Metagaming

[Emperor Demonking]

So whats your view in metagaming?

I think metagaming like. "Of course my sullen antisocial ranger with adventure and tolerate you." And is often needed.
I think metagaming about statistics is ok to a degree, using the knowledge that a monster has a lot of HP, but not the exact number.
I dislike metagaming that is like "It must be an illussion the dm wouldn't send that against us low level characters."

[Neftren]

There have already been several of these threads in the past. No need to go start another one.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

So whats your view in metagaming?

I think metagaming like. "Of course my sullen antisocial ranger with adventure and tolerate you." And is often needed.
I think metagaming about statistics is ok to a degree, using the knowledge that a monster has a lot of HP, but not the exact number.
I dislike metagaming that is like "It must be an illussion the dm wouldn't send that against us low level characters."

I wouldn't call that metagaming, it's playing out of character, but it's not really using out of character knowledge, which is I believe the definition of metagaming. The character however is a fine example of a poor character, antisocial characters simply do not work well in a social environment.

I agree that characters shouldn't be totally oblivious of the world they live in and ought to know a troll has more hp then a goblin.

The third example would be a good example of metagaming, unfortunately for the PCs they could be very wrong, the DM might have intended for them to run away from a obviously too powerful enemy.

[Winterwind]

Metagaming is desirable to exactly the degree which the group considers to be contributing the most to the group's fun, and undesirable as soon as the group finds it starts to detract from its fun. Where these points lie varies from group to group.

In our group, the PCs are usually much more ready to accept other PCs into the group than they might usually be according to their personality, because we as players desire to play together, and that would not be helped by the PCs actively shunning each other. The PCs are usually pretty open to the prospect of new quests and adventures, because the players know the GM has prepared some sort of story for them and are eager to see it, instead of avoiding it. Those are instances where we consider metagaming to be useful and desirable. Anything going beyond that - use of OOC knowledge about monsters/challenges, PCs treating NPCs with less respect or giving them less time than PCs, other OOC knowledge use - we consider immersion breaking and therefore undesirable.

But, another group might, for example, find that having the characters figure out weaknesses of monsters the players already know is boring and un-fun. We have fights and other challenges of that kind pretty rarely, and on the rare occurence of them, we find it fun to have the characters try to find some desperate solution on their own, while staying in character. Both is equally valid.

When I joined this forum, it was because of a most fascinating discussion of this very subject. There, Dan Hemmens maintained a most fascinating point of view, namely, that metagaming is always desirable, because, when a player chooses for his character to possess some knowledge, this adds another facette to the character's background - the player decides spontaneously that something in the character's background justifies the character possessing this knowledge, and has learnt something knew about the character (namely said thing from the character's background). This presumes a quite different approach to character development and the focus of roleplaying than in most groups I know, including my own, but it is a very interesting and valid approach as well.

[Emperor Demonking]

I wouldn't call that metagaming, it's playing out of character, but it's not really using out of character knowledge, which is I believe the definition of metagaming. The character however is a fine example of a poor character, antisocial characters simply do not work well in a social environment.
.

Deleted some of the quote.
Its using the knowledge that your dealing with another player.

[Valairn]

There have already been several of these threads in the past. No need to go start another one.

Actually that is the exact opposite of the what the forum moderators have requested we do. The moderators do not want us dredging up old posts with necromancy, they want us to make new posts. Please do not derail other people's threads, its just rude.

[Tormsskull]

- Metagame: Using information you know as a player, but is unknown to your character, in order to make decisions for your character. More simply, using OOC knowledge to make IC decisions. Such knowledge is usually called “metagame knowledge.”


Metagaming is typically a "bad thing" because when it is done in a positive way, no one has a problem with it, therefore no one calls it metagaming. The four characters who all happen to meet up in a bar and for some reason agree to trust one another with little to no reason to do so is an example of such.

An example of what I would label as metagaming:

DM: "You see a strange up-right standing tiger like creature. As you observe is further you notice some very strange with its hands, its palms seem to be innverted."
Player 1: "I cast bless weapon on my crossbow bolt."
DM: "Why?"
Player 1: "Oh, my character just has a feeling about this."

The above example assumes the player's character has no special knowledge.

[AKA_Bait]

Metagaming is desirable to exactly the degree which the group considers to be contributing the most to the group's fun, and undesirable as soon as the group finds it starts to detract from its fun. Where these points lie varies from group to group.

I think that's pretty much a wrap folks.

[Citizen Joe]

Metagaming is playing the game as if the character was the player playing the game rather than the character.

[EvilElitest]

I reward roleplaying exp for acting in character and i dock it if i catch metagaming


There have already been several of these threads in the past. No need to go start another one.

This may seem strange, but not everyone waas around during those eariler threads are weren't ware of them, so unless there is already another one going on i don't see the problem

from,
EE

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Its using the knowledge that your dealing with another player.

