Using Meta-game Inforamation

[Water Bob]

How much, on average, meta-game, or outside-game, info do you let slip or purposefully tell your players?

During our last game session, the players got desperate and finally decided to try these vials of liquid I had placed in the game. These are small tubes, about 2.5 inches long with the diameter of a nickel. They're corked on one end and sealed with wax, and they usually come in a leather koozie to give the vial strength and help keep it from easily breaking.

They found some of these on an alchemists table, in the kitchen of the bad guys' lair, and on the bad guys' themselves. One had them stitched into little loops on his weapon belt, not unlike pistol ammo from the Old West.

The liquid inside was clear. No fiz. It just looked like water in the vial. Uncorking one revealed that it had no smell, like water, also.

It was when the PCs found a couple of vials at a defaced shrine (the PCs had no idea it was a "good" shrine--only that the bad guys had defaced the place), that one of the players got brave and tried it.

Just before the PC tried it, I reminded him that there is no healing potions in this game (we're playing the Conan RPG, where healing doesn't grow on trees like it does in a usual D&D game).

In fact, these small vials did contain a healing water--almost like a holy water. The stuff sprang from a blessed spring in the temple of a god from long ago. I actually used Meta-game information (that there are no healing potions in the Conan RPG) to dissuade my players from thinking that healing is what those vials contained. Since magic like this is so rare in this universe, the characters probably even think in that direction.

Do you do that sort of thing in your game? Actually lie to your players with Meta-game info to guide roleplaying decision making?





Once the PC tried the vial, I told him how fresh the water tasted--that it was the best water he'd ever had in his life. Then, I healed him a few hit points, 1d8+1.

My players were elated. They jumped for joy having found such a boon in a game where magical healing is about unheard of (especially by these characters, which are Barbarians who scorn any type of sorcerery).

Another player suggested that another vial be given to the little 5 year old girl they had just rescued (it's a long story--the object of their trek to the bad guys' hidden complex in the blasted lands). You see, when they found her, the bad guys had cut out her tongue, and she was feverish.

My intention with that, as GM, was to have the little girl get feverish, throw some dice rolls, and allow the girl to get deathly ill. I envisioned using this as a "push" to get the PCs back to their village in a hurry.

I thought of it as a win-win, thinking of a desperate trek with the sick girl, bad guys on their heels, with the temperature dropping and the rain setting in. If the girl died, then my players would feel it (because they're really attached to this NPC....I'd made her real friggin' cute in previous game sessions, then had the bad guys kidnap her), which is gold for a GM. I always strive for my players to get emotionally involved in the story. It so much more engrossing that way. I want them to care, and I got lucky with this little NPC girl in that both my players are quite fond of her (it doesn't hurt that both players have little girls of their own in real life).

When they found the girl and she had no tongue, both players were pissed. I saw that, and I knew I had them.

So, if the little girl died from the fever on the trail back, it makes for a great, dramatic story, and I've got two players determined to get revenge--great RPG stuff.

And, if the little girl made it (I'd leave it up to dice throws), then the players, since they care so much for the NPC, would have pulled of an objective that they're real invested in.

It's a win-win, as I said.

Well, once the nature of the vials was discovered, one of the players had the good idea to give one to the little girl. I thought this was a good idea and rewarded it by deciding not to do the feverish bit and just allow the girl to live.

Of course, my player really didn't know what a good idea that was--what an upcoming obstacle he had overcome before the obstacle had even presented itself.

So, I used meta-game info here, again, in telling my player that it was a great move on his part--he probably saved her life.

I told them of my plans to have them face the fever and the sickness as they tried to make their way back to the village, and I did that in order to make the player feel a sense of accomplishment--that he'd over come a major challenge in the game.

Do you ever use Meta-game information in this way?





Then, sometimes, for whatever reason, I'll get soft and tell my players information that they really have no business knowing. For example, I made up a sorcererous creature last game that looked like a twirling tornado of fog. I had decided that I would allow Piercing weapons to do one point of damage per hit, Blunt weapons do half damage, and Slicing weapons do full damage.

I didn't want to tell my players any of that info. That's stuff that they need to discover for themselves. But, there I was, after the game session as we were putting up, talking about the game, out of my mouth it came--all that damage stuff about how to hurt the beasties.

Ever do that? Let Meta-game info slip when you rather you hadn't told your players?





And, another instance of Meta-game info in our last game session also had to do with the fog monsters I had created. One of the players thought the way it spread was of intelligent design. He thought that either the fog itself was sentient or that someone or something was controlling the fog. I know that to be true, so I confirmed it with Meta-game info. But, this, I kinda did on purpose because it progressed my story. I didn't tell the players a lot--just kinda agreed that the fog seemed to be controlling itself or controlled by another force. And, this gets them to wonder about it--which is good for the game. Mystery.

Do you use Meta-game info in that way? To further your story and get your players focussed on the "right things"?

