PDA

View Full Version : Metagaming is Awesome (And Powergaming can come too)



Mikeavelli
2011-10-18, 03:16 PM
Inspired by This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217832&page=7), especially the part where it got derailed into a discussion of what exactly Metagaming is, and whether or not it should be a dirty word.

To share why I feel the metagame is an important part of the game, and should be acknowledged and even encouraged, I'm going to share something from a few years ago, a DM who was furiously against metagaming, to the point where when he was starting up a game and I asked him, "so, what's the game about?" His reply was, "Not telling you anything, and stop trying to metagame."


All we were told was, "build a 10th level character." No background of the story, no "where we're coming from," not even the world the game was going to take place on. He was actively hostile to any question about these things either.

Suppressing my attempt to rebel by coming up with something weird, I showed up with the most generic rogue ever created. The rest of the party was similar, only the guy playing a druid had any real personality traits at all, and that one was how he hates cities and cityfolk.

We arrive to find out we're an adventuring party in Forgotten Realms, just returning to Silverymoon after an adventure in the Underdark (why couldn't we know any of that beforehand?) - and the plot hook is that we're passing by a house that has obviously just been robbed.

We don't know what it is, or why this is important, so we do what any rational person would do. We call the guards and let them handle it.

None of our characters care (mostly because none of our characters care about much of anything, they're blank slates) - except for the druid who is actively against having anything to do with this. What followed was, predictably, a day-long railroad ride ending with the obviously evil (somehow immune to sense motive, being a wizard and all) NPC betraying us like we all called that he would the moment we met him.



Now, I have various mechanical complaints about that adventure too (mostly sneak-attack immune enemies while I was playing a rogue) - but hindering us mechanically was the whole point of his "no metagaming" stance.

The obvious unintentional consequence of that stance is the very thing he's trying to advance (role-playing) was actively hindered by the complete absence of metagame information!

The same guy would later run a short-lived campaign that included the instructions: "Gestalt characters" and "No powergaming."

He was actually pretty awesome as a player, just had no idea how to DM.

------

Compare/contrast the best DM in the group ran a game where he gave us a very specific prompt:



Your characters have just been drafted into the fantasy army of one nation of this homebrew world I've created. The opening adventure is going to consist of all of you finishing the fantasy equivalent of basic training, and being assigned to elite forces based specifically on the fact that you have class levels.

We only ran three sessions, and this was also years ago, but all of the resulting characters were among the most colorful I've ever seen. We each came up with a detailed background, spent a great deal of time actually role-playing, etc.

Sadly, the very thing that made him the best DM among us also made him not want to DM - he spent so much time preparing for sessions that it left him drained after only a few.



-------

Finally, as a personal gaming philosophy, I try to encourage a certain amount of powergaming in parties I DM (And hell, play with!) - simply because of the fact that people enjoy succeeding at difficult things!

It allows for the DMing style pointed out here:




Rather than expecting X answer, try setting an obstacle in their path (ie. a moat filled with alligators, with treasure on the other side) and allowing them to come up with the solution, instead of deciding what the solution should be ahead of time. Better yet if you don't know what the solution should be, if the game doesn't grind to a half if they don't come up with one, and if you take the first reasonable answer they give.

To be exploited to its fullest.

With mechanically ineffective characters, you have to coddle them so they don't die in every CR-appropriate encounter. You have to allow the villains to make stupid mistakes and not play to their utmost level of skill, simply because if they did, the characters would never succeed at anything.

Meanwhile, a full party of powergamers can have any arbitrary obstacle thrown at them, including ones you have no idea how to solve, and ones you believe are impossible to get past, and inevitably they find a way to get past all of them.

Every few sessions, I throw in a challenge that's completely optional, ridiculously difficult (usually involves being balanced for an EL 3-5 levels above them) - and will result in a TPK if they fail. They always go for it. I have never successfully outdone them. This makes for some of the most memorable sessions ever.

Pinnacle
2011-10-18, 03:38 PM
Both of the examples you gave of metagame knowledge sound like in-game knowledge to me. What your characters were doing just before the adventure starts is something they would know.

~Corvus~
2011-10-18, 03:45 PM
Hmm... I guess I can start by addressing THIS point...


The obvious unintentional consequence of that stance is the very thing he's trying to advance (role-playing) was actively hindered by the complete absence of metagame information!


The DM gave your character NO STORY :smallconfused: which is not...encouraging metagaming. By not including story elements, he's hindering roleplaying, and making any metagaming blatant.

This does not mean that therefore metagaming is awesome, or useful, or necessary; it means that games can go more interesting ways if the DM and the players cooperate to make a difficult challenge difficult. One way to do this is to have the players powergame so that the DM can "powergame," but in this sense what the DM and the players are doing is agreeing to compete on power-levels and combat creativity. It's entertaining because of the competition, like a sports game.

I've had many games where (instead of metagaming) we acted out our characters and had so much trouble not laughing at what our characters were about to do precisely because we did NOT metagame. It was fun because of the challenge of staying in character. A powergaming game is different for different reasons, of course :smallwink:

Lapak
2011-10-18, 03:55 PM
Both of the examples you gave of metagame knowledge sound like in-game knowledge to me. What your characters were doing just before the adventure starts is something they would know.Indeed. That's the DM keeping you from knowing things your character would know, not anything involving metagaming.

Metagaming isn't knowing that your characters are trying to head off a subtle invasion of shapeshifting sorcerers that have never been seen in this part of the world before.

Metagaming is when your Fighter (who has no Knowledge ranks, has never seen them before, and has a Greatsword-specific build) immediately pulls out a spear and asks someone to cast Bless Weapon on it when he sees that their hands are backwards.

Wulfram
2011-10-18, 03:56 PM
Without metagaming a lot of campaigns would never happen because the disparate bunch of Elves, Dwarves and Humans wouldn't find a reason to travel together.

Following up on DM plothooks unless you've got a really good reason not to is also an example of desirable metagaming.

DoctorGlock
2011-10-18, 03:56 PM
I highly approve of this thread, and you for bringing up what most people consider taboo

I am not going to comment much on the meta aspect, but power gaming is something I have nothing against. I feel that it can open up an entirely new aspect of the game, regardless that it is not what the developers intended. I agree entirely with the part about being able to feel accomplished when you take out a villain without needing a plot power/artifact/big glowing weakness. But it is not just the tactical part of the game but the direction you can take it. Powergaming blurs the line between DM and players, and I feel that it is a good thing. I am about to start an epic level game with high optimization. I am actively encouraging players to build nigh omnipotent reality warpers (wish staff+wand surge, greater rechargable psionic tattoo of alter reality kind of stuff) In a "normal" game you are limited to mortal interactions and mortal adventures, but with enough powergming you can engage in the sort of game built for a trans-planar entity, you can engage true myths and legends on their own level. You can explore parts of the multiverse that are untouchable with the designer envisioned roles. I dont care that many traditionalists will whine that this is "breaking the game" or "doing it wrong", the universe shaping aspects to me are the game, and they are things not doable without a degree of powergaming. Powergaming is awesome.

tl;dr, Powergaming does not break the game, it allows you to play an entirely different and more complex one full of awesome.

Basket Burner
2011-10-18, 04:10 PM
Finally, as a personal gaming philosophy, I try to encourage a certain amount of powergaming in parties I DM (And hell, play with!) - simply because of the fact that people enjoy succeeding at difficult things!

It allows for the DMing style pointed out here:

*quote*

To be exploited to its fullest.

With mechanically ineffective characters, you have to coddle them so they don't die in every CR-appropriate encounter. You have to allow the villains to make stupid mistakes and not play to their utmost level of skill, simply because if they did, the characters would never succeed at anything.

Meanwhile, a full party of powergamers can have any arbitrary obstacle thrown at them, including ones you have no idea how to solve, and ones you believe are impossible to get past, and inevitably they find a way to get past all of them.

Every few sessions, I throw in a challenge that's completely optional, ridiculously difficult (usually involves being balanced for an EL 3-5 levels above them) - and will result in a TPK if they fail. They always go for it. I have never successfully outdone them. This makes for some of the most memorable sessions ever.

This. Exactly this. With a group that knows what they're doing you can focus on designing the adventure, and not second guessing it. That means more time for interesting encounters, both in and out of combat among many other things. Conversely, weak parties are practically obligated to fight boring encounters because they can't win otherwise and even then, they can still very easily lose.

As for the primary topic, a certain degree of metagaming is necessary simply because so many things are done in counterintuitive ways. Without it, you'd do things like believe the fluff text that Fighters are great and versatile classes that can tank well, just to name one of many examples.

The only bad kind of metagaming is when you're doing things that your character would have no way of knowing based on things that the player is doing. And that has been taken to mean far more than it actually does. Someone that has read the module you are playing and is clearly making decisions based on that information for example. But you know nothing about the world that you are living in? That's absurd.

Totally Guy
2011-10-18, 04:23 PM
I'll tell you what I like; the metagame reward.

So I've got a character who is arrogant with a capital A.

In some games I could play this trait up, get into trouble and upset the rest of the group who think I'm screwing around. I'm rewarded for not playing the flaw because that way I won't be in trouble and nobody will be upset with me. So it's an optimal strategy. A no brainer. The conclusion is that you don't play your flaws in a way that meaningfully has any actual impact on the game.

