious on how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would approach it

 

[Aldarc]

Nice joke there.

However, in a discussion over the appropriateness of metagaming, showing that something is inappropriate is not pedantic. It's relevant.

I think that it's fine to show that something is inappropriate. However, a dictionary entry for the definition for 'rationalization' is neither relevant nor demonstrates how what you describe is inappropriate. You actually have to make an argument using reason and connected support that works in your favor. A dangling dictionary definition is just lazy. If you had not included it, then nothing about your argumentative thrust would have changed nor does it add any argumentative weight to what you wrote.

And this says nothing about whether your claim actually has merit. I think that if you are roleplaying a character and you are not rationalizing the knowledge, then you've failed at roleplaying. A critical part of roleplay, IMHO, would require that the principal actor rationalize the character's thoughts, actions, and behaviors. If you succeed at making any given Intellect/knowledge check, whether of your own provoking or DM telling you to roll, then the actor is forced to rationalize their character's knowledge that they somehow know. But the idea that the actor can't possess character knowledge unless the actor succeeds at a roll leads to some odd situations. I know that many players have buckled against DMs telling the player how their character feels, but it's also odd that a DM could tell a character what they know or don't as if somehow knowledge and feelings were truly distinct cognitive categories.

Metagaming is not a pejorative. It's a defined act that I view as cheating. If you don't, great. I wouldn't play in that game, but you are welcome to use it. Railroading is not a playstyle, so it's not a pejorative for a playstyle. "Mother May I" on the other hand is only used as a pejorative for a valid playstyle that doesn't actually involve any "Mother May I."

How is "metagaming" not a pejorative when "it's a defined act that [you] view as cheating" and has decidedly negative connotations? Since you prefer to use dictionaries for your arguments, perhaps you should consult one for the term 'pejorative' and how consider how 'metagaming' is used in the parole of TTRPG discussions. And how do you not recognize the metnal gymnastics you are doing for "metagaming" and "railroading" here? Oedipus blinded himself, but he still knew what he had done. But you seem to have blinded yourself so that you can delude yourself into ignorance of what you are doing here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The point is a valid one. Steal $100 or steal $100,000, both are bad. Sure, it's a matter of degree, but it's a matter of degree between two bad things.

No. Not every example of metagaming is bad. Maybe none is bad. It really depends on table expectations and desires, and the system you're playing. You are clearly talking about D&D, so again, that's how I'm proceeding with the discussion, but I think it's worth a momentary detour from D&D to point that out. Blades in the Dark, for instance, offers as one of a GM's Best Practices to "Keep the meta channel open". The game expects the GM and players to discuss meta content. So clearly, metagaming is not always bad. Perhaps in the context of D&D only you may claim that, but even then, it's just your opinion. I am very comfortable with certain types of metagaming in D&D.

So I'm going to counter with the players being the jerks. They went into a game knowing that the DM doesn't allow metagaming and by virtue of sitting down to play, they agreed to those terms. Going back on it later with the troll is fairly jerkish behavior.

And once again, denial does not equate to "Mother May I."

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know what the expectations were, or how much was established prior to play.

And denial does not always equate to Mother May I, but in this instance I think it's a pretty strong example. "DM may I now use fire on the troll?"

Metagaming being out of character knowledge being brought into the game is the standard(by far the most common) definition. Sure, you'll get corner cases like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who like to try and redefine things to fit their narratives, but that doesn't work and just ends up causing arguments.

The lack of a clear definition was for Mother May I as a term. There's no set definition, as this thread very clearly states. Even this post. I don't think the term need be pejorative. You do.

To be honest, it's a pejorative no matter what your intent behind the use, so I really don't care why you are using it. It's a term that does not belong in civil conversation.

You don't get to tell people what they can say or how they can say it. Regardless that a pejorative absolutely requires intent, that doesn't change the fact that people can use whatever term they want to in a discussion like this. This thread and the one that spawned it are largely involved in determining what the term means, so it would be impossible not to use it.

Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you're using metagaming as a pejorative by insisting that it's cheating, and no manner of qualifying statements matter, it's simply a pejorative and therefore not allowed in the discussion.

If he allows some metagaming, he allows metagaming. You either allow it(in whole or in part) or you do not.

I don't agree. I think there are degrees that are allowed. Honestly, if I had to take as strong a stance as you like to take, I'd say there's no such thing as a RPG without metagaming on the part of the players. It's simply impossible.

So really, the question is "how much is allowed?" rather than "is any allowed?"

Theft is theft. Cheating is cheating. Metagaming is metagaming. A difference in degree does not change that for me. If someone altered 1 die roll, and another person metagamed the module, I would treat them both the same. They would get their one warning and the next instance of cheating would be their last at a game that I run.

