Meta-Gaming: Definition

[Occhronustinrist]

Greetings,

Long time reader, first time poster...blah, blah,

Anyway, I am having issues with a few of my players on the proper definition of Meta-Gaming and I would like to solicit some definitions from the forum on what exactly constitutes meta-Gaming. I will withhold my opinion on the matter for now, but suffice it to say that I feel that this player Meta-Games constantly, ruining the flavor of the game for myself and others. He sincerely believes that he is not doing this.

Please, I could use your thoughts on this...

 

[Snowy]

meta gaming is using ooc knowledge to make ic decisions.

its not necessarily bad. Designing a character is metagaming (you can argue), you look at what feats and classes etc there are and the characters choice of his next training (level) gets decided.

Metagaming - often confused with cheating, just knowing that trolls regenerate when they are rare is metagaming AND cheating.

Another sometimes beneficial metagaming that comes up often in our sessions is accepting the disappearance of characters to mage school, druids council etc because their player is absent. It means that we can not spend hours searching the city for them and get on to the fun and interestign adventures I hopefully have planned .


sorry slightly ranty, I LARP and this comes up often with people arguing all over the shop about it.

 

[amethal]

suffice it to say that I feel that this player Meta-Games constantly, ruining the flavor of the game for myself and others. He sincerely believes that he is not doing this.

What sort of stuff does he do? It can be a grey area (but it normally isn't!).

For example, in a 1 shot game I was in one of the other players advised everyone to charge the dragon as he saw the DM had rolled a 1 for the dragon's initiative, so "we could kill it before it gets a chance to act". That I feel is totally unacceptable.

In another game, the DM suggested to the player of the good cleric that he might want to heal my sorcerer (given that he was unconscious and bleeding to death). That's an out of character hint fom the DM to an inexperienced player, which to my mind is to be encouraged.

The player then responded that he was out of healing spells. I explained that he could spontaneously convert one of his 0 level spells into a cure minor wounds. This was our characters' first adventure together, my level 1 sorcerer probably didn't know good clerics could convert prepared spells into healing, and in any event he was unconscious so couldn't have told him.

That was an out of character conversation where one player tries to get another to do something he otherwise wouldn't have. That's metagaming, but it takes a better person than me to calmly watch his first roleplaying character for 10 years bleed to death because one of the other players doesn't know his character's abilities properly!

 

[WizarDru]

Meta-gaming means different things to different people, and more importantly, the line where it becomes odious or a problem is specific to the individual. Snowy's definition is pretty much spot-oin, though. In essence, meta-gaming is the idea of viewing the game from outside the game, the 'meta-game', which is where the player resides, not the character. Everyone, by definition, does this. It is quite simply impossible not to...the question is where the line is drawn for such behavior.

For example: if my players attack a monster, and hit it when they hit an AC of 35 but miss it when they hit an AC of 37, they're going to use metagame knowledge to reason out the AC of the creature. Certain characters then may decide not to attack, as they know that short of a natural 20, they won't successfully hit, potentially wasting the action (when they could aid to attack or something else).

On the one hand, much metagame behavior is pure gamist theory, similar to playing monopoly or chess and knowing the options available to you. On the other hand, the D&D system doesn't model certain details that strongly, and metagame knowledge may be a reflection of ingame knowledge. If I rephrase the above situation as the party watching as their most competent warrior finds himself hard-pressed to get past the creatures swift reflexes and natural armor-plating, it isn't wrong to believe that the rogue will try something other than a head-on assualt....especially considering that adventurers have knowledge and skills that the player does not.

Amethal's example is another good one: the character certainly would know he could substitute spells, even though the player didn't. It's up to the individual DM how to handle that situation, but I wouldn't penalize one player for helping another player with a new system, myself. D&D is a big game...no one remembers all the rules all the time, unless maybe you're Hypersmurf.

