What does and doesn't constitute metagaming?

[Tanarii]

Heck, my character knows how to cast spells and/or swing a sword. I do not. My character knows what the skin of a Quartan sheep feels like. I don't. I know what an atom is. My character does not, because atoms don't exist in Quartus. My character knows what it's like to kill a living, intelligent creature in anger. I know what it's like to fire a gun (at a paper target). Neither of these the other can possibly know. We are not our characters, they are not us. We are responsible for our characters, but they are not subsets of us, mere avatars.

Your character doesn't exist. What you are describing is pretending the character that is a figment of your imagination within your own head knows these things. That's not the same as a person that's not you actually knowing these things. At which point you either resort to rules to resolve things involving said knowing, or you make something up about it despite not knowing. Both of which could be totally unlike the actual thing (if the actual thing exists).

This becomes even more problematic when it comes to the player knowing something, pretending the fictional character inside their head doesn't know the thing, second guessing themselves, then claiming it's the same as not knowing. Because the last part is just opinion, and that's a big part of where the issues and screams and nerd rage about "metagaming" often come from.

I'd say that a player thinking, "my character grew up in a secluded monastery. She doesn't know anything about trolls, so I'll just attack the way I always do unless somebody tells me otherwise." is roleplaying.

I'd say that's second guessing yourself, and also metagaming while you're at it.

[JoeJ]

I'd say that's second guessing yourself, and also metagaming while you're at it.

No more so than me deciding that my character is afraid of heights, or is prejudiced against humans, or can't pass a tavern without stopping for a drink.

[Tanarii]

No more so than me deciding that my character is afraid of heights, or is prejudiced against humans, or can't pass a tavern without stopping for a drink.

Yes exactly.

[JoeJ]

Yes exactly.

It sounds like you're arguing that playing a character with a personality different than I am in real life is a bad thing. Is that your point, or am I misunderstanding.

[Tanarii]

It sounds like you're arguing that playing a character with a personality different than I am in real life is a bad thing. Is that your point, or am I misunderstanding.

Nope. Pretending to play a character with a personality different from your own is metagaming. That's not inherently a bad thing.

The only thing that's a bad thing is getting twisted in knots about "metagaming" because someone else didn't sufficiently pretend not to know something they actually knew, in the twistees opinion. Often because they're failing to understand the other person can't actually act like they don't know, all they can do is pretend to behave that way, and how they would have acted if they honestly didn't know is purely conjecture and opinion.

[JoeJ]

Nope. Pretending to play a character with a personality different from your own is metagaming. That's not inherently a bad thing.

The only thing that's a bad thing is getting twisted in knots about "metagaming" because someone else didn't sufficiently pretend not to know something they actually knew, in the twistees opinion. Often because they're failing to understand the other person can't actually act like they don't know, all they can do is pretend to behave that way, and how they would have acted if they honestly didn't know is purely conjecture and opinion.

Okay. That's not how I would define "metagaming" but I agree with your point about it not being bad.

[Tanarii]

Okay. That's not how I would define "metagaming" but I agree with your point about it not being bad.

I'm getting that a lot hahaha

I'll ... just leave this thread be for a little while, given that.

[jas61292]

If other PCs want to use their action that way, why is it a problem? Or, if time is not critical, why roll at all? Per DMG p. 237, if failure has no consequence, just multiply the time used by 10 and rule that they succeed (assuming that it's possible for them to succeed at this task).

If its not critical, then yeah, just have them succeed or fail. Don't have them roll. but the idea of one character rolling, failing, and then having another character roll (when they would not know the other character failed) only when they fail is not in the spirit of the game, imo. Its also kinda not in the spirit of the rules themselves. If one person wants to do something, the one character rolls. If multiple characters want to do it, you make it a group check and then everyone rolls, with a success if 50% of the group pass the DC. If, instead of one of those, you let each character try in sequence until one succeeds, you not only unreasonably skyrocket the odds of always being successful, but you strain the believability of the situation.

[Tawmis]

I think Metagaming is different for everyone.

First and foremost is the expectation at the table. Is everyone just gathering to hang out and have fun? Metagaming might not be an issue.
Is the table some serious roleplayers - some metagaming might be an issue.
Rogue rolls a 3 to check for traps - player knows he failed - other saw he rolled a 3 - so the bard decides to suddenly check for traps, when they normally don't.
That's a source of metagaming.
Also knowing an ("exotic") creature's weakness - say trolls are EXTREMELY rare in your world - and one of the players shouts, "Burn them with fire!" How might they know that if trolls are so rare and their background has no connection to trolls?
Another time is if two people are discussing a plan, and the third who isn't there (party separated, maybe) - decides to take specific actions based on knowledge the player is hearing rather than what the character knows.
Or if the rogue sneaks ahead, gets extra gold - and doesn't divvy it all among the players - and a player calls them out for it (maybe the DM says, "You find 600 gold" - and among 6 players, the rogue only shares out 40 per player.