Except for the DM, right? He can alter any rolls he sees fit, right? He can also add any house rule he likes or any amount of metagaming and so on. It's the DM's game, right?

And you wonder why people are looking at this as Mother May I? The DM is more important than the players, and has final say on nearly everything. This is the dynamic that people are criticizing, and your defense basically consists of doubling down on it.

It like when someone says "stop shouting" and the other replies "I'M NOT BLOODY SHOUTING!"

Since you seem to feel that degree matters, and metagaming a troll is okay, but metagaming a module is not, where do you draw the line? At what point does metagaming become cheating for you?

This is where judgment is needed. You seem to place complete trust in the DM in all other matters, so why would you think this one would be so challenging?

For me, it's about fun. We're playing a game, right? It's meant to be a fun, enjoyable experience. Let's look at the two examples we've been discussing.

In one, the players used a meta game trick to avoid a boring slog of fighting trolls and pretending they don't know the trick to killing them. They've done so in a way that contradicts nothing, and allows them to move more quickly past this challenge, and to get to something they find more interesting. They're trying to have fun. By contrast, the DM forcing them into some kind of arbitrary "pretend-to-guess-the-secret-you-already-know" encounter sounds pretty boring.

In the other example, a player is familiar with a module having run it for another play group previously. Depending on how it's handled, the player can keep it to himself and allow others to enjoy the game, and he can play as a kind of observer, maybe enjoying watching others work toward figuring out and facing the challenges. This player sounds like he's trying to have fun and to ensure that others are, too. Seems all good to me.

But if the player doesn't mention that he's familiar with the module, and instead seems to quickly figure out all the challenges and deal with all the obstacles....where's the fun in that? Maybe a person could get some kind of enjoyment out of that, but I would think it would be minimal when compared with a more standard form of play. And he's certainly not worried about the fun of the other players or the DM. So I'd view this as bad.

It doesn't need to be that difficult.

And I'm not saying that I allow any and all metagaming. Not by any means. I'll very often ask for all other players to be quiet and not offer advice when one PC is faced with some kind of decision where communication is not possible, and so on. That kind of stuff makes the encounters more dynamic and fun, and helps change things up. I like and value variety in my game, so that's what I try to do. If I had a player who came to me and said that the adventure I was about to run was one they were familiar with, I'd work with them to use that knowledge to make the experience unique. I'd incorporate the fact that the player knows the adventure into how I ran it.

There are plenty of ways to allow metagaming that are acceptable and which can enhance the game rather than take away from it.

 

[Lanefan]

Catching up on several posts at once here...

I'm not sure what the basis is for your conjecture. To explain by way of comparison: Some people like solving crosswords. Others like debating at seminars. The former is pre-structured. The latter is social, and has a responsisve and evolutionary dynamic. Both are intellectual and require good command of one's words. I don't see what reason there would be to think that solving crosswords, in general, should be more enjoyable.

Interesting that your examples - whether intentionally or not - also imply a degree of social interactivity. Solving crosswords is usually a solitary pastime, while debating is by definition going to involve other people.
[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION] ' analogy in the followign post regarding dinner preparation is much better, the only variable missing in the GM-made meal part is whether the GM asked for menu input before starting to cook and-or how well she listened to any responses.

These are devices for allowing an ignorant player to oblige the GM to inform him/her.

They don't tell us that players who are already informed are meant to do whatever-it-is that you think they're meant to do. (And frankly I don't know what that is.)

They are also devices for telling a knowledgeable player playing an ignorant character when the player knowledge may be used (success on the skill check) and when it may not (failure on said check).

Obviously if a PC already has the knowledge e.g. this isn't the first time she's fought trolls then no check is required*.

* - barring very unusual circumstances e.g. PC amnesia.

Mother, meta i?

A TPK is about to occurr. One PC might give resolutive help, but dares not because metagaming. Players and Gm pause for a moment... what happens then?

A DM might scrape around to try and find an out clause - give a PC a more or less difficult roll to know the relevant info even though she otherwise might not - but if it comes right down to it and the out-clauses fail, then TPK it is.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that "metagaming" is a helpful or accurate term for TTRPGs. If we were talking about the "metagame" of League of Legends, for example, then we are talking about tier lists of characters, strategies, counters, etc. Likewise, if we were talking about the "metagame" of Magic the Gathering, then we would likewise be talking about deck builds, strategies, counters, etc. If we are talking about the "metagame" of a sport, then we are talking about winning strategies, fouling, clock management, etc.

M:tG is almost nothing but metagaming, or so it sometimes seems.

