How much can you play without metagaming?

[Li Shenron]

When we started playing (in the group where I run a PC), our DM introduced his way of running the game as something very focused on RP and in-character acting. He is a player himself in other D&D groups and storytelling RPG. He stressed a lot the fact that he didn't want to hear metagaming, and wanted in-character descriptions, as well as he would have provided the same from his part.

Very often he stresses the players of thinking quickly: for example, if we haven't planned anything beforehand, in the middle of battle when someone wants to say something to a friend, he starts counting few seconds downwards and you have that short time to say what you want (he doesn't say "I am giving you 5 seconds, so think of what you can say in that much time", he just starts counting down and when you realize it you usually have no more than 2 seconds left to think & say).

He started describing everything in-character, and said he didn't want to say/hear things like "you take 3 points of damage" without something before, like "with a swing of his sword, he tries to cleave you in half, but thanks to your quickness you partially avoid the blow and get only a scratch on your left arm...". Eventually after less than 2 session, we turned play in the easiest way: "you take 3 points of damage", period.

Does any group manage to keep with in-character descriptions without getting annoyed or bored? Or without slowing down the game too much?

At the same time a thing I find very disappointing is players treating the characters ability like they are going to a supermarket and buying stuff: hey, I have 4 skill points to spend, I think I'll pick up two ounces of Balance, and a gallon of Use Magic Device... Well, besides jokes, they always talk like "my character picked up this feat because he needed it in order to...", or the worst I have heard IMHO "my character is 4th level so he chooses to RAISE HIS INTELLIGENCE because it's most useful to a Wizard"... I wish it was like this in real life!

Actually, we find it very hard (me too!) to avoid metagaming in this way... do you manage to resist? It makes the game more like a computer game and less like a "living" story

 

[DragonLancer]

Persoanlly, I'm happy with players discussing how many HP they have left or how much damage they do. Thats part of the game and feels ... well, traditional to me.

The metagaming that I dislike with a passion is players using OOC monster knowledge to dictate tactics or courses of action. This doesn't happen too often in my games as I have good players but sometimes it slips through.

 

[Umbran]

It takes a bit of time to discover that description is not an end unto itself. It is only one of the means by which we get to the end that is telling a story.

There is a point of balance to be found. There's description that moves the plot and characterization along, and description that doesn't serve much purpose. It is reasonable and good to eliminate the latter so that you can get to the former. It takes a little work to find out which is which, so taking a few sessions to find the ones that become repetetive and tedious is reasonable.

 

[MarauderX]

I think it's pretty fun to meta-game some things, like talking about how bad the baddie really is, or making funny remarks or puns, and I think it's part of the game itself. If I wanted to act all of the time I would join a free-form theatre group.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I try to stick to what my character would know but I do discuss how many hit points I have left , etc. I'd say my group has a split of 50/50.

I also know we have a player in my group who has on more than one accasion said he , the player knows things about that monster but since his character wouldn't know, he won't use that knowledge.

 

[der_kluge]

These things do not bother me.

And this isn't meta-gaming, this is "Gamespeak".

Gamespeak is when you say "I have 2 hit points left!" versus, "I'm nearly dead!"


I don't have a problem with Gamespeak. It's part of the game. I can see why some people might not like it, because in real life, "hit points" is an arbitrary thing that can't be quantified.

Meta-gaming is when you're first level fighter pulls out a mace to fight a skeleton because he knows that his sword won't do as much damage as a bludgeoning weapon. The player knows that, but the 1st level fighter might not. That's meta-gaming.

 

[Faraer]

We need to distinguish between thinking OOC for selfish 'winning' or powergaming concerns, and for story-advancing concerns (i.e. gameism or narrativism as alternatives to immersive actor-stance simulationism). I've never been much motivated for the former, but I do the latter when it's that kind of campaign.

People tend to use gamespeak when they're using the rules AS the game, rather than a support for it.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

We don't worry about it.

There's loads of books/movies/TV shows/anime where people launch into full oratory during the middle of a fight. We sort of relate it to that.

 

[kengar]

Gamespeak: "I draw my Hackmaster +12! SHLINGGG!"

Metagaming: (Character upon encountering a troll for the first time): "Who has acid flasks? I cast Burning hands!"

 

[Desdichado]

There's a certain level of metagaming that is acceptable, and probably even necessary to play the game. If you want to excise it completely, you have to not even know what's on your character sheet.