D&D General Guns, Germs and Metagaming- Is Meta-gaming Meta-bad or Meta-good?

[payn]

Yeah, what I am saying is that by now "metagaming" has such a negative connotation that it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to divvy it up into good and bad metagaming anymore. That ship has sailed. And the problem with trying to use "good" metagaming is that it automatically fights with the pejorative view most people share of the word "metagaming."

I think a better approach would be to create a better term for so-called "good" metagaming. The key is for the phrase to not connote or suggest cheesing. Some ideas, be fun to toss around more:

"Gygaxian Player Skill (GSP)"
"Problem-Solving Approach"
"Player Awareness"
"Strategic Play"
"Tournament Play"
"Challenge Play"

I happen to like "Player Awareness" because it suggests that player-brain is allowed within constraints as part of a roleplaying experience.

I dont think the better term game is even worth playing. First, good luck getting anybody to agree on any of them. Second, you are not going to find neutral or good sounding terms; somebody is going to have an issue with it. Eventually, its just reshuffling the deck chairs of the Titanic.

If folks really want to avoid the trap, you need to accept there is a general understanding of a term. Sometimes, there will be general competing understandings and definitely outliers. Arguing over the exact definition is going to go in circles. What you need to evaluate is if there is anything of interest to discuss on the topic. If there is, eventually you need to move on to the greater discussion. I know this part is really really really really hard because you cant let somebody be wrong on the internet. Though, sometimes letting somebody have their outlier definition is your way in to understanding them and they you. If you dont care about that, then its best to just move on becasue the definition and name branding game is a fool's errand.

 

[Voadam]

I've seen multiple folks here say that they are fine with metagaming like that.

Fine with reading a module and going straight to hidden things? I've never seen anybody say they were fine with that.

I have seen plenty of people play games in modules they have run before but specifically not use their knowledge of module secrets.

I played in both a 3.5 Temple of Elemental Evil and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil game without giving away or acting on any secrets even though I owned both and had run the ToEE in 1e. In both cases I disclosed that knowledge and plan to the DMs and they were fine me playing in those games.

The monster stuff seems categorically different. It is generally easy to say lore about trolls and werewolves and vampires is in character information.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I dont think the better term game is even worth playing. First, good luck getting anybody to agree on any of them. Second, you are not going to find neutral or good sounding terms; somebody is going to have an issue with it. Eventually, its just reshuffling the deck chairs of the Titanic.

If folks really want to avoid the trap, you need to accept there is a general understanding of a term. Sometimes, there will be general competing understandings and definitely outliers. Arguing over the exact definition is going to go in circles. What you need to evaluate is if there is anything of interest to discuss on the topic. If there is, eventually you need to move on to the greater discussion. I know this part is really really really really hard because you cant let somebody be wrong on the internet. Though, sometimes letting somebody have their outlier definition is your way in to understanding them and they you. If you dont care about that, then its best to just move on becasue the definition and name branding game is a fool's errand.

"I love metagaming"
"Oh, you like to max out your character and know all the monster abilities?
"No, I mean the good kind of metagaming"
"What kind of metagaming is that?"
"The one where I play my character intelligently"
"Oh, you mean just playing your character. Ok."
"No, I mean metagaming!"

(Repeat times a million)

I do agree that agreeing on a new term would be hard if not impossible, but I don't think "Good metagaming" works any better. Terms do take root sometimes, though. Just gotta get the right meme.

 

[Maxperson]

Fine with reading a module and going straight to hidden things? I've never seen anybody say they were fine with that.

I have. In metagaming threads. I believe the reasoning was something like, "If the player really wants to do something like that, it must be something he enjoys, so I'm okay with it."

It sounded crazy to me and I haven't seen it very many times here, but I have seen it more than once.

I played in both a 3.5 Temple of Elemental Evil and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil game without giving away or acting on any secrets even though I owned both and had run the ToEE in 1e. In both cases I disclosed that knowledge and plan to the DMs and they were fine me playing in those games.

I won't go through a module a second time like that. It's pure torture for me to have to sit back and essentially not play at important moments so that I can watch the others try to figure stuff out. I don't play D&D to not play D&D.

 

[payn]

"I love metagaming"
"Oh, you like to max out your character and know all the monster abilities?
"No, I mean the good kind of metagaming"
"What kind of metagaming is that?"
"The one where I play my character intelligently"
"Oh, you mean just playing your character. Ok."
"No, I mean metagaming!"

(Repeat times a million)

Or..., and hear me out, you could just stop playing the game if you think the person just wants to getcha. Renaming metagaming to postmodern-play isnt gonna change anything.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Or..., and hear me out, you could just stop playing the game if you think the person just wants to getcha. Renaming metagaming to postmodern-play isnt gonna change anything.

I don't care about being "got" but I do kinda care about having a conversation about something and having terms mean the same thing to both parties. "Player skill" is actually a term that is already used, though I think younger audiences don't know that as well since they never grew up with tournament play. It means something different that the generic "metagaming" which almost always is used in tandem with "min-maxing." I'd be happy with any term that makes it clear what the heck we're talking about, and "metagaming" ain't it.

 

[Voadam]

I have. In metagaming threads. I believe the reasoning was something like, "If the player really wants to do something like that, it must be something he enjoys, so I'm okay with it."

It sounded crazy to me and I haven't seen it very many times here, but I have seen it more than once.

OK, I could see that being argued, but I as a player would be really annoyed by another player doing so and I would expect at least some other players to feel similarly.

I won't go through a module a second time like that. It's pure torture for me to have to sit back and essentially not play at important moments so that I can watch the others try to figure stuff out. I don't play D&D to not play D&D.

Temple was easy from that perspective. No surprise betrayals from supposed ally NPCs, no specific puzzles to figure out. Straightforward atmospheric dungeon crawling, fighting against evil, and roleplaying.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Or here's an easier one. The player knowing monster weaknesses because he's been playing for 40 years and having his PC just use them, despite not knowing about them in character.

That would be dealt with by making it common knowledge or knowledge you could gain through research, or using the (within constraints) part of the play, which is just asking the player to not spoil the information, or changing up the monsters. It also sorta depends on the group you have playing.

 

[Marc17]

It would seem to me that a lot of Session 0 stuff would be metagaming. Shaping the game and game play to suit everybody's OOC requirements, desires, and expectations.

 

[Maxperson]

It would seem to me that a lot of Session 0 stuff would be metagaming. Shaping the game and game play to suit everybody's OOC requirements, desires, and expectations.

The metagame and metagaming are two different things. When my group sits down and figures out what sort of campaign the players want to play next, that is metagame, but it's not metagaming. No out of character information is being brought into the fiction and being acted on by PCs who have no clue about that information.