In other games that do metagame rewards I could play the flaw, get into trouble and earn a point that I can spend later. The other players see what I'm doing but are bought into the economy of meaningfully playing flaws vs. metagame points so they are not upset with me. I don't for certain know whether the trouble I'm getting into will be will be worth the points. This is a legitimate decision the I am making when I play the character.




But here's the kicker! Both those situations are metagaming. The first one is metagaming because I consider the expectations of the group when I decide not to do the stuff I want to do. The second because I am thinking of a risk vs. reward of getting in trouble or not.

You could argue that if I didn't overthink the situation I'd do the cool thing. If the other players didn't metagame and conclude that I'm griefing then it's all be cool. And you'd be right!

But in my experience attempting to stop metagaming on that level has been unproductive.

But lets say that I overcome my urge to metagame and I don't do it at all. I do the cool thing that gets me in trouble *anyway*... Whether the game rewards me or not.

Would I be better off playing the game where I get a metagame reward point for my effort even if I don't metagame?

It's a complicated subject.


Edit:
Threads that were on my mind while I was thinking about my post:
Games in which playing your flaws rewards you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210255)
Elements of a decision (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216661)

TheCountAlucard
2011-10-18, 05:07 PM
To share why I feel the metagame is an important part of the game, and should be acknowledged and even encouraged, I'm going to share something from a few years ago, a DM who was furiously against metagaming, to the point where when he was starting up a game and I asked him, "so, what's the game about?" His reply was, "Not telling you anything, and stop trying to metagame."That is... disturbingly-similar to a story of mine. :confused:

Like your example, I was urged to build a tenth-level character, but given no indication of what the world was like, and like yours, my DM was fairly hostile regarding questions to that regard. I made an archivist, and if memory serves me, the rest of the party included a sorcerer, a paladin, and two rogues. And like your group, most of the PCs seemed rather devoid of personality. :smallannoyed:

What we were walking into, however, was a module that was crazy-full of undead. :smallannoyed: Once we finally get started, the DM explains some backstory to us - namely, that this big bad guy usurped the priests of Pelor in the city and enslaved its people with some ooky-spooky undead stuff.

So, what do we do? I advise that we go to the temple of Pelor, and the DM shuts me down with, "Stop metagaming." :smallmad:

The encounters that follow cleave to a very specific script - an undead shows up and warns us away, we try and talk to the thing, and it attacks us for not having asked exactly the right question. After four or five of these, we make our way to, surprise surprise, the temple of Pelor!

Oh, and apparently the bad guy within was "CR 15." I'd almost be willing to believe that, if he wasn't a 15 HD Outsider with full Cleric casting and several 9th-level spell-like abilities. :smallannoyed: Yes, it mopped the floor with us, is it that surprising? :smallfurious:

I left the game after that, and then it wasn't three weeks before the rest of the group called me up, asking if I'd DM for them because they didn't want to play under the other guy again.However, Corvus and Lapak are right - having an inkling about the world around you isn't metagaming.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-18, 05:13 PM
Yeah, I am having to agree. That's not metagaming, that's playing a character who purportedly existed in the world of the game "before" the game started.
It is in fact the opposite of metagaming.
I also have to disagree that just because a metagamer can "overcome any challenge", a spurious statement at best, is automatically a good thing no matter what. If they read the campaign notes and lied about dice rolls, they could also "overcome any challenge."
It would still be cheating.

Emmerask
2011-10-18, 05:19 PM
I strongly agree with the others, it is your dm not giving you necessary information about the gameworld.
And of course roleplaying is severely hampered by not giving such information, you either make a bland none "character" (a paper with stats and nothing else) or you risk not fitting into the gameworld.

Metagaming would be something like a group of level 1 ex farmers now adventurers encountering horrible abomination #1, which they by no means could have ever heard of, but the players know dragon magazine issue 223 where it says the only thing that can hurt it is a spoon of salt and use that knowledge ^^

Arbane
2011-10-18, 06:00 PM
"A true metagamer can overcome any challenge" - sometimes, it's overcome by getting up and walking away from the game table.

Mikeavelli
2011-10-18, 06:57 PM
Metagaming would be something like a group of level 1 ex farmers now adventurers encountering horrible abomination #1, which they by no means could have ever heard of, but the players know dragon magazine issue 223 where it says the only thing that can hurt it is a spoon of salt and use that knowledge ^^

This is the discussion that derailed the "irks me" thread, and the specific point about metagaming I'm trying to make. There's the prevailing attitude among gamers that metagaming is purely negative phenomina like what is described here.

Behaviors similar to metagaming, but positive, like creating characters specifically to complement each other, or creating a character to fit the story, are referred to by other words, or just not even given a name. Nevertheless, this is metagaming.

This wouldn't even be worth arguing about (being just a disagreement over the definition of a word) - but it creates a bizarre sort of faulty logic in some people that goes along the lines of:

Metagaming is always a bad thing.
Using player knowledge during character creation is metagaming.
/Therefore, I must give the players no knowledge of the game during character creation.

It sounds ridiculous when we're here talking about it, but this is a very real and common mindset among DMs!

Edit:



I also have to disagree that just because a metagamer can "overcome any challenge", a spurious statement at best, is automatically a good thing no matter what. If they read the campaign notes and lied about dice rolls, they could also "overcome any challenge."
It would still be cheating.


They're seperate topics. I think powergaming is awesome because I can throw pretty much anything at the PC's and not worry about it.

It has to be within reason of course, things like pun-pun will destroy the game. Don't think of it as "Powergaming is good no matter what." But rather, "Powergaming isn't automatically bad."

Which, again, the "Powergaming is automatically bad" mindset exists, and is fairly prevalent.

Sucrose
2011-10-18, 06:58 PM
Yeah, I am having to agree. That's not metagaming, that's playing a character who purportedly existed in the world of the game "before" the game started.
It is in fact the opposite of metagaming.
I also have to disagree that just because a metagamer can "overcome any challenge", a spurious statement at best, is automatically a good thing no matter what. If they read the campaign notes and lied about dice rolls, they could also "overcome any challenge."
It would still be cheating.

I believe that you're misreading Mikeavelli's statement. The matter about overcoming challenges that he throws at them is about powergaming, an issue that is generally separate from character metagaming.

I agree that the example provided concerning metagaming is not a great one.

Edit: However, it's a bit clearer upon his explanation above. Also, character creation is a metagame in and of itself, but that is a somewhat separate discussion.

A better example may be Choosing to React Differently, as defined by the Giant in his article pertaining to making difficult decisions.

You have multiple responses that will be in-character to any given stimulus, but you do not choose between them evenly, instead allowing metagame concerns such as what will bring joy to the rest of the group to influence your decision.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-18, 07:42 PM
Whose to say that is a meta-game concept?
Unless you are playing a perfectly selfish being, you are going to be concerned about how your actions impact others.
That applies as much in-universe as out of it.
Playing a character that suits a world sis not metagaming ,it is thinking what would logically fit in the world. DEciding to not make ninja *(not the class, the concept) character in world or region without access an analogue to cultures that produced them, I am sorry I am having a hard time thinking of that as metagaming.

Sucrose
2011-10-18, 08:00 PM
Whose to say that is a meta-game concept?
Unless you are playing a perfectly selfish being, you are going to be concerned about how your actions impact others.
That applies as much in-universe as out of it.
Playing a character that suits a world sis not metagaming ,it is thinking what would logically fit in the world. DEciding to not make ninja *(not the class, the concept) character in world or region without access an analogue to cultures that produced them, I am sorry I am having a hard time thinking of that as metagaming.

Thinking of what would logically fit in the world is thinking outside of the world itself, in which things simply are. Ergo, it is a benevolent variety of metagaming. Similarly, creating a character who is of the right party role, or designed carefully to not have overwhelming power compared to the rest of the group, is clearly metagaming, but a variety that is encouraged.

As for your example, yes, people are often concerned with how their decisions impact others. That does not mean that they never do things that are abrasive or unkind, even to their boon companions. In fact, several people do such things frequently. However, PCs almost never will, specifically because you recognize, out of game, that this would result in an unfun scenario for the rest of the group. In fact, if they do act in a way that is clearly consistent with their characterization, but is nonetheless unfun, people often complain, both at the table and on these boards. Because they have violated an out-of-game unspoken agreement.

Emmerask
2011-10-18, 08:11 PM
This is the discussion that derailed the "irks me" thread, and the specific point about metagaming I'm trying to make. There's the prevailing attitude among gamers that metagaming is purely negative phenomina like what is described here.

Behaviors similar to metagaming, but positive, like creating characters specifically to complement each other, or creating a character to fit the story, are referred to by other words, or just not even given a name. Nevertheless, this is metagaming.

This wouldn't even be worth arguing about (being just a disagreement over the definition of a word) - but it creates a bizarre sort of faulty logic in some people that goes along the lines of:

Metagaming is always a bad thing.
Using player knowledge during character creation is metagaming.
/Therefore, I must give the players no knowledge of the game during character creation.

It sounds ridiculous when we're here talking about it, but this is a very real and common mindset among DMs!


