Out-of-character/metagame knowledge

[pemerton]

I think it bears repetition: in a game that relies upon hidden information, which is the case for many D&D modules (as well as many other games, like many card games, Mastermind, etc), then if a player has acquired the information in some way other than through their gameplay the game will be compromised (at best) or ruined (at worst).

If a play gets the hidden information through underhanded means, that's what we call cheating. And the problem with cheating isn't that it's metagaming - the problem with cheating is that it's cheating!

There can also be accidental behaviour that has the same consequences as cheating - eg I'm playing cards, and I don't deliberately look at your cards but I catch a glimpse of them when you turn your head to answer a question and inadvertently turn your body, and hence your hand that is holding the cards, at the same time. If I see one card and its the 8 of clubs and the bid is diamonds, it probably doesn't matter and we can play on. If the card I see is the jack of diamonds, and the fact that you had that card hadn't already been made clear by the bidding, then maybe it's time for a redeal.

In RPGing which doesn't rely on hidden information, then the player knowing what sorts of ideas the GM has in mind and using that to shape their play will be metagaming, but seems as likely to help as to hinder play. I'm thinking here of Burning Wheel, maybe some PbtA play, In A Wicked Age, maybe some HeroWars/Quest, Wuthering Heights, etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think there’s an interesting juxtaposition among things that normally get classified as metagaming.

There’s the classic example of players whose characters have never encountered trolls before deploying fire immediately upon finding one. This is very often viewed in a negative light. Many GMs will restrict such action or at the very least frown upon it.

But the same GM will introduce the plothook of the half-elven mage dropping his notes at the PCs’ feet and will expect the players to have their characters take the cue. Here’s the adventure…please bite and I’ll reel you in. This is good metagaming because it facilitates play.

That’s the kind of dichotomy that I think was suggested in the OP. It’s an interesting phenomenon.

Does this often happen because the GM is the arbiter of what’s “good” or “bad” metagaming?

I view the first example as one of the players communicating to the GM “okay let’s get on with it”. Much as the second is an example of the GM saying to the players “here we go”.

Is the first frowned upon because it originates with the players? Or that it contradicts what the GM wants to see? Or is there something else going on?

 

[James Gasik]

Plus let's be honest. If you fight a werewolf without silver or a mummy without fire, what the heck are you supposed to do? Die?*

*Ok, granted, you could flee, but a werewolf can probably catch you, and, depending on the edition, fleeing is a lot harder than it sounds. in AD&D you open yourself up to a free hit, in 3.x the Run action lowers defenses -and- provokes, and the same might be true for players taking the Dash action in 5e. This is why in 3e I usually kept an Obscuring Mist or similar spell prepared.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Plus let's be honest. If you fight a werewolf without silver or a mummy without fire, what the heck are you supposed to do? Die?*

*Ok, granted, you could flee, but a werewolf can probably catch you, and, depending on the edition, fleeing is a lot harder than it sounds. in AD&D you open yourself up to a free hit, in 3.x the Run action lowers defenses -and- provokes, and the same might be true for players taking the Dash action in 5e. This is why in 3e I usually kept an Obscuring Mist or similar spell prepared.

Two things-

First, I have somewhat recently played 5e with a group of ... newbies ... who didn't know the "troll rule." Their expectations of trolls was from Troll Hunter, and things like that. Anyway, watching them try to deal with regenerating trolls was fun AND hilarious (and fire didn't come up as a solution until a very long time into it).

Second-

One of the problems with D&D is that the players always know too much. This is news? “You obtain surprise over three Clickclicks.” “Clickclicks? Oh, yeah, they’re in Supplement Three. Hand it to me. And where’s Greyhawk? It had a note about them.” A pause. “We shout out ‘November’.”
“That’s right, the Clickclicks fall over dead.”
Sound familiar?

Where is that from? The lament that players know too much about monsters? That players are .... horrors .... metagaming? That would be Dragon Magazine, October ... 1977.

The essential problem with the framing we have here is that any time you are playing a TTRPG, you are engaging in metagaming (unless you're like Tom Hanks' character in Mazes and Monsters). If you, as a player, know that trolls are affected by fire, then:
A. You attack with fire. Metagaming.
B. You don't attack with fire. Metagaming, because you are ruling out something you might try but for your out-of-game knowledge.
C. You call for a roll to see if your character would know this. Metagaming, because you wouldn't ask for the roll if you didn't know it would probably succeed.

