PDA

View Full Version : Metagaming - a complex idea?



Boci
2011-10-24, 06:09 PM
Why it is that people's opinions seems to vary on what is and isn't metagaming? Last time I checked it isn't like optimizing, it has a clear definition: using OOC knowledge IC.

So why does this seem to cause so much confusion. Not exactly case and point, but here's an example from the webcomic DM of the Rings: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=995

Wait, what? How is that metagaming? The language used by the player is metagaming sure, but the thinking isn't:

"Hey guys, the orcs are no doubt scouting the area, so the sooner we get to the fortress the better. Therefore I think we should get the peasants to force march. We will lose some, but more will be spared from orc raids"

TLDR: Are there multiply definitions of metagaming, because why else would there be disagreement on the subject?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-10-24, 06:39 PM
TLDR: Are there multiply definitions of metagaming, because why else would there be disagreement on the subject?
Welcome to the Internet :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, the real problem comes from there being a set of rules. Few systems really nail down how much "rules knowledge" is available to the PCs and so there can be reasonable disagreement whether a given rule represents a rule of reality (i.e. knowledge) are an abstraction required to play the game (i.e. metaknowledge).

As a broader point, few words in English have a single fixed definition, and Terms of Art (e.g. most defined terms in game rules; neologisms on the Internet) have looser definitions than most.

bloodtide
2011-10-24, 06:52 PM
This is metagaming. The PC's are trying to avoid a random encounter. When they say 'each hour there is a chance of an encounter', that's reading a rule.


Any time the players use their real life knowledge that 'it's just a game' to try to get an advantage, it's metagaming.


For example: When ever any PC does anything, the chances are something bad/interesting/dramatic/exciting/etc will happen. Why? Becasue it's an adventure game. It would be a very dull game if nothing happened. It's the same with TV shows/movies, notice how events always 'just happen'.

Boci
2011-10-24, 07:03 PM
I'm probably just going to shoot myself in the foot here as far as my origional point goes, but:


This is metagaming. The PC's are trying to avoid a random encounter. When they say 'each hour there is a chance of an encounter', that's reading a rule.

But the rule its just a way to translate the logic of "the longer you are out in the wilderness the higher the chance you will run into something" into your game. Using that logic is not metagaming.


Any time the players use their real life knowledge that 'it's just a game' to try to get an advantage, it's metagaming.

Not always. For example: "Please stop telling me how debelitating real life (insert some disease) is. Its just a game and it will be at least half a session before I can be cured. Give me a state penalty and lets move on"


For example: When ever any PC does anything, the chances are something bad/interesting/dramatic/exciting/etc will happen. Why? Becasue it's an adventure game. It would be a very dull game if nothing happened. It's the same with TV shows/movies, notice how events always 'just happen'.

Again I wouldn't call this metagaming, rather the consequence of living the life of an adventurer/jedi/shadow runner.whatever. And PC actions don't always lead to something, IF they botch a gather info check or chase down a false lead they do not magically run into something because they are PCs.


TLDR: I think me and bloodtide have just proven Oracle Hunter right.

Eakin
2011-10-24, 07:13 PM
Knowing that the longer you are out in the woods, the more likely you are to encounter something isn't metagaming.

Deciding to leave the woods after 59 minutes because random encounter checks are rolled are one hour is.

The latter is manipulating irregularities created by your abstraction while the former isn't.

"manipulating irregularities unavoidably introduced by abstraction" doesn't roll off the tongue but it's the most general definition I can think of

kaomera
2011-10-24, 07:59 PM
Really any time you acknowledge you're playing a game, that's metagaming on some level. So a lot of metagaming has to happen just to make a game playable. Where it gets complex is that when someone says "metagaming" they typically intend a negative connotation, which can vary quite a bit.