Another example: a character sees a combat in progress, and a monster takes its AoO on a character. Player 2 says "Oh, he's taken his AoO for the turn, so I run past him and attack him from behind!" Is this metagaming? Yes. Is it inappropriate? That's up to the individual group. In my game, it's not invalid, as I view this to be the purview of professional adventurers.

Of course, my group takes nothing for granted, and hasn't since I warned them (several years ago, now) that monsters and enemies could be considerably different than the base MM creature. Does that Ogre have Combat Reflexes? Only one way to find out. A Painful Way, at that.

What sort of behavior is the player engaging in that you find questionable?

 

[Shallown]

I would define metagaming as using the knowledge that it is a game to make your decisions.

This can take several forms. Using out of character knowledge, saying "that won't happen cause the GM wouldn't due that" versus saying maybe the villian or whatever wouldn't do that.

I don't think of character creation and choosing certain feats only to qualify for classes as metagaming neccessarily. Using the rules to define the world is what has to be done otherwise don'y use the rules. If the player knows I need X feat to qualify for X Presitge class then so should the character. The character knows I need to know how to X to join X guild and learn thier skills and abilities.

Metagaming is not always wrong or against the spirit of the game in my mind. Overdoing it and always thinking Metagame thoughts first ruins the fun to me but never accepting Meta game ideas is also bad.

Example - If You know A fellow PC is in trouble OOC you might find a reasonable reason to be where you can help them. This doesn't mean suddenly running across town for no reason but instead finding an in character reason for heading that way that may lead to helping them. Using Metagame knowledge but justifying it in game. Now doing this once or twice in a campaign is okay with me doing it weekly is not.

later

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

By pure definition, Metagaming is making decisions on the game based on the fact that it is a game rather than a real world where people live. You can make the exact same decision in a metagaming way and in a roleplaying way.

For instance:

Metagaming: This door will likely be trapped as the DM said he wanted to put more traps in his game during our conversation last week. I'm going to search it for traps.

Roleplaying: This is a dungeon created by a powerful wizard to guard his valuables. If I was a powerful wizard, I would place magical traps on the doors to ensure no one could take my valuables. I search the door for traps.

Metagaming: The DM wouldn't throw an enemy against us that was too powerful for us to defeat. He wouldn't purposefully try to kill us, he wants us to have fun. It may look overwhelmingly powerful, but I'm sure there is something we aren't seeing.

Roleplaying: How did the enemy forces get this powerful? We have heard nothing about them having an army this size. The leader of the enemy forces is prone to subterfuge, perhaps there is something we aren't seeing here.

You'll find that almost any action can be justified both ways. The key in discovering which one is happening is pretty much any out of character comments made before the actions. I've had disagreements with people about this in the past, but I've had characters who put away their weapons when fighting oozes immediately when he saw them figuring that he could see dirt, dust, small objects, etc sizzling and smoking as the ooze came towards me and figure out it might not be a good idea to stick things into it.

Pretty much it comes down to your level of tolerance for "metagaming". I normally reward smart players by allowing them to come up with ideas their characters might not so that it encourages them thinking. If someone doesn't know the answer, their skills can give them the answer.

 

[diaglo]

the example presented in the books look more like this:

DM: you spy a group of bloodthirsty orcs. they see you. roll init.
player 1: (thinking to self) We are being attacked. The DM would never throw monsters at us that are too tough and possibly cause a TPK. (outloud) "I attack."



or with a trap...

DM: the door is locked and the rogue notices a trap.
Player 1: (to self) The DM would never have a trap we can't get around. There must be a key in our possession from this dungeon or a secret door. (outloud) "I open up my backpack and look over all the treasure we just got."

edit: ha...i was too slow typing....

 

[der_kluge]

Yea, those definitions have pretty much nailed it. I'm curious what this player is doing, though, to cause you so much grief.

 

[gizmo33]

Another example: a character sees a combat in progress, and a monster takes its AoO on a character. Player 2 says "Oh, he's taken his AoO for the turn, so I run past him and attack him from behind!" Is this metagaming? Yes. Is it inappropriate? That's up to the individual group. In my game, it's not invalid, as I view this to be the purview of professional adventurers.

