In praise of Metagaming...

[Hjorimir]

The problem is players with delusions of method acting that make one-dimensional characters.

I don't necessarily agree with that blanket statement. I've seen some pretty damn impressive role-players run some rather complex characters before.

 

[Gentlegamer]

While I really don't think the term "metagaming" is a very useful one in the context of RPGs, I can whole heartedly endorse the spirit behind OP's message. RPGs, more than any other type of game, is a co-operative one. Cheers to all participants who "play along to get along" in the manner described by Kahuna Burger!

 

[Gentlegamer]

75% of what is called "metagaming" is actually just gaming.

In the context of RPGs, more like 99.9% IMO.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My problem with it is that there is a happy medium that is almost never seen. There is the "everyone gets along, do anything for the party" feel and the "screw the party, it's all about me and what I want to do in character. Everyone else has to cope."

What I want to do sometime is create characters that have a built in rivalry that borders on antipathy in the game. Of course, deep down they feel the right to abuse their rival and reject anyone else's attempt to do that. That way you have the feeling of tension within the group, but have it at a level where it won't seriously affect the game or add tension to the players.

One theoretical example I thought about including but haven't seen would be players who agree (during or after character creation) to have an adverserial relationship, with logical boundries for how they are adverseries and why it doesn't go any further than it does. A "Wolverine and Cyclops" relationship could be interesting with the right players, but it still depends on the metagame to moderate it.

Some folks have objected to this use of the term metagaming. Personally, if I had to come up with a definition it would be something like "Making in character decisions based on information known only to the player and not the character" with a side of "focusing on the structure of the game as a game in your in-character decisions, rather than internal narrative." Others are free to use their own definitions but enough people apparently got my usage that I'm not concerned.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not advocating characters being at each other's throats, stealing from each other or completely screwing them over in other ways. I'm just saying that a bit of party discord can be good.

Total hivemind co-operation would be boring, sure, though with individual players controlling each PC, I don't see how that could ever happen. For me a game can have disagreements and still be co-operative.

Actually I think you're right that those disagreements can be a good way to portray character but there's different kinds of disagreements. In a superhero game I played in a few years ago there was a really good moment when members of the team argued about how to deal with a vampire prisoner. Some of the more hawkish members wanted to kill her, while the more old school heroes wanted to imprison her. After a fairly brief (maybe 15 mins) discussion we agreed to imprison her and try to cure her condition. I felt it was an excellent roleplaying moment as it helped distinguish the characters. But ultimately our solution was co-operative. We didn't kill one another's characters or even fight physically (as appropriate to the genre as that might've been) or secretly kill the vampire or anything.

Say the characters are having a disagreement about whether to go on a long quest, obviously the adventure the GM has prepared. All the PCs except yours want to go on this mission. You feel your character would be opposed to it. One way you could handle it would be for your PC to leave the group permanently. Alternatively you could have your character argue and grumble enough to portray personality but then, for metagaming reasons, you allow yourself to be persuaded by the arguments of the other PCs. That's the metagaming approach. There's still roleplaying. But it's not disruptive to the game.

 

[Phlebas]

When players are working with the DM, metagaming is just the oil that keeps the game going

when players aren't metagaming for the 'good of the game', thats when the poblems start

Hear hear to the OP, and to all DM's blessed with players who are a pleasure to game with

 

[Kahuna Burger]

One thought on liking stories with semi antagonistic protagonists is that those work because they have one writer. One person controlling all the characters, who decides for the sake of this particular scene who blinks first or has a third party break it up, or causes ninja to attack. While the DM can do some of this, most folks I know don't DM out of a repressed urge to babysit.

In my personal expereince, the "I'm just playing my character" player is also saying, whether they aknowledge it or not, "So metagame your character's responses to let me get away with this, ok?" Or they want to roleplay in character fights, and who cares if the other players enjoy that or not. Either way, they are expecting the rest of the group to have less fun supporting their fun, AND being self righteous about it. :\

 

[Phlebas]

One thought on liking stories with semi antagonistic protagonists is that those work because they have one writer. One person controlling all the characters, who decides for the sake of this particular scene who blinks first or has a third party break it up, or causes ninja to attack. While the DM can do some of this, most folks I know don't DM out of a repressed urge to babysit.

