In praise of Metagaming...
- Thread starter Kahuna Burger
- Start date
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Sadly, yes, using the above example.... In one campaign I played in, all the PCs were the soul bonded slaves of a minor league deity. It was the single most railroaded campaign ever, with tons of infighting and disfunctional characters (a trend I engaged in myself, because if your character has no choice in being there, why not do something wacky?) and occasional escalating battles of obstructionist player vs railroading DM.Doug McCrae said:
While it was not viable for a long term game I was interested in, there was a core group of players who for whatever reason enjoyed it.
Glyfair
Explorer
Kahuna Burger said:
I think that's because they either want "metagaming" to be a bad term, or accept that it's become that and want a term for "good metagaming." It doesn't change the fact that using anything that doesn't happen "in game" to make a game decision meets the definition of metagaming.
I was in a Shadowrun game that just self destructed because of one player refusing to ever metagame.
He believes that the only way you can learn about the characters is what comes out of their mouths at the table.
On the surface this would seem to be great role playing but here is the catch these characters lived in the same building they shared common rooms so basically they were together 24/7. You can't role play every conversation. As gamers we were only together every other week for about five hours.
His character was the new character and his character never developed any trust with ours. So he withheld vital knowledge, was always angry and arguing with our leader. Eventually the game broke down in yelling matches betwen characters and other characters trying to kill each other.
It was very frustrating. He would not allow you to tell him anything about your character. I suggested that we all send out an email to each other about what other people would know about our characters and Mr I am a role player method actor refused.
As for characters not getting along I am okay with that as long as it does not become distracting to everyone's fun someone used Wolvernie and Cyclops as an example which is a great example sure they spat and jockey for postion but when it comes to the mission they work together.
It is not fun when you have a player who refuses to work with the others. So if the majority choose to go on a quest and you don't want to go you have several choices don't go, go and work to make it a success or course this not stop you from making dire comments and if it goes to hell getting to say I told you so or you can be a jerk and go and try and sabotage everything so no one is having fun.
As both a player and a DM I think it is the player job to create a character that has a reason to be with the party.
He believes that the only way you can learn about the characters is what comes out of their mouths at the table.
On the surface this would seem to be great role playing but here is the catch these characters lived in the same building they shared common rooms so basically they were together 24/7. You can't role play every conversation. As gamers we were only together every other week for about five hours.
His character was the new character and his character never developed any trust with ours. So he withheld vital knowledge, was always angry and arguing with our leader. Eventually the game broke down in yelling matches betwen characters and other characters trying to kill each other.
It was very frustrating. He would not allow you to tell him anything about your character. I suggested that we all send out an email to each other about what other people would know about our characters and Mr I am a role player method actor refused.
As for characters not getting along I am okay with that as long as it does not become distracting to everyone's fun someone used Wolvernie and Cyclops as an example which is a great example sure they spat and jockey for postion but when it comes to the mission they work together.
It is not fun when you have a player who refuses to work with the others. So if the majority choose to go on a quest and you don't want to go you have several choices don't go, go and work to make it a success or course this not stop you from making dire comments and if it goes to hell getting to say I told you so or you can be a jerk and go and try and sabotage everything so no one is having fun.
As both a player and a DM I think it is the player job to create a character that has a reason to be with the party.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
In a similar vein, can I praise the DM who accepts the Warforged Ninja as a springboard to an interesting adventure and settting, instead of outright quashing the idea? 
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Elf Witch said:I was in a Shadowrun game that just self destructed because of one player refusing to ever metagame.
He believes that the only way you can learn about the characters is what comes out of their mouths at the table.
On the surface this would seem to be great role playing but here is the catch these characters lived in the same building they shared common rooms so basically they were together 24/7. You can't role play every conversation. As gamers we were only together every other week for about five hours.
His character was the new character and his character never developed any trust with ours. So he withheld vital knowledge, was always angry and arguing with our leader. Eventually the game broke down in yelling matches betwen characters and other characters trying to kill each other.
It was very frustrating. He would not allow you to tell him anything about your character. I suggested that we all send out an email to each other about what other people would know about our characters and Mr I am a role player method actor refused.
"....and then we pounced on him, bound and gagged him, dragged him into the basement, and sacrificed him to our dark master. What a fine night that was: We got Dark Points from our Master, that annoying jerk was gone, and our game was enjoyable again."
That's how it should have gone from there. Or something like that. Maybe without the sacrifice and demon worship part. And the tying up part, maybe. But he should have got a stern talking to, or a boot.
Kae'Yoss said:
The only problem is he is the DM best friend so the DM made the choose to stop the game and save friendships.
Outside of gaming he is a friend and that made it hard as well. Sometimes playing with friends is great and sometimes it makes things harder. Some of the best games I have played in started with out being friends with the people.
I like good metagaming, and I like games that mechanically reward players for doing it. Examples are Buffy's Drama Points, which give you a very useful resource for making everyone laugh, and Exalted's Stunts, which give you a bonus on your roll and your magic points back whenever you describe your action in a cool manner. Basically, you are rewarded for making the game more enjoyable for everyone else.
Metagaming is certainly a factor, one of the biggest in what makes for a good player IMO. Nothing makes me want to stab a player in the face like having them intentionally keep vital information from the other players because 'my character wouldn't do it'. In fact, I think the entire phrase "That's what my character would do!" is just an excuse for being a jerk. Not the character, the player. I have the same opinion of the phrase "I'm just playing my alignment!"
It can work, adversarial characters, so long as the players are on the same page. There was one group where I had a LG cleric and another guy had a LE assassin. The two characters HATED each other with a fiery passion and were constantly trying to maneuver against each other in the local politics. But at the same time, we worked well together justifying it as we both had to protect the town - me because it was my duty, him because it was his source of influence and power. In "reality" they probably would have turned on each other and abandoned the group, but it was far more fun to snipe at each other and work against each other - just not too much. One thing to try to sabotage the other guy's chances for a councilman nomination, quite another to steal magic items or cause them to get hurt. We always, in character and out, put the good of the group over the interpersonal conflict.
Metagaming is certainly a factor, one of the biggest in what makes for a good player IMO. Nothing makes me want to stab a player in the face like having them intentionally keep vital information from the other players because 'my character wouldn't do it'. In fact, I think the entire phrase "That's what my character would do!" is just an excuse for being a jerk. Not the character, the player. I have the same opinion of the phrase "I'm just playing my alignment!"
It can work, adversarial characters, so long as the players are on the same page. There was one group where I had a LG cleric and another guy had a LE assassin. The two characters HATED each other with a fiery passion and were constantly trying to maneuver against each other in the local politics. But at the same time, we worked well together justifying it as we both had to protect the town - me because it was my duty, him because it was his source of influence and power. In "reality" they probably would have turned on each other and abandoned the group, but it was far more fun to snipe at each other and work against each other - just not too much. One thing to try to sabotage the other guy's chances for a councilman nomination, quite another to steal magic items or cause them to get hurt. We always, in character and out, put the good of the group over the interpersonal conflict.
Similar Threads