Well for me metagaming means actions/thoughts that could never be justified to come from the actual characters.
A party of adventurers that compliment each other makes absolute sense in the dangerous business of adventuring.
A character that fits the setting/ story makes sense because the plot takes place in that world/ the story, why talk about the action of characters who are not involved, arenīt even in that world? ^^

If we go that far to declare making a fitting character metagaming (which in my opinion it is absolutely not) then we should follow that route to its logical conclusion, even telling the players what system is going to be used is clearly metagaming... so one shows up with an atlas pilot, the other is a space marine the next a wizard and of course we have a street samurai in the mix ^^ (while this sounds awesome it would be a nightmare to dm :smallbiggrin:)

So yes because these things for me (and I guess a lot of other people) donīt fall under the metagame category I have yet to see any good or beneficial metagaming :smallwink:

Reluctance
2011-10-18, 08:14 PM
Okay. Metagaming is the DM deciding to include a fire-based creature solely because the character recently picked up a ring of fire resistance, and the DM wants the player to feel good about having done so. It's also the player deciding not to "rationally" smash the plot and obsolete encounters, deciding instead to enjoy the story and help the other players feel useful. Neither of these are bad things.

As for powergaming, I'd be a lot less torn if it wasn't D&D. I have no problem with the world's strongest man, the world's smartest man, and the guy who could talk a statue down off its pedestal all adventuring together, because you know their general strengths and limitations. Three people who can each make pocket universes, chain-summon the hosts of heaven, and rewrite reality on a whim are going to require a different player mindset - and likely a completely different focus for the ruleset - than most of what I've seen in practice.

Emmerask
2011-10-18, 08:17 PM
Why is it metagaming if your character decides to make the other people in the group feel useful? I donīt quite see the necessary metagaming in that...

Fortuna
2011-10-18, 08:19 PM
It is, I would imagine, a rare adventurer who would put his life at risk in order to make a friend feel useful, let alone a temporary ally. Yet by playing suboptimally to let someone else shine, that's exactly what you're doing. Your reasons aren't in-game: it's a hugely illogical step for your character to take, and I can think of few to no examples in fiction where anyone does anything of the sort. It's driven by metagame logic, and is therefore metagame.

Emmerask
2011-10-18, 08:30 PM
Hm one I can come up with would be Gandalf letting Frodo decide what path to take, Dumbledore when he let Hagrid fly Harry in on his motorcycle (first book).. Iīm sure there are more ^^

The thing is you donīt really give up control, you could still act and save the day, you just let the others take action and let them measure their strength and grow

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-18, 08:33 PM
Hm one I can come up with would be Gandalf letting Frodo decide what path to take, Dumbledore when he let Hagrid fly Harry in on his motorcycle (first book).. Iīm sure there are more ^^

They didn't risk their lives to protect them, though. And they were much more powerful. Also, it was Sirius's motorbike.

Fortuna
2011-10-18, 08:34 PM
Almost invariably a mentor-archetype sort of move, as those were (and I would argue the second one, by the by). It sometimes happens that a party includes a mentor figure, but it's not the D&D default.

Claudius Maximus
2011-10-18, 08:40 PM
If we go that far to declare making a fitting character metagaming (which in my opinion it is absolutely not) then we should follow that route to its logical conclusion, even telling the players what system is going to be used is clearly metagaming... so one shows up with an atlas pilot, the other is a space marine the next a wizard and of course we have a street samurai in the mix ^^ (while this sounds awesome it would be a nightmare to dm :smallbiggrin:)

This is exactly the kind of logic people like Mikeavelli and Sucrose are arguing against. Here you have the basic premise that all metagaming is bad, and that since a practice (making a fitting character) is not bad, it can not be metagaming.

You suggest that if it were metagaming, it would be something to be avoided, while the whole point is that metagaming is not something to be avoided unless it is also destructive, which is a completely separate quality to meta-ness. They intersect, and we hear about the instances where they intersect because they stick in people's minds, but they can also easily not intersect. And there we get the benevolent instances of metagaming.

Grendus
2011-10-18, 10:31 PM
It's a valid point, and I agree - the players have to realize on some level that they have come together to play a game, the purpose of which is to have fun, and that some decisions must be made in order to ensure the players have fun regardless of whether or not they would necessarily make sense in the game. Why not retire after a few dungeoncrawls to live an extravagantly luxurious life in the city? Why keep raiding increasingly dangerous areas instead of sticking with the slow, easy, guaranteed loot of raiding low level goblin encampment and kobold mines? Obviously to stave off boredom, but boredom for whom?

Metagaming, like everything else in life really, needs to be taken in measured doses. It's one thing to arrange your stats optimally for your class and build a party based on T3 classes with all party roles covered (say, Warblade, Bard, Beguiler, Duskblade). It's another to procure half a dozen oils of Bless Weapon because you know the dungeon has a few Rakshasa inside based on questions the DM asked on a message board.

Belril Duskwalk
2011-10-18, 10:34 PM
Another good example of positive metagaming is allowing a new PC to join an existing adventuring party. In a campaign I'm playing in my character's party was slowly falling apart due to out of character issues pulling people away from the game. At one point we were down to a 3-man band, two of us highly suspicious of others and generally unwilling to share personal information. To solve our man-power crisis our DM took another group of players and convinced them to join their party into ours.

The first meeting our two parties had was almost the exact opposite of what would be expected from two groups of players that wanted to merge parties. In character, the Ranger was opposed to telling them anything and wanted nothing to do with collaborating with the new group. My Rogue was possibly worse, looking to actively lie to them so we could give them the slip. The other group responded to this level of suspicion in kind by becoming defensive and for several minutes the characters debated whether or not they should work together. This happened with all of us knowing we'd end up working together because we, the players, had already decided we would create one party out of two. It was mostly a matter of trying to feel out a way that we, the players, could make sense of our (somewhat justifiably) paranoid characters accepting others into our group.

Now, without some level of metagaming, the odds that my rogue or the ranger would ever have welcomed new people into our group were very slim. In character, we both had few reasons to trust them and several to distrust them. Without a little prodding from out of character knowledge, the game could easily have seen our parties bounce off of each other without comment, or possibly even have brought us into violent conflict.

Denamort
2011-10-18, 10:40 PM
I think the problem, Mikeavelli, is that you are using an incorrect definition of metagaming.
Metagaming is taking a decision with knowledge the player has that his character could not posibly have.
During character creation you can do little metagaming, because you can only metagame in respect to desicions of your character. Your character can't decide where he was born, who are his/her parents or any other aspect of its background.
The DM not telling you where do you beging the adventure is just stupid, and in no way metagaming. You are not making a choice your character would make based on information you, the player, have. You are making a choice the player has to do, that the character can't possibly make. If I make an European Knight for a campaing in Japan I better have a very good reason why Sir Francois travel all the way to meet Oda Nobunaga.
Choices that can be metagaming during character creation are opting for a particualry odd skill to complement the party. For instance, your Ranger choose Knowledge: The Planes, because nobody else in the party has it, and there is no reason why the character would have that knowledge (Before someone says it, yes, you can justify a Ranger having Knowledge: The Planes, for example in Eberron is canon. Just assume there is no logical way for a ranger to know anything about the planes in this example). A party that complements each other perfectly is kinda meta-gaming. the reason to make it balanced is for OOC reasons, but is easely justified in character (for example, the party leader searched for people with those particular skills).
Totally a guy gives his example of an arrogant character. Yes, the desicion you describe is metagaming. Choosing not to do something your character would totally do, before it will annoy other players is a desicion you make with player knowledge. But, the problem originates from a previous choise. You choose to play an arrogant character with a group that finds it annoying. Why would you do that, unless is to grief other players or suffer because you can play the chracter you designed? And that choise is not meta-gaming, because is a choise during character creation. That's not metagame, because your character doesn't get to decide his personallity traits, you do. Save the arrogant character for a game where the players will like character with complex, and conflicting personalities. In that kind of game the reward won't be some roleplatiny XP or points (Though those can be given to motivate players), but the enjoyment of the other players who like to play chracters with interesting quirks.
A true example of metagaming is when a character solves a problem with knowledge he doesn't have. For instance, in my last game (I'm a Bard) I wanted to use Cure Light Wounds against undead enemies, because we all have piercing weapons. But, because I don't have ranks in Knowledge: Religion, I couldn't have known that undead are vulnerable to positive energy, so the DM didn't let me do it.
So, in general, I believe metagaming is bad, because it is sacrifices the realism and coherence of the setting in other to obtain a benefit (Winning an encounter, obtaining an item, or gold, or wathever). There could be some instances of metagaming that are benefitial to the game that I'm not considering, and with respect to the DM, is hard to draw the line between OOC and IC choices. But for players I'm mostly sure that it's not good.

About Powergaming. I have no problem with powergaming, as long as everyone in the party has similar levels of power. Staying within 2 steps in the tier system usually works well to avoid this kind of problems.
However, I disagree that you can throw anything at an optimized party and nothing to an unoptimized one. When a DM tells me he can challenge his players because they are unoptimized, it's usually because he can't picture any challenge that requieres solving without using an optimized character's powers. I won't be as dense as to suggest that a tier 5 fighter is in equal grounds againts a Tier 1 wizard. What I'm saying is that you can change the type of challenge according to the players. For isntance, let's say the players have to cross pit trap the villain placed in the dungeon. The Tier 1 wizard has a gazillion options. He can Teleport, Levitate, Fly, turn into a flying creature, Wish for a brige or summon a host of angels to take him across. He summons 10 angels, 4 to carry him and 6 to sing a coir while he does it. What can the Tier 5 Party do: Improvise a bridge, use a plank, a rope and a hook, wait for the villain to come out (asuming at some point the villain has to come out) and ambush him. In short, any option a mundane person would have. I usually like optimized Tier 3, or unoptimized Tier 1, I won't deny that, and I agree with your point that Powergaming shouldn't be a bad word among gamers, but I don't think Powergaming is the only way to give a wide spectrum of resources and choises to the palyers.

