What is Meta-gaming anyways?

[takyris]

This was one of my favorite recent exchanges with a player:

Player: Whoah -- a gigantic humanoid monster composed of solid shadows and radiating a chilling aura! All right, my guy commands his brand-new brilliant-energy bastard sword to go into energy mode, and then he lunges in to attack!

Me: Um, Player, you do know that brilliant energy weapons don't damage undead, right?

Player: Yes I do. But my character doesn't.

Me: Well, actually, we just sort of handwaved the fact that your new bastard sword is intelligent, since we were trying hard to get to the next big group thing, and the sword self-identified itself to you because your alignments are similar. It's reasonable to assume that your character knows that brilliant energy weapons wouldn't work on undead.

Player: That's an excellent point... except that my character doesn't know that the nightwalker is undead. He thinks it's some kind of outsider.

Me: Swing away.

I believe that I was out-anti-meta-gamed.

-Tacky

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't know that I would agree that meta-gaming is simply using Out-Of-Character knowledge. Metagaming, to me, is something more specific - using knowledge of the game rules and performing actions that would be not only out of character, but ludicrous within the game confines.

Burning a troll might just be a prudent action - even if you don't "know" that they regenerate.

Doing something specifically because you get more experience points that way - that's metagaming.

Any time Brian (in KoDT) says something like, "well, I pay the hirelings exactly 11.5 sp a day, because that's just enough to overcome the negative loyalty penalty - and then I'll cast 'Shift Blame' on the sergeant at arms when the -20% long term penalty kicks in" - that's metagaming.

 

[willpax]

Here is another example, perhaps a bit less borderline than some:

A player whose character was an illiterate woodsman in a low magic campaign (the party is around 3rd level) is joining in on a kind of raid of an evil temple to effect a cure on another party member.

The central area is a large underground cavern with a rocklike, 140 ft. round spider statue, and in the dirt floor around the statue is a complex, interweaving pattern of symbols and words in a strange language that seems to form an unbroken circle.

The party's wizard, having appropriate knowledge (arcane), points down as they step over the symbols and says "don't touch those."

The player in question was staying to guard the escape route. The others found out what they thought was a spider statue was actually a large, disturbingly animated creature that began chomping people in half. Luckily for the party, it did not discriminate between the party members and the priests and guards who had come to drive the party out.

While the battle rages and the party members desperately try to climb down from said large creature, the player in question (who rolled poorly on initiative) announces that he is going to destroy the pattern by running an arrow through the dirt.

The wizard gives up his own desperate attempt to climb down to spend a round yelling "no!" but the player does it anyway.

A brief yet spectacular display of arcane energies later, and the player has released a demon to work its own particular destruction on the world. He defended his actions by reasoning that:

1. I would never put something in an adventure that the party had no chance of defeating.
2. He reasoned that, because it was invulnerable to our weapons, it must therefore be powered by the magic circle around it. Therefore, destroying the circle would stop the creature.

Some of the other players were quite incensed about this, and pointed out that his character would not reasonably know about the way these magics worked, and that he showed he had very little knowledge about the way I constructed adventures. I had no problem with this, as I had just been handed a wonderful Plot Twist on a silver platter.

So: is this level of metagaming acceptable or unacceptable, and, if so, under which conditions? Should the problem of metagaming be subsumed under the general problem of players with incompatible play styles? Or is this simply a kind of arms-race style problem, where the DM should anticipate a certain level of metagaming and work with it? (to explain: I was, to a certain extent, relying on my long-time players' knowledge that I do, indeed, put in things that their only good option is to run away from; is that metagaming on my part? Is the duel between player expectation and DM innovation part of the fun?)

 

[jasper]

Hmm I don’t see the difference between Prestige class and other editions special orders.
Neither is metagaming. Your character, Ricky, wants to become a member of Bucky the Wonder Paladin Patrol. In first edition this could mean a fifth level paladin, warhorse, and your own +2 weapon. And side adventure just for him. To in third edition +6 ride, warhorse, +3 will. Different min qualifications. To me wanting to join the Army Band, the qualifications would be in the Army and pass instrument test etc. Basically if a Ricky wants join Emeril’s Iron Chef brigade he would know of or be able to find out the qualifications Emeril is looking for. BAM!.

Scenario design of what the players are running vs this adventure is for six to eight character between sixth to eight level and the party should have at least a thief and cleric. Does not look that module design has change that much between editions. Also what dm has never adjusted a module, adventure, home brew etc to suit the players. Gee everyone is running fighters, rangers, dwarves, and thieves against the hill giants. I will replace magic items with heal potions or add heal potions to treasure.

Metagaming where this trap is too tough or the game logic that were all first level, to quote a fuzzy bear, so no way the dm will throw a hydra against us. Or as some one as already stated this CR is too high.
Depends on the DM. Some may want you to run away and the monster will kindly let you go. Or if you tell the other players it just have to be an illusion. Well +4 chance of the hydra thinking your character is a nice summer DQ treat.

