Why do you hate meta-gaming? (And what does it mean to you?)

[Big J Money]

These are good example, so I'll start here

Metagaming examples that seem too mild to call cheating, yet make the game less fun:

"We're playing a Living Module and the XP budget only allows so much, so that dragon cannot be real. I ignore it and attack the other guy"

"Although my character has no knowledge of aboleths, I do, so I stay at the back and let the other players charge it"

"I read about Tomb of Horrors online, so I'll let the others climb into that mouth and not die myself"

"The Gm knows that the young kid playing the druid will get super-upset when their animal companion gets hurt, so we'll use it to scout ahead".

1) This is an implausible description of a person's roleplaying. If it's already been stated that a dragon is present, then to say it's not (without explanation, such as the dragon being invisible, or imaginary in the first place, etc, etc) contradicts what was said before.

2) Another implausible description. This could be corrected simply by coming up with a reason why your character might have heard a legend about an Aboleth.

3) Not implausible at all as described, but likely cheating (I'll clarify what I mean by cheating below).

4) I'm sure whether I'm understanding this one; what are the implications of it scouting ahead? That it will avoid danger or be put in harm's way to upset the player? If it's the former, then it isn't even meta-gaming because it's perfectly reasonable for the party to wish that their druid's companion stay safe. Again, I might not have understood this.

Aside from #4, which I'm unsure of until it's clarified, sure 1-3 can be defined as meta-gaming. But that isn't what makes them bad. What makes them bad is that they either create an implausible and inconsistent reality, or they're cheating against the gaming group's sensibilities.

Cheating is subjective; it's defined by each playing group. If I'm DMing a campaign, then my expectations (which I would ask the group beforehand if they are correct expectations) might be 1) that monsters from a particular sourcebook remain secret, 2) that adventure modules remain secret, and 3) that characters will face risk during encounters, and this risk is not to be avoided purely by OOC knowledge (i.e. meta-gaming is fine as long as it's not abused as a method of cheating)

However, I might just as easily run a campaign where myself and the rest of the group doesn't care if some of the players have knowledge from a monster sourcebook where I draw encounters from. In that case, using their OOC knowledge to avoid risks against the monsters would not be considered cheating.

 

[innerdude]

I think there's a distinction to made here between "meta-gaming" and "meta-authoring."

Meta-gaming, to me, only occurs when the player thought process specifically revolves around something that ultimately manipulates the real or possible mechanical resolution in-game. Reading an adventure before hand, for example, meets this criteria, because the use of that out-of-fiction knowledge directly impacts in-game mechanical resolutions --- checks for traps, avoiding damage and resource depletion because a combat encounter is bypassed, furiously insisting that every character in the game bring an extra torch and a vial of acid because the player KNOWS that they will be encountering trolls, because resolving the troll encounter successfully hinges on meeting the requirements of the game mechanics.

The "jumping on an idea the GM just spouted off and then running with it because it's obviously more interesting than what we're doing now" is meta-authoring. You're completely re-constructing the characters' intentions and motivations in the fiction based on something that happened out of fiction, something the characters could have no conception of. In a sense, meta-authoring could be seen as a subset of meta-gaming, but in my mind the functional practice of the two touches on two distinct points.

Cheating is subjective; it's defined by each playing group. If I'm DMing a campaign, then my expectations (which I would ask the group beforehand if they are correct expectations) might be 1) that monsters from a particular sourcebook remain secret, 2) that adventure modules remain secret, and 3) that characters will face risk during encounters, and this risk is not to be avoided purely by OOC knowledge (i.e. meta-gaming is fine as long as it's not abused as a method of cheating)

However, I might just as easily run a campaign where myself and the rest of the group doesn't care if some of the players have knowledge from a monster sourcebook where I draw encounters from. In that case, using their OOC knowledge to avoid risks against the monsters would not be considered cheating.

Okay, so maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I think cheating, at least in terms of an RPG, is objective, while metagaming is subjective.

"Cheating" is direct misrepresentation by a player of a mechanical resolution process explicitly outlined in the rules. If a player action can be directly referenced in the game rules by another player and the mechanics explicitly say, "That's not allowed," it's cheating. Any other kind of out-of-fiction manipulation falls under the heading of meta-gaming.

Ex 1. -- "To see if you hit a target, roll 1d20, add your base attack bonus, add and subtract all relevant modifiers. If your final number meets or exceeds to the targets Armor Class, you hit."

You roll an 11, but instead tell your GM you rolled a 20 -- Cheating.


Ex 2. -- [Based on the progression chart for a given class, the game indicates a character should have a total of 2 feats at second level and 40 skill points.]

Player: "No way, I'm totally giving myself seven feats and 65 skill points." -- Cheating

Thus, the example of telling the players not to read from source book X to find out about monster stats is an attempt to avoid meta-gaming, not cheating. In fact, the player is perfectly free to read every monster stat block in Monster Manual X if they choose, and it will have no discernible effect on your game if the player chooses not to use that knowledge in play.