In my personal expereince, the "I'm just playing my character" player is also saying, whether they aknowledge it or not, "So metagame your character's responses to let me get away with this, ok?" Or they want to roleplay in character fights, and who cares if the other players enjoy that or not. Either way, they are expecting the rest of the group to have less fun supporting their fun, AND being self righteous about it. :\

Both games i'm playing in have low cha fighter types who discussed with the rest of the party (out of character) that their character would be pretty rude and awkward in game (My shifter ranger has a deep seated distrust of the ex-officers who make up half of the party and frequently lets them know it). Its now an ongoing party joke, especially after the party split in half and the bard had a fluky sequence of criticals out of sight of the two warrior types who flatly refuse to believe who could have done anything that useful (but next to the new player who has now turned into the bards cheerleader). Cue lots of chinless wonder, uncooth barbarian quotes and good fun

If we hadn't had the chat first it could have turned the game sour and the "I'm just playing my character" excuse would have just been that, an excuse.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hear hear!

I raise my glass (well, bottle) in salute!

The first commandment of roleplaying should be

"Thou shalt not other people's fun!"

There is no valid excuse, whatsoever, for that.

Much of my favorite fiction, be it novels, comics, television, movies, etc. involves a group of characters that don't really like each other, but are forced to work together to survive and/or meet their goals. Why shouldn't this be viable in an RPG?

No one says that this should not be viable in roleplaying games. What we're saying is the those who play contrary characters and do stuff that gets on other people's nerves are utter jerks, and that "I want to play characters that don't go along well" is no excuse if something like this hasn't been agreed on before.

I as a player want to play a cooperative game, but sometimes I want to play a character that is a jerk.

Then you better talk to the rest of the party before, and see how they feel about it, or you don't just play the jerk.

What I want is or the DM to do his f****** job

Which, in the case of a player being disruptive (whether he hides behind his character concept), is to tell that player to get the hell out of the party.

I also want my fellow players to accept this and not take it personally. I don't think that this is unreasonable.

It is. You can ask them if they'd agree to some tension between characters. If they agree, then go ahead and play a character that goes on the other characters' nerves (never the players', though). If they say they don't like it, it is you who has to let the idea go - or leave the party and look for one that agrees.

Actual interaction between the player characters is one of the best ways to develop their personalities. When characters are always getting along, they rarely talk about anything but tactics.

Not in my experience. I've seen characters getting along great, and they talked about all kinds of things, not just tactics. They ask about each others' cultures, backgrounds, history, mannerisms, particular goals and fears and likes and dislikes.

And you can find some outlooks or practises weird or even disagree with them and still get along with a player.


The logical thing for characters that don't get a long at all - especially if one's a jerk - is to tell the jerk to go his own way. The DM should not force cooperation by railroading the whole thing, especially if the situation is aready generating tension between players.

The less I feel like I'm playing someone with a personality the less fun I have.

"Being a jerk" is no personality. It's lack of personality.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I disagree, and here's why. Much of my favorite fiction, be it novels, comics, television, movies, etc. involves a group of characters that don't really like each other, but are forced to work together to survive and/or meet their goals. Why shouldn't this be viable in an RPG?

Because it's hard to justify. If the PCs don't get along, why don't they go their separate ways? Once the characters reach level 5 or so, they have too much power to be plausibly forced to work together. They'll cast remove curse, dispel magic or buy a break enchantment to thwart whatever is compelling them. If the DM evokes imaginary uber-spells of control that can't be broken then that stretches credulity. Also, for my taste, it impinges far too much on player freedom.

Can you give examples in D&D of how PCs who don't like each other could be forced to work together? What could be viable for a long term game?