Let's Talk About Metagaming!

[Campbell]

Traditionally I've seen it argued that players should only concern themselves with the perspective of their particular characters. I disagree. We are playing games with multiple people who all seek different experiences, and I believe that we should be considerate of what they are trying to accomplish and modify our conception of our characters accordingly. Thoughts?

 

[bgbarcus]

It will always depend on each group whether they want a role playing game or a more traditional game where characters are pieces on a real or imaginary board. Since I'm a bit of a stickler for using correct names, if you call it an RPG I expect it to be role playing. But, as long as all the participants agree about what they want from the game, play whatever style is most fun.

 

[Manbearcat]

Traditionally I've seen it argued that players should only concern themselves with the perspective of their particular characters. I disagree. We are playing games with multiple people who all seek different experiences, and I believe that we should be considerate of what they are trying to accomplish and modify our conception of our characters accordingly. Thoughts?

In RPGs, the GM is constantly metagaming. This is because their job is to constantly keep in mind (among a great many other things) (1) what each player is interested in, (2) what would fill each of their lives with excitement/adventure, (3) what would be challenging to the player characters, (4) what is within the bounds of genre expectations, (5) what observes established continuity of prior play.

That doesn't even touch upon system, which is entirely a metagame conduit which works (hopefully!) with the tables' participants to transform player declarations from mechanical artifice into "stuff that happens/is" in the fiction.

I prefer my players to always be locked in on 1-5 above. It helps them be more than just a passenger or a tourist. They know (a) when and how to defer to other players, (b) how to engage/provoke the other participants' interests via their PCs, (c) they have an idea on how far they can push something to create some tension/excitement or amp up the danger (with some personal return on their "provoke danger investment" if the system affords it...which the games that I run do), and (d) they're of a mind to maintain coherence (genre and already established backstory).

I like players who are always conscientious of the above and are empowered by system to realize that conscientiousness in a "unit-moving" fashion. Not only does a transparent metagame component flat out make games that I run a much more enjoyable experience (just in terms of the emergent aspect of play at the table), but the candor and offloading the responsibility of a congenial/enjoyable experience for all onto all that it promotes makes the social side easier to manage.

 

[pemerton]

I like my players to be considerate, and to act within parameters that make sense for a game.

That means being a little bit cautious, and also good sports, about PC vs PC conflict. It means, in a party game (eg D&D), not being too cavalier in splitting the party. It means being prepared to compromise, or to look for ways to reconcile and integrate differing PC goals. (The GM should be helping with these too, both in terms of designing situations and mediating between players where appropriate.)

As far as the traditional idea of metagaming is concerned - ie acting on knowledge that the player has but the PC does not - I expect my players to metagame, in the sense that they know they are playing characters in a game and so should be prepared to play that game. And they know the NPCs/monsters are set up by me for purposes of a game, and so should be ready for that too.

In very traditional D&D, that sort of metagaming means engaging the dungeon on its own terms, without pushing hard against the fact that it's an ecological, social and political absurdity.

In the sorts of games I've tended to run for the past fifteen to twenty years, it means accepting that the PCs are protagonists, and respecting that there is a dramatic logic to the challenges I frame them into. So the players should engage via their PCs and push hard in the fiction, rather than pushing back at the table level and trying hard to reframe (or to get me to reframe - eg "Why isn't Mordenkainen/Boccob/powerful NPC/entity of choice sorting this out?").

When one of my players conserves an ability or an item usage "because pemerton always keeps something up his sleeve in an encounter", I'm happy. That's the sort of metagaming that leads to fun play. Even if I didn't have something up my sleeve, it's my cue to make something up!

 

[JamesonCourage]

Traditionally I've seen it argued that players should only concern themselves with the perspective of their particular characters. I disagree.

Okay. (I'm more or less sectioning this part of your post off so I can address the quote below more directly.)

We are playing games with multiple people who all seek different experiences, and I believe that we should be considerate of what they are trying to accomplish and modify our conception of our characters accordingly. Thoughts?

Isn't this basically metagaming during setup? Much like you would do when creating characters? ("What does the party need?" "Do we have all our bases / roles covered?" Etc?)