The only reason I'm being picky about it is I think it's an important distinction. If meta-gaming is just a form of cheating, then let's just call it "cheating." If meta-gaming is semantically something else, then let's have a real differentiation between them.

 

[Big J Money]

To me the definition of "meta-gaming" is, "The use of knowledge about the mechanical constructs of the game to manipulate outcomes in the game in such a way that the outcomes a) do not fall within a reasonable spectrum of in-fiction causality, or b) break the agreed-upon social contract of how outcomes should be resolved."

Am I incorrect in restating it thus:

"The use of knowledge of mechanical constructs of the game to manipulate outcomes in the game such that they a) become implausible, or d) are considering cheating" ?

That's what I was talking about in my OP. If the two main objectives to meta-gaming are always these 2 results, then why do people demonize meta-gaming rather than these things?

I pose the question, because if it's possible that meta-game can occur without doing either a) or b), then the demonization is uncalled for. Your definition of course precludes that meta-gaming has any other connotations than these two things, of course. I'm going to post later about this.

Edit: I read your latest reply, thanks. I can see now why you believe the term is necessary, by your definition of it and your definition of cheating. I use cheating in a looser way than you, obviously.

 

[innerdude]

Am I incorrect in restating it thus:

"The use of knowledge of mechanical constructs of the game to manipulate outcomes in the game such that they a) become implausible, or d) are considering cheating" ?

That's what I was talking about in my OP. If the two main objectives to meta-gaming are always these 2 results, then why do people demonize meta-gaming rather than these things?

I pose the question, because if it's possible that meta-game can occur without doing either a) or b), then the demonization is uncalled for. Your definition of course precludes that meta-gaming has any other connotations than these two things, of course. I'm going to post later about this.

I hope my follow-up post clarifies it somewhat ----

Cheating = I broke the rules, and anyone who a) knows what I did and b) looks at the rulebook will know I broke the rules.

Meta-gaming = I'm using knowledge about the construct of the game rules and its mechanics to manipulate outcomes without explicitly breaking a written rule.

As a side note, I stated earlier that I wasn't going to address "characters acting implausibly," but I think my conception of "meta-authoring" pretty much covers that base.

 

[Beleriphon]

I've always fallen into the "Who cares" camp for most meta-gaming. Especially monster stats. I'll take players knowing trolls are affected by fire, but then put them in an area where fire is a bad idea (exploding gas, or something similar) as a way to make the players actually think about what to do. Because at its core every single decision that a player makes is a meta-game decision. Nothing we do in an RPG is a decision as a character, its a decision as a player about what we want our character to do.

 

[Big J Money]

Summarizing info gathered so far, two or more (quite different) definitions of meta-gaming have so far emerged. So there is already not one clear meaning to "meta-gaming" when people use it without some explanation.

This one has been the most popular so far

• Meta-gaming is a subset of cheating
• Meta-gaming requires the manipulation of rules; not just the fiction
  (Potentially related, but let me know if you think this should be unrelated):
• Meta-gaming is broader than RPGs, and relates to using rules in unanticipated ways to gain advantages that "feel against the spirit of play" to other players

To summarize this definition: “Meta-gaming is a manipulation of game rules that is broader than pen and paper RPGs. It involves the manipulation of rules in unanticipated ways that are deemed either “cheating” or “against the spirit of play” by other players in the group.”

Implications:

• Meta-gaming is an act that can't be identified or judged globally, but must be done so by each individual gaming group in each instance.
• Meta-gaming is a subjective act, not an objective one (i.e. what would “feel against the spirit of play” to one group might not to another.)
• Meta-gaming is inherently “bad”, because it’s subjectively so by definition.
• This definition doesn’t mention implausibility of fiction

This is intriguing because I hear people use the term objectively. Instead of “that would be considered meta-gaming to my group” I much more often hear “that’s meta-gaming”. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone use the term subjectively, actually. So I’m skeptical of this definition. It also neglects to mention fictional implausibility, which often comes up in discussions on meta-gaming.


Here is another emerging definition (granted by 1 person, so far):

• Meta-gaming is making decisions based on information not available to the character, [example: the fact that the world isn't real and you're actually playing a game.]
• Role-playing is making decisions as your character would.
• Sometimes, meta-gaming is the lesser of two evils, and should be permitted in small doses where necessary

Implications

• Role-playing and meta-gaming are incompatible activities, by definition
• Meta-gaming is therefore bad/evil, since the players’ goal is to role-play
• This definition accounts for meta-gaming’s relationship to implausible narration of character action

I want to point out that some of these are unclear statements and should be refined (which is why I didn’t summarize a definition yet). A couple open questions I have:

• Which OOC information, if any, is allowed for one to still be considered role-playing? The example mentions out of fiction knowledge (that we’re people sitting at a table), but what about fictional knowledge the character couldn’t know? I’ve used that before and will argue that I was still fully engaged in playing the role of my character
• What does “making decisions as your character would” mean? In all my years of role-playing this is one of the more vague definitions I’ve read. I’m concerned that this is a subjectively loaded term but would like to see clarification to avoid misunderstanding. Some people have already disagreed with this definition, so this may also be factious and require more evidence.