If one had no knowledge of D&D, then one would probably believe that the "metagame" refers to effective character builds (i.e., optimization), dungeon navigation/combat strategies and tactics (e.g., 10-ft. pole, retainers hauling loot, attacks of opportunity, gaming advantage, etc.), resource management (e.g., 15-minute adventuring day, etc.), reward systems (e.g., gold = XP), and the culture surrounding play. In fact, such a player would likely even assume that having knowledge of troll counters would be encouraged, since knowing the meta is typically regarded as a sign of system awareness and player skill/mastery. TTRPGs is really the only medium that uses "metagame" as a pejorative used for DMs to shout at players for "ruining" what they planned. And yes, this use does foster in the players a "DM decides" approach that is at least comparable to MMI. Because implicit in this is the player having to constantly play with the question "Is it permissible, DM, that my character knows this?"

I'll counter by saying it's on the player to think as her character would think and use only the knowledge that her character would have. It's then on the DM to ensure that enough information comes out to allow the player a reasonable idea of what knowledge her character has or doesn't have.

And some metagaming seems inherently impossible. Let us imagine that we were running the Caves of Chaos in the Keep on the Borderlands. There is a Total Party Kill. The party rolls up new characters. The reality is that these player characters will play things differently albeit with knowledge of the prior scenario. Party 1 cared about talking to the different NPCs. This time Party 2 doesn't give a flying duck about it, because they just want to get back to the CoC. Per (TTRPG) definition, that's metagaming. But the DM forcing them through those hoops again would also be largely performative, if not a punitive.

They arrive at the CoC. Which cave will they pick? Is it metagaming if they pick the cave they knew they experienced the TPK? (Probably.) The players know that the cave likely has less monsters in it now. The players know that their old loot is there on the bodies of the corpses or looted by the orcs. So they pick Cave no. 4 and resume orc-killing.

I'd say it would depend on how the players approach it all as PCs. If they skip the town and head straight to the Caves then yeah, they're on their own and metagaming might become a problem.

However, I'd say they should have to interact with the town NPCs again, but that the interaction will take a different turn very quickly when an NPC says: "You're the second bunch of people been through here in just a few weeks intending to head out that way. No idea what became of the first lot; nobody's seen 'em since they left." It's on the DM to make sure this happens sooner rather than later.

That alone should inform the new PCs that a) there's other adventurers out there, be they alive or dead, and b) that they haven't returned red-flags the danger level, and c) that if the PCs don't already have a Ranger in the group they might want to recruit one to track the first adventuring group and see where it went.

And voila: metagaming issues largely headed off at the pass.

I think it is as much as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said: this basically informs the DM what the players want to engage. They don't care about playing through the red tape again; they want to resume what they had previously been doing prior to the TPK.

I've just above provided a fast-track means of achieving this end which is also perfectly plausible in the fiction.

 

[Aldarc]

I'll counter by saying it's on the player to think as her character would think and use only the knowledge that her character would have. It's then on the DM to ensure that enough information comes out to allow the player a reasonable idea of what knowledge her character has or doesn't have.

Wouldn't you say that this is probably the crux of contention?

I'd say it would depend on how the players approach it all as PCs. If they skip the town and head straight to the Caves then yeah, they're on their own and metagaming might become a problem.

The extent of the "problem" is generally exaggerated.

However, I'd say they should have to interact with the town NPCs again,...

And voila: metagaming issues largely headed off at the pass.

I've just above provided a fast-track means of achieving this end which is also perfectly plausible in the fiction.

I'm not so sure. All you are doing is creating a post hoc in-game justification for the metagaming (with big spoonful of self-delusion) rather than actually stopping the metagaming.

 

[Ovinomancer]

ReL Metagaming

Metagaming, as noted by others, is talking about the game from outside of the game. Houserules are part of metagaming, as you've evaluated how the game works as a game and decided to change it. Party composition is metagaming, as the players discuss covering what skill areas the game will present. Also, niche protection is part of metagaming. All of these are okay.

The crux issue here is how GM centered game also define metagaming: player knowledge of secret GM backstory that has not yet been revealed in play. I'll call this "backstory metagaming"

That's it, and it only exists in GM centered games. Metagaming in Blades, for instance, is talking about the game as a game. It's important because Blades can deal with some pretty ugly themes, and having the ability to step away and discuss if that's okay and then modify the game being played based on that discussion is important. Very important. But there's never any problem with knowing secret GM backstory because there isn't any.

So, this problem of "backstory metagaming" where players act on secret GM backstory they haven't yet been told in this GM's game (to include monster statistics, sometimes) is only an issue for games that have secret GM backstory as an element of play. This is a feed in for MMI play, as excessive secret GM backstory as a means to control play intrudes into the MMI space. Secret GM backstory does not, inherently, do so, nor does some reasonable limitation of backstory metagaming, but, like all things, taking backstory metagaming to extremes results in bad play.