Yea I guess, it all depends how it was set up, it can be done without metagaming, this would be better too from RP perspective, but if you want to save yourself that trouble a little metagaming would be acceptable.

[CrazedGoblin]

the last one got to 18 pages and tempers were frayed, but basicly its people knowing more than their characters should and useing that knowledge, i would just let the enemys metagame against the players iff the players did

[JMobius]

Here's one that I've always been sort of ambivalent about, and I'm curious what other people's opinions are: In every game I've ever played, when battle takes place, the players will discuss strategy and tactics OOC, then act on this information IC.

I do think most people probably consider this an acceptable degree of metagaming, as its oftentimes nessecary to function in battle as a team properly. It always has kind of bothered me, though I'm not inclined to disallow it in games I run. Does anyone else differ?

[Emperor Demonking]

I play it that thier just using free actions not on thier turn.

[JMobius]

That might work -- were in not for the fact that these discussions can get pretty in depth, and that would also imply that they're shouting them for their enemies to hear...

...hmmmmm... >:)

[Winterwind]

Here's one that I've always been sort of ambivalent about, and I'm curious what other people's opinions are: In every game I've ever played, when battle takes place, the players will discuss strategy and tactics OOC, then act on this information IC.

I do think most people probably consider this an acceptable degree of metagaming, as its oftentimes nessecary to function in battle as a team properly. It always has kind of bothered me, though I'm not inclined to disallow it in games I run. Does anyone else differ?For us, it would be an unacceptable degree of metagaming (albeit even my awesome players sometimes can't resist to give hints to each other :smallbiggrin: ), though the games we play rarely focus on tactics and combat that much that it would matter anyway. However, what we do should not bother you - the question is what do you (meaning both you and your players) want? If your players derive enjoyment by treating combat as a tactical exercise, which is aided by them communicating OOC, let them! If it bothers you, discuss it with them, and find a compromise, or just give in if it is not that big a deal to you. It's a game, the only right way to play it is one where everyone has as much fun as possible. If metagaming helps with this goal, then metagaming time it is. Otherwise, it's not.

[ElHugo]

Concerning the tactics matter: we try to avoid this, and consistently fail superhard at it... In a tough fight, we might take several minutes or even more per round, setting up detailed battle-plans, organising delays to maximize buffs, etc. etc... Which is okay, because I for one couldn't bear to not do that (even though, from a character PoV, I always favour tactics that are all about the brutal frontal massacre).

Remember Helms Deep? 21, 22, 23 [/dwarf]

But OTOH, or DM is still getting the feel for the game too, as we're all very new. He won't kill us if he accidentally set us up against a much too powerfull monster, but if it happens, we will do whatever it takes to squeeze as much slaughter out of our group as we can.

EDIT: as course, the bottom line is, this is cool because we all enjoy it... Fun is the objective, everything else is just the way to

[Theodoxus]

My halfling rogue and his twin do that all the time - start talking tactically, even about who we're gonna rob - to the point that we're practically screaming at each other.

Then the party mage will quip in 'They're saying this out loud, in front of everyone, aren't they' and the DM will just shrug and hold up his hands in amused agreement.

We get into quite a bit of trouble that way - but it's good for comedic relief, and it quickly stymies OOC collaboration during a fight.

My twin is famous for chanting 'fireball' into the mages ear though... boy do we cheer mightily when he does finally toss one out.

Sadly, my character retired, and I brought out a paladin that the PCs didn't metagame too hard to be accepted by - but then, she (the paladin) was sent by God to stop the party from killing more Formians... fortunately, they'd done that on their own, just before she arrived. They were happy to have another tank though... rogues are a tad squishy.

Theo

[Kaelik]

Here's one that I've always been sort of ambivalent about, and I'm curious what other people's opinions are: In every game I've ever played, when battle takes place, the players will discuss strategy and tactics OOC, then act on this information IC.

I do think most people probably consider this an acceptable degree of metagaming, as its oftentimes nessecary to function in battle as a team properly. It always has kind of bothered me, though I'm not inclined to disallow it in games I run. Does anyone else differ?

In my last tabletop game, we had a DM who liked to challenge the players in combat. And as two of the team really couldn't fight tactically very well at all, it became a game to see how much myself and the other character could help them in character.

The first limitation was yelling out hints/doing so quickly, succinctly, and in ways that didn't tip off the enemy.

The second was that both of these characters player melee, a Paladin and Fighter. I played a Sorcerer, and the other player was a mounted ranger. So what type of advice it would make sense for our characters to know was usually different from what we wanted to give.

[Jannex]

Metagaming, in general, I consider to be using out-of-game player knowledge to affect in-game character actions, usually for the character's unfair benefit.