I'm ok with this kind of meta-gaming. As a DM I interpret it as the character's experience in combat and an instinct about what the enemy is capable of. From the game perspective it keeps people involved in the game's tactical side (which admittedly, isn't for everyone).

I sometimes say that DMs metagame, although I probably misuse the word, I don't know. For example, a DM who starts to tailor encounters for PCs specific strengths and weaknesses is metagaming, because he's using his knowledge as a person playing the game to make judgements about the design. Example: I'll have the wizard cast lightning bolt instead of fireball because I know that the PC has a ring of fire resistance.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Metagaming - often confused with cheating, just knowing that trolls regenerate when they are rare is metagaming AND cheating.

This is one of those sticky points. Who decides that trolls are rare and no one would know they regenerate? This is a very campaign specific thing.

IMC, I normally assume that characters have a working knowledge that most people off the street who don't even play D&D in modern day earth could tell you about. If you asked someone what a unicorn is, they'd likely be able to tell you that it was a horse with a horn. I assume these sort of "folk tales" are told in every tavern, play, bard tale, etc.

Very basic information is "common knowledge" IMC. Red dragons breathe fire, trolls regenerate, fey creatures are small and magical and annoying, etc. Generally, if it's complicated enough that the PLAYERS can't even remember it, even having read the MM, there is no way I'm going to let them use that information in game. On the other hand, if a player says "demons are mostly magically resistant", I don't consider that metagaming.

 

[WizarDru]

Very basic information is "common knowledge" IMC. Red dragons breathe fire, trolls regenerate, fey creatures are small and magical and annoying, etc. Generally, if it's complicated enough that the PLAYERS can't even remember it, even having read the MM, there is no way I'm going to let them use that information in game. On the other hand, if a player says "demons are mostly magically resistant", I don't consider that metagaming.

Same here, and as the campaign progresses, I tend to allow more of this, rather than less. When you have characters with a Knowledge:Arcana or Knowledge:Religion that is a +46, it's hard to justify why they wouldn't have known what rays a beholder could shoot, for example, or the qualities of the elemental plane of Fire.

This isn't a carte blanche, however. Reasoned guesses are allowed, but my players have come to expect the unexpected, such as alternate version beholders, for example. No one was allowed to make specific knowledge rolls about the Far Realms, because no sane being had ever returned and recorded their journey.

Every campaign and group handles the issue differently, of course. The 'every lock has a key', 'every chest was meant to be opened' and 'our DM would never throw a challenge at us that we couldn't handle' line of thinking can be quite problematic, but it is relatively easy to disavow a player of that notion rather quickly.

 

[Occhronustinrist]

Follow Up Thoughts

Thank you all for the replies.

The basic situation is this. I have a player who, like many out there, takes the time to know the rules. What I have called Meta-Gaming may be more accurately described as simple rules-lawyering, which I can handle. The crux is that I have told him that his actions are meta-gaming and that he needs to cut it out. His response is that he is not and he finds it offensive that I make that accusation. So first, I needed to determine if I was using the term "Meta-Gaming" with any accuracy.

General Examples:
1. The Rules Laywer (L) complains in-game that the encounter used is far too high for the party (A treant vs Party Level 3-4, 6 characters) and that "If I were the DM, I would never send such an encounter against the party. (insert pout here)"

2. L using out-of-character discussions to develop group tactical strategy or to get information from player's characters are not in the same room as his character.

3. I am not running a Ravenloft campaign. I am running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms with a Gothic Horror/HP Lovecraftian theme. Yet, L insists that I need to reconsider the calls I am making in the game because "In Ravenloft, the rules work this way..." "Oh, I see the DM has The Ravenloft Monster Manual, get ready guys!..." He is understandably confused even though I have told him that I am not running a ravenloft campaign.