 

[pemerton]

As an aside: Monster knowledge does matter in my games, and if PCs start charging a troll with fire w/o making a monster identification check, they may just end up running into Trolls that are healed by fire.

You say this like it's a threat of punishment.

But if you want to play a puzzle game, then you need to set puzzles to which the players don't already know the answers. I can't see how that's not obvious.

Let's say I'm playing a game with a "scholar" class or character type. My character's strength is the things that he knows. If any player can just declare that they know everything about monster X, then my characters role in the groups is greatly diminished or even made totally unnecessary. Even if I were not a scholar, but my character had invested in knowledge skills (over other abilities), then again I could be "playing the game wrong" if the GM was willing to just give out the info my character should have unique access too, to any PC.

Or if I were a GM and expected the players to invest in such skills/abilities, and that discovering a monsters weakness to play a major part of the game's combat... then I sure wouldn't allow players to simply declare that they know all about whatever monster

How do you expect the combat with trolls to unfold if players know that trolls are vulnerable to fire, but you want them to play their PCs as ignorant? Do you expect the player to allow his/her PC to be killed by the trolls, in the name of roleplaying the PC's ignorance? If not, how do you envisage it unfolding.

 

[Arilyn]

You say this like it's a threat of punishment.

But if you want to play a puzzle game, then you need to set puzzles to which the players don't already know the answers. I can't see how that's not obvious.

How do you expect the combat with trolls to unfold if players know that trolls are vulnerable to fire, but you want them to play their PCs as ignorant? Do you expect the player to allow his/her PC to be killed by the trolls, in the name of roleplaying the PC's ignorance? If not, how do you envisage it unfolding.

Yes, at what point do you as a player decide that maybe fire will work on a regenerating troll? Fire could easily be a solution the characters might come up with. It won't die, burn it!!

Also, the characters live in the world. They hear stories, and unlike our world, many superstitions are correct, like stakes and sunlight on vampires. As players, we can't know how much worldly knowledge our characters have picked up. As a GM, I don't worry about players acting on their knowledge about trolls, vampires and zombies, etc. Everyone is presumed to be literate, so there must be books around, plus bard tales and songs, and oral traditions. I think it is very unfair to force players to continually swing ineffectually away at a critter they actually know how to beat. I've never had players super knowledgeable about the monster manuals. If I did, I might change some of the more obscure creatures, but monsters like trolls? Nah, it can be easily explained narratively.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wouldn't you say that this is probably the crux of contention?

The extent of the "problem" is generally exaggerated.

I'm not so sure. All you are doing is creating a post hoc in-game justification for the metagaming (with big spoonful of self-delusion) rather than actually stopping the metagaming.

Value system differences. I believe what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is putting a high value on is inducing a mental state during play which is focused on "thinking like the character", not on achieving goals or narrative, nor anything else particularly. Narrative serves then simply as a medium by which the proper inputs arrive at the players and they can adjust their pretended character mental state and shared understanding of the fictive world they form a part of. Other things are there, gamist considerations, player goals, etc. but only in a secondary place. At least this is how it looks if idealized, actual play is rarely so clear-cut.
[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is not really THAT interested in the character mental state and maybe it is simply a part of the general fiction state which conditions how the game proceedes. It may have mechanical constraints and systems associated with it, etc. The content of the fiction and narrative, and the fun derived from "doing cool stuff" (or something) prevails.

I'd note that D&D (even 4e) has an absolute insistence on PC's thought process being entirely free of mechanical constraints. The unspoken assumption being that this is the domain of 'RP' in which it is the player's job/prerogative to model the PC's mental state without constraints. Well, I would note that there ARE some constraints, but they seem, mostly, to be aimed at insuring more consistent modeling. Alignment for instance, ideally, provides a scaffold on which to hang the character's different proclivities and traits (albeit it doesn't necessarily work too well). Alignment change punishments then simply show up as 'sticks' to encourage this consistency. There are also some things like charms and whatnot, but those fall basically into the category of gotchas that are there to act as penalties for lack of skilled play, much like any trap or poison monster, etc.

So, in this sense D&D has always had a big giant 'thing' going for enabling this kind of play. This also explains why 5e really can't do much in the way of narrative 'story' type player-side mechanics, except as very mild optional add-ons, or alignment-like 'stuff' (personality traits).

4e gets a couple of things explained here, one being the hostility to it, and the other being the lack of really explicit discussion of and more pervasive implementation of story mechanics or player-side mechanics. They are sort of 'unwritten rules' but not very explicit and you can basically play 4e like 2e if you want from the RP perspective.