So what does Ricky the Crazy Cook know what is common knowledge, uncommon knowledge, trivia, etc. That is problem. The DM and players need to discuss how much Ricky knows about the EVIL POP n FRESH goleum vs PirateCat having read the article during lunch.

Felon there is a difference between the your character the brainless Clown Cruzy discovering this vampire likes garlic. Against Felon blurting out is a the Italian Vampire Frank Knee Capper Sinatra, who appear in Buffy episode 56, 89, 33. Deep Space Nine Episode 99. On wait a minute we running the H3 The Hall of Justice. I open my pack and throw goose pate into Frankie eyes. Then arguing that Clown Cruzy that Cruzy would know that because you running him. Even when clown face has never face any undead or did research in game on vamps.

Medium metagaming is Felon yelling help me I down to 5 hit pt. And the cleric saying I healing Bob because his fighting is down. To get rid of this which I don’t mind. Have Felon yell Help Priest of Thor I on my last legs.

Monster knowledge. In the other editions I made the players make kill sheets on the monsters they axed. Plus the could spend gold pieces to learn more. The amount of gold against what you learned was based various things like how rare, locality, etc.
Monster knowledge in third. I scatter info between religion undead, arcana, knowledge local, wildness lore, history etc. Instead of creating more knowledge categories, and the players discuss what the roll should be. Ex. Ghasts Religion 12, Arcana 15, Knowledge local varies etc. Still trying to get the kinks out.

Pc forehead. I am Npc to I am the guest star of the week. I generally allow the party to accept the new player/character and continue to game. Why? Most of us hate the part of we gather the heroes/new hero scene.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

He defended his actions by reasoning that:

1. I would never put something in an adventure that the party had no chance of defeating.
2. He reasoned that, because it was invulnerable to our weapons, it must therefore be powered by the magic circle around it. Therefore, destroying the circle would stop the creature.

1. This is a somewhat hard to avoid issue. There are DMs of both stripes and if you are used to playing with a DM that always makes the encounters defeatable in some way it is going to color your thinking whether you expect it to or not. This could also be explained in character with little effort. Much like in the real world where young people take wild chances with thier life because they think they are invulnerable and immortal. Surely in the fantasy world there are people like that who dispite common sense decide that they know what they are doing no matter what the real risks may be.

2. If I was in such a situation in the real world (unlikely I know) I have heard enough stories about magic circles (As far as I know they don't work in the real world so if I ran into one would I realy know what to do with it) that If my weapons didn't work at all it would be time to try another solution. Breaking the circle may be good or bad but the situation is already bad so it might be worth a try. Why would the character know not to break the circle? Sure the wizard said don't toch those, but how often in the real world do people touch things there told not to. Hospitals are full of stories of people doing stupid things for no apparent reason. The other players complained that his character would have no idea how these things would work, but isn't that exactly what he proved.

 

[tonym]

I believe that I was out-anti-meta-gamed.

-Tacky

Out-anti-meta-gamed!
Haha, that is TOO funny.



Tony M

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

There is a continuum of metagaming that I think players and DM's need to discuss amongst themselves before committing to silly actions based on assumptions (like freeing the demon because "the DM would never do that").

I know the rules pretty well. I know a lot about many monsters in the MM. I try hard not to use that knowledge in game unless I get the DM's blessing.

For example, I played in a game recently where we fought a Devourer. By coincidence, I had been going through the MM the day before, looking for nasty undead to use in my own game, and had read the Devourer's description, so I knew it had a nasty save or die attack.

I was playing a fairly high level cleric with a good Knowledge: Religion skill, so I passed the DM a note saying "I think I know what this is and what it can do, would my PC know as well?"

The DM had me roll a skill check, and I got in the high 20's, and she said, "Sure, you know its powers."

If she had said no, I wouldn't have used the knowledge.

Basically it boils down to the players and DM have to sit down and talk about what kind of game they want to be involved in, and hopefully everyone can agree.

 

[ced1106]

I created a new class of knowledge skills:

Good work. I was about to mention that EQ RPG has Knowledge skills for the various types of monsters, but you just save thirty bucks.

Fun thing about a Knowledge DC check: "Well, you THINK it might be vulnerable to silver. Or was that magic?"


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[FireLance]

To me, the line between metagaming - however you want to define it - and no metagaming is too thin to bother with.

PCs knowing about the weaknesses of mythical creatures can be explained by awreness of folklore and legend. If you don't like this as a DM, change the creatures' vulnerabilities.

PCs who refuse to run away, or try crazy things in the belief that the DM won't give them an encounter they can't beat can be explained as simply being foolhardy or stubborn (and, in all likelihood, dead).

As long as your group is having fun, does it matter what level of metagaming you have?

 

[Fenes 2]

As long as your group is having fun, does it matter what level of metagaming you have?

Depends on the level of fun you have. I know that I have more fun with less metagaming (and with more social interaction than combat).