Well, I have reached the point where my post is so long people will probably just skip it, making may carefully worded arguments a waste of time, so I will stop now before I get out of control.:smalltongue:

Fortuna
2011-10-18, 10:48 PM
Your definition of metagaming is subjective, as is Mikeavelli's.

That aside, however, I disagree with your assessment even within the boundaries of your definition. For example, you might have a group that enjoys roleplaying and has a variety of characters, but some particular action that one character could take would be unusually annoying. In character, there's no way of knowing that, for example, one player at the table is firmly religious and your character's (organically developed) distrust of organized religion (perhaps he was backstabbed by the church that he grew up as a member of, after the campaign had started) will cause friction.

The example of new characters joining a party is perhaps the best one. An adventuring party is, in my opinion, quite a tight-knit group. In order for a new member to join, extraordinary circumstances are required. Either the players must metagame "she's a PC, let her join", or the DM must metagame (and yes, a DM can metagame by having the setting act illogically for OOC reasons) to force it to work.

kpenguin
2011-10-18, 11:02 PM
In order to discuss the positives and negatives of metagaming, I think its important to define what metagaming is.

The prefix "meta" usually refers to an abstraction beyond a root concept that compliments, completes, or describes the concept. So, a metalanguage is a language used to describe language, metadata is data that describes data... metaphysics a science beyond.

When applied to games, its usually something outside a game that affects a game.

Thus, can we agree on a reasonable definition of metagame being Anything existing outside of a game that affects what occurs within a game. This is a definition that is neither negative nor positive, on its own.

So, what's outside a game? The simple answer is that everything that isn't inside a game.

Of course, that leads us to ask what is inside the game.

The rule sets are inside the game. The game world is inside the game. The characters that inhabit the game world, governed mechanically by the rules and otherwise by story, are part of the game. The actions the characters take, the events that occur, these are part of the game. The story, of the world and the characters, are part of the game.

So what does that leave us?

Well, the players and the GM themselves are outside the game. Whilst the platonic ideal of a roleplaying game character is that it acts based on in-game motives and that in-game events occur based on in-game stimuli, and are adjucated based on the rule set of the game, this seldom the case.

The personalities of the players, what their mood is, how their day went, what dice they pick, how good they are at playing, whether or not the pizza is here yet... these are all things that exist outside of the game and yet can and do impact how things occur in game.

Of course, none of that is intentional active metagaming, but active metagaming occurs as well. The act of creating characters and selecting options are inherent outside of the game. Our hands mold the pieces of the game, but are not part of the game themselves. And yet what choices we make in character creation does affect the game and we often make those choices based on out of game motives.

I choose to run a game in Eberron because I like the setting. My player chooses to make a wizard because she sees there are no spellcasters on the team. Another player decides to adjust the background of his barbarian because he feels that the barbarian doesn't quite fit the setting yet.

We choose our characters and setting based on what we like, what we think would be fun to play, what might be fun for others, what fits and what doesn't, and so forth. Our opinions. Our motives. Certainly not those of the characters because these decisions happen before the characters exist.

Of course, one could argue that metagaming refers only to actions that occur during gameplay and that creation, happening before the game proper starts, can't be considered metagame. But even during gameplay intentional active metagame can occur, and even this metagame might not be negative.

Consider the old "Don't Split the Party" adage. During a session, adventuring parties mostly stick together, even when they don't have to or it might not be convenient to. While part of this might be because there's safety in numbers, for most part it's because splitting the players has a tendency to slow things down, the GM might not have the prowess to juggle all the different scenes at once, someone might get missed etc. So, the characters stick together.

Out of game motive, in game action.

If we define metagame to be anything outside the game that affects what occurs inside the game, a broad definition to be sure, without applying negative nor postive connotations to it, we can see that metagaming is not only universal to all gaming, but is hardly inherently negative at all.

Totally Guy
2011-10-19, 01:41 AM
Whilst the platonic ideal of a roleplaying game character is that it acts based on in-game motives and that in-game events occur based on in-game stimuli, and are adjucated based on the rule set of the game, this seldom the case.

I agree with pretty much all this post but I felt this was worth noting.

Why would it be regarded as a platonic ideal? Who says this is the case? Is it even attainable.

If it's not attainable then maybe we should have some other ideal that better suits the game designers need to create a game that the game designer wants to play and make.



As for powergaming, I'd be a lot less torn if it wasn't D&D.

Is it? I thought we were talking about gaming in general.

kpenguin
2011-10-19, 02:25 AM
Well, being unattainable is part and parcel of a Platonic ideal, is it not? The big idea of Platonic idealism, crudely summed up by myself, is that the truth is an abstraction divorced from reality. Reality is, in fact, poor dim shadow of the truth. Truth is an idea, ephemeral and unobtainable.

The circles we draw are but pale shadows to the ideal perfect circle.

In common parlance, a Platonic ideal is a utopian, perfect ideal. Its unoptainability is implicit in its definition.

The reason I called out the philosophy of everything occurring in-game as a Platonic ideal is that this would be the ideal result of removing all metagame and is, presumably, the ideal held by those who are thus opposed to the concept of metagame.

Lapak
2011-10-19, 07:47 AM
This is the discussion that derailed the "irks me" thread, and the specific point about metagaming I'm trying to make. There's the prevailing attitude among gamers that metagaming is purely negative phenomina like what is described here.

Behaviors similar to metagaming, but positive, like creating characters specifically to complement each other, or creating a character to fit the story, are referred to by other words, or just not even given a name. Nevertheless, this is metagaming.Indeed it is; real people would not have chosen their careers and life choices to complement people they hadn't met yet. And you're right, it can be productive. Your first example wasn't metagaming, though, so you can see how that left the door open for people to bring forward their own examples.

So you have a reasonable point (metagaming isn't bad-by-definition) that doesn't happen to be the point made by your thread title (metagaming is awesome-by-definition) or your original post.

But your reasonable point I completely agree with! Metagaming can indeed be productive. It can also be disruptive, but it can be productive - like just about everything else in socially-based games like RPGs - it depends on the people doing it and their intent.

Tengu_temp
2011-10-19, 08:58 AM
A certain level of metagaming is necessary for the game to run smoothly. With no metagaming, you have no OOC communication and coordination, no agreements not to use overpowered builds or what to do with the character of a player who couldn't attend tonight.

Powergaming is good for 3 reasons:
1. It ensures that a character who is supposed to be good at something in theory is also good at it in the actual game.
2. Like the OP said, the DM can throw bigger challences at an optimized party, and that often is more fun.
3. Many people, including me, like when their character feels powerful and accomplishes exceptional deeds.
Powergaming can be bad for 2 reasons:
1. It can break the game if you go too far with it.
2. A wide power gap in the party can make some players feel inadequate.
To avoid those, inter-party OOC communication is necessary to make sure everyone stays on roughly the same power level and nobody steals the spotlight too much. Once again, this communication wouldn't be possible without some level of metagaming.

Totally Guy
2011-10-19, 10:31 AM
Imagine a game in which you lose by the very thought of remembering that you are playing...

Woah! That's deep!

Yuki Akuma
2011-10-19, 10:51 AM
Imagine a game in which you lose by the very thought of remembering that you are playing...

Woah! That's deep!

...Damn you.

TheCountAlucard
2011-10-19, 11:24 AM
Well, being unattainable is part and parcel of a Platonic ideal, is it not?You and me, we gotta go shopping - I found this place that sells the Platonic ideal of chairs, and I gotta say, they're quite comfy. :smalltongue:

A tad more seriously, yeah, there's good metagaming, and there's bad metagaming, and the good metagaming is usually orders of magnitude more necessary to the game than the bad metagaming is. :smallyuk:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-19, 11:35 AM
...Damn you.

It's okay! (http://xkcd.com/391/)

Denamort
2011-10-19, 01:45 PM
Random_person, you are right, my definition is subjective. Kpenguin's definition is much better, and his arguments very solid. Call me convinced.

About powergaming, to extend my argument, I believe the idea that you can create better chalenges for an optimized group comes from identifing player creativity with his hability to optimize. This concepts usually come together, because someone that optimizes has an extensive knowlledge of the rules, and so he knows what options and tricks are aveilable within the system. However you can have a creative player with no knowledge of the rules, who just thinks what his character would do to solve that problem. Powergaming and resourcefulness are not the same thing.

Chauncymancer
2011-10-19, 02:47 PM
If we go that far to declare making a fitting character metagaming (which in my opinion it is absolutely not) then we should follow that route to its logical conclusion, even telling the players what system is going to be used is clearly metagaming... so one shows up with an atlas pilot, the other is a space marine the next a wizard and of course we have a street samurai in the mix ^^ (while this sounds awesome it would be a nightmare to dm :smallbiggrin:)


Yes. For the choice of system to not be metagaming, you'd have to be in an OOTS-type setting where the abstractions of the system were laws of the universe known to its denizens.

The term is literal: If it is beyond or outside (meta) the fictional universe (gaming) it is metagaming. Learning spells every level without explicit research time? Metagaming. Selecting feats and spells w/o rolling to see if you could find a teacher? Metagaming. Using in universe logic to place the Great Wyrm Blue Dragon in control of the CG PC's home town, then changing your mind so they don't get melted? Meta. Gaming.