In the particular case of tactical coordination and communication in combat, you could actually argue that in a way that makes it not metagaming, as such, if certain conditions are met. If the characters have been fighting side-by-side as a unit for some length of time, and have a reasonable degree of combat training (as reflected by their BAB), they probably know each other's strengths and weaknesses well enough to respond to one another's actions in a tactically-beneficial way. This shouldn't involve the instantaneous transmission of new knowledge from one character to all the others (such as, if the party rogue notices that there are two more enemies sneaking up behind them, the entire party shouldn't instantly know that as well, unless the rogue says something IC), though some of the groups I've played in have had the PCs all spend points on Speak Language to give the group some sort of military sign language or other uncommon "code" language to use for surreptitious communication. However, the simple fact remains that what the characters are experiencing in actual combat is very different than what the players are experiencing in sitting around a table rolling dice and directing the characters' actions; the characters are presumed to see, hear, and feel more than the DM's narration--they are experiencing the entire world in which the game takes place, and so in some ways have more information to work with than do their players. As such, you could argue that OOC discussion of tactics, if done appropriately, is almost the opposite of metagaming, as it's filling in for the players informations that their characters would presumably already have. Along similar lines, it might be reasonable for a 16-Int character being played by a 10-Int player to accept hints about a riddle from the other PCs; it more accurately reflects the capabilities of the character.

[Winterwind]

On the other hand, if it goes as far as a whole discussion of tactics, there is a much better reason to stop players from doing that than it being metagaming - it slows down and mellows out a moment which should be exciting and dynamic. There should be suspense when the monster appears, the players should be excited, the actions happening fast - if the players talk for half an hour, discussing the weaknesses of the horrible monstrosity they are facing first, all tension will fade away.

Of course, if planning strategy leads to more fun for everyone involved than suspense and immersion, that's the route to go nevertheless. For us, it does not.

(Incidentally, that's also the reason why I believe that combat is where freeform is truly superior to roleplaying with dice or other mechanics of that kind, a sufficiently good GM provided, and if I were sufficiently good, I'd suggest a switch to my group immediately)

[Talic]

Meta is good when: finding reasons to get or keep a group together.

Meta is bad when: taking advantage of a monster's specific weaknesses, attempting to circumvent challenges, and the like.

Not everyone knows that trolls are vulnerable to fire, or that wights drain energy. While most people can look at a hill giant and see that it's a towering wall of flesh that'll take a while to chop down, not everyone will know how far they can throw rocks, or the like.

Nonmilitary characters won't always know the military crawl or the like. Stuff like that = bad.

[Cuddly]

On the other hand, if it goes as far as a whole discussion of tactics, there is a much better reason to stop players from doing that than it being metagaming - it slows down and mellows out a moment which should be exciting and dynamic. There should be suspense when the monster appears, the players should be excited, the actions happening fast - if the players talk for half an hour, discussing the weaknesses of the horrible monstrosity they are facing first, all tension will fade away.

Of course, if planning strategy leads to more fun for everyone involved than suspense and immersion, that's the route to go nevertheless. For us, it does not.

(Incidentally, that's also the reason why I believe that combat is where freeform is truly superior to roleplaying with dice or other mechanics of that kind, a sufficiently good GM provided, and if I were sufficiently good, I'd suggest a switch to my group immediately)

We play with pencil and paper, so a rather large degree of metagaming/discussion is required during combat, since it isn't always explicit what's going on, and it would be unfair to punish my players for my deficits as a DM.

[TheDarkOne]

Here's one that I've always been sort of ambivalent about, and I'm curious what other people's opinions are: In every game I've ever played, when battle takes place, the players will discuss strategy and tactics OOC, then act on this information IC.

I do think most people probably consider this an acceptable degree of metagaming, as its oftentimes nessecary to function in battle as a team properly. It always has kind of bothered me, though I'm not inclined to disallow it in games I run. Does anyone else differ?

If this bothers you it is very easily explained by noting that your character would probably know exactly what a good(if not optimal) action to take in combat is quickly and with minimal communication between group members. However you lack your character's skills and experience, so you need some more time and debate with your group members in order to simulate the action your character would take in a battle situation.

[Winterwind]

We play with pencil and paper, so a rather large degree of metagaming/discussion is required during combat, since it isn't always explicit what's going on, and it would be unfair to punish my players for my deficits as a DM.I don't see how that would happen, frankly. Maybe D&D is this much different from all the RPGs I play, or your playing style is something else entirely than ours, but I do neither understand how lack of metagaming/discussion would lead to an unfair disadvantage on the players' part, nor how it could not be clear what's going on to a sufficient degree (at least, in my group, nobody cares whether the other monster is 15 metres to the left or 20 to the right; all they need to know is that it is not quite there yet, but dangerously close, and that they should hurry to do something about the first one).

Note, also, that not having a perfect overview in the chaos of a battle is realistic. While fighting for your life you won't know with uttermost precision whether some beast behind you can reach you within one round or two.

Only when you turn combat to a tactical exercise does metagaming/discussion become necessary. Nothing wrong about that, but in my humble opinion it destroys immersion (hey, it requires for the players to start behaving OOC suddenly; we prefer to spend the whole session IC).