In praise of Metagaming...

[Gentlegamer]

The problem with "metagaming" as a term in the context of role-playing games is that the term means using outside of the game information during game-play. In collectible card games, this would mean knowing what cards your opponent has included in his deck (by actually going through the deck and looking at each card and not just playing against it repeatedly) and building a "counter deck" based on this.

This gets conflated with "outside of character knowledge" which presupposes some kind of supreme role-immersion as the standard of what encompasses "role-playing."

The cheating kind of "metagaming" in role-playing games is not using "out of character knowledge" but actual outside of game information, such as peeking at the DM's map and notes.

The most basic, neutral definition of "metagaming" is simply being aware of the game as a game (like metatheater, when the actors "break the fourth wall"). I remember the original 3e DMG discouraging participants from making actions and choices based on knowledge that they are playing a game. The supreme irony of this is that 3e greatly encourages this type of "metagaming" by the very game system itself in respect to character generation and development. Using predetermined feat-chains, multiclass plans, etc. is "metagaming" of the very kind supposedly to be frowned upon by the DMG advice.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

As a DM I only have a problem if your playing your character is causing other players to have less fun playing. In that case your character will have to go or change.

 

[Lanefan]

And if the other people in your group don't enjoy the resulting chip fall? Is your fun more important than their fun?

Not at all. I just operate on the base assumptions that we're all playing our characters as they would act; that due to this there's a reasonable chance some of the characters aren't necessarily going to get along with each other while others will form lasting friendships or more; that the amount of "fun" is going to approximately even out among all players over the long term; and that everyone else is operating on these same base assumptions. After that, drop the puck and let's play!

In other words, we should all be throwing chips in the air.

Lanefan

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The supreme irony of this is that 3e greatly encourages this type of "metagaming" by the very game system itself in respect to character generation and development. Using predetermined feat-chains, multiclass plans, etc. is "metagaming" of the very kind supposedly to be frowned upon by the DMG advice.

That isn't necessarily meta-gaming:

If a guy sets out to become a warrior-mage, he'll want to alternate between fighter and wizard, and maybe get a PrC that makes the combo more interesting.

If a boy dreams of joining the famous Order of the Chalice because his family was once saved by one of their Knights, and now they're his great heroes and he wants to become one of them, he'll plan on mastering the abilities required to enter the Order (get the entry requirements of the PrC).

If a fighter learned from her master, who's fighting style was often compared to a tornado, she'll get the Whirlwind Attack Feat chain. And the weapon specialization is a no-brainer for everyone who concentrates on a certain weapon.

Not at all. I just operate on the base assumptions that we're all playing our characters as they would act; that due to this there's a reasonable chance some of the characters aren't necessarily going to get along with each other while others will form lasting friendships or more; that the amount of "fun" is going to approximately even out among all players over the long term; and that everyone else is operating on these same base assumptions. After that, drop the puck and let's play!

So you don't care that some might not like to play in an adversial campaign, where characters will have quarrels among themselves? You know you can't just assume that everyone plays like you. So just starting to play like that without first checking whether people are okay with that style of gaming is very inconsiderate - and would have you thrown out of our group at least, and I'm sure many other groups would do the same.

 

[Cameron]

I'd just rather play my character and let other people play theirs, without all this meta-game baggage; and let the chips fall where they may.

Lanefan

You'd last 2 seconds in my games. It won't be my players that toss you out. It would be me as the DM. I have had encounters with too many people with grandiose notions of their own importance, that think the world evolve around them and thus they can be the most disruptive people imaginable "just for fun". I refuse to tolerate it in my games, and so I would be the first one to "invite you onwards".

 

[Varianor Abroad]

A well done post! Nothing to add here. Just a "thank you".

 

[Lanefan]

You'd last 2 seconds in my games. It won't be my players that toss you out. It would be me as the DM. I have had encounters with too many people with grandiose notions of their own importance, that think the world evolve around them and thus they can be the most disruptive people imaginable "just for fun". I refuse to tolerate it in my games, and so I would be the first one to "invite you onwards".

I suspect you're reading my posts in the worst possible light, but hey...

Different ways of finding fun, I suppose. For some, the fun comes from having a well-oiled machine of a party with ready tactics for any eventuality and never an in-character argument heard; it's all about the goal, with the side-effect result that the characters' personalities (if any) get subjugated to the Ideal. Easy to tell if a game is like this; chaotic characters are made unwelcome.

Me, I'd rather see the characters' personalities - all of 'em, not just mine - take center stage, and if the resulting in-character discussions, romances, arguments, or even all-out brawls slow down the adventuring then so be it. Same goes for when I'm the DM.

Lanefan

 

[Gentlegamer]

Me, I'd rather see the characters' personalities - all of 'em, not just mine - take center stage, and if the resulting in-character discussions, romances, arguments, or even all-out brawls slow down the adventuring then so be it. Same goes for when I'm the DM.

Sounds more like a White Wolf game than D&D . . .

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Sounds more like a White Wolf game than D&D . . .

Dragon: The Looting

 

[Phlebas]

I suspect you're reading my posts in the worst possible light, but hey...

..........................................

Me, I'd rather see the characters' personalities - all of 'em, not just mine - take center stage, and if the resulting in-character discussions, romances, arguments, or even all-out brawls slow down the adventuring then so be it. Same goes for when I'm the DM.

Lanefan

Isn't the OP's arguement all about allowing multiple personalities to shine and develop, but to do it in such a way that the game carries on rather than descend into a bar room brawl any time the party have a chat ....

Not that theirs anything wrong with Bar room brawls per se , just that it would be nice for the party to be able to move on to something else once in a while without DM railroading (which is what inevitably happens if the party wont find a way of working together)