DM Theory: Metagaming on Purpose

[Once a Fool]

In my current campaign, I have been playing around with ways to help the players delve into the setting by intentionally bluring the line, at times, between "metagame" and "in-game."

Now, I don't mean that I'm trying to drive my characters crazy in a "Mazes and Monsters" kind of way, but I try to take my cues about when to change the pacing, what interests or lack-thereof to play upon from the general atmosphere of the gaming group during a session as I let them speak freely on- or off-topic for as long as I feel is appropriate (that is to say, if the group obviously wants to get to some action, talk time is over).

This is probably something that every group does to some extent or another, but what I am finding is that as the party evolves, so, too, does the gaming group and dynamics that are present in the party are reflected in the group, or vice-versa.

This, in itself, may not be much of a revelation, but I have realized that, if I am subtle enough, I can use this relationship to guide the party (often in different directions, based on each character/player's own particular perspective and motivation). In this way, the party creates its own hooks without even realizing it. I find that (with very little preperation) I am able to run intensely character-centric adventures, simply by paying attention to the players' off-topic, metagame talk.

Now, of course, when the player of the fighter is the one looking up the spells, that's a problem, but that's not the kind of metagame stuff I'm talking about. I'm referring to the stuff that I feel represents the kind of talk that would happen in-game during down-time (though not the topics, of course), or the type of talk that players will use to break the tension when things seem ominous or perilous (which is, given the line of work of the characters, all too often!).

Of course, there is a risk I have had to keep in check; that being the risk of dividing a group whose characters diverge widely in perspective, motive, and background, or of appearing to play favorites (or even inadvertantly actually doing so). Now, I enjoy playing up these differences and even hightening the tension (subtley, of course), but I have to be observant enough to know when to ease up. This usually coincides with situations requiring teamwork.

This leads me to another observation, upon which I may elaborate further some other time. I have realized that, not only do the characters evolve individually during the course of a campaign, so, too, does the party, so, too, do the players' relationship/understanding with/of their characters, and so, too, does the gaming group's understanding of its dynamic as well. So, too, do I, the DM.

That is my favorite thing about the game.

Now, this wordy preamble out of the way, I have a question or two:

What lines between "metagame" and "in-game" do you all cross intentionally and for what purposes?

 

[Darkwolf445]

I'm kinda lost here.

By metagame, do you mean talking out of character when at the table? Or maybe I missed the whole idea. This is pretty standard for my group, since I run 6 players, and they talk about whatever, whenever. Of course some of them get pretty thrashed too, since they may not be paying quite the amount of attention they should when they are waiting for their turn in combat.

Some of my players are new, so I don't mind when they help one another (fighter looking up spells, for example).

I always thought metagame meant to use player knowledge that the character would not have or assumptions about the DM's "fairness" when planning out a game.

 

[Blackwind]

I always thought metagame meant to use player knowledge that the character would not have or assumptions about the DM's "fairness" when planning out a game.

That is the way people usually do use the word: as a verb. On the other hand, 'metagame' as a noun can refer to anything that is above (or literally, 'after') the game itself. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but Aristotle's Metaphysics was so called because it came *after* Physics.) On the other hand, the things that people refer to as metagaming aren't actually above the game, but part of the game, and above or extraneous to what is happening *in character.*

I found the OP very interesting. People rarely talk about the actual interpersonal experience of gaming at this level of depth; call it phenomenology of gaming. Once a Fool, I would be curious to read some specific examples of the technique you are describing. That is, the way that you subtly influence the flow of the game by taking cues from OOC chat - if that is indeed what you are talking about. This sounds like pretty advanced DM stuff and may be beyond my current level of comprehension - on the other hand, I'm sure we all do this sort of thing unconsciously all the time.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

This, in itself, may not be much of a revelation, but I have realized that, if I am subtle enough, I can use this relationship to guide the party (often in different directions, based on each character/player's own particular perspective and motivation). In this way, the party creates its own hooks without even realizing it. I find that (with very little preperation) I am able to run intensely character-centric adventures, simply by paying attention to the players' off-topic, metagame talk.

This, to me, is what DM's are supposed to do. Its hard to get into the head of a character unless the player talks about them.

I actually had a group once decide to take thier OOC conversations to another room while debating how the plot fit together to avoid giving me any nasty ideas!
{little did they know I had enough nasty ideas of my own.. it was just more fun to use thier own ideas }

But, on topic.. any discussion about 'metagame' should start with the ops definition of metagame. There are too many versions of the truth on this term.

My games mesh OOC and IC pretty smoothly, depending on the group.

 

[Once a Fool]

By metagame, do you mean talking out of character when at the table? Or maybe I missed the whole idea. This is pretty standard for my group, since I run 6 players, and they talk about whatever, whenever. Of course some of them get pretty thrashed too, since they may not be paying quite the amount of attention they should when they are waiting for their turn in combat.

The amount of attention being paid by a player is one example of what I'm talking about. If the player isn't even interested in something going on in the game, I can usually assume that the character isn't, either, so I know which buttons to push later.

Some of my players are new, so I don't mind when they help one another (fighter looking up spells, for example).

Helping is good, especially for the new players, but the fighter's player shouldn't be looking up spells for tactical decision-making purposes unless the fighter has ranks in spellcraft (which he's going to take, now). Why am I making a distinction between this kind of metagame playing and the other? I suppose I'm looking for the type that helps players establish contact with their characters, and this particular example simply keeps the players of the magic-users from having to know that information, which is not good.

I found the OP very interesting. People rarely talk about the actual interpersonal experience of gaming at this level of depth; call it phenomenology of gaming. Once a Fool, I would be curious to read some specific examples of the technique you are describing. That is, the way that you subtly influence the flow of the game by taking cues from OOC chat - if that is indeed what you are talking about. This sounds like pretty advanced DM stuff and may be beyond my current level of comprehension - on the other hand, I'm sure we all do this sort of thing unconsciously all the time.

Here's an example of letting the metagame set the course:

Knowing that many of my players are skeptical of religion in the first place, and knowing, first-hand, where such skepticism tends to originate and what assumptions it makes, I engineered a lovely situation, more or less on the fly, which will have ramifications for the rest of the campaign. First, it involves the introduction of a traveling companion, a human cleric of a (relatively) new religion whom the players and characters find pretty much annoying and useless. Definitely not a good face for the church. In fact, many of her traits are modeled on a co-worker's of a few of the players (and myself), with whom differing philosophies and ethical priorities discourage understanding. The fighter's player was/is cheif among them.

Fast-forward slightly to the battle with the Troll Hunter, in which several bad tactical decisions conspired to cause the death of the fighter. The most obvious was the decision of the cleric to not stop cowering out of the way and actually cure the fighter.

But, when the fight is over, the cleric does raise him. But before he comes back, I passed a note over to the fighter:

A deep, rumbling voice (not Claire's) [the cleric] echoes in your head.

"Will you serve Rotdoc [the god in question, God of Body]
Mind, Body, and Soul?"

The fighter accepted and the other characters (and their players) are still not sure he isn't undead, even though the party's cleric did try to turn him. (He did run away.) And, for added amusement, the cleric has an ally in a fighter who finds her intensely annoying.

I have been accused of having mostly unlikeable NPCs, but I believe that they are likeable, if enough time is spent getting to know them.

But, on topic.. any discussion about 'metagame' should start with the ops definition of metagame. There are too many versions of the truth on this term.

If my terms are vague, it is both because I do not categorize my actions in my head as I do them, and because I welcome liberal interpretations of the question put forth.