In the end - it's all a very gray area as to what falls under "metagaming."

The best thing to do is establish those rolls with Session 0.

One thing I do - make the Rogue, for example, roll their check behind my DM screen - so only me and the Rogue know what they rolled.

But that doesn't stop a suspicious player from checking anyway.

[Garimeth]

I think Metagaming is different for everyone.

... <LOTS OF GOOD COMMENTS> ...

The best thing to do is establish those rolls with Session 0.

This sums it up.

[JoeJ]

Also knowing an ("exotic") creature's weakness - say trolls are EXTREMELY rare in your world - and one of the players shouts, "Burn them with fire!" How might they know that if trolls are so rare and their background has no connection to trolls?

If I had to deal in real life with something that seemed to grow back after I hurt it, fire would be the first thing I'd think of to try.

[Tawmis]

If I had to deal in real life with something that seemed to grow back after I hurt it, fire would be the first thing I'd think of to try.

Fair enough - was just trying to think of a universally known (among everyone here) - of a creature that has a specific weakness.

Werewolves and silver, for example. Creatures that can only be hurt by magic or silver.

You get the idea. :D

[kingcheesepants]

I think that's solid but I would maybe tailor it more like this:

"PC XXX is a AGE/RACE/CLASS/BACKGROUND. In your setting how common is magic, how rare are supernatural creatures, how rare are adventurers (and of what avergae level), and what is the average education level? Could PC expect to have a working knowledge of magic and the more common monsters in the monster manual?"

Obviously, you could get way more in depth, but their responses to that is going to let you know how permissive or not they are, which is a good starting point. It also opens it up to a bit of a dialogue with the DM about it, which if they are reasonable - they will be open to, and if they aren't.... well its good to identify that upfront.

Yes this seems like a very good starting point. Concise enough not to take too long but detailed enough that I can get a good working knowledge of what to expect and allows for easily bringing up anything else in a similar vein that might complicate things.

[Angelalex242]

I'm gonna sum this up as 'not every player is suited for every DM's table.'

This strikes me as the same debate that happens when people go to gameFAQs for a video game vs. those that don't.

Player A looks up the sidequest on GameFAQs: as a result, he completes in 30 minutes cause he knows where he's going.

Player B considers GameFAQs beneath him, and takes a whole week trying to figure out the sidequest cause he hasn't got a clue where he's going.

Player B self righteously considers himself superior to player A cause he did it 'right.'

Player A thinks player B is a moron who just wasted 80 hours of his life he'll never get back.

If Player A and Player B then go play D&D together, Player B will spend all the live long day declaring Player A (Who naturally reads the monster manual thoroughly and probably researched the adventure modules the DM is running) a metagamer, where Player A considers Player B an unprepared moron.

And thus, nobody is happy.

[Rev666]

If other PCs want to use their action that way, why is it a problem? Or, if time is not critical, why roll at all? Per DMG p. 237, if failure has no consequence, just multiply the time used by 10 and rule that they succeed (assuming that it's possible for them to succeed at this task).

Its more the fact that the others decide to try because they've seen the dice roll low whereas if they saw the dice roll high they instantly trust that its clear.

[kingcheesepants]

Its more the fact that the others decide to try because they've seen the dice roll low whereas if they saw the dice roll high they instantly trust that its clear.

Both double checking the low roll and trusting the high roll are instances of metagaming, allowing the result of die rolls which your characters have no way of knowing dictate their actions. Do both of them bother you in the same way? I wouldn't be bothered by either case, it makes sense for characters to double check for one another in the former and it speeds up gameplay in the latter. In your estimation should both characters attempt to find traps in every instance where they fail to find a trap the first time? I suppose that's less metagamey but it would slow things down a bit.

[cookieface]

I think that one of the big problems in easily evaluating things is that some people assume that everyone in a pre industrial era was extremely uneducated and would know next to nothing about things outside of their community, while others feel that people would be going around and learning and hearing things and would of course know a pretty good deal. Another complication is that some people are running games with lots of monsters and magic and others are running games with almost nothing (or it's all super secret). So I think that maybe even if I can't have a full proper conversation about metagaming expectations I could at least ask those 2 questions, namely what's the general education level and how common are various creatures.