Specific Example:

A. One of my players (P1) missed a campaign session that ended right in the middle of combat at a cliffhanger. Another player (P2) had unexplainedly shot an NPC in the back that was suspected of trying to assasinate a third player (P3). The session ended with the group turning tail and running in one direction, and the NPC running in the other. The following gaming session, P1 returned to the table. I explained to P1 everything that her character would have seen happen prior to the session.

B. The next session opens, and three of my players, P1, P4, and L move down into my basement to explain to P1 what had happened in the previous game. I felt that I had already told P1 what had happened, but apparantly, she wanted to hear it from the players. Fine, I thought. After about ten minutes, I told them they needed to rejoin the group upstairs. Any further explanation could be conducted in front of eveyone. I was concerned that instead of telling her the facts of the encounter, they would explain to her P2's rationale for his actions and thus remove the surprise and suspense created by P2's unannounced crossbow bolt to the NPC's kidneys.

C. The NPC is a Doppleganger. I have rolled each character's sense motive rolls secretly and the NPC is effectively disguising itself. The only clue the characters have to go on is that the NPC, disguised as an Elven Ranger/Druid has no scent. (My DM rule for dopplegangers, one of my characters has the scent ability from the Monster Manual) and that they are having difficulty tracking her (Boots of Shaundakul/Pass without trace - Forgotten Realms).

D. There have been posters put up around the PC's town placing a bounty on the head of P4, the party's Cat-Person. The Bounty Poster explains that the Cat-Man is a terrible beast and solicits bounty hunters to capture or kill P4. P4 has had to move and live in secrecy because of his appearance and this bounty. The party is currently traveling to the hamlet that this bounty is from so they can try to deal with the mayor, who placed the bounty on P4. When the NPC meets the party, the NPC is hunting what appeared to be a "Were-Boar". The NPC tracks and kills the "were-boar" in front of the party. The Were-Boar was a transformed creature, similar to P4. The one clue the party never picked up on is that the NPC used normal weapons to kill the "were-boar".(Think "Island of Dr. Moreau" - they don't know this)

E. So, in this case, I have a character L, who has a tendency to metagame. I am running an NPC that the party has met for the first time (two minutes, tops) who's actions should seem innocent in and of themselves. One character, P2 decides to shoot NPC in the back while the group walks through the woods with her. When P2 does this, L and P1 are off in the woods. They didn't see the shooting happen. Session A ends on that cliffhanger. Session B opens up and the players retire to the basement to discuss the previous session with a character who was not there. I tell them I need their discussion to be at the gaming table because I do not want them to meta-game. If they begin to discuss information that their character could not have known, I want to limit it so the story's suspense is maintained.

F. In sum, when I have my next session, I will explain to the party what I mean by Meta-Gaming and why I want it to stop. I see that I have a complex interaction between simple rules-laywering (allowable, if not annoying) and actual Meta-Gaming. Usually, I use the basement to conduct discussions with players on events that only their characters experience. I do that to prevent others from overhearing what they should not know. I don't want it used as a tool to discuss out of session information. My goal is to maintain the sense of mystery and suspense in session.

Thanks,

 

[Crothian]

General Examples:
1. The Rules Laywer (L) complains in-game that the encounter used is far too high for the party (A treant vs Party Level 3-4, 6 characters) and that "If I were the DM, I would never send such an encounter against the party. (insert pout here)"

THis I'd just tell him to be quiet. As DM you are perfectly allowed to use CR monsters higher and lower then what the players can face. Tell him that this will happen in the future and if he thinks the encounters are too hard poerhaps he should start retreating and not blinding fighting everythings (assuming he is doing this).

2. L using out-of-character discussions to develop group tactical strategy or to get information from player's characters are not in the same room as his character.

This is a little harder to control and doesn't bother me as much. I like the players to work together aso many times I will over look little things like this in favor of part co operation.