For example, it's generally not considered metagaming if the GM skips past a certain amount of in-game time because she knows that nothing particularly interesting will be happening. However, the characters don't know this, and yet this creates a situation where the players know something is likely about to happen once time starts mattering again. But it's generally be bad form for the players to insist on playing out every minute of every day of their characters' lives; a concession has to be made to playability, even if it means that the players have information the characters would not.

In fact, it's generally better for the players and characters to be more "on alert" when it matters, rather than wasting a lot of time and energy on fruitless precautions. In turn we have rules for surprise and such so that the players can take reasonable precautions without creating a situation where the characters could never be caught unawares - in fact I'd go so far to say that anything that side-steps such rules (even if it's steps that would be optimal for the characters to take even without OOC knowledge) is generally bad for the game.

kpenguin
2011-10-24, 09:25 PM
This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12055310&postcount=29) post I wrote not long ago should be relevant.

In fact, there's a lot of overlap between this thread and that one.

Gnaeus
2011-10-25, 09:45 AM
Good Post, KPenguin.

A similar example that comes up a lot is... OOC: I know that the DM has prepared this adventure for us, he went through a lot of work, and if I go deep enough, there will be rewards. Also, the EXP I get will help me on other goals.

IC: This haunted house is pointless. We have killed 2 things and not gotten any treasure. Lets burn it down and leave. We have no reason to think it will get any better.

Using OOC knowledge (the DM wants us to do this, it is clearly our "hook") is metagaming. Not doing it can result in serious plot derailment in some games.

supermonkeyjoe
2011-10-25, 09:53 AM
The thing is in that example "Aragorn" has done the numbers, he's compared the chance of random encounters to the amount of peasants they would lose vs a forced march, that's all very well and could be translated into game terms as weighing the risks of being out in the open for too long to losing people by pushing them too hard.

The reason it's metagaming is that the conclusion is reached by using out of game knowledge to come to the conclusion, a better way would be to say to the DM "can I roll a survival/wilderness lore/intellegenge check to see if we'd be better off marching faster or risking potential raids"

Yora
2011-10-25, 10:27 AM
I think some kinds of metagaming are actually a highly neccessary aspect of any RPG. The main point of, I assume, pretty much all games centered on roleplaying is to have the players experiencing the adventures of their characters as they overcome obstacles. In most games that I have played in the last 15 years, everyone at the table was not interested in having the characters behave realistically in their situation, but in a way that would make the unfolding story exiting.
And both players and GMs do not get into the game with a completely blank mind. Everyone has expectations what kind of situations will occure and how the characters in such stories would react to the things they encounter. And the players know that the GM has prepared only for a limited number of possible ways the story can take, and has only limited means to adapt to unforseen events. And players do, and have to aknowledge this to keep the game running.
The players aknowledging the fact that their characters are in a pre-structured story and that straying from the predetermined goal will only stall the progression of the story, and therefore bend their characters behaviors and thoughts to make it all work is a form of metagaming. Doing things that would not be the obvious course of action for the character you created, for the sake of keeping the plot unfolding and the game fun, is metagaming.

Personally, I think it becomes problematic at the point when players base the actions of their characters on their own knowledge of the games rules. If you recognize a create from its physical appearance as described and know the stats from the books, don't start to shout to everyone at the table "run away and remove your armor and then come back with the spears made from sharpened bone." That would be bad metagaming.
Good metagaming would be to aknowledge that your character has no idea what the creature is and have him charage at it and see your masterwork full plate getting eaten in the second round, because this is what keeps the story progressing!

Anderlith
2011-10-25, 10:37 AM
Aragorn was talking about random encounters. How does Aragorn know what a random encounter is?

Boci
2011-10-25, 11:30 AM
Aragorn was talking about random encounters. How does Aragorn know what a random encounter is?

"Sensei, what's a random encounter?"
"It’s this really strange phenomenon of monsters being drawn as if by a magnet to anyone who can fight, be it through strength, skills, guile or magic. There was a family who travelled for 200 miles without any trouble, and on the way back they joined a travelling mage. They were ambushed by orcs in less than 10 minutes,"

Basket Burner
2011-10-25, 11:42 AM
Scenarios like that just encourage people to metagame, which if you want people to not metagame is obviously counterproductive.

