How much do you play the pre-game metagame?

[Tanarii]

To start with, I'm not using the term metagame to mean "failing to social interactions roleplay properly". Nor am I using it to mean "using ooc knowledge while playing the game" or "talking in rules terms vs non-rules actions".

I'm specifically referring to the metagame in the more traditional sense, using other-than-rules knowledge as opposed to rules knowledge.

In this case, specifically prior to the start of the game influencing your character building. Any GM has character building allowed options. But DMs vary on how much info they will give you on what you'll be facing, and their expectations that you will make characters that 'fit' either the campaign theme, adventure path, or specific group of heroes you'll be running with. And nowadays all the rage is to session 0 to discuss the pre-game metagame.

Almost all decent rule sets provide characters that fit the theme of what they expect you to be able to make characters to do. Some are fairly narrow, like horror investigators, dungeon delving & wilderness exploration adventurers, or pawns of the computer. Others are very generic, sometimes intentionally so.

Even so, the GM can give more specific information, such as what adventure path you're going to be running. To use 5e as an example, if you know you're playing an Underdark adventure path vs a Ravenloft adventure path, it will affect the character you make.

So as a player how much do you like to play the metagame when designing a character? As a GM, how much info do you like to give players, or what strict guidelines do you set, affecting the way they will play the metagame?

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a GM, my games don't have strong pre-set themes (more open-world), so I work with whatever they bring me. I want them to play what they want to play (as long as it fits the setting).

As a player, I prefer to work with the party on characters. I'll be playing in Princes of the Apocalypse real soon. I already know (since it's a module) that I'll need to have decent combat capabilities. I'll probably do something vaguely elemental themed, but only vaguely.

So I guess the answer is not very much. I don't mind if people (including myself) do, however.

[CharonsHelper]

I generally don't worry about my character until I know the gist of how the campaign is going to begin - both the world and what the rest of the party is going to play since I usually try to fill in any gaps.

[Tanarii]

I generally don't worry about my character until I know the gist of how the campaign is going to begin - both the world and what the rest of the party is going to play since I usually try to fill in any gaps.

Oh yeah, that's an important part of the pre-game metagame that's often not an explicit part of the rules: party roles.

I'm interested how GMs and players tend to approach filling (or not filling) those too. Especially since in my current game that's often something players intentionally do themselves when scheduling sessions for higher level characters. They think about not just which of their characters is interested in whatever session goal they'll be approaching (which is in-universe) but also which party roles they expect to be needed, based on information gleaned about the mission.

I meant to include mention of that but got sidetracked in my rambling.

[Pleh]

I generally avoid restricting character build options. Games that offer such choices are commonly built around using those choices long term as a central game. I don't remove such options except as a last resort, as it can deflate player investment in the game.

[CharonsHelper]

Oh yeah, that's an important part of the pre-game metagame that's often not an explicit part of the rules: party roles.

I'm interested how GMs and players tend to approach filling (or not filling) those too. Especially since in my current game that's often something players intentionally do themselves when scheduling sessions for higher level characters. They think about not just which of their characters is interested in whatever session goal they'll be approaching (which is in-universe) but also which party roles they expect to be needed, based on information gleaned about the mission.

I meant to include mention of that but got sidetracked in my rambling.

It largely depends upon the system. Some systems are more forgiving than others about having separate roles and characters being able to fill more than one, or being able to halfway fill another slot in a pinch.

[BWR]

While I'm of the opinion that the final say of how much metagame knowledge is OK to use is up to the GM, I generally like to give and receive a rough guideline about what sort of game it will be (e.g. no paladins if we are playing crooks), what sort of general power level, and what the rest of the players are making to avoid incompatible characters. A GM should, for the smooth running of a game, either point out any problems a character or group of characters will have with the game s/he's running, or failing that alter the game to suit the characters. If one is going to run a game where some powerful magic is pretty much necessary to succeed, either tell your players this before they start with their entirely-mundane-but-for-the-bard party or run a different game where an entirely-mundane-but-for-the-bard group has a chance of succeeding.