GungHo
2011-10-19, 04:17 PM
I'd be very, very frustrated as a GM if I never told my players what kind of characters I'm looking for, what kind of backgrounds would make sense, and also asked them to design their characters in a silo and then have them come back with a party full of clones.

I'd also be very, very frustrated as a GM if a player's dumber-than-dirt PC also knew every member of every secret organization in the game to the point where I'm having to "mix things up" and call Elminster "El Stevarino" because I can't trust the player not to blab in character that they're going to be dealing with Harpers like he's John Madden.

Conversely, I'd be very, very frustrated with a GM that either gave me no reasonable boundaries or gave me boundaries so restrictive I might as well have him just make the character for me.

Tabletop gaming really requires a team effort. If I want to completely make everything up, I can throw away the books and just improv or shoot you in the forehead with a paintball gun. If I want to be dictated to, I can go play a computer game or watch a movie. What makes tabletop gaming appealing is that both information and storytelling is a two-way street. We cooperate to make a story and to make our fun, and we do it within a framework of rules to help us determine where that story goes.

That all being said, it does take some experience both to notice other's inappropriate metagaming and reign in your own metagaming. It does suck for everyone (not just the GM) when you're spoiling everything or you're removing any and all obstacles because you know the system so well. It also takes experience to trust your players to not take every inch of play in the rope you give him. GMs also have to have experience to learn that they also get into some pretty "metagame" or reverse-power gaming traps by designing things specifically to exploit every weakness the party has.

So, to the OP... it sounds like the guy's new and/or he has had bad experiences with people going off the rails. All you can do with that kind of situation is back down and say, "look, I understand where you're coming from, but there's two words in frame-work. I need a frame so we can make this work." Yes, it's corny as hell. But, sometimes that kind of dumb joke can disarm everyone.

Or, you can just throw salt in his eyes, punch him in the liver and say "WHO'S WINNING NOW, HOSS?!? WHO'S WINNING NOW?!?"

Fortuna
2011-10-19, 05:32 PM
Some degree of powergaming is desirable, but I think that on the whole it's a matter of degree. If every player turns up with Pun-Pun, the game breaks down. If every player turns up with a truenamer whose feats went on Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving) and who put only two ranks in Truespeak, the game breaks down and you're better off freeforming. Obviously, there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, and I suspect that again the problem is one of terminology: if it's good, it can't be powergaming (hello, No True Scotsman). Without some amount of powergaming, the DM's workload increases massively in many systems: it's assumed that the players will make choices that synergize to some degree. Now, different groups have different sweet spots, but it's a rare group indeed that will have fun when every Solar in the circle has 1 dot in every ability and a bunch of Third Excellencies. Hence, powergaming is often a good thing.

Tengu_temp
2011-10-19, 06:15 PM
Obviously, there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, and I suspect that again the problem is one of terminology: if it's good, it can't be powergaming (hello, No True Scotsman).

It doesn't help that this word sounds different in different people's mouths. For me, powergaming is a neutral, maybe even positive term, while optimization tends to carry more negative implications. For other people, it's the other way around.

Fortuna
2011-10-19, 06:29 PM
This is true. To me, powergaming has negative connotations, while optimization carries the opposite. From my perspective, though, both are connotations; the two are synonyms.

Claudius Maximus
2011-10-19, 11:09 PM
I consider optimization absolutely neutral. It's just how strong you're making a given character at a given level. It can lead to good or bad outcomes.

Powergaming is a playstyle in which optimization is generally encouraged. As a playstyle, whether it's good or bad is totally subjective. So it's neutral as well, though you'll like it if you're a powergamer and probably dislike it if you, for example, don't care a lick for mechanics.

Munchkinery is basically powergaming with the addition of a crummy attitude. Generally negative.

Thus we see how definitions for these gamer terms are so diverse. I think this whole debate is just a matter of how you define metagaming and/or powergaming, because when we say "this example of metagaming is not negative," getting the other side to agree that the example is not negative is not the hard part.

Tengu_temp
2011-10-20, 06:14 AM
Munchkins are not really powergamers. They tend to play big, beefy classes, classes that feel strong and powerful. You know, like fighters. Munchkinery is more about the attitude than anything.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-10-20, 08:18 AM
Munchkins are not really powergamers. They tend to play big, beefy classes, classes that feel strong and powerful. You know, like fighters. Munchkinery is more about the attitude than anything.
Agreed. In my view, munchkins are the weasels of powergamers. I've actually run across the same thing in Dagorhir. There's "stick jocks", who work to physically improve themselves and use strong, powerful, skilled fighting technique, and then there's min-maxers who make their weapons as light and small as they possibly can, hit with as little force as they can get away with (without negating the hit), and generally carry around huge barn door shields. The former are powergamers. The latter are powergamers who are min-maxers, and very looked down upon.

Powergaming and metagaming have very wide spectrums, when you look at whether they help or hurt a game. Let's break it down a little.

Powergaming: playing a character who is powerful within the rules. On the one end of the spectrum, this simply means making good, smart, effective decisions. On the other end of the spectrum, this means squeezing every little last ounce of power out of the rules, so as to become ridiculously and cheesily overpowered.

The problems that occur as you escalate up the scale are twofold. One, it really is a lot harder (not impossible, but harder, lest someone call Stormwind on me) to make a character interesting in a roleplaying sense and super-min-maxed. Two, it forces the other players to play a game of catch-up, which means they now have to change their character concepts to something more friendly to extreme optimization.

Metagaming: having knowledge of the game in a "higher level". Knowing hitpoints, defenses, etc. On the one end of the spectrum, there's metagaming which is there to make the game go smoothly. For instance, players and the GM can work together to ensure that their characters fit into a larger framework, instead of poking about blindly hoping that they'll fit well into the story. Another good example is a game like FATE or Burning Wheel, which gives you metagame rewards for playing your character in ways that make the story more interesting or complicate things.

It becomes a problem when you start to use that out-of-game knowledge as a power lever first, with story and character being either a null or minimal concern. Being overly genre savvy or paranoid turns the game from a roleplaying game into a players-vs-DM dungeon crawl, generally.

So, as has been mentioned, there's a sweet spot to be hit, which will also differ between play groups and game styles. There are some games where it's legit to highly optimize and treat it like just a game.

But that's just it. Metagaming and powergaming are, in a way, about treating the game as a story and as a game. Swing far to one side, and it becomes all about the story. Swing far to the other, and it becomes just a game.

Yuki Akuma
2011-10-20, 09:37 AM
Saying that making a highly optimised character simply makes it harder, rather than impossible, to portray them well is still falling into the grips of the dreaded Stormwind Fallacy.

Just so you know.

Emmerask
2011-10-20, 10:41 AM
The stormwind fallacy afaik only states that it is not automatically a given that a min maxed character is automatically poorly roleplayed, but it makes no statement about the difficulty of doing so ^^

Creating a good backstory takes time, creating a mechanically good character takes also time, it is harder for most people to take the time to do both.

Also an optimized character especially in the lower tiers will most likely have numerousness classes and prestige classes which have to be justified in some way in the backstory (where did I learn these, what was my characters motivation etc), which in turn makes it harder to create a logically sound story that does not come across as a bullet point presentation on how to become the class combination the character is.

So during character creation alone we have two major points that make it harder for people to do both, time constraints and more challenging to write backstory.

Saying that it is harder in no way clashes with the stormwind fallacy imo because those that actually create their own mechanically powerful characters from what Iīve seen in my games at least are also a bit more dedicated to the game and take that time to do both...

Tyndmyr
2011-10-20, 01:26 PM
Quoted the actual fallacy, since nobody seems to remember it:


The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

So yes, it's pretty clear that describing optimization as making it difficult to roleplay the char IS a violation of Stormwind.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-10-20, 01:31 PM
That's a pretty far-reaching corollary...

Madeiner
2011-10-20, 01:38 PM
...Damn you.

No, damn YOU!

I didn't get the reference before you posted! Damn, now i lost again!

The Glyphstone
2011-10-20, 01:55 PM
The stormwind fallacy afaik only states that it is not automatically a given that a min maxed character is automatically poorly roleplayed, but it makes no statement about the difficulty of doing so ^^

Creating a good backstory takes time, creating a mechanically good character takes also time, it is harder for most people to take the time to do both.

Also an optimized character especially in the lower tiers will most likely have numerousness classes and prestige classes which have to be justified in some way in the backstory (where did I learn these, what was my characters motivation etc), which in turn makes it harder to create a logically sound story that does not come across as a bullet point presentation on how to become the class combination the character is.

So during character creation alone we have two major points that make it harder for people to do both, time constraints and more challenging to write backstory.

Saying that it is harder in no way clashes with the stormwind fallacy imo because those that actually create their own mechanically powerful characters from what Iīve seen in my games at least are also a bit more dedicated to the game and take that time to do both...

That only applies if you consider each class/PrC to be an in-game construct by itself, rather than just being variations of a skill set/career. A Barbarian/Fighter/Frenzied Berzerker/Bear Warrior wasn't a savage tribesman who joined the town guard then returned to his tribe to become more angry and made a pact with a bear spirit, he's just a really angry tribal warrior who can turn into a bear, all of which he learned without ever leaving his homeland. The Rogue/Assassin/Nightsong Infiltrator might be a thief who joined the Assassins then joined the Nightsong Guild (if your DM follows the Special requirements), or he might just be a thief who knows how to one-hit kill people and is very acrobatic.