Hyudra
2011-10-25, 12:02 PM
This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12055310&postcount=29) post I wrote not long ago should be relevant.

In fact, there's a lot of overlap between this thread and that one.

See, in my own experience with metagaming, (which unfortunately moves away from pen & paper games), I can't help but think about what happened at one point in Guild Wars.

At its most basic, Guild Wars pits teams of 8 against one another, each team having 8 skills they pick from a list. One such skill that came out in an expansion was "Searing Flames", which was an elite (you could only have one elite skill equipped at a time) area of effect spell that set people on fire for around 7 seconds. If people were already on fire (easily possible as the skill could be used again in a matter of seconds), it did massive damage instead.

So a strategy came about where people would make a team of 6 mages all packing Searing Flames, supported by two healers... the mages would coordinate to cast simultaneously, with one cast setting 1-8 people on fire and the other 5 doing massive damage. Potentially wiping out an entire team in a fraction of a second. Usually only killing 1-3.

So a counter-strategy arose, where people started bringing 'Mantra of Flame', a stance that reduced all fire damage by ~40% and gaining mana when dealt fire damage. Enough to ensure a coordinated strike that usually ensured instant death would only take maybe 60% of your life instead. Sufficient to allow the mages to be dealt with.

So a counter-counter strategy arose where the mages would have someone bring Winter, a massive area of effect that turned all elemental damage dealt in the area into cold damage. Thereby bypassing Mantra of Flame.

Which led to a counter-counter-counter strategy where people would bring Mantra of Frost (see mantra of flame, above)... you get the idea.

So I think it's very easy for, as you said, kpenguin, there to be a great deal of metagaming prior to the game actually starting. Depending on the game, it can be where most of the metagaming happens.

Yora
2011-10-25, 12:11 PM
But I think with the Arena mode of Guild Wars, this was pretty much the point. It's not a roleplaying game but a team fighting-game. I'd say that there is no in-game to base descisions on, only metagaming.

Basket Burner
2011-10-25, 12:44 PM
The dynamic of tactic and countertactic and so forth is very much alive and well between the party and whatever it is that they are fighting.

Though that isn't metagaming so much as it is discussing the meta. And while that sounds like the same thing, it isn't at all.

Hyudra
2011-10-25, 03:35 PM
The dynamic of tactic and countertactic and so forth is very much alive and well between the party and whatever it is that they are fighting.

Though that isn't metagaming so much as it is discussing the meta. And while that sounds like the same thing, it isn't at all.

I disagree with your second paragraph there. It's more a matter of perspective, though. If you don't assume the pre-gameplay strategy to be part of the game (I very much do - most games would be barely recognizable without some form of it), then technically, yeah, it's not metagaming.

In it's most basic terms, metagaming can translate to 'the game within the game' or 'gaming the game'. I favor the first perspective, with the rock paper scissors idea I mentioned above with Guild Wars, one group constantly trying to predict and counter the other. Others (particularly here) tend to see metagaming as the 'gaming the game' concept, with the same loose ideas at work, but more geared towards exploitation and advantage than anything else.

Basket Burner
2011-10-25, 04:52 PM
Discussing the meta = the whole tactic/countertactic game.

Metagaming = Having your characters act as if they know things they don't, but you do.

Since the meta is obvious from an in character standpoint, I clearly separate the two to make it clear they are not the same thing.

boomwolf
2011-10-25, 06:47 PM
Proper in-game: "There should be a way to bypass this trap, the kobolds won't make traps they can't bypass"

Wrong metagame: "There must be a way to bypass this trap, the DM would not make it impossible"

My personal preference is to screw players by metagaming, making situations where proper in-game thinking gives you a "dumb" yet correct solution, while metagaming will make you jump to false and possibly lethal conclusions. (what? you though a large sided red dragon was no more then an adult? sorry its an ancient dungeonbred one...)

