Besides, Bayes likely doesn’t exist in the game world (unless you are playing urban fantasy) and in a high fantasy setting, his theorem hasn’t been discovered.I can't see anything remotely immersive about responding to your brother turns up in cultist robes not by worrying (in character) about how and why one's brother joined the cult, but rather (as a participant in a game) calculating the odds that the GM made a framing decision one way rather than another.
I have bolded the false statement in this post. In my view, based on my experience, it is obviously false.Story logic is the form of meta-gaming that's relevant to this thread. If the DM makes things happen in order to facilitate a story, then that's a form of not-acting-purely-on-internal-causality (aka meta-gaming). It's the same category of behavior as other forms of meta-gaming, such as dungeon speed-running. If you're in the game because you want to pretend to be a real person in a believable world, then those things are both bad for the exact same reason.
Now here I'll ask: how many have even tried full-immersion RP?
For me, full-immersion is kind of like a holy grail
If full immersion means not knowing who one really is, or actually believing that one is the PC, then it seems like it may not be compatible with lucid sanity.Full Immersion is a myth, there's no such thing. There are certainly levels of immersion, some of them quite deep, but we never get to escape the fact that the character is an avatar of the player.
This assume a very particular approach to the RPGing experience. It seems at least related to @Saelorn's example, upthread, of cheating in the play of a module by reading it in advance.Because what they're doing is spoiling the play of others.
I'm talking about where we're both players in a game, your character is off on a solo scouting mission where my PC has no idea what you're doing, yet every time you've a decision to make I'm butting in and suggesting (or worse, outright telling you) what to do and in so doing interrupting both your immersion and your thought process.
I know that I have posted it before, but Angry GM comes to a similar conclusion about metagaming: "Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault." Of course, it's something that most GMs don't won't to hear. Or in the words of the Angry GM:So, "metagaming" exists when the player/PC hidden fact knowledge diverges, for any reason. Here's the controversial statement: this is mostly going to be the GM's fault, except in cases of outright cheating where a player has knowledge but conceals it from the other players for personal gain. So, outside of bad faith play (lying by omission), "metagaming" is usually a GM caused issue. It's caused by the GM establishing a fact pattern that is known by the players but expected to be not known by the PCs. You don't have to do this. You could, with a bit of effort, establish fact patterns that are unknown to both players and PCs or, alternatively, you can establish fact patterns that aren't dependent on player's knowing them. To turn back to the troll, you could reskin the troll or change it's abilities to be a surprise to both players and PCs as an example of the first, or you could just not expect the troll to be a serious single challenge to experienced players and establish that PCs do know about trolls in the latter. If you're canny, you can do the last by putting the troll in a place where fire is dangerous or difficult to use, such as a explosive gas filled chamber or underwater. This establishes a fact pattern where the players knowing about trolls is irrelevant to the anticipated challenge of the situation.
The more I have discussed metagaming, the less that I have actually seen it as a problem that actually exists. Most players are there to have fun, so that's what I try to focus on as a GM or player rather than a fake metagame boogeyman.In the end, as a GM, if you start losing your s$&% about metagaming, you need to adjust your attitude. Most metagaming isn’t problematic. It’s only problematic because you have some f$&%ed up idea about how the game is supposed to work. And the problematic metagaming, the metagaming that really DOES somehow break something is a sign of another problem. And you need to fix THAT problem. And THAT problem is usually you.
I hereby inform you of my election to the position of "Drama Doge."We need to have a fantasy draft for our drama titles. Could be awesome. I'd like to be a Viscount, or perhaps a Marquis.
A tangential remark:To turn back to the troll, you could reskin the troll or change it's abilities to be a surprise to both players and PCs as an example of the first, or you could just not expect the troll to be a serious single challenge to experienced players and establish that PCs do know about trolls in the latter. If you're canny, you can do the last by putting the troll in a place where fire is dangerous or difficult to use, such as a explosive gas filled chamber or underwater. This establishes a fact pattern where the players knowing about trolls is irrelevant to the anticipated challenge of the situation.
Heh. I don't read Angry, but I might should, given how often I'm told Angry has said something similar to me.I know that I have posted it before, but Angry GM comes to a similar conclusion about metagaming: "Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault." Of course, it's something that most GMs don't won't to hear. Or in the words of the Angry GM:
I hereby inform you of my election to the position of "Drama Doge."
Okay, let me try to elaborate.I'm all for player agency over their character, provided such agency is exercised in good faith. Bringing out-of-game issues into the game isn't good faith any more.
Uh...no, I don't, really.
If your character and Bill's character have gone ahead to scout with no means of communicating back to my character and Mary's character, then ideally Mary and I as players should have absolutely no knowledge of what's become of you until and unless you return or find some way of communicating with us. The only things we should know are a) how long you've been gone (vs. how long you expected you'd be gone) and b) whether there's been any sign of trouble we'd be able to notice e.g. a distant scream or the lights and-or sounds of unexpected spells going off.
Because if we-as-players do have knowledge that, say, you got captured and Bill's PC got killed then no matter how hard Mary and I try to deny or avoid it, that knowledge is inevitably going to seep into our thought processes as we determine what our PCs do next: how long we wait, whether we come looking for you or give you up as a lost cause, and so on.
Mine and Mary's actions should be restricted by the knowledge our PCs have, which ideally is the same as our knowledge as players so that we don't have to self-restrict.
Well, then, allow me to amend:Just keeping track, we have a Drama Despot and a Drama Doge. I'd like to encourage some additional verbiage, as it'll get crowded if we just have single titles. For example, Fenris-77, Marquis of Drama, Knight of Optimization, and Protector of Salty Snacks.
I apologize if it was not clear. At my table, anyone who tries to meta-game is necessarily a cheating weasel, because agreeing to not meta-game is a pre-requisite to playing at my table. Doing so would be a direct violation of explicit social contract. I have zero tolerance for meta-gaming at my table.Mod Note:
You should be aware - the owner of this site does not buy into "One True Wayism" - and while you put a disclaimer here, that's what you are doing. If you do not have room in your head and heart for what others do, you will be asked to leave the discussion. Gatekeeping like this is not acceptable.
Just keeping track, we have a Drama Despot and a Drama Doge. I'd like to encourage some additional verbiage, as it'll get crowded if we just have single titles. For example, Fenris-77, Marquis of Drama, Knight of Optimization, and Protector of Salty Snacks.
Why are the snacks so salty? Is someone accusing them of metagaming?Well, then, allow me to amend:
Ovinomancer, the Diabolical Despot of Drama, Slayer of Sacred Cows, Terror of Trap Choices, and Despoiler of Salty Snacks.
Mod Note:I apologize if it was not clear. At my table, anyone who tries to meta-game is necessarily a cheating weasel,
Exactly. Leave it at the door.Before claiming that metagaming is the problem, how about starting with a more basic rule for the table: Don't use this game as a battleground to be jack-donkeys to each other?
You don't have to try. Just tell them that they can't play until they sort it out themselves. They can take it outside but they can't bring it in here.
Or the play-at-the-table of my game, yes.But ruling that this is a "metagaming problem" is absolutely ridiculous. It completely misses the forests for the trees. It completely pretends that the people aren't the problem and that they aren't people. It comes across as a self-centered approach that only views the personal problems between the two individuals in terms of how it inconveniences the "fiction" of your game.
It's both, as one (the interpersonal conflict) leads directly to the other (meta-game character decisions). And I know - I've both seen it and done it during my playing career.I don't think that's the appropriate approach for the situation. If you can explain to me how this is actually more of a metagaming problem and not an interpersonal conflict between the two players then I'm all ears.