3. I am not running a Ravenloft campaign. I am running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms with a Gothic Horror/HP Lovecraftian theme. Yet, L insists that I need to reconsider the calls I am making in the game because "In Ravenloft, the rules work this way..." "Oh, I see the DM has The Ravenloft Monster Manual, get ready guys!..." He is understandably confused even though I have told him that I am not running a ravenloft campaign.

I'd do one of two things here. Either set out all my Ravenloft books to mess with his mind (probably not a good idea) or takes notes from them that I am using so I never have to refer to Ravenloft books at the table. If the player doesn't see the books perhaps he will not make references to them like that.

And ya, you have a Rules Lawyer. You might start refering to him as Old Yeller, maybe he'll take a hint.

 

[Henry]

Example #1 is what most of us call metagaming, simply. "The DM would never do that."

Example #2 is technically meta-gaming, but it's acceptable to a wide range of DM's because in-character the PC would have more knowledge than the player. I don't mind the occasional brainstorming session to improve tactics.

Example #3 is metagaming AND rules-lawyering and some consider it CHEATING, too. To see what book the DM is pulling monsters from, or to use something a monster is vulnerable to just because you see that the DM is on pages 156-157, is just sucking the fun out of it for most players, including you. And to assume you are playing in Ravenloft when you aren't and acting as if he had some special knowledge of Ravenloft is also taking the fun out of it, in my book.

In your specific example, you have a PC acting on out-of-character knowledge, which is not good, However, there also appears to be a lack of trust between you and your players, something the described Rules-Lawyer would be picking up on and adapting to. You need to have a serious talk with your players and find out if they think that you, personally, are trying to shaft them, or if they understand you're just trying to create a challenging game, because it sounds as if you are all not on the same page when it comes to what you're trying to accomplish here.

However, if they want you to be the DM, and they want you to run the game to the best of your ability, then you all need to discuss what it is you want out of the game, and each player needs to respect and work with what you are trying to do, rather than treat it like an us vs. them competition, which it's not.

 

[gizmo33]

1. The Rules Laywer (L) complains in-game that the encounter used is far too high for the party

That's hilarious. So the treant just turns around and goes home? "Ooops, my bad, you guys look low level, I'll just wait over here until you're higher level" If a treant lives at point X on the map in your world, that should be good enough for L. Maybe next time he'll complain that you have too many peasants living in a particular village?

2. L using out-of-character discussions to develop group tactical strategy or to get information from player's characters are not in the same room as his character.

I've found games with multiple, simultaneous PC perspectives very complicated to run. You have your work cut out for you even if the players act in good faith.

"In Ravenloft, the rules work this way..."

I've said it before and I'll say it again - that guy needs a visit from an ethereal mummy. It's not metagaming that's the problem IMO - it's just that the dude seems very inconsiderate about the time you put into your game. The campaign world is YOUR world and he doesn't know anything about it except what you tell him. I'm not sure I'd even argue with him about it.
L: "In Ravenloft, I'd get a saving throw"
Gizmo: "Really? That's interesting. Tell me more about this 'Ravenloft' while you roll up your new character. Maybe you should name your new character Ravenloft."

The next session opens, and three of my players, P1, P4, and L move down into my basement to explain to P1 what had happened in the previous game.

If they're so in to your game that they need to plot and plan with the missing player, I'd take that as a compliment. That being said, if you're trying to manage what the PLAYERS are being told, then you are tacitly supporting the perspective that the player and the PC are the same, and therefore you have to expect that the players will follow your lead on this. I wouldn't try to run a serious multi-perspective game without a couple of sound booths and a LAN hookup. To run a traditional DnD game like this I think is nearly impossible if the players don't cooperate. So IMO:
1. don't worry so much about what the players know
2. disallow any action that's clearly based on player information
3. lower your expectations on the multi-perspective thing. If P1 mysteriously trusts the actions of P2, chalk it up to intuition and loyalty.

If they begin to discuss information that their character could not have known, I want to limit it so the story's suspense is maintained.