Raum
2011-10-25, 11:33 PM
Those of you who think meta-gaming equates to evil (or at least bad players) should try playing FATE. Since a large portion of play is meta-character, if not meta-game, it may give you a wider perspective. :smallwink:

Silus
2011-10-26, 09:47 AM
As people said, a little metagaming is needed in RPGs.

I myself make practical minded characters. They'd normally not fall for a plot hook (like a bar fight or a kid running up and asking for help or something), but as a player, I know that we won't get to the loot and XP if I/we don't take the bait.

And I don't really see a problem with OOC-knowledge being used IC, assuming you can properly translate or find said knowledge. A few laser guided questions ("Hey what's this over here?" "Tell me about that X") and favorable rolls will convince the tribesman to tell you that the volcano they pray to is lactose intolerant, which you knew OOC at the beginning of the session.

QuidEst
2011-10-26, 10:53 AM
Well, I can see one reading that would make it metagaming. The characters would probably not do a forced march that would kill people because there aren't random encounters. You either have something pursuing you, in which case you know you should force-march, and the odds have nothing to do with it, or whatever you run into will probably be there anywhere. Killing off peasants in a forced march for what might be better odds may not make sense in character- especially since you wear them out, killing more peasants if you do run into something. As a player, though, you know that the only two factors are the DM (planned encounter, no avoiding it) and how much time you spend. The encounters really are random, and the peasants don't influence them.

Basically, if this is indeed an example of metagaming, I would say it's because they're using player knowledge to ignore what would be real-world factors.

Boci
2011-10-26, 12:18 PM
Basically, if this is indeed an example of metagaming, I would say it's because they're using player knowledge to ignore what would be real-world factors.

How is "The longer we are outside the walls of the fortress, the more we are likely to run into scouting enemy forces" not character knowledge?

Chauncymancer
2011-10-26, 06:59 PM
The real difficulty in the discussion is normally "what constitutes the game?" Clearly the fictional world is in the game, clearly whether or not you ate breakfast is outside the game*. But what about the rules? All the rules, from RET's to spell-lists to what feats do? What about the players? If the state of the players is part of the game, then is whether or not you ate breakfast really out of the game?
The fuzzier your line, the harder the concept.

QuidEst
2011-10-26, 08:05 PM
How is "The longer we are outside the walls of the fortress, the more we are likely to run into scouting enemy forces" not character knowledge?

I'm not arguing that this isn't character knowledge. My point is more that the metagaming (again, if it is that) is in ignoring some other things. I dunno if it is metagaming, but I'm trying to come up with a reasonable way that one could view it as such, apart from pointing out that the way they put it is all ooc:.

I suppose my litmus test would be this: would the character likely take that action on their own? If they wouldn't, there's probably some form of metagaming, even if in-character justification can be made. I don't think that the characters would press a forced march to the point of killing anybody unless there were clear evidence that it would actually save more lives (eg. an encroaching pursuing force). I don't read the comic, though (Darths and Droids fan myself), so I could easily be wrong there. It's hardly an airtight test either.

kaomera
2011-10-27, 07:35 AM
I think it's about efficiency, mostly - there are a number of common concessions to the idea that the characters must be aware of at least the effects of the rules in order to make play run smoothly. As players we want an efficient game; we don't want to be wasting time having the characters argue everything out when we know exactly how it's going to end because we have a deeper systematic understanding of how the world actually works... The big issue seems to come up when player knowledge is used to try and make things efficient for the characters, specifically when it's to the detriment of the players. I think what ideally where there is need of meta-gaming to make the game work properly, there should always be (at least in the background) the question ''what would be most fun for the players'', beyond and above such questions as ''what is the best solution for the characters''.

