Let's Talk About Metagaming!

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

Why are you playing with people who have different goals for your game? In my experience, you will have a much better time if everyone is working toward the same goal. Role-players should play with role-players, and combat monkeys should play with combat monkeys.

 

[Fuseboy]

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.

Yes, I absolutely agree. The player-level social dynamics absolutely affect the game, so it's useful if there's a back channel for that information to become available to the players. Some groups start with an explicit check-in (which can still be casual), so that if Joe is fuming about his day at work, folks at the table can disambiguate between Joe's hostility and that of his PC. I suppose this is a goal that runs counter to 'immersion', but I'll take door A any day.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

If the goal of the game is to have the players role-play in an imaginary world, couldn't you say any choices that the game sets up that work against that goal is just poor design? Your example seems to hit the nail on the head: the player is playing the game by choosing options the game sets up for them and picking the most advantageous one. Intentionally ignoring the most advantageous option that the game has laid out for you seems like a strange way to play any game.

I see game design that makes absurd choices the most advantageous a poorly designed game; players shouldn't be chastised for metagaming when they are weighing the choices the game provides and choosing the optimal one (given their goals for play, which are obviously varied).

 

[GMMichael]

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

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find game rules that don't correlate to anything in-game. Metagaming, then, isn't about what has an in-game correlation; it's about intent. If your intent is to impale a foe, you're not going to hop off a charging horse with your lance to do it.

If the goal of the game is to have the players role-play in an imaginary world, couldn't you say any choices that the game sets up that work against that goal is just poor design . . .
I see game design that makes absurd choices the most advantageous a poorly designed game; players shouldn't be chastised for metagaming when they are weighing the choices the game provides and choosing the optimal one

Yes and no. A better game-goal would be to "roleplay in an imaginary world, with a player acting as adjudicator, with certain limits on what characters can do in order to make the game fun and give the characters room to grow in a predictable way..."

Let's not chastise players. But let's hold them accountable when their metagaming causes other players to see the table, dice, and rulebooks, instead of the battlements, sunset, and flaming arrows.

 

[Campbell]

Why are you playing with people who have different goals for your game? In my experience, you will have a much better time if everyone is working toward the same goal. Role-players should play with role-players, and combat monkeys should play with combat monkeys.

Real life is always messier than theory. Preferences are a layered and fluid thing in my experience. Compatibility is important, but achieving 100% lock step is damn near impossible, and not even something I'm really after. I think there's value in experiencing different ways to play, different personalities, and different perspectives. Sure I value drama, conflict, protagonism, playing to find out what happens, etc. I also value meaningful game play decision making. I also value seeing life as my character sees it, setting consistency, etc. Generally I value the above more, sometimes the below more. Sometimes I just want to hit stuff too. Playing with other people who all value the above, but in different degrees helps to ground the game and provide a meaningful balance of concerns that playing with 4 other people just like me wouldn't do.

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

 

[steenan]

I think there are two kinds of metagaming.


One of them is concerned with the mechanics. The metagaming player makes decisions based on how the rules work, not what makes sense in the fiction.

I used to have problems with it in the past, but I have none today. It's just a matter of switching to better designed games - ones that don't create conflicts between the fiction and the system, but have them support each other (often including "things must make sense in the fiction, by group judgement" a mechanical rule). Sometimes, the same players who I perceived as problematic in D&D or old WoD games play very well in Nobilis, Fate, Cortex+ or PBtA games.

From this, I conclude that the problem lies not in players, but in games. If the design is not internally conflicted, the problem disappears.



The other kind of metagaming is concerned with the story. Players often know things that their characters do not and it matters a lot how they use this knowledge. If players metagame as to avoid trouble or shortcut challenges, it hurts the game and decreases fun for others. But it is also possible to metagame positively - to make the game more interesting than it would be without the shared knowledge. This kind of metagaming works to increase drama and highlight other players' choices.

For example, when a player's character has a dark secret, another player may "accidentally" uncover it. He may ignore the metagame knowledge. Or he may intentionally create situations where the secret becomes important (like, implementing a plan that makes sense from the character's PoV, but invites a catastrophe when taking the secret into account; or talking with the other character and sharing his own secret as a sign of deep trust).

The first approach is bad. The second one is the default for many groups. I prefer the third one. I get much more immersion and fun from emotionally-charged scenes and dramatic story that twists in surprising directions as a result of my (and other players') choices than from pretending to be my PC.

