Let's Talk About Metagaming!

[Umbran]

Meta-gaming is breaking the rules, and as such, it is always a bad thing.

I disagree.

It is often effectively cheating - using information from the Monster Manual that the character wouldn't have, for example, isn't cool.

But, realizing, "Gee, I'm stealing all the thunder here, and maybe I should allow someone else some time to shine," is meta-gaming, but is not breaking any rule. It is not cheating.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, this gets back to @Campbell's OP.

I don't think that player A going along with player B's thing, even though player A's PC doesn't know about player B's PC's dark secret, is a good thing. And I don't see what rule it is breaking, either.

I'm having difficulty parsing your example here, but in the context of the Original Post, sometimes it can be okay to meta-game, because some people have different priorities and not everyone really cares about following the rules.

Are you really questioning whether it's against the rules to act on information that your character doesn't have? Because that's way back in the premise of what it means to play an RPG - you are your character, and if you make decisions based on information that character doesn't have, then you aren't doing that.

 

[pemerton]

Are you really questioning whether it's against the rules to act on information that your character doesn't have?

Yes.

To give the simplest example (which I think [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] used upthread): if I as a player know that such-and-such a character is the new PC for another player, then it is not against the rules, and is probably good for the game, that I have regard to that in deciding how my PC reacts to that newly-encountered character, even though my PC does not have any information that marks this newly-encountered person as having any special status or significance.

To go from particular example to general principle: where is this rule stated in (say) the AD&D 1st ed rulebooks? It is stated in Molvay Basic, but then Moldvay Basic also says that the rules are mere guidelines to be adjusted/adapted to the needs of play - which is exactly what Campbell is suggesting in the OP.

The closest thing I found on a quick skim of the 4e PHB was this (on p 8):

When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character. You decide which door your character opens next. You decide whether to attack a monster, to negotiate with a villain, or to attempt a dangerous quest. You can make these decisions based on your character’s personality, motivations, and goals, and you can even speak or act in character if you like.​

I have bolded the word can, because it is not synonymous with must. It implies the possibility of doing otherwise, ie of relying upon motivations and goals that come from other than the PC (eg metagame ones).

All I could find in a quick skim of the 5e Basic PDF was the following (p 2):

[T]he players decide what they want their adventurers to do.​

There are no limits stated on the motivations and reasoning that the players may deploy in reaching such decisions.

I'm having difficulty parsing your example here

One reason for this is that I have a negation I shouldn't have! - I've edited to remove it.

But restating the example with a bit less compression:

I'm imagining that PC 2 (played by player B) has a dark secret, which PC 1 (played by player A) doesn't know about. And I'm further imagining that the GM has framed the PCs (and thereby the players) into a situation in which PC 2's dark secret becomes salient.

In a situation like that, player A has (at least) two options: (i) s/he can play his/her PC in accordance with the PC's knowledge, which includes ignorance of the dark secret; or (ii) s/he can make choices for his/her PC which will help drive the game forward in relation to the dark secret. Here is an example of (ii): player A can decide that something about the situation the GM has described catches PC 1's attention, even though the only reason for deciding that this is true of PC 1 is because player A knows that this will help player B get more deeply engaged, in play, with PC 2's dark secret.

I think that player A taking option (ii) rather than option (i) is almost always a good thing, despite being metagaming.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The closest thing I found on a quick skim of the 4e PHB was this (on p 8):

When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character. You decide which door your character opens next. You decide whether to attack a monster, to negotiate with a villain, or to attempt a dangerous quest. You can make these decisions based on your character’s personality, motivations, and goals, and you can even speak or act in character if you like.​

I have bolded the word can, because it is not synonymous with must. It implies the possibility of doing otherwise, ie of relying upon motivations and goals that come from other than the PC (eg metagame ones).

I'm reading that differently. Just because you can use these guidelines on how to make your decisions, that doesn't necessarily mean there are alternatives.

As an example, you can breathe air, but that doesn't mean you can breathe anything else; the alternative is to not breathe. Likewise, just because you can make decisions based on character motivation/goals/etc, doesn't give you permission to make decisions on any other basis; the alternative is to not make any decisions - to not play the game.

To contrast, an earlier part of your quote is less ambiguous - "When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character."There's no wiggle room on that one. If you aren't making decisions as if you were your characters, then you aren't even playing D&D.

But like I said, there are times when meta-gaming is the lesser of two evils. The most obvious example is when one character decides to trust another character mostly based on the meta-game knowledge that it's a PC. While it hurts the integrity of the game somewhat for the character to make this decision, the alternative is that one of the players doesn't get to play at all, which is a much greater issue.

 

[Campbell]

Here's the way I think about: For any given fictional situation there will be a range of decisions that make sense for that character to make. After all our conceptions of our characters are limited. We have a general sense of the types of things they value, who they care about, etc. That understanding is limited, but still should inform the decisions we as players make on their behalf. I'm not suggesting ignoring those details, but adding additional considerations on top of all of that. We are after all playing a game with real people who should matter to us.