[2D8HP]

I generally make PC's t o get me to when the GM asks "What do you do?", and I no longer much enjoy the "mini-game" of character creation, so when I make PC's my goals are:

A PC that's likely to survive so I don't have to make another one soon.

A PC that's likely to be accepted by random GM's (nothing too snowflake or too bland, so it's a guessing game).

A PC that I may hopefully quickly modify to fit a GM's game.

[Tanarii]

I generally make PC's t o get me to when the GM asks "What do you do?", and I no longer much enjoy the "mini-game" of character creation, so when I make PC's my goals are:

A PC that's likely to survive so I don't have to make another one soon.

A PC that's likely to be accepted by random GM's (nothing too snowflake or too bland, so it's a guessing game).

A PC that I may hopefully quickly modify to fit a GM's game.

Okay. But if the DM tells you the game is going to be about political intrigue and murder mystery, do you then go make a hard-bitten warrior who stabs first and asks questions later? Do you at least discuss how that will fit the party and campaign before doing so? (Assuming here that the system can handle both sufficiently.)

While I'm of the opinion that the final say of how much metagame knowledge is OK to use is up to the GM, I generally like to give and receive a rough guideline about what sort of game it will be (e.g. no paladins if we are playing crooks), what sort of general power level, and what the rest of the players are making to avoid incompatible characters.

What are your thoughts on making characters to fit a campaign theme, or an adventure path campaign? No Paladins is one thing, but actively making crooks in a crook game, or Clerics in an undead hunter game, is strongly playing the metagame.

[Max_Killjoy]

To start with, I'm not using the term metagame to mean "failing to talky-time roleplay properly". Nor am I using it to mean "using ooc knowledge while playing the game" or "talking in rules terms vs non-rules actions".

I'm specifically referring to the metagame in the more traditional sense, using other-than-rules knowledge as opposed to rules knowledge.

First, for someone who gets really touchy about how other people misrepresent what you do or care about when gaming, you sometimes fall back on some pretty dismissive -- even belittling -- terms for what other people do or care about when they're gaming. Example, "talky-time roleplay". (Which is usually seen in the longer form "who cares about that talky-time crap" or similar, in reference to in-character RP.)

I don't see how this is any different from the insulting practice some others of referring to certain aspects of gaming as "playing with barbies" or "toy time".


Second, I'm not sure when what you describe as "metagaming" was the "traditional sense" in RPG discussion -- if it ever was, it had to be before 1985 or so (when I really got into gaming). A little investigation would seem to indicate that the term comes from outside of RPGs entirely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/33995/who-first-decided-that-metagaming-is-bad
http://rpgmuseum.wikia.com/wiki/Meta-gaming

In this case, specifically prior to the start of the game influencing your character building. Any GM has character building allowed options. But DMs vary on how much info they will give you on what you'll be facing, and their expectations that you will make characters that 'fit' either the campaign theme, adventure path, or specific group of heroes you'll be running with. And nowadays all the rage is to session 0 to discuss the pre-game metagame.

Almost all decent rule sets provide characters that fit the theme of what they expect you to be able to make characters to do. Some are fairly narrow, like horror investigators, dungeon delving & wilderness exploration adventurers, or pawns of the computer. Others are very generic, sometimes intentionally so.

Even so, the GM can give more specific information, such as what adventure path you're going to be running. To use 5e as an example, if you know you're playing an Underdark adventure path vs a Ravenloft adventure path, it will affect the character you make.

So as a player how much do you like to play the metagame when designing a character? As a GM, how much info do you like to give players, or what strict guidelines do you set, affecting the way they will play the metagame?

Regardless of whether I'd call that "metagame" to begin with (and I wouldn't), the actual intent of the question can be addressed.

If a GM refused or evaded discussion of what sort of campaign they were running, what general sort of things would be going on, what sort of abilities and skills would be more or less "engaged", I'd seriously reconsider playing in that campaign.

First, it comes across as deceptive, and I've no interest in playing with a deceptive GM.

Second, some people like playing "fish out of water" or "someone out of their depth" or "the total newbie" or whatever, but I really, really do not.