This is what I mean. You're playing the player, not the character. I advise you to consider changing your DMing style slightly - base your surprises more on group knowledge rather than individual knowledge so you don't have to work so hard to keep people from talking to each other. Given the personalities and technology involved, I'm pessimistic that things are ever going to work smoothly the way that you want them to.

Usually, I use the basement to conduct discussions with players on events that only their characters experience. I do that to prevent others from overhearing what they should not know. I don't want it used as a tool to discuss out of session information. My goal is to maintain the sense of mystery and suspense in session.

As I said, IMO you should stop doing this. You're reinforcing the idea that the player is the character.

One multi-perspective game I played in - we were given pre-generated characters and backgrounds. The DM spent alot of time out in the hall with subsets of the group. It worked because a. the players were cooperative b. they weren't our characters.

 

[gizmo33]

or takes notes from them that I am using so I never have to refer to Ravenloft books at the table

Oh yea - seriously - I hide all my modules in manilla folders and I never let players see ANYTHING I'm using except for my DM screen.

Imagine me saying "you see an old man approaching you, he seems friendly and asks for directions" and simultaneous to that, I'm cracking open the Monster Manual and flipping to the demon section.

A good magician never reveals his tricks.

 

[Occhronustinrist]

Thanks Everyone

Thanks for all of the input, I am definitely going to try to put it to use. Specifically, I need to get the manuals out of view. I have a scanner and that seems like the easiest way to have stuff available when I need it.

The NPC interaction is going to be tough to do. I am trying to develop this NPC as a good recurring villian and the shot to the back really threw me. I must say I am pleased, the party REALLY wants to kill this NPC now. I am glad that I have effectively motivated them to see it as a villain. (See my web site for the campaign Journal, you can see how things went...

http://www.geocities.com/ghaunadaur99/Currentcamp/Knowledge/journal.html

Thanks Again!

-Oc

 

[lonesoldier]

meta gaming is using ooc knowledge to make ic decisions.

This is the best defintion. We all know that black dragons have that acid and swimming thing going on, but most peons wouldn't know that much about them (They probably haven't even seen one fly bye, much less use their breath weapon).

There are some automatic things we assume and use to our advantage, the abilities of creatures, the politics of councils, etc. Just make sure your players are not too blatent about it.

I like to punish my players with XP losses when they decide they know everything about every creature because they have read the Monster Manual.

1: Warning
2: Physical Violence (just joking, another Warning)
3: XP Penalty
4: Heavy XP Penalty
5: You are a level 1 Commoner, with the Chicken Infested flaw from Dragon #330.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

Imagine me saying "you see an old man approaching you, he seems friendly and asks for directions" and simultaneous to that, I'm cracking open the Monster Manual and flipping to the demon section.

A good magician never reveals his tricks.

Ah, but you HAVE! You've given up Everything! -Vissini, The Princess Bride.

I like this idea. The next time I introduce a harmless NPC to the PC's, I'm going to start flipping through the demons/devils/dragons region of the Monster Manual.

"A frail-looking figure *flip-flip* approaches you. His leathery skin is tanned and *flip* rough. *A look of ah-ha and a self-satisfied smile creep on to my face as I settle into my chair and begin running my finger down the stat block* He leans on a long, crooked staff, apparently to support himself. The old man raises his rhuemy gaze to you and says "Come here, Whippersnapper! It's time you got your comeuppance, boy!"

 

[DaveMage]

There is one other aspect of meta-gaming that can be very helpful and actually I encourage.

It boils down to this: Helping players achieve their characters' actual intelligence & wisdom.

For example, the barbarian in the party may not be able to solve a riddle, but the wizard could. However, the *player* of the wizard might not be able to solve the riddle, while the *player* of the barbarian could. In this instance, I would let the players collaborate and then have the wizard character provide the answer.

It's much easier for a player to play a character of low intelligence. Sometimes it's impossible for a player to play a character of truly high intelligence/wisdom. In the latter case, group-think is one way to achieve "higher" intellect - even if it's "metagame" thinking.