The issue is that "metagaming" has a pejorative connotation in TTRPGs in general, and D&D specifically, because it's been called out in the rules books. The DM's guide in the third, fourth, and fifth editions all "call out" metagaming-

"Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like a character in a movie knowing he's in a movie and acting accordingly." (DMG 4e p. 15)

Because of this, and related discourse around "metagaming," it's usually unhelpful to introduce it as a concept since players are supposed to be encouraged to think in "in-game terms." But viewed more broadly, metagaming is always present. Always. Using the term is usually either (a) a distraction from the actual topic of conversation; or (b) a rhetorical hammer used to make a point by employing the negative connotation of the term.

Either way, unhelpful. And if you want to fireball that troll, go right ahead.

 

[James Gasik]

You have to wonder how humans actually survived in a D&D world with all these horrible monsters. Ok, sure, once they discovered fire, they would try it on everything, so they're ok with trolls.

That first werebear though, in an age before metalworking...

 

[aramis erak]

The issue is that "metagaming" has a pejorative connotation in TTRPGs in general, and D&D specifically, because it's been called out in the rules books. The DM's guide in the third, fourth, and fifth editions all "call out" metagaming-

"Metagame thinking means thinking about the game as a game. It's like a character in a movie knowing in he's in a movie and acting accordingly." (DMG 4e p. 15)

Because of this, and related discourse around "metagaming," it's usually unhelpful to introduce it as a concept since players are supposed to be encouraged to think in "in-game terms." But viewed more broadly, metagaming is always present. Always. Using the term is usually either (a) a distraction from the actual topic of conversation; or (b) a rhetorical hammer used to make a point by employing the negative connotation of the term.

Either way, unhelpful. And if you want to fireball that troll, go right ahead.

Gygax was VERY much "Players shouldn't know the rules"... the AD&D 1E DMG is pretty over the top about that issue.

As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages" and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment - insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.

Other places go even further than this.

Given D&D was always the 800 lb gorilla; this hostility to player rules mastery can be laid squarely at the feet of the late Mr. Gygax.

 

[James Gasik]

I wonder which one of his players inspired this level of rage? I'm going to guess Robert Kuntz.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Gygax was VERY much "Players shouldn't know the rules"... the AD&D 1E DMG is pretty over the top about that issue.

Other places go even further than this.

Given D&D was always the 800 lb gorilla; this hostility to player rules mastery can be laid squarely at the feet of the late Mr. Gygax.

Asked about his feeling on metagaming, Gygax replied as such:

Depends on the subject matter and the character. Who can say what a PC knws and doesn't know aboit the world he lives in? if it's something that could be known, then there's no metagaming involved.

Also, coming up with new ideas not common to the assumed society should not be labeled as metagaming is the PC is reasonably inteligent.

Getting to the case of the wind walker, the PC I was playing had faced one before, also associated with a broad range of knowledgeable, high-level characters. Thus he (I) should have remembered how to attack the critter. It was a case player NUMBRAINING, NOT A HINT OF METAGAMING THERE

Cheers,
GAry


Source? Well, that would be this forum.

Given that OD&D and AD&D is associated with so-called "Skilled Play" which ... well, it required metagaming, I don't think that's an accurate summary of the issue. As with most things, it's complicated. Which is why a conversation about metagaming qua metagaming isn't helpful.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I wonder which one of his players inspired this level of rage? I'm going to guess Robert Kuntz.

Well, given that Rob was a co-DM in the early days, I think it would have been difficult to keep the material away.

It's more an example of the typical Gygaxian bombast. The 1e DMG is one of the truly great works in RPGs... but it's also full of contradictory rules, and sometimes plain old bad advice.

If you let Gygax write long enough, he is likely to provide you three compelling, and completely antithetical, opinions about the same topic.

 

[James Gasik]

I guess that makes sense, the 1e DMG is basically the D&D Bible. I still use mine to this day, as there are TONS of tools and ideas in there that modern books cut out in favor of flashy full page digital art.

I'm sure a good percentage of Gary's rhetoric was hyperbole, but, alas, many DM's seemed to take it as gospel...