I don't have the patience to play "go fish" regarding what sort of character would fit into a particular campaign.

[Tanarii]

Example, "talky-time roleplay". I don't see how this is any different from the insulting practice some others of referring to certain aspects of gaming as "playing with barbies" or "toy time".

Fair enough. It originally came from me being actively dismissive of people claiming Roleplaying was only the parts of the game where PCs interacting with NPCs/other PCs. It's a response to people trying to draw false elitist lines around a specific subset of Roleplaying and call just that sub-set "Roleplaying".

Later on I kept on using it to distinguish between that part of roleplaying, and the more generic "make decisions for my character" roleplaying. I actually really enjoy social interactions Roleplaying, so being dismissive of the activity itself isn't really appropriate. Just the elitists who think that's what Roleplaying is. I'll think up a new more neutral and less dismissive term to describe that subset of Roleplaying. (I just re read that, and "social interactions Roleplaying" is probably good enough. )

[Quertus]

This is a funny question for me. I generally prefer the "how do we make this random collection of characters work?" minigame over metagaming the perfect party, unless it would somehow be unrealistic for the party to be imperfect.

I believe in playing the metagame with regard to range of acceptable power level, and types of character that would be acceptable. As the most blatant example, I don't bring someone who would think in terms of PvP to a non-PvP table.

On the flip side, if someone tries to bring a diplomancer or DPS SA build on Necrophilia on Bone Hill, I'll warn them that this might not be the right module for that build. I expect the same consideration when I'm a player.

[2D8HP]

Okay. But if the DM tells you the game is going to be about political intrigue and murder mystery, do you then go make a hard-bitten warrior who stabs first and asks questions later? Do you at least discuss how that will fit the party and campaign before doing so? (Assuming here that the system can handle both sufficiently.)....

If I have a PC pre-made that seems close to fitting the GM's game that I may quickly modify then I have a chance to get to "What do you do", and I'm good.

If I don't have a PC pre-made that's close to fitting, chances are that another player does and by the time I will have made an appropriate PC from scratch a place at the table is gone, if it seems like another GM may have an opening for a similar PC I'll bother, but if it's popular rules (D&D/Pathfinder) and a special snowflake set-up I probably won't bother, unless the GM says their holding a place for me (and doesn't seem to be a flake).

For unpopular rules it depends on how much of a hassle it looks to learn and how helpful the GM will be (a cool setting and pre-gen PC has me wanting to play ASAP, but I haven't seen that in decades).

[Max_Killjoy]

If I have a PC pre-made that seems close to fitting the GM's game that I may quickly modify then I have a chance to get to "What do you do", and I'm good.

If I don't have a PC pre-made that's close to fitting, chances are that another player does and by the time I will have made an appropriate PC from scratch a place at the table is gone, if it seems like another GM may have an opening for a similar PC I'll bother, but if it's popular rules (D&D/Pathfinder) and a special snowflake set-up I probably won't bother, unless the GM says their holding a place for me (and doesn't seem to be a flake).

This seems to be hitting on a divide between games with random or semi-random groups you happen to be a part of for a while, and games with regular groups that stick together for long spans of time.

Most of my experience is with regular groups where "you need a character right now or you'll lose the spot" isn't even remotely a concern.

[Tanarii]

Most of my experience is with games I'm familiar enough with I can knock out a playable character in 15-30 minutes before the game begins. So not making a character specific to the game or even session isn't something that would have occurred to me. So that's an interesting perspective. As well as totally in character for 2D8HP and his dislike of ... anything complicated.

Some exceptions of course. If I'm walking into a Gurps game or a high level D&D 3e game, I'll want to know a bit more in advance.

[Astofel]

If the GM gives me a theme to work towards then I'll absolutely build a character based around it. On the other hand, I love it when a GM says "you can play x, but for various in-universe reasons you'll have a tougher time because people won't like you", since there's a good chance I'll go straight for x. Like the one time a GM said "Elves are disliked in my world" and half of the players made half-elves while I made a drow. Or the time another GM said "half of my world is ruled by chromatic dragonborn who are kinda tyrannical" so four of the 5-man party played dragonborn of different colours, while the last of course bucked the trend and played a tiefling.