 

[pemerton]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find game rules that don't correlate to anything in-game. Metagaming, then, isn't about what has an in-game correlation; it's about intent. If your intent is to impale a foe, you're not going to hop off a charging horse with your lance to do it.

<snip>

Let's not chastise players. But let's hold them accountable when their metagaming causes other players to see the table, dice, and rulebooks, instead of the battlements, sunset, and flaming arrows.

I don't really follow; and I see [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s post as making a pretty similar point to mine.

If the rules of the game make a PC more likely to impale an enemy by attacking on foot rather than mounted, then what is wrong with the player having his/her PC attack on foot?

Conversely, if we want the players to have their PCs act as if attacking on horseback is a better way to impale, why don't we make the game rules reflect this?

EDIT: I hadn't read post 16 yet. [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION] makes the same point too. A well-designed game shouldn't give rise to conflicts between fiction and mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

Players often know things that their characters do not and it matters a lot how they use this knowledge. If players metagame as to avoid trouble or shortcut challenges, it hurts the game and decreases fun for others. But it is also possible to metagame positively - to make the game more interesting than it would be without the shared knowledge. This kind of metagaming works to increase drama and highlight other players' choices.

For example, when a player's character has a dark secret, another player may "accidentally" uncover it. He may ignore the metagame knowledge. Or he may intentionally create situations where the secret becomes important (like, implementing a plan that makes sense from the character's PoV, but invites a catastrophe when taking the secret into account; or talking with the other character and sharing his own secret as a sign of deep trust).

The first approach is bad. The second one is the default for many groups. I prefer the third one. I get much more immersion and fun from emotionally-charged scenes and dramatic story that twists in surprising directions as a result of my (and other players') choices than from pretending to be my PC.

I agree with this. Robin Laws has a discussion of this in Over the Edge.

As a GM, I find there is another benefit to the sort of metagaming you describe: it makes it easier to set up situations that engage a particular player (via his/her PC) when the other players are in on the joke/secret, and will play along (or, at least, not have their PCs block whatever it is I'm trying to push towards).

 

[Manbearcat]

If the goal of the game is to have the players role-play in an imaginary world, couldn't you say any choices that the game sets up that work against that goal is just poor design? Your example seems to hit the nail on the head: the player is playing the game by choosing options the game sets up for them and picking the most advantageous one. Intentionally ignoring the most advantageous option that the game has laid out for you seems like a strange way to play any game.

I see game design that makes absurd choices the most advantageous a poorly designed game; players shouldn't be chastised for metagaming when they are weighing the choices the game provides and choosing the optimal one (given their goals for play, which are obviously varied).

I used to have problems with it in the past, but I have none today. It's just a matter of switching to better designed games - ones that don't create conflicts between the fiction and the system, but have them support each other (often including "things must make sense in the fiction, by group judgement" a mechanical rule). Sometimes, the same players who I perceived as problematic in D&D or old WoD games play very well in Nobilis, Fate, Cortex+ or PBtA games.

From this, I conclude that the problem lies not in players, but in games. If the design is not internally conflicted, the problem disappears.

This is where games with poor maths coupled with complex PC build intersections which create runaway synergies get themselves into trouble.

For instance, the game says: "Play will end for you if n happens. The GM's job is to put you in scenarios where n is very possible to likely. Your job is to do x, y, or z while making sure n doesn't happen."

Doing x while simultaneously ensuring phenomenon n doesn't happen should coincide at an imperceptible level of disparity with respect doing y or z in the stead of x. If the level of disparity is perceptible or, worse still, glaringly obvious, then the player who wants to play x but chooses y or z isn't the problem. X or the disparity between x, y, and z is the problem.

You can fix that disparity...or you can change the dynamics of n (its punitive or prolific nature or the way it intersects with PC build/growth).

 

[GMMichael]

If the rules of the game make a PC more likely to impale an enemy by attacking on foot rather than mounted, then what is wrong with the player having his/her PC attack on foot?

I think this is the crux right here. There is no enemy, there is no impaling, and there is no being mounted - until the GM and player agree on it. In order to be more likely to have any of these things, you have to be playing the game, not gaming the game. When your goal goes from impaling the enemy (an in-game goal) to dealing more damage, in terms of dice, to the enemy (a rules-based goal), you're metagaming.