Here's a real example from a Legend of the Five Rings game I played in: My character, Bayushi Takeshi, a vain tactician who has designs on supplanting the current champion of his clan gets wind that Bayushi Toshi, a duelist fostered by the honorable Crane Clan played by another player has made overtures towards making an alliance that Takeshi does not wish to see. I know that my character is incensed at this point, but I have a wide range of possible reactions that would make sense in this situation. I could attempt to diplomatically block his overtures, I could attempt to ruin his reputation, I could send some of my retainers to threaten him, etc. However, all of that would block the other player's actions and I would rather have a more complex political situation in the game. Instead I approach the other player with a deal. We both pursue our own alliances and see who bears the most fruit. This is followed by a tense in character conversation between the two sumarai on the virtue of never interrupting a man's game of Go while it is in progress. I never stopped considering my character's perspective on the situation. I just had some second and third order considerations, and was able to establish that my character valued the other as an ally, but would view further interruptions as unacceptable.

 

[Umbran]

I'm reading that differently. Just because you can use these guidelines on how to make your decisions, that doesn't necessarily mean there are alternatives.

Except there clearly *is* an alternative. The reader is fully capable of making decisions based on in-game, or out-of-game concerns. This in contrast to your air breathing example, where the person isn't physically capable of breathing other substances, and will die if they don't breathe at all.

If this is supposed to be taken as a prohibition, to warn the user away from the alternative and make it clear that metagaming is like trying to breathe mud, it is ambiguous, and thus horrible writing for that purpose. I find it difficult to credit the idea that the authors are *that bad* at getting their ideas across.

Or, in other words, I think you are stretching for the point. While technically you can read the words that way, I don't think that reading is supported. The line is intended, instead, as a suggestion for people who are new to RPGs, perhaps coming from the boardgaming world, where the idea of personification might not be natural. If you're used to Monopoly, the idea of making decisions *as the Top Hat* might not be obvious to the player.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Except there clearly *is* an alternative. The reader is fully capable of making decisions based on in-game, or out-of-game concerns. This in contrast to your air breathing example, where the person isn't physically capable of breathing other substances, and will die if they don't breathe at all.
[...]While technically you can read the words that way, I don't think that reading is supported.[...]

There is no alternative which also jives with the rest the rest of that paragraph, though. There's no room for using out-of-game knowledge when you "make decisions as though you were that character."

If they left any room for alternatives, it's only in that "personality, motivations, and goals" fail to sufficiently convey everything that might inform your character's decision-making process.

 

[Desh-Rae-Halra]

I thought of another example of "good" metagaming that has become funny in our group.

As our DM has a habit of throwing us against monsters3-4 CR above the party level, (and of course those monsters can't be alone, so Cr gets even higher), we have had a conveyor belt of character death (mostly mine recently).

However, if when I brought in a new character the PCs acted trus to their character, we would probably spend the whole game, if not more, trying to earn trust.

So our group has adopted this mentality of "we meet you and trust you implicitly" sort of vibe when new characters enter.

Another example: sometimes a new character has to enter part way through a dungeon, so the party finds a chest full of equipment and magic items, and then some guy in the cell ( the new PC) says "Oh, that's my stuff, I'll help you"...if we didnt metagame it, the new PC might just end up locked in the cell until the dungeon was finished, and might not get his equipment at all.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For the record, here's what D&D 5E has to say on the topic (DMG, p.235):

Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like when a character in a movie knows it's in a movie and acts accordingly. For example, a player might say, "The DM wouldn't throw such a powerful monster at us!" or you might hear, "The read aloud text spent a lot of time describing that door - let's search it again!"

Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: "What do your characters think?" You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive.

​

So the 5E stance seems at least as clear as what they said with 4E - metagaming is bad, and should be discouraged.

Again though, the last sentence seems a bit out of place. I think it's specifically referring to the example where the players don't think the DM would include an unbeatable encounter, so the suggestion is to show them that metagame thinking is unreliable. A similar example would be if they use out-of-character knowledge about a particular monster's vulnerability, so the DM changes it to a different vulnerability.

 

[GMMichael]

For the record, here's what D&D 5E has to say on the topic (DMG, p.235):

Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like when a character in a movie knows it's in a movie and acts accordingly.​

I think Wikipedia helps here:
"Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. Metagaming differs from strategy in that metagaming is making decisions based upon out of game knowledge, whereas strategies are decisions made based upon in-game actions and knowledge.

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.

Emphasis mine. Thank you, and I'll make my exit now. Er, wait...

A lot of the backlash here (misunderstanding?) is due to a presupposition that metagaming is badwrongfun. And quite possibly, some people knowing that they metagame, and not wanting to be accused of badwrongfun. Like this:

If the system incentivizes PC build choices that produce genre/trope-incoherency or aberrant fiction, then the blame needs to be placed on the system...not on the players.

There's no blame to be placed. Metagaming is just metagaming. And as some of us have said, it can actually be a good thing. Let's note, the D&D 5e example asks "what would your characters do?" This is in response to the bad examples of metagaming. There's no reason why good metagaming should be discouraged.