[Quertus]

(a cool setting and pre-gen PC has me wanting to play ASAP, but I haven't seen that in decades).

There are people who specifically prefer pre-gen characters? Huh. Learn something new every day.

This seems to be hitting on a divide between games with random or semi-random groups you happen to be a part of for a while, and games with regular groups that stick together for long spans of time.

Most of my experience is with regular groups where "you need a character right now or you'll lose the spot" isn't even remotely a concern.

A lot of my existing groups would really rather play now, than allowing 6-8 weeks for delivery of my new character concept. So, it can be a concern, IME.

[BWR]

What are your thoughts on making characters to fit a campaign theme, or an adventure path campaign? No Paladins is one thing, but actively making crooks in a crook game, or Clerics in an undead hunter game, is strongly playing the metagame.

Making appropriate characters is a good thing. Making characters that don't fit in the game or the group is a bad thing. The whole idea that characters have to be unique and stand-out to be special, and plot and adventure must be subservient to them is a load of nonsense.
In the first case, it may be intensely metagame but it is entirely appropriate. If the GM says "Guys, y'all are gonna be playing crooks this game" then you make a crook. Or even "this game is going to feature a lot of skullduggery and illegalities, so very good and very lawful characters are inappropriate". It's not in any way bad metagaming if you do what the GM tells you to. In the second case, is playing a cleric something that is unusual or restricted to anti-undead games? If so, it is 'intensely metagaming'. If clerics are a typical class choice which are appropriate, useful and popular for almost any game, it isn't 'intensely metagaming' in the slightest, not until you make one specialized in killing undead.

[BWR]

A lot of my existing groups would really rather play now, than allowing 6-8 weeks for delivery of my new character concept. So, it can be a concern, IME.

You usually spend 6-8 weeks on character creation?

[RazorChain]

As i gather what you're asking is how much information do you give the players what is useful before they start making characters?


All my games traditionally involve combat, talking, information gathering and skullduggery. I will discuss with my players in session zero what the focus of the campaign will be and what skills are useful. Having a combat monster in a intrigue game can be useful just to beat the living crap out of people that oppose you but if everyone shows up with a combat character then there clearly has been some miscommunication.

But ultimately how the players will solve problems depends on their character skills. If they are really good at talking then they will solve their problems that way, if they are good at stealth and subterfuge then that will have focus. Usually the group tries to have their bases covered but if everyone is decent at sneaking then that opens up a lot of option for the whole party just as if everyone can be part of the Con game.

[Tanarii]

As i gather what you're asking is how much information do you give the players what is useful before they start making characters?

No fair summarizing all my rambling, asides, and vague or confusing statements in such a concise way.

In the second case, is playing a cleric something that is unusual or restricted to anti-undead games? If so, it is 'intensely metagaming'. If clerics are a typical class choice which are appropriate, useful and popular for almost any game, it isn't 'intensely metagaming' in the slightest, not until you make one specialized in killing undead.

I said "intensely playing the metagame" not "intensely metagaming". I've only ever heard or read the word used that way(as a verb) used like that in the RPG specific meaning of "ooc instead of ic".

Clearly I shouldn't have used the word. But I wanted to cover all considerations and decisions during the pre-game process outside just the rules.

And in no way am I implied "good" or "bad". I'm wondering "how much" and "what kind" and "how does it affect your thinking". For example, if you know you're playing a game of undead hunters, the choice to play or not play a D&D Cleric is affected by that.

[Quertus]

You usually spend 6-8 weeks on character creation?

I mean, I'd love to spend years and decades fully developing the background and history of a single character, and then play that character forever and ever. Kinda like, you know, the characters I've played before long-term. The decades of play for Quertus? That's a good background for a character. That's something I can work with.

But, yes, I'll take as long as I can working through the details of what made the character the being that they are today, both to help me roleplay them, and to have an interesting psychological experiment to work on.