I mean, if you address other issues at the same point prior to play ("What kind of game do we want to play?" "How do we feel about resolving conflict between party members?" Etc.), can't you play each session in-character without metagaming (since you've crafted a character personality that would adhere these agreements)? Or do you consider this still metagaming somehow?

We are playing games with multiple people who all seek different experiences,

Going back to this, I don't think I necessarily agree that when I sit down with my players that we're all seeking different experiences. At least, not in a sense that would necessitate metagaming. If you think that every table has this dynamic, can you explain to me why you think this is the case? Honestly asking.

Thoughts?

What metagaming do you feel is necessary or very helpful in-game outside of prep stuff (like making characters and agreeing on a certain play style)? Is it stuff like "I know that everyone would have more fun right now if I stopped pursuing this thread, because it's taking up a lot of spotlight, and I've had it for a while. I can see X losing interest. So, even though my character would continue to look into it himself, I'm going to ask an NPC to look into it for me so that everyone else has a more enjoyable time."? That kind of thing?

Again, honestly asking.

 

[GMMichael]

If I may nitpick a bit-

To metagame is to game the game. It means playing the game for its properties as a game, versus playing the game to roleplay in an imaginary world. For example, a PC chooses not to joust on his horse, but to dismount and use a character feature with the lance instead because it will deal 2d4 more damage than the mounted charge would.

Using player knowledge means running your character based on what you know, instead of what it knows. It's related to metagaming because it occurs outside the game world, but it's not metagaming because using player knowledge usually isn't related to explicit rules of the game.

I discourage metagaming because it's basically the antithesis of roleplaying. If players have fun metagaming, I'll allow it as long as it doesn't disrupt the rest of the game. But I'll generally side with the roleplayers if it comes to blows.

Player knowledge can actually be great for roleplaying. If you know that a situation will lead your character into a place that tests his mettle, you can go there and see what happens. Player knowledge can let you make choices that make your character shine. Or, player knowledge can make your character really dull, because your character was always "in the other room" whenever initiative rolls, or "staying in the back" whenever the GM has dice in his hand.

 

[pemerton]

To metagame is to game the game. It means playing the game for its properties as a game, versus playing the game to roleplay in an imaginary world. For example, a PC chooses not to joust on his horse, but to dismount and use a character feature with the lance instead because it will deal 2d4 more damage than the mounted charge would.

I'm not sure how that's metagaming. Assuming that the damage dice correlate to something in game (skill with weapon? dangerousness of weapon?) then the PC is just choosing to fight using a more advantageous tactic.

If you think the damage dice don't correlate to anything ingame then it's true that the player is metagaming, but under this alternative assumption a whole lot of completely ordinary gameplay decisions (about damage dice, hit points, healing etc) will probably count as metagaming too, and so it's hardly something that can be considered inappropriate to play.

 

[Campbell]

I did a poor job in my initial post of framing my argument, and most likely should not have used such a loaded term which can be a great many things to a great many people.

What I'm arguing is that we could have more successful gaming if we were just as mindful of social dynamics at the table as we tend to be of the fictional situation. The way I see it few character concepts are so nailed down in stone that there is only one possible way they would approach a given situation. I'm suggesting that if James is having a rough day and wants to pound some orc faces in it might be helpful to have Demarius, your elven wizard issue a word of caution, but play out the encounter with the orcs rather than negate James' wishes some times. I'm suggesting that if establishing trust with a new PC is an issue playing out an extended series of wary glances might be more fruitful than stonewalling the game. That's the sort of thing I had in mind.

 

[Janx]

I did a poor job in my initial post of framing my argument, and most likely should not have used such a loaded term which can be a great many things to a great many people.

What I'm arguing is that we could have more successful gaming if we were just as mindful of social dynamics at the table as we tend to be of the fictional situation. The way I see it few character concepts are so nailed down in stone that there is only one possible way they would approach a given situation. I'm suggesting that if James is having a rough day and wants to pound some orc faces in it might be helpful to have Demarius, your elven wizard issue a word of caution, but play out the encounter with the orcs rather than negate James' wishes some times. I'm suggesting that if establishing trust with a new PC is an issue playing out an extended series of wary glances might be more fruitful than stonewalling the game. That's the sort of thing I had in mind.