Traab
2011-10-27, 09:11 AM
In the dm of the rings example it was metagaming because forced marching would only really help if you were expecting pursuit, not worrying about ambushes and such. In the case of ambushes and random attacks, all forced marching would do irl, is make you run right into them, and be extremely tired when you do. They were consciously trying to work the rules of the game for the greatest advantage.

Boci
2011-10-27, 09:32 AM
In the dm of the rings example it was metagaming because forced marching would only really help if you were expecting pursuit, not worrying about ambushes and such. In the case of ambushes and random attacks, all forced marching would do irl, is make you run right into them, and be extremely tired when you do. They were consciously trying to work the rules of the game for the greatest advantage.

1. The peasants would tire, but they woulnd't be fighting anyway. Most of the warriors are all mounted, and I'm pretty sure a forced march for a human is a light stroll for a horse.

2. It was a (for the most part) flat plain. Why should the characters have expected ambushes and wondering monsters?

Jayabalard
2011-10-27, 02:24 PM
Wait, what? How is that metagaming? The language used by the player is metagaming sure, but the thinking isn't:

"Hey guys, the orcs are no doubt scouting the area, so the sooner we get to the fortress the better. Therefore I think we should get the peasants to force march. We will lose some, but more will be spared from orc raids"Certainly the thinking is metagame. It's comparing 2 pieces of metagame information
how many people you'll lose to orc raids as a function of random encounters vs how many people you'll lose to forced march via failing saves and the way that exhaustion rules work.

A couple of random people who aren't from that area of the country who know nothing about the populace can't reasonably know either of those things.

Boci
2011-10-27, 02:29 PM
Certainly the thinking is metagame. It's comparing 2 pieces of metagame information
how many people you'll lose to orc raids as a function of random encounters vs how many people you'll lose to forced march via failing saves and the way that exhaustion rules work.

But the player cannot know the exact numbers either. Both OOC and IC its an educated guess.

Hand_of_Vecna
2011-10-27, 03:39 PM
Proper in-game: "There should be a way to bypass this trap, the kobolds won't make traps they can't bypass"

Wrong metagame: "There must be a way to bypass this trap, the DM would not make it impossible"

That's directly from the 1st ed DMG. I have mixed feelings about this since the above is basically table talk and the second could be basically disguising your metagaming as in character thinking.


My personal preference is to screw players by metagaming, making situations where proper in-game thinking gives you a "dumb" yet correct solution, while metagaming will make you jump to false and possibly lethal conclusions. (what? you though a large sided red dragon was no more then an adult? sorry its an ancient dungeonbred one...)

I wish more DM's did this; the last dozen or so times I've taken the high road on meta gaming or it's cousin acting on genre savvy I've had it bite me in the ass, looked dumb, or been the one left out of a cool encounter.

Morithias
2011-10-27, 03:44 PM
Gaming: Using zombies to signal the invasion is about to begin.

Metagaming: Using zombies to build a NAND gate and attempting to build a programmable computer out of the undead.

Both derive from "simple command" but one is clearly beyond the thought process of the character.

Swordguy
2011-10-28, 01:27 AM
An easier example of metagaming that is more difficult to nitpick comes from LARPing.


Just before the game ends on December 10th, Vlad (played by Bob) breaks into Ella's (played by Elaine) cabin and steals her stash of gold pieces. There are no witnesses and no evidence left - nobody has a clue who did it since there's no divination magic or similar workarounds.

After the game ends, Bob talks to Susan (Elaine's roommate) and tells her that his character was the one who stole Ella's money.

Between games, Susan tells Elaine that it was Bob's character who stole the money.

The very first thing that happens during the very next game on December 11th, Ella immediately attacks Vlad - accusing him of stealing her money.


This is metagaming. There is no possible way that Elaine's character could have known that Bob's character stole the money. She was informed of it away from the game, and took advantage of that knowledge that the player has but the character could not have known, and had no opportunity to learn.

Discuss.