For example, if you know you're playing a game of undead hunters, the choice to play or not play a D&D Cleric is affected by that.

I mean, I look at my roster of characters, and ask which one(s) would be interested in being an undead hunter. For example,

Quertus? Meh, not really. Unless you need help performing experiments on them.
Armus? Why, are they causing problems for the civilians?
Raymond? Pass.
Amalak? I'd say "count me in", but, honestly, the others will likely need to catch up.
K'Tamair? K'Tamair am be no fun with dumb dead talls. Zzzz
Winx? By the power of Bendeth, I'll smite that foe.
Ikou? Similar to Armus, are they an active threat? If so, one valiant hero to the rescue!
Khan? Sure, I'll gladly sell them into slavery. Oh, not what you had in mind? Never mind.
Darius? Can I not?
Glixxon? Live and let... be undead.

So, me, I just look at the characters I'd enjoy playing, and pick the one that best matches the hook see how they would interact with the hook / what I know of the adventure - and the party, the players, and the GM. Then I pick the one I think would be the most fun, all around.

EDIT: So, perhaps the interesting part is not "how much", but "how" I play the pre-game metagame?

[Tanarii]

What if you're playing a game where you need to make a new character? Or do you only play games where you can import an existing character now?

Edit: how, how much, what you consider, what information you like to have from the GM, what you don't want to have, how much you like to discuss what the other players are making, all that jazz.

And even though I'm not quoting everyone, I'm reading you all and it's interesting. Thanks for all responses so far.

[Quertus]

What if you're playing a game where you need to make a new character? Or do you only play games where you can import an existing character now?

Fair question. ... similar process, I suppose. I take my roster of "character ideas I've been toying around with", look at how close to finished they are, how they'd respond to the plot hook, and how they'd mesh with the party, the players, and the GM. But, as they are a bit less... "defined" than existing characters, it's a much more error-prone process. (EDIT: this is one of the reasons why I prefer to play new characters in one-shots, and only bring existing characters for longer commitments)

For a system I've never heard of before, and have no character concepts for ("trans-humanity? WTF does that mean?"), well, it's still a similar process, but even more vague and error-prone: I try to come up with a bunch of different concepts, run them through that same heuristic, attempt to account for error of "I have no idea what any of these players will try to run in this kind of game (no matter how much they say, they'll only hit it from one PoV of many), what the gameplay of this system is like, etc", lament the lack of 6-8 weeks of time to come up with a real "character", then pick the one that best matches "what I think I might have a chance of enjoying, might work with the party, and either can work as a playing piece rather than a character, or might be a statistically-appropriate meat-sack an existing god can puppet (so I don't actually have to fail at building a whole new personality in the ½ hour to 2 days before we play)". But I also add in "what will work best as a learning experience in this new system", to help me improve the odds of my next character being playable. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or... you get the idea.

EDIT:

Edit: how, how much, what you consider, what information you like to have from the GM, what you don't want to have, how much you like to discuss what the other players are making, all that jazz.

And even though I'm not quoting everyone, I'm reading you all and it's interesting. Thanks for all responses so far.

I rely much more on my Knowledge: GM and Knowledge: The Players than anything they actually say. Rarely does what the players say really matter much, compared to what I know about them. Now, if the players had actually said that they were planning on bringing a Paladin, an Assassin, an Undead Hunter, and an Undead Master, that might have been actionable information. But, for purpose of stories I get to tell, I'm glad that they didn't.

I like to have the high-level, non-spoiler "what my character will know in the first 15 minutes" version of the plot hook (or the "combat/political sandbox" label). If, for some reason, I can't know that, because spoilers, I'd like the GM to sanity-check "I don't think you'll enjoy playing this character in this game" for at least the rest of the group, and probably me, too, so that no-one is unexpectedly useless.

If stuff like this is helpful, I'll try to babble more stuff like this later. If it isn't, let me know what would be.

[Mike_G]

I think it matters a lot.