Emmerask
2011-10-20, 02:13 PM
True, I canīt say how many play it that or this way, though the time argument still stands, fighter 10 is far easier and faster to create then a character with 6 prcs in it :smallsmile:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-20, 02:21 PM
True, I canīt say how many play it that or this way, though the time argument still stands, fighter 10 is far easier and faster to create then a character with 6 prcs in it :smallsmile:

Warblade 10. Bam.

Pinnacle
2011-10-20, 04:05 PM
True, I canīt say how many play it that or this way, though the time argument still stands, fighter 10 is far easier and faster to create then a character with 6 prcs in it :smallsmile:

...but doesn't necessarily make more sense.

How did your fighter 10 pick up that bonus feat he got at 10th level? It has nothing to do with your character concept or what he's been doing in-game.

Meanwhile, all three of my character's PrCs were chosen because they gave her abilities that I pictured her having and that fit together thematically the way I describe them.

Emmerask
2011-10-20, 04:10 PM
That was not referring to the "makes sense story wise" because glyphstone convinced me that not everyone is creating his story that way.

This was referring to the time issue ie an optimized character takes more time to create then an unoptimized one.
Spending more time on a hobby is something some people have difficulty with because they have a very tight schedule due to work children etc

So time is one issue that Tyndmyrs corollary for the Stormwind fallacy completely ignores :smallsmile:

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-20, 04:27 PM
That was not referring to the "makes sense story wise" because glyphstone convinced me that not everyone is creating his story that way.

This was referring to the time issue ie an optimized character takes more time to create then an unoptimized one.
Spending more time on a hobby is something some people have difficulty with because they have a very tight schedule due to work children etc

So time is one issue that Tyndmyrs corollary for the Stormwind fallacy completely ignores :smallsmile:

And how much harder is it to make a barbarian/Fist of the Forest than a straight monk? Or a monk/psionic Fist? Or a fighter/...I cant think of any good fighter PrCs.

The Glyphstone
2011-10-20, 09:10 PM
And how much harder is it to make a barbarian/Fist of the Forest than a straight monk? Or a monk/psionic Fist? Or a fighter/...I cant think of any good fighter PrCs.

As far as Fighter PrCs go, Exotic Weapon master at least gets some fun tricks.

Knaight
2011-10-20, 09:44 PM
That was not referring to the "makes sense story wise" because glyphstone convinced me that not everyone is creating his story that way.

This was referring to the time issue ie an optimized character takes more time to create then an unoptimized one.
Spending more time on a hobby is something some people have difficulty with because they have a very tight schedule due to work children etc

So time is one issue that Tyndmyrs corollary for the Stormwind fallacy completely ignores :smallsmile:

Ignoring the simplifications inherent in your time model that essentially invalidate it, starting with the assumption that more time spent developing a character before playing inherently leads to a better character in play, that statement also states that rules light games are better for roleplaying, period. It takes less time to create a Savage Worlds character than a Burning Wheel character, so Savage Worlds is the more roleplay friendly system, by that logic.

People who know both Savage Worlds and Burning Wheel are probably snickering at this point.

Emmerask
2011-10-20, 11:33 PM
The system being not good for roleplaying is something entirely different though :smallwink:

Roleplaying and optimization are two different tasks, they overlap sure, but not 100%, there can always be the moment where the optimal mechanical choice is contrary to what your character would normally do, so you have to either decide or you have to crate an alternative that satisfies both mechanics and roleplaying (which sometimes is difficult ^^).

So what is more difficult? managing two tasks or managing one of those two tasks only?
Managing both can and has been done thousands of times successfully but that does not diminish the fact that it is more difficult.

Knaight
2011-10-21, 02:04 AM
So what is more difficult? managing two tasks or managing one of those two tasks only?
Managing both can and has been done thousands of times successfully but that does not diminish the fact that it is more difficult.

You are only managing one of these at a time. Moreover, I'd argue that optimization is primarily in the character creation process, while role playing is primarily in play, which means their overlap is limited by virtue of both being in different parts of the game. Similarly, reading and putting a book mark on a page are both processes used when reading long texts, but having to put a book mark in a page does not detract from reading ability, as you do it after you've stopped reading.

Emmerask
2011-10-21, 10:01 AM
Hm I would say that optimization is mostly during character creation and powergaming is both in creation and during play

Then again (as seen on page 2 of this thread) everyone seems to have a different view on what powergaming is and if it carries a negative or positive connotation :smallsmile:


Regardless of the term can we agree that someone who is taking into account the optimal move and what his character would do at the same time has a more difficult task then someone who only (or first and foremost) takes one of these things into account for his characters actions?

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-10-21, 10:29 AM
I will also note that there's a number of systems such as FATE which greatly diminish any clashes that optimizing and roleplaying might have, by merit of making optimization a matter of character development and roleplaying.

Also RE: Stormwind, not that this should overpower the discussion...

I once wanted to make a 4th Edition Avenger, but play him as a monk (of the decidedly non-psionic variety). I opted to use the quarterstaff as a weapon, because it made sense. And yet, he wound up being a pathetic character with hindered effectiveness. Optimization would've given him an executioner's axe or a fullblade, yet that would strongly counter the feel of the character.

QED, optimization would've hindered roleplaying, and the roleplaying hindered optimization.

PersonMan
2011-10-21, 04:58 PM
I once wanted to make a 4th Edition Avenger, but play him as a monk (of the decidedly non-psionic variety). I opted to use the quarterstaff as a weapon, because it made sense. And yet, he wound up being a pathetic character with hindered effectiveness. Optimization would've given him an executioner's axe or a fullblade, yet that would strongly counter the feel of the character.

QED, optimization would've hindered roleplaying, and the roleplaying hindered optimization.

I don't play 4e, but would it have been an issue to take a fullblade or e. axe and say 'this is a quarterstaff, just switch the damage to bludgeoning(is it still like that?)'?

Also, optimization =/= picking the 'right' things all of the time. It's trying to accomplish a goal, something like 'be an Avenger with a quarterstaff and not suck', for example.

Sucrose
2011-10-21, 06:27 PM
I will also note that there's a number of systems such as FATE which greatly diminish any clashes that optimizing and roleplaying might have, by merit of making optimization a matter of character development and roleplaying.

Also RE: Stormwind, not that this should overpower the discussion...

I once wanted to make a 4th Edition Avenger, but play him as a monk (of the decidedly non-psionic variety). I opted to use the quarterstaff as a weapon, because it made sense. And yet, he wound up being a pathetic character with hindered effectiveness. Optimization would've given him an executioner's axe or a fullblade, yet that would strongly counter the feel of the character.

QED, optimization would've hindered roleplaying, and the roleplaying hindered optimization.

Why did you specifically want to be an Avenger? What was your actual character concept, beyond a religious (Shaolin?) monk, and how was it served by choosing the Avenger class to represent it? Could you have chosen a different class that would actually work with a quarterstaff?

You've not indicated that optimization would have inevitably hindered roleplay in this situation, only that one particular avenue of improving damage output would not have fit with your character concept.

And you've not indicated that roleplay hindered optimization, because optimization is a process, not precisely a goal: it is the use of mechanical knowledge to make a character that fits with closest fidelity to a given concept. Since most RPG concepts involve being fairly good at a few things, this usually involves making a character that is as outstanding at those things it is supposed to be good at as is possible for the idea.

Templarkommando
2011-10-29, 01:01 AM
When I think of meta-gaming, it's using out-of-character knowledge for an undue advantage in character. For example: let's say you have a player who is a doctor, but his character is a human rogue without any ranks in heal at all. When the doctor asks about the nature of the wounds and you tell him, then the doctor says that his character treats the wound by applying such and such herbs which have antiseptic properties and he'll bind it with the clean bandages that he boiled in water for just such an occasion and he'll change the wound dressings daily and so forth. The problem is that if the DM lets the character do that, the barbarian has just broken character. The Barbarian clearly doesn't know about modern medical procedure and would not have any reason to bind the wounds in such a fashion. He might know enough to bind the wounds, but a rogue likely wouldn't know what herbs have healing properties or are poisonous.

Sith_Happens
2011-11-01, 04:24 AM
When I think of meta-gaming, it's using out-of-character knowledge for an undue advantage in character. For example: let's say you have a player who is a doctor, but his character is a human rogue without any ranks in heal at all. When the doctor asks about the nature of the wounds and you tell him, then the doctor says that his character treats the wound by applying such and such herbs which have antiseptic properties and he'll bind it with the clean bandages that he boiled in water for just such an occasion and he'll change the wound dressings daily and so forth. The problem is that if the DM lets the character do that, the barbarian has just broken character. The Barbarian clearly doesn't know about modern medical procedure and would not have any reason to bind the wounds in such a fashion. He might know enough to bind the wounds, but a rogue likely wouldn't know what herbs have healing properties or are poisonous.

"My mother was a Druid."

Templarkommando
2011-11-01, 05:46 PM
"My mother was a Druid."

The fact that your parents hold a certain occupation doesn't necessarily explain anything. For example, if your mother works as a secretary, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can type 120 words per minute.