 

[Li Shenron]

I have occasionally revealed to the players some "behind the scenes" information, but usually afterwards. I don't know if this is the right thing to do, but at least it seems to me that in your example it didn't do any harm, and actually it sounds like your players are having a great time in your game, so keep up with your way

Recently I've read one article here at ENWorld about throwing an impossible encounter to the PC, and the DM had at some point explicitly told the players that it was impossible to kill the monster. Telling them so really improved the whole gaming session. I was intrigued by that case!

 

[Ringlerun]

Nope never used meta game info to prod the players.

Some players have complained that trying to get information out of me is like pulling rotting teeth with a rusty nail. My standard remark is " ask the right questions" I make sure the players work for every crumb of information they get. My players are a weird mob so i try not to create intricate stories and just use base outlines and let them create the nutty filling.

 

[pemerton]

Do you do that sort of thing in your game? Actually lie to your players with Meta-game info to guide roleplaying decision making?

Rarely quite like this. What I do quite often, though, is interject when the players are planning/debating/speculating, making suggestions or reminding them of events/concerns from earlier sessions, basically to stir the pot and to amp up the players' sense of what is at stake.

I told them of my plans to have them face the fever and the sickness as they tried to make their way back to the village, and I did that in order to make the player feel a sense of accomplishment--that he'd over come a major challenge in the game.

Do you ever use Meta-game information in this way?

Again, perhaps not quite like this, but (i) I will tell my players if they did stuff I hadn't anticipated, and (ii) I will often make it fairly clear what they've accomplished (for good or for ill) as a rseult of the choices they've made in playing their PCs. Again, the idea is to keep the stakes high and clear and mattering.

Ever do that? Let Meta-game info slip when you rather you hadn't told your players?

I'm sure I do, although I can't think of an example off the top of my head. Often when we're recapping from a previous session, I may not be exactly certain about what exactly the players had worked out, confirmed, speculated about, etc, and I'm sure sometimes in the course of this I've confirmed information for them that was merely speculative rather than certain coming out of the previous session's play.

Do you use Meta-game info in that way? To further your story and get your players focussed on the "right things"?

Yes. And for me, this overlaps pretty much with your first two categories. I don't want to hide the stakes from my players. I want them to know what's at stake, and care about it, so that they drive the game forward in making choices about it.

 

[Water Bob]

Another decision I've made is not to tell the players, Meta-game, a piece of information about the vials I mention in the OP. As I said, during the Hyborian Age, healing liquids are just about unheard of. They exist. But, typically, they're holy relics of some cult or what-not.

These particular vials deliver 1d8+1 hp of hit points per day. I know my players are going to at least blow one of the vials to amp up hit points. They only have three or four of these left, so blowing even one of them (drinking it with no effect because a day hasn't passed) is going to hurt their inventory.

I could Meta-game the one per day part just to be a nice guy GM and help the players keep a valuable resource, but I just can't bring myself to do it. I know that they're going to waste one at some point (probably sooner rather than later, given what I've got planned for next session), and that's just the way it's got to be.

 

[Oryan77]

The only time I really did try to help my players with meta-game information is when they were about to encounter 2 powerful servants of Orcus that were trying to restore Orcus to deity status. It was a final battle for a mega adventure. None of the players ever use buffs, so you can imagine how much more difficult their encounters can be. So I tried to be helpful and remind them to be prepared for this fight, I went ahead and told them this was "the big fight", and I even purposefully set the encounter up so that they were aware of the enemy and were provided with all the time they needed to buff before engaging. The cleric player was fairly new to D&D, which is another reason why I reminded them to buff up.

That all backfired. Rather than appreciate my help, they took it as me criticizing their ability to play D&D. They insisted that they didn't have much problem with defeating encounters (they survived them all so far) and they assured me that they worked just fine as a team. I felt that they were getting insulted, so I explained I was just trying to help and then I shut up.

Gameday comes, the encounter begins, they didn't do a single buff or use any magical items to give them an edge, and they just stepped into the room and rolled initiative.

My NPCs dropped the Cleric to negatives in 2 rounds, the others were close to dropping, the Sorceress teleports them all out at the end of round 2, has a mishap and teleports into a cavern wall, which does just enough damage to permanently kill the cleric. Leaving the fight allowed the BBEGs to accomplish their goal, and because the party didn't buff up, Orcus is going on a rampage across the planes as a god once again.

After the game, they started emailing each other saying things like, "We should have buffed before going in..."

 

[Piratecat]

My players were preparing to face down an illithid elder brain in the underdark. As they planned, I took the unusual step of commenting on their plans as they went. Then I started telling them that certain plans just wouldn't work, or were a bad idea, and I made pained faces at certain suggestions. My players thought it was odd, but they started settling on a really awful plan.

Then, Sagiro put it together. "Waittasec! Are you saying all this in and out of game?" I shrugged. "It's what you know."