Yora
2011-10-28, 04:45 AM
What's there to discuss? The character didn't know these things, so couldn't act accordingly. I don't think anyone would argue here.

caden_varn
2011-10-28, 05:30 AM
However, the very fact she knows about it out of game makes it difficult for her to deal with it in character in-game. To stay in character she needs to pretend that she does not know that Bob did it, but it is impossible for that knowledge not to influence her actions. Even if she decides to be as virtuous as possible and look elsewhere for the thief, reasoning that investigating Bob would be using OOC information, she is still using OOC informationin an attempt to avoid using OOC information (then the spiral of circular reasoning into madness begins). Just having the information posions your choices, as you cannot avoid factoring it in.
I hope that makes vague sense to people - I'm not sure that is terribly comprehensible....

It depends a bit how she got the information - if Elaine asked Susan to investigate, it's her own fault, but if Bob told Susan and Susan told Elaine without Elaine requesting it, she's been put in a difficult position.

All that said, going straight in for an attack is fairly blatant use of OOC knowledge.

Re.

Proper in-game: "There should be a way to bypass this trap, the kobolds won't make traps they can't bypass"

Wrong metagame: "There must be a way to bypass this trap, the DM would not make it impossible"
That's directly from the 1st ed DMG. I have mixed feelings about this since the above is basically table talk and the second could be basically disguising your metagaming as in character thinking.

If the IC thinking is reasonable I don't have an issue with it - in this case, in a kobold lair it's fair to assume that they don't want to end up on the wrong side of their own traps. That's just sensible dungeon ecology.

However, if the trap is in the ancient tomb of King Bob III, the same IC reasoning does not work (assuming the tomb builders don't expect King Bob to turn into some version of undead) - the idea of traps in a tomb is to keep EVERYONE out, so expecting the DM to have provided a route around it is metagaming.

Gnaeus
2011-10-28, 08:04 AM
An easier example of metagaming that is more difficult to nitpick comes from LARPing.


Yep, thats a bad one.

Lots of metagaming problems come from LARPs, mostly because
1. there is usually much less DM oversight with a much higher player-DM ratio, so the DM may not be aware of what the character actually knows
2. with a larger number of players, the chances that any two players are not close friends, and may actually dislike each other, goes up a lot.
3. There is a lot of OOC information available without looking at someone's character sheet

The problem you mentioned is common and severe. Other similar problems include:

Elaine doesn't like Bob. After killing Vlad, she can easily find excuses to kill or torment Bob's next 3 characters.

Elaine knows that Susan has a high enough position in the organization to make powerful characters, or that Susan has powerful OOC friends. Elaine is therefore more deferential to Susan's characters than to Bob's even if the characters are otherwise identical.

Newbie comes into game. Everyone more or less ignores them for 2 game sessions, because they clearly aren't powerful enough to be a threat, and if they aren't going to come back it isn't worth the time to plot with them (which of course may lead to them not coming back).

And of course the less harmful but ever present character creation metagaming, including...

"Yes, Bob, paranoid loner living at the edge of town is a perfectly reasonable character concept, but if you have no reason to talk to anyone, no one has any reason to talk to you, and you will spend the forseeable life of your character standing in the corner scowling while other people do things." (in a tabletop game, DM would go out of his way to draw this PC into play, in a LARP, they usually can't).

and
"Bob, your last 4 characters have all been killed within one game of coming into play... Why don't you try playing a character concept that is not immediately offensive to every other character in play?."

Boci
2011-10-28, 08:09 AM
Discuss.

I agree with what Yora said on the matter and would also like to add: why is the Larping aspect of this important?

Bob's character steals from Susan's character via private notes to the GM, Bob tells Elaine, Elaine tells Susan, next session Susane's character attacks Bob's character.