As a DM, if I have players that make that explanation, I have to point back to their character sheet. Maybe heal would have been a good skill to take as a cross-class skill then since it works with your back story. However, since you didn't put any ranks into heal, or herbalism or alchemy or anything along those lines, it says to me that your character specifically doesn't have the knowledge set that you're claiming that he has.

Sucrose
2011-11-01, 10:25 PM
When I think of meta-gaming, it's using out-of-character knowledge for an undue advantage in character. For example: let's say you have a player who is a doctor, but his character is a human rogue without any ranks in heal at all. When the doctor asks about the nature of the wounds and you tell him, then the doctor says that his character treats the wound by applying such and such herbs which have antiseptic properties and he'll bind it with the clean bandages that he boiled in water for just such an occasion and he'll change the wound dressings daily and so forth. The problem is that if the DM lets the character do that, the barbarian has just broken character. The Barbarian clearly doesn't know about modern medical procedure and would not have any reason to bind the wounds in such a fashion. He might know enough to bind the wounds, but a rogue likely wouldn't know what herbs have healing properties or are poisonous.

No one has denied that this is an example of metagaming. You are just not recognizing that it is not remotely the only form of metagaming. Anything that your character does as a result of out-of-game desires rather than in-game attitudes is a metagame decision. As kpenguin pointed out, this includes the "Don't Split the Party" maxim that keeps the game moving along for everyone at a reasonable clip. Others include Deciding to React Differently, as laid out in The Giant's article on making tough decisions (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), as your choice is based on what would make a good game, rather than purely what your character would do.

Because metagaming covers such obviously beneficial in-game actions, it stands to reason that something being metagaming is not, in itself, a good enough reason to declare it wrong. In this case, you are acting outside the possible skill of your character, just like declaring unilaterally that you hit the war god Hextor on a roll of 2 would be at level 1 (unless you are Pun-Pun.)

Templarkommando
2011-11-01, 11:49 PM
No one has denied that this is an example of metagaming. You are just not recognizing that it is not remotely the only form of metagaming. Anything that your character does as a result of out-of-game desires rather than in-game attitudes is a metagame decision. As kpenguin pointed out, this includes the "Don't Split the Party" maxim that keeps the game moving along for everyone at a reasonable clip. Others include Deciding to React Differently, as laid out in The Giant's article on making tough decisions (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), as your choice is based on what would make a good game, rather than purely what your character would do.

Because metagaming covers such obviously beneficial in-game actions, it stands to reason that something being metagaming is not, in itself, a good enough reason to declare it wrong. In this case, you are acting outside the possible skill of your character, just like declaring unilaterally that you hit the war god Hextor on a roll of 2 would be at level 1 (unless you are Pun-Pun.)

Meh... I can sort of see what you're getting at. I don't doubt that my example isn't the only sort of meta-gaming out there. You also raise a good point that not all meta-gaming is necessarily undesirable.

I would take issue with calling "don't split the party" meta-gaming. I could see a tactical fighter viewing it as a tactical mistake. When you go to invade enemy territory you try to bring to bear as much firepower as possible on a single strongpoint hoping to break through enemy lines. Splitting the party generally constitutes as a violation of that criteria. That's not a perfect absolute strategy however; as diversions are frequent visitors to tactical plans.

What I'm hoping for is a good example of meta-gaming that ought to be allowed. Maybe I missed it during the course of skimming the thread. If you like, please direct me to an example and I would love to go over it.

Knaight
2011-11-01, 11:53 PM
I would take issue with calling "don't split the party" meta-gaming. I could see a tactical fighter viewing it as a tactical mistake. When you go to invade enemy territory you try to bring to bear as much firepower as possible on a single strongpoint hoping to break through enemy lines. Splitting the party generally constitutes as a violation of that criteria. That's not a perfect absolute strategy however; as diversions are frequent visitors to tactical plans.

There are plenty of cases where there is stuff being done that isn't "invading enemy territory" where splitting up makes sense, and still isn't done.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-11-01, 11:59 PM
Personally I'm leery of powergaming. It's not that it's a bad thing to create competent characters...but I kind of feel like any character I attempt to make will end up sucking by comparison because I don't powergame well. I have no idea of how the various equations of prestige classes and alternate class features and races result in something that's better in practice than the original classes. When I create a character concept, I start with things like backstory and personality, statistics being secondary to that. And I find that my characters are always outclassed by the other people I play with because they know the math better than I do.

I play D&D to tell a story, not complete a math worksheet! :smallannoyed:

Templarkommando
2011-11-02, 12:10 AM
There are plenty of cases where there is stuff being done that isn't "invading enemy territory" where splitting up makes sense, and still isn't done.

This is why I noted the exception of diversions. There are still a few exceptions to the rule. Even then, the point I guess I want to make is that "Don't split the party" may or may not be meta gaming depending on the context of the situation.

Gavinfoxx
2011-11-02, 02:01 AM
I play D&D to tell a story, not complete a math worksheet! :smallannoyed:

If you are worried about power level, just play a Druid. Never take a level in anything other than Druid. Pick up an item that lets you communicate in animal form. Pick buffs and some battlefield control spells. Always trade up your Animal Companion as soon as you can. Get Natural Spell at level six. Stay in a big burly combat animal form as often as possible (hence the picking up something to let you communicate in animal form). Be a bear with a pet bear who summons bears. Simple, easy, straightforward.

kpenguin
2011-11-02, 03:30 AM
I would take issue with calling "don't split the party" meta-gaming. I could see a tactical fighter viewing it as a tactical mistake. When you go to invade enemy territory you try to bring to bear as much firepower as possible on a single strongpoint hoping to break through enemy lines. Splitting the party generally constitutes as a violation of that criteria. That's not a perfect absolute strategy however; as diversions are frequent visitors to tactical plans.

This is true. Not splitting your group can be a very keen tactical decision made in-character. And if the decision is made in-character, then it is indeed not meta-gaming. It is an in-game action based on an in-game motive.

The maxim of "don't split the party" as applies to role-playing games, however, is often used to refer to an out-of-character motivation. Within a tabletop roleplaying game, splitting up a party leads to a splitting of focus that is often undesirable. For many game masters, keeping juggling the various branches of the party and their respective situations is difficult. In addition, most prepare encounters for a party are prepared with the entire party in mind and if encountered by a smaller branch of the party require either quick adaption or allowing two or three facing what was meant for five. For players, having every character in the party together means all the players can interact with each situation the party encounters, leaving out no one.

These are all out-of-character motives and these are the motives associated with the saying "don't split the party". If the players keep their characters together with these motives in mind, then we are looking at an out-of-character motive dictating an in-game action. Meta-gaming

Ultimately, meta-gaming deals in motives rather than in actions. The same action taken in one game might be based off in-game motives, thus not metagaming, and in another by out-of-gaming motices, thus metagaming.

When looking at out-of-game motives, some are indeed malicious or at least counter to a good game. However, some out-of-game motives are well-intentioned.

If a player has their character make an action based on "because it would be more fun for me" or "because it would make the game more fun", then he or she is metagaming, but is doing so to improve the game.

Indeed, the character might have an in-game reason for taking that action, but if the player's motivation for having a character taking that action comes not from "it would be in character", but "its better for the game" then it remains a metagame.

In Rich's article on making decisions, he describes Reacting Differently. The idea being that a character has many different ways of reacting to a stimulus. We assume that all of these different ways are in-character, so what is the deciding factor between them? Why would we decide one manner and not the other? Rich proposes that the player should have the character in the manner most conducive to perpetuating a good game. Certainly, this is not a motive of the character. The character (presumably) doesn't know that he or she is part of a tabletop roleplaying game, much less care about perpetuating the enjoyment of its players. But the player does and has the character act accordingly. Out of game motive, in game action.

Reluctance
2011-11-02, 09:12 AM
What I'm hoping for is a good example of meta-gaming that ought to be allowed. Maybe I missed it during the course of skimming the thread. If you like, please direct me to an example and I would love to go over it.

Wizard and monk. From an in-game standpoint, the monk probably doesn't enjoy getting stabbed, and would have no complaints if his wizard buddy used a spell slot to disable the whole encounter instead of using it to buff him.

Out of game, the monk's player would probably start getting bored if the wizard ended every encounter before he got to act, so the wizard's player choses to play suboptimally so that his friend gets to feel like an active contributor.

Knaight
2011-11-02, 09:40 AM
For many game masters, keeping juggling the various branches of the party and their respective situations is difficult. In addition, most prepare encounters for a party are prepared with the entire party in mind and if encountered by a smaller branch of the party require either quick adaption or allowing two or three facing what was meant for five.

I'd like to be able to blame this on incompetent and lazy GMing, but honestly, GMing with a split party is hard, and requires a lot of skills that aren't otherwise as critical. It takes practice, and while you can get the hang of it - I know this because I have done precisely that - faulting people who haven't done so just seems unfair.

Templarkommando
2011-11-02, 11:39 AM
This is true. Not splitting your group can be a very keen tactical decision made in-character. And if the decision is made in-character, then it is indeed not meta-gaming. It is an in-game action based on an in-game motive.

The maxim of "don't split the party" as applies to role-playing games, however, is often used to refer to an out-of-character motivation. Within a tabletop roleplaying game, splitting up a party leads to a splitting of focus that is often undesirable. For many game masters, keeping juggling the various branches of the party and their respective situations is difficult. In addition, most prepare encounters for a party are prepared with the entire party in mind and if encountered by a smaller branch of the party require either quick adaption or allowing two or three facing what was meant for five. For players, having every character in the party together means all the players can interact with each situation the party encounters, leaving out no one.