As you've restated here, the term MetaGaming is complicated, possibly misused or has different meanings. The key thing is to recognize the kinds of ways we should or should not use out of character knowledge in the game. And by knowledge, that can mean secret info the player overheard, that the PC wouldn't know, or knowing that player 1 doesn't like certain situations in-game and avoiding them.

To make a list (off the top of my head):
acting on stuff your PC couldn't know : like knowing that another PC found some loot, and having your PC dig in his pack to find it, even though your PC doesn't actually have a reason to suspect anything. This is usually bad role-playing.

choosing your PC to best support/fit in with the existing party: this is usually considered a good thing, as the players are generally expected to accept a new PC into the party (where they might otherwise interview job candidates if it was an NPC). It is the players making the choice to accomodate each other, not the PCs.

Having your PC be a jerk to another PC because it's in character: This is usually a bad thing, and it's sort of not meta-gaming. The inverse of applying some meta-gaming and using your player judgement that you should not upset your fellow player, you're improving player relations outside of the game.

Having your character act out of character in order to gain in-game benefit: The example of a cavalier who never rides a horse and uses his lance on foot because some rules quirk (made up example) results in more damage than being on horseback. This is considered bad (IMO) because the PC is acting distinctly out of character in a way that defeats the point of playing a Role Playing Game, instead of a Tactics Game.

I think each one of those is a limited example, and the idea behind them has to be held in context with an actual situation. There are times the game is better, players are happier when I use my outside the game knowledge to make my PC act in character, or sometimes out of character in order to facilitate something.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I did a poor job in my initial post of framing my argument, and most likely should not have used such a loaded term which can be a great many things to a great many people.

What I'm arguing is that we could have more successful gaming if we were just as mindful of social dynamics at the table as we tend to be of the fictional situation. The way I see it few character concepts are so nailed down in stone that there is only one possible way they would approach a given situation. I'm suggesting that if James is having a rough day and wants to pound some orc faces in it might be helpful to have Demarius, your elven wizard issue a word of caution, but play out the encounter with the orcs rather than negate James' wishes some times. I'm suggesting that if establishing trust with a new PC is an issue playing out an extended series of wary glances might be more fruitful than stonewalling the game. That's the sort of thing I had in mind.

Okay, so it does sound similar to the example I asked about, then. ("I know that everyone would have more fun right now if I stopped pursuing this thread, because it's taking up a lot of spotlight, and I've had it for a while. I can see [James] losing interest. So, even though my character would continue to look into it himself, I'm going to ask an NPC to look into it for me so that everyone else has a more enjoyable time.")

I think that can be useful, or very useful, depending on the table. My players have an agreement that we play in-character. So, that means that sometimes they wait while stuff goes down, sometimes they don't trust the new guy immediately (though we try to take care of that one as part of the new PC backstory before play*), sometimes we don't get into a fight for three sessions (like my last three sessions).

But I do think that these things still need to be addressed by someone, even if the players have an agreement. As the GM, if I see the others getting antsy because one PC has been on something for too long, I'll start to sum up stuff to push the game forward (but pacing is a big GM responsibility anyway, so nothing new there). If a new character is going to be introduced, I work with multiple players to come up with a backstory that works for everyone, and explicitly ask if things will work out if the PC is introduced as presented. If the players are looking like they want a fight, I encourage them to go get into one (or go look for trouble)! It's a sandbox, and that's on them, too. Sometimes the world brings it to you, but sometimes you have to go looking for it, too.

(However, that last point does touch on what Campbell seems to be saying. What if we're playing a sandbox and only one player wants to go get into a mindless brawl because his mind is fried from a particularly mentally or emotionally taxing day? Then the other players might want to exercise some of that meta thinking that Campbell was talking about and cooperate. And that's where it can be useful at my table, even if my players probably won't do that.)



*For example, I just had a good friend join after he got back from his 16-month deployment, and his character was a cousin to one PC (a cousin he grew up with, and was a confidant as a child). Both were from the same noble house, and the other two PCs have a Complication (a mechanical feature) that they both felt as if they owed or wanted to improve that noble house. He slipped into the party pretty easily, even as one of the PCs positions himself to make a play at taking the throne from the king via complicated birthright laws.