As JaronK said by being told this Susan is being put in a difficult information, but she should at least try to pretend she doesn't know. Next time Bob will probably known not to tell anyone to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Jayabalard
2011-10-28, 08:17 AM
But the player cannot know the exact numbers either. Both OOC and IC its an educated guess.no, OOC there's an educated guess based on known statistical probability and known rate of random encounters... both of these ultimately based on game mechanics knowledge. IC there's an uneducated guess by people who aren't familiar with the people in question, the orcs in question, or much of anything involved in the situation.

Whether they can know the exact number is irrelevant... it's how they arrive at the decision, and they clearly do so purely by looking at the ooc information. It's a metagame decision.

Jayabalard
2011-10-28, 08:21 AM
Gaming: Using zombies to signal the invasion is about to begin.

Metagaming: Using zombies to build a NAND gate and attempting to build a programmable computer out of the undead.

Both derive from "simple command" but one is clearly beyond the thought process of the character.Maybe you're referring to a post I missed, but you don't actually have enough information provided to show that the latter is metagame.

Counter example: In a situation that is something like Rick Cook's Wiz Biz series, that's not actually meta game knowledge; it'd be in game knowledge.

Boci
2011-10-28, 09:09 AM
no, OOC there's an educated guess based on known statistical probability and known rate of random encounters... both of these ultimately based on game mechanics knowledge.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded part, but the players do not know anything more than the characters do about the second. They may know the standard rate random encounters, but they have no gurantee that the DM hasn't thrown that out of the window since they are now facing an advancing army.

kaomera
2011-10-28, 09:19 PM
Discuss.
In every LARP that I have been involved in where Vlad would have accomplished the theft by way of Bob entering Elaine's cabin and physically taking the ''coins'' this would not be considered metagaming. It is assumed that there is an in-game consequence of Bob letting the cat out of the bag, and that is that Ella now at the very least has reason to suspect Vlad of being the one who stole the gold, and can react in any way that Elaine would feel is appropriate.

There are several reasons for this, but let's deal with one in particular that is not based on the situation taking part in a live-action game: When Bob tells Susan that he has stolen the ''gold'', and if that information is considered privileged, then he has created a trap. Elaine could have any reason for suspecting that it is Vlad who has taken Ella's coins, but now unless she can prove that she was able to and would have come to this conclusion without access to that data she can't act against him. If fact, this could potentially be the case even if Susan never passed the info off to Elaine.

Here's another example: Let's say I'm GMing a game and I decide to run the module ''FU2: Vampire Bloodsuckers TPK You in the Abbey''. I sit down and prop up the cover of the module as a GM screen - and hey, look! there's even a nice picture of a Vampire Bloodsucker TPKing a party of iconic victims characters in what is obviously an abbey! Now: if the players pay extra attention to hints and foreshadowing in the adventure, preparing to possibly encounter some kind of free-willed undead, and are so suspicious that they refuse to travel to the abbey unarmed and unprepared, well who's fault is that?

The response that I've seen to this issue is to make it the responsibility of the players (first example) and/or GM (second example) to see to it that privileged information remains so. You don't pass this information other players or even anyone not involved with the game (especially the aggrieved party's room-mate!), and you don't spoiler the adventure and expect the players not to react. In either case it's simply unfair and quite possibly underhanded. If there's a case of accidental release of the information (in the LARP example say two GMs are discussing the situation unaware that Elaine is nearby; in the case of the criminally bad choice of name and cover art perhaps the module falls into plain sight while the GM is setting up) then it becomes the kind of sticky issue that has to be resolved OOC before play can resume.

bloodtide
2011-10-29, 09:06 AM
In the dm of the rings example it was metagaming because forced marching would only really help if you were expecting pursuit, not worrying about ambushes and such. In the case of ambushes and random attacks, all forced marching would do irl, is make you run right into them, and be extremely tired when you do. They were consciously trying to work the rules of the game for the greatest advantage.

I see it as metagaming as the players know they are playing a game. And as it's an action/adventure game things will happen.


So when a players says 'if we stay in the open we might get attacked', are they saying that by common sense or knowledge of the game rules for random encounters?