These are all out-of-character motives and these are the motives associated with the saying "don't split the party". If the players keep their characters together with these motives in mind, then we are looking at an out-of-character motive dictating an in-game action. Meta-gaming

Ultimately, meta-gaming deals in motives rather than in actions. The same action taken in one game might be based off in-game motives, thus not metagaming, and in another by out-of-gaming motices, thus metagaming.

When looking at out-of-game motives, some are indeed malicious or at least counter to a good game. However, some out-of-game motives are well-intentioned.

If a player has their character make an action based on "because it would be more fun for me" or "because it would make the game more fun", then he or she is metagaming, but is doing so to improve the game.

Indeed, the character might have an in-game reason for taking that action, but if the player's motivation for having a character taking that action comes not from "it would be in character", but "its better for the game" then it remains a metagame.

In Rich's article on making decisions, he describes Reacting Differently. The idea being that a character has many different ways of reacting to a stimulus. We assume that all of these different ways are in-character, so what is the deciding factor between them? Why would we decide one manner and not the other? Rich proposes that the player should have the character in the manner most conducive to perpetuating a good game. Certainly, this is not a motive of the character. The character (presumably) doesn't know that he or she is part of a tabletop roleplaying game, much less care about perpetuating the enjoyment of its players. But the player does and has the character act accordingly. Out of game motive, in game action.



See, I can buy that. I guess the generalization of meta-gaming being awesome didn't quite make sense to me.

That said, what games have you been in where meta-gaming was used in such a way and what happened?


Wizard and monk. From an in-game standpoint, the monk probably doesn't enjoy getting stabbed, and would have no complaints if his wizard buddy used a spell slot to disable the whole encounter instead of using it to buff him.

Out of game, the monk's player would probably start getting bored if the wizard ended every encounter before he got to act, so the wizard's player choses to play suboptimally so that his friend gets to feel like an active contributor.

Spells are considered valuable resources in-game. If the monk can reasonably defeat the party's enemies without consuming precious spells, that might be better when the party reaches a tougher fight then they've conserved their spells wisely. There's no meta-game to that - or if there is it's very little.

Gavinfoxx
2011-11-02, 12:35 PM
The problem with conserving spells is that quantity of spells are not really that limited of a resource...

Templarkommando
2011-11-02, 12:38 PM
The problem with conserving spells is that quantity of spells are not really that limited of a resource...

During the course of a day you only have a limited number of spells that you can memorize. There's a little bit of give depending on how many scrolls/wand charges/etc. that you're willing to use. But it's essentially a limited amount of ammunition.

Knaight
2011-11-02, 12:41 PM
See, I can buy that. I guess the generalization of meta-gaming being awesome didn't quite make sense to me.

That said, what games have you been in where meta-gaming was used in such a way and what happened?

Another example. Say two players are having their characters argue, and say its about something important to the characters (and not some irrelevant detail nobody cares about). The pacing of the in character conversation may change due to the extent to which the group is interested, and that is meta gaming. Having a character get angry, storm off in a huff, and end the conversation because other players are starting to get bored and there is a desire not to hog the spotlight is a meta game action, and a good one to take.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-02, 12:54 PM
This was referring to the time issue ie an optimized character takes more time to create then an unoptimized one.
Spending more time on a hobby is something some people have difficulty with because they have a very tight schedule due to work children etc

So time is one issue that Tyndmyrs corollary for the Stormwind fallacy completely ignores :smallsmile:

1. Who cares? I have one player that spends two weeks making new chars because he's invariably wracked with indecision. But, yknow...so long as the char is good to go by the next session, it doesn't really matter.

2. It's pretty situational. Some optimized chars take fairly little time to make. Some do not. In any case, player familiarity with the system is a far bigger factor.

3. Player familiarity with the system also tend to correlate with being a good roleplayer. Practice makes perfect and all that. Oh sure, you get the occasional guy who sucks at it forever, but most of us have learned and improved over the years.

So, I really can't agree that a somewhat faster char creation means you'll roleplay better.

Basket Burner
2011-11-02, 01:09 PM
The problem with conserving spells is that quantity of spells are not really that limited of a resource...

They aren't. But if squandered, they will be wasted.

Blasters will run out of spells, same for anyone else that tries to solve problems in a highly inefficient manner. Someone that knows what they're doing doesn't run out past level 1.

Realms of Chaos
2011-11-03, 12:18 PM
Reading the OP, I think that I've managed to tease apart an odd form of metagaming that some DMs are opposed to.

Above and beyond opposingIn-game metagaming (memorizing stat blocks of enemies, preparing for your DM's favorite spells, and trying to get a read on your DM's line of thought in general instead of going with the game in-character) that can be quite cheap if done properly, some DMs try to prevent Pre-game metagaming as well.

In short, they want your character to have been built in a vacuum, free from whatever influence the specific game world would have had on your design choices (perhaps making it seem more like a "realistic" party to some people). Some DMs are afraid that telling the party that the game will a zombie apocalypse will result in an anti-undead party rather than a normal party that happens to only fight undead. If they give a list of organizations in the starting area, they might fear that everyone would choose to belong to whatever organization players suspect would give them the most mechanical benefit rather than belonging to whatever group would make most sense for the characters. If the campaign revolves around political intrigue, they won't tell you because they don't want a party full of silver-tongued characters. The list goes on and on.

From a pure story perspective, I can understand this type of campaign in some situations such as if the zombie apocalypse starts at the beginning of the campaign or if the campaign starts with the party arriving in a new town where they aren't fully aware of all that's going on. If the party has grown up around or has had enough time to adjust to these hidden circumstances, however, there's almost no excuse for keeping them hidden (a town under continual siege from undead wouldn't have the economy to support rogues and most able-bodied people would at least be trained as something who could hurt the undead [preferably divine casters]). Also, not giving any information at all is kind of silly even in these circumstances (you can tell players that they are the protectors of a town before surprising them with the undead or tell them that they are travelling to a new town before you ambush them with politics, letting them at least build some sort of backstory).

From the perspective of a gamer, however, I really can't understand the hate against pre-game metagaming. Allowing players to make choices more or less at random that can all but ruin them before the game even starts for the sake of realism doesn't seem very fun for the players who made horrible choices. I'd say that it's better to have an unrealistically specialized party than to have a realistic party where only half of the members are useful.

Con_Brio1993
2011-11-03, 04:15 PM
In the "irks me" thread someone argued that selecting feats was metagaming.

In which case I am pro-metagaming.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-11-03, 10:47 PM
If you are worried about power level, just play a Druid. Never take a level in anything other than Druid. Pick up an item that lets you communicate in animal form. Pick buffs and some battlefield control spells. Always trade up your Animal Companion as soon as you can. Get Natural Spell at level six. Stay in a big burly combat animal form as often as possible (hence the picking up something to let you communicate in animal form). Be a bear with a pet bear who summons bears. Simple, easy, straightforward.
But I don't WANT to play a druid. I wanna be a knight in shining armor type, like a paladin or a cavalier.

Gavinfoxx
2011-11-03, 11:33 PM
But I don't WANT to play a druid. I wanna be a knight in shining armor type, like a paladin or a cavalier.

Well... Crusaders don't need optimization to be a Knight in Shining Armor, and Pathfinder paladin actually improves Paladin quite a bit, and there are Paladin fixes all over the place, and I think some Knight fixes too? If the chassis is better, you don't have to do extra work to get it to do the concept competently...

jidasfire
2011-11-08, 09:32 PM
If you are worried about power level, just play a Druid. Never take a level in anything other than Druid. Pick up an item that lets you communicate in animal form. Pick buffs and some battlefield control spells. Always trade up your Animal Companion as soon as you can. Get Natural Spell at level six. Stay in a big burly combat animal form as often as possible (hence the picking up something to let you communicate in animal form). Be a bear with a pet bear who summons bears. Simple, easy, straightforward.

Wow, you couldn't have missed the point of what he was saying more if you'd started giving him recipes for gazpacho.

tcrudisi
2011-11-08, 09:51 PM
Metagaming is always a bad thing.
Using player knowledge during character creation is metagaming.
/Therefore, I must give the players no knowledge of the game during character creation.

Hmm -- see, this I disagree with. If I am level 10, I already have 10 levels worth of adventures and quests under my belt. I've probably been with the same group for at least a couple of levels (though maybe not). I know what sort of challenges that I've accepted and conquered in the past, and those are the same challenges that I will likely be hired to overcome in the future. Let's face it, by level 10 I've gained a bit of a reputation as someone who can kill undead, for example.

As such, chances are high that what I've done in the previous 10 levels is what I'll be expected to do next level. It's not always accurate, of course. But what it does mean is that I should create my character at level 1 without you telling me anything about the game. Then, if you want to be perfect about it, tell me what happened at level 1, level 2, and so on, as that most certainly impacts how I create my character.

That's an obvious middle ground between telling the players nothing and everything. It just seems a bit strange that you would refuse to tell the players nothing about the game during character creation when they've been alive and well in that game for several levels.

If they are level 1, obviously, I don't completely disagree (though if I live in a wartorn ravaged city where wizards are persecuted and clerics are loved, it will certainly change my peasants mind as to what path he wants to pursue. Likewise, if demons are running rampant in this world, the same thing can be true.)