There are many types of game, and some characters will fit well into some games but poorly in others. Political intrigue or kick in the door hack and slash, exploring the wild frontier vs playing competing crime families in a corrupt major city, paranormal investigators preventing the cultists from summoning the Great Old ones vs a group of seafaring adventurers out to raid and trade their way to wealth, these require different approaches.

I've played all of these scenarios, and they are a lot of fun when you build your character to work well with the scenario and the party. I dislike games where most of the party is trying to pull off a heist and That One Guy only ever plays Paladins insists on doing so. No pacifists in The Dirty Dozen, no Paladins in Oceans Eleven, no pyromaniac cannibal serial killers in crew of the Enterprise.

[RazorChain]

I don't find it strange that Quertus will use 6-8 weeks on his character. My groups will often use weeks or months prepping for a new campaign. Usually it goes something like 2-3 months before I announce that I'm running a campaign untill actual play start.

My session zero lasts this whole time while I feed the players info, answer questions and they discuss what they want to play and bounce ideas. This we do online even though we dont play online.

So when we enter play everyone is familiar with the setting, each others characters and why they are a group or how they will become group.

I do not adhere to Quertus' train of thought on
"how do we make this random collection of characters work?"

Because frankly some of the time it wont work and I've taken part in campaigns that died because of this. For a GM that might be dozens of hours of prep time wasted and I am not going to gamble my time like an idiot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will say that one thing I demand to know before character creation is what major houserules or alternate rules are in play. If we're playing with variant encumbrance, let us know that before we make characters! (Why, yes, I'm still a bit annoyed by finding out that my character concept of an academic dwarven cleric wouldn't work, as just his basic gear was more than his regular carrying capacity, let alone the 3-4 books he habitually carried everywhere. Especially finding out about this in the middle of a dungeon, days and days away from any kind of store where I could switch out my armor.).

[Quertus]

I do not adhere to Quertus' train of thought on
"how do we make this random collection of characters work?"

Because frankly some of the time it wont work and I've taken part in campaigns that died because of this. For a GM that might be dozens of hours of prep time wasted and I am not going to gamble my time like an idiot.

Hmmm... Interesting point.

For the personalities, mindset, and just "character" of the character, you certainly can reach a situation where things won't work (see "the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and the Undead Master"). And this is mostly where I rely on knowledge: players to pick someone who will work with the group. And knowledge: GM, plus hook or sandbox label to pick someone who will work with the game. As an added bonus, if the character is known to the group, I get free error checking just by saying, "I'm thinking of bringing Armus".

But statistics are another matter. The "all fighter" party may roflstomp the module, or may need to retreat from supposedly easy encounters, to come back more prepared. This puzzle is only a problem if you insist on one play style, and insist that beer and pretzles kick in the door, or Combat as Sport "appropriate level of challenge" is the only way to play the game.

That came across wrong. Let me try again. Party + adventure + play style together can result in a fail state, yes. I, personally, allow much more flex on the "play style" portion, and, thus, don't hit your "wasted prep time" fail state on abnormal / suboptimal statistical groupings. But, yes, if your group wants to play a certain way, and that's what you find fun, you can't really enjoy the "wtf do we do now?" minigame. That makes perfect sense.

Me, I enjoy looking back at things like the party that struggled, the character that struggled in the party that took names, and the party of BDHs, let alone the many parties that unexpectedly struggled with or breezed through various individual encounters. That helps give the party / the characters more identity, at least for me. And makes the game fell more real, rather than a series of encounters unrealistically designed for this exact party.

But, then, I cut my teeth in an era where "ancient red dragon as a random encounter for a first level party" was seem as the height of realism, so ymmv.

[RazorChain]

@Quertus

Yes I'm talking about personalities, mindset, ideals and goals not the mechanical side of the characters.

Working toghether on character creation minimizes this kind of failures and avoids duplicates like two players showing up with Drow Rangers dual wielding scimitars.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Quertus

Yes I'm talking about personalities, mindset, ideals and goals not the mechanical side of the characters.

Working together on character creation minimizes this kind of failures and avoids duplicates like two players showing up with Drow Rangers dual wielding scimitars.

Optimal number of said would be zero, right?