By then, he realized that they were being telepathically influenced by the elder brain, and they completely ignored my awful suggestions. Every once in a while they'd tell me to shut up. It was a great encounter.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

My players were preparing to face down an illithid elder brain in the underdark. As they planned, I took the unusual step of commenting on their plans as they went. Then I started telling them that certain plans just wouldn't work, or were a bad idea, and I made pained faces at certain suggestions. My players thought it was odd, but they started settling on a really awful plan.

Then, Sagiro put it together. "Waittasec! Are you saying all this in and out of game?" I shrugged. "It's what you know."

By then, he realized that they were being telepathically influenced by the elder brain, and they completely ignored my awful suggestions. Every once in a while they'd tell me to shut up. It was a great encounter.

You're an evil, evil man!

Olaf the Stout

 

[Water Bob]

...the Sorceress teleports them all out at the end of round 2, has a mishap and teleports into a cavern wall, which does just enough damage to permanently kill the cleric. Leaving the fight allowed the BBEGs to accomplish their goal, and because the party didn't buff up, Orcus is going on a rampage across the planes as a god once again.

Wha....what's it say on that shirt? Oh. "I fought Orcus, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt."

 

[the Jester]

How much, on average, meta-game, or outside-game, info do you let slip or purposefully tell your players?

During our last game session, the players got desperate and finally decided to try these vials of liquid I had placed in the game.... Just before the PC tried it, I reminded him that there is no healing potions in this game

Do you do that sort of thing in your game? Actually lie to your players with Meta-game info to guide roleplaying decision making?

I wouldn't consider that using metagame information. You told the players what their characters believed to be true, based on the world. I do that kind of thing all the time, and yes, it can sometimes mislead them.

Another player suggested that another vial be given to the little 5 year old girl they had just rescued (it's a long story--the object of their trek to the bad guys' hidden complex in the blasted lands). You see, when they found her, the bad guys had cut out her tongue, and she was feverish. ... Well, once the nature of the vials was discovered, one of the players had the good idea to give one to the little girl. I thought this was a good idea and rewarded it by deciding not to do the feverish bit and just allow the girl to live.

Of course, my player really didn't know what a good idea that was--what an upcoming obstacle he had overcome before the obstacle had even presented itself.

So, I used meta-game info here, again, in telling my player that it was a great move on his part--he probably saved her life.

I told them of my plans to have them face the fever and the sickness as they tried to make their way back to the village, and I did that in order to make the player feel a sense of accomplishment--that he'd over come a major challenge in the game.

Do you ever use Meta-game information in this way?

Hmm, rarely, but once in a while, yes. It doesn't affect anything since it's already done.

Then, sometimes, for whatever reason, I'll get soft and tell my players information that they really have no business knowing. For example, I made up a sorcererous creature last game that looked like a twirling tornado of fog. I had decided that I would allow Piercing weapons to do one point of damage per hit, Blunt weapons do half damage, and Slicing weapons do full damage.

I didn't want to tell my players any of that info. That's stuff that they need to discover for themselves. But, there I was, after the game session as we were putting up, talking about the game, out of my mouth it came--all that damage stuff about how to hurt the beasties.

Ever do that? Let Meta-game info slip when you rather you hadn't told your players?

No, never. Well, I'm not perfect, so I guess I'll say I do that very, very rarely. I try hard to be very careful about that sort of thing, especially if the pcs might meet the same type of monster again later; basically, if the knowledge might impact play later, I try very hard to avoid letting it slip.

And, another instance of Meta-game info in our last game session also had to do with the fog monsters I had created. One of the players thought the way it spread was of intelligent design. He thought that either the fog itself was sentient or that someone or something was controlling the fog. I know that to be true, so I confirmed it with Meta-game info. But, this, I kinda did on purpose because it progressed my story. I didn't tell the players a lot--just kinda agreed that the fog seemed to be controlling itself or controlled by another force. And, this gets them to wonder about it--which is good for the game. Mystery.

Do you use Meta-game info in that way? To further your story and get your players focussed on the "right things"?

The pcs are always focused on the "right things" in my campaign, because the story is what we relate when telling their adventures after the fact rather than something I work to keep them following during play. (In other words, I'm a pretty hardcore sandbox style dm.)

Which isn't to say that the bad guys don't have agendas or plots, but rather that I'm happy to let them grow and evolve without pc interference if the pcs want to ignore them.

But to this specific case, if the pcs come to a conclusion, right or wrong, I'll generally just nod and give a noncommittal "Could be" or "looks that way" or something.

EDIT: Oh, there's an exception- I fairly well throw the books open on information about past stuff when someone moves far away, or if I move cities or something and there are members of the group who aren't gonna be able to play in my game anymore. Basically, if you're losing access to my game and I can trust you to keep yer trap shut to other players who are still involved.