This is intriguing because I also don't often see people explain their definition of meta-gaming, or even recognize that the term is subjective.

Finally, some people mentioned that they don’t like meta-gaming because it breaks their immersion. Would anyone care to elaborate on that, or are any of the above definitions adequate explanations for why?

 

[Nytmare]

Other things that fit the definition of metagaming that exist outside of role playing games:

• Opening with paper in a game of rock, paper, scissors because statistically, more people open with rock.
• Brute forcing your way through a half solved puzzle in a Locked Room game by trying every combination in the last one or two digits in a four digit combination lock.
• In Magic the Gathering, building a deck for a night of gaming that will beat what you know will be a very popular deck made by other players.
• Making a choice in a almost any game to affect your placement on a online leaderboard or achievements page.
  

 

[Big J Money]

I think I'm willing to argue that metagaming has taken on a specialized meaning in pen and paper roleplaying. Would you disagree?

If you agree, would you also agree that this definition has by now even broken away from its roots as a specialized a subcategory of broader metagaming, and has its own unique and different definition?

Or, is this just still the case of a word (when applied to PnP RPGs) that doesn't have one or more clear and effective definitions in its common use? (Or something else)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

• Which OOC information, if any, is allowed for one to still be considered role-playing? The example mentions out of fiction knowledge (that we’re people sitting at a table), but what about fictional knowledge the character couldn’t know? I’ve used that before and will argue that I was still fully engaged in playing the role of my character
• What does “making decisions as your character would” mean? In all my years of role-playing this is one of the more vague definitions I’ve read. I’m concerned that this is a subjectively loaded term but would like to see clarification to avoid misunderstanding. Some people have already disagreed with this definition, so this may also be factious and require more evidence.

The basic act of role-playing is to imagine that this is a character who actually lives within the world that's described, and make decisions from that character's perspective, based on what they know and believe and events that have occurred in their past. All out-of-character information is disallowed from a role-playing standpoint. If it's information that the character doesn't know, then there's no way that the character would make a decision that takes it into account. If the character doesn't know that trolls are weak to fire, or that the password is SWORDFISH, then they could not possibly make a decision to act upon that knowledge.

The subjective part is that it's not always obvious to everyone whether any given information is something that the character would know. Does the character know that trolls are weak to fire? If you're playing Pathfinder, then you can make a knowledge check to determine that; otherwise, it's up to the player and the DM to work together on figuring out whether the character has this knowledge (but if you just assume that the character does, without consulting the DM, then you'll probably get accused of meta-gaming - if you wanted to play a troll-hunter who knew all about trolls and their weaknesses, then you should have established that with the DM before you ever found out that you would be encountering a troll in the game).

Things get more complicated when you try to talk about Hit Points, or sometimes even spell slots. At some tables, the characters can see the general health level of everyone around them, so the player can make a decision based on current/total HP and that's not meta-gaming because the character can make the same decision based on what they see - who is cut, and who is coughing up blood. At other tables, Hit Points are a vague abstraction about luck and skill or something, and... I'm not sure how anyone ever decides when to cast a Cure spell, because it seems like that would always require meta-gaming, but there's a reason why I don't use that interpretation at my table. And you could go on with turns, initiative, AC, or other game mechanics; to some players, it will be obvious that this reflects character information that they can act upon, and to other players the opposite will be equally obvious.

As with any significant disagreement about playstyle, you should talk this over with the group before you start playing, in order to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

 

[Big J Money]

If it's information that the character doesn't know, then there's no way that the character would make a decision that takes it into account.

You realize this is impossible, right? As a 20th century human, I'm tainted by modern thought and culture. If I'm trying to roleplay a medieval era character, I'm already influenced by thoughts and ideas, as well as be lacking a necessary and infinite amount of potential information (that my character would know) as I relate to any given scenario. There is no perfection; there's only the attempt at fictional plausibility.

I agree that there are times when one can prove (if not deductively, then with strong induction) that a particular action was guided by a gross utilization of player knowledge. And these can lead to problematic situations. But this is a matter of degree, not a matter of absolutes.

Edit: I should give a basic example of the lack of information: If we're exploring a dungeon, a DM's description will never adequately convey what my PC would actually be seeing at any given moment. In fact, if the DM makes a mistake then there is now going to be a glaring inconsistency between the way I role-play the character and the character's knowledge. This experience is only ever an approximation, at best.

To that end, one can't just declare whether someone "is role-playing" or not based on the degree of separation between the portrayal of their character and what is presumed to be their character's knowledge. One can only declare whether the person is role-playing in a manner that they like or dislike. The very act of them acting out their character is role-playing, in and of itself.