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

[VashVet]

Do we, though? We know the Hollywood version, but there are many versions of vampires from around the world, and their weaknesses differ. Which is right? Without looking it up, what are the weaknesses of the Chinese vampire and Malaysian vampire?

Yep, we assume we know their weaknesses. And maybe we’re right and maybe we’re wrong and that’s the same situation for PCs. That same principle applies. The chance for variation can come up at the table.

 

[Bohandas]

There is a reason video game added continues and save points as major elements of play.

To get more coins, and because they stopped being coin-op, respectively

 

[Wolfpack48]

Just another thought. Some players think “good metagaming” IS min-maxing so theres’s that too. We can’t even agree on what is good or bad when it comes to this term.

 

[payn]

Just another thought. Some players think “good metagaming” IS min-maxing so theres’s that too. We can’t even agree on what is good or bad when it comes to this term.

That is because good/bad is subjective. The game is saying the good metagsmng you do isn’t actually meta gaming at all!

 

[Wolfpack48]

That is because good/bad is subjective. The game is saying the good metagsmng you do isn’t actually meta gaming at all!

Which only emphasizes that "metagaming," as a term, is utterly worthless. The only thing it captures is "things done outside the imagined world," and yet no one uses that neutral definition. I say, scrap it. I'd rather use the specific thing being referred to as "dumping stats" or "Session 0 prep" or even "cheesing the rules" than attempt to use a word no one agrees what the definition is.

 

[bloodtide]

I suppose one can design your way out of it with a rule but I personally prefer to let player experience sub for the character’s knowledge. Again, I go back to vampires. We know their weaknesses through myth and stories - I assume a PC would too, particularly in a setting where they are real. It’s simple and there’s no fuss.

I'm fine with the character knowing any lore that the player does.

Most players that have played D&D for more then a day know to fight trolls with fire. But so many DMs want to do the "clueless character" thing, over and over again, and say 'new/young/low level/whatever don't know about trolls(yuck yuck yuck)'. The DM just loves to do the old trick, again and again, with like "oh your sword cuts the troll...hehe...but it regenerates all the damage surprise!" and "oh maybe SOMETHING can hurt the troll, gosh whatever could it be?!"

And having the the players pretend not to know just drags out the game

It is just silly.

But also D&D has plenty of troll types, and monster types, and creatures. So not EVERY troll has that same classic weakness. 3E even had Fire Trolls.

Ravenloft, and some other games, have weaknesses be more unique to the monster. So the old Hollywood ones don't work every time.

 

[payn]

Which only emphasizes that "metagaming," as a term, is utterly worthless. The only thing it captures is "things done outside the imagined world," and yet no one uses that neutral definition. I say, scrap it. I'd rather use the specific thing being referred to as "dumping stats" or "Session 0 prep" or even "cheesing the rules" than attempt to use a word no one agrees what the definition is.

Thing is even if I disagree with a person when they say the don’t like meta gaming, I st least know why they object to the subject. I find value in it as a discussion starting place ymmv

 

[rmcoen]

I define "metagaming" as "having your characters act with knowledge they do not possess". If I just told Michael that his character Araylia has spotted a hidden sentry in a tree, Jon cannot have his character Randal shoot the sentry (or "the empty air where a sentry might be") UNTIL Araylia passes the knowledge to Randal. Jon heard it, but can't act on it.

Inz d'Shemmar, the gnome artificer, has invented his own "collapsible steam-powered pipe organ", in order to better mesh with his adventuring group "Sparrow and the Ancients" (a group of King's Agents using the cover trope of a bard and her band touring around). One of his companions is a Wizard very interested in things that go boom, and he has a contact in the capital, a dwarf from the Blackrock Clan that experiments with explosive materials. Inz is working on creating/recreating "boompowder", based on his character knowledge of "science" (artifice), magic, and alchemy. Inz's player happens to be Randal's player... Randal does not get to invent or even think of "boompowder", but Inz because of character knowledge and gameplay is working his way there.

So Snarff's clarification of "GSP" (Gygax Skilled Play)... mostly isn't allowed at our table. Creating a character who can push the boundaries in order to invent gunpowder is really testing the edge of this "disallowance", but technically is not breaking our table's rule against "metagaming".

On the other hand... we acknowledge that our characters might have mental attributes greater than their players. As such, we allow the group to work together (when the characters are together) on ideas and planning; we don't make the player of the INT 8 fighter offer stupid ideas (or stay quiet), just as we don't expect the player of the INT 20 wizard to be a genius. The players can come up with brilliant schemes, great tactics, and draw upon their decades of game-playing. What they can't do is load up on anti-poison gear to fight the green dragon in the jungle... until they learn the dragon's attacks use poison somehow. That might be from a survivor, it might be from direct experience; it might be "remembered" from an allowed Skill Check, or learned through research. [Survivors and research sometimes are wrong... the party ended up splitting their gear between anti-poison and anti-acid, based on the information received.]

 

[Wolfpack48]

Thing is even if I disagree with a person when they say the don’t like meta gaming, I st least know why they object to the subject. I find value in it as a discussion starting place ymmv

How would you know you disagree with them if you don’t know or agree on what the definition of metagaming is?

 

[payn]

How would you know you disagree with them if you don’t know or agree on what the definition of metagaming is?

The context of the rest of the sentences.