I think that the tensions I've had with some of the groups up until now arose from a mismatch of expectations. I thought that the things we were running into were if not common at least not ultra rare and would have been written about or had stories told of them which people would be familiar with. Whereas the DM was intending for the things to be completely surprising and different and have no antecedent or stories or anything that would tell us about them. Just basically occasions where I thought info would or should be easily obtained to the point of just being background info but the DM wanted to make it much rarer than I assumed. So from now on I'll try to have a quick chat and just ask what can I assume about general education and rarity of stuff in this world.

I think that, in the example you originally gave (knowing that a blue dragon has lightning breath), it would be dependent on the availability of that knowledge (a) and your PC's skills (b).

What I mean by that is ...

Is knowledge of dragons commonplace? Are dragons exceedingly rare, to the point that they are considered fantastical? If they fall somewhere between, would a moderately educated person know details about them (for instance, most people know that raccoons can get into trash, or that lots of snakes are poisonous and should be avoided), or would they need to specifically seek out that knowledge (for instance, learning about the behaviors of jellyfish, or Amazonian ants would require the person to seek out that knowledge, given they are not living in ocean or in the Amazon)?
Generally, this information would need to be provided by the DM.

Does your PC meet the prerequisites set out by the DM to have the level of knowledge needed for this particular creature? If they are a soldier fighter, they might not know about a blue dragon's abilities, but if they are a sage wizard, it would be expected that they do (provided someone, somewhere, wrote details about dragons). Do you have proficiency in Arcana? Nature? Animal Handling? Survival? Would your character's backstory reasonably cause you to have some knowledge about a specific creature? If you can justify why a certain skill score or a certain facet of your background would translate to knowledge in a certain way, then I think a DM should allow it. ("My draconic bloodline sorcerer feels a kinship with dragons, and therefore has a preternatural knowledge of their specific chromatic abilities." or "My ranger who survived for weeks all alone in the feywilds would know that Hags are weaker when they are not with their coven.")
Generally, this information would need to be provided by the player.

That's my personal thought on how to actually litigate these things -- these are things that should be addressed in session 0, but if not, then a discussion between player and DM would be needed when the issue arises.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Okay. That's not how I would define "metagaming" but I agree with your point about it not being bad.

Just absolutely useless, because every character is different from ourselves. It's a definition that sets everything to metagaming, and thus mashed the concept meaningless.

[cookieface]

Pretending to play a character with a personality different from your own is metagaming.

I think that that is what most people's definition of "gaming" is; nothing "meta" about it.

For instance, do you consider playing, say Halo or Mario Galaxy or Dark Souls to be "metagaming"? What about Monopoly or Risk?

I'm not strong and courageous like Master Chief. I'm not whimsical and risk-taking like Mario is. I'm not greedy and power hungry like a player is meant to be in Monopoly or Risk.

There's nothing "meta" about, essentially, playing pretend. "Meta" means self-referential, so in this case is generally accepted to mean changing how you play pretend in order to be better at playing pretend.

[Darth Credence]

Both double checking the low roll and trusting the high roll are instances of metagaming, allowing the result of die rolls which your characters have no way of knowing dictate their actions. Do both of them bother you in the same way? I wouldn't be bothered by either case, it makes sense for characters to double check for one another in the former and it speeds up gameplay in the latter. In your estimation should both characters attempt to find traps in every instance where they fail to find a trap the first time? I suppose that's less metagamey but it would slow things down a bit.

It certainly wouldn't have to slow things down. If one person says they are going to search, have everyone make an investigation check. A few seconds slower than just one person rolling because everyone will have to call out, but much faster than even one person deciding to roll after seeing what someone else got. Plus, it lets everyone join in, instead of going down the same progression every time. You may even get a chance to enact the trope of the clueless person stumbling on the lever that opens a secret door.

[JoeJ]

Its more the fact that the others decide to try because they've seen the dice roll low whereas if they saw the dice roll high they instantly trust that its clear.

Yeah, that's a result of rolling the dice when there's no reason to. The other players can't see the roll if there isn't one. Just by using the rules for passive checks, and for automatic success (on tasks that are possible at all), you don't really ever need to create a situation where you're giving the player information their character couldn't have.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I think that that is what most people's definition of "gaming" is; nothing "meta" about it.

For instance, do you consider playing, say Halo or Mario Galaxy or Dark Souls to be "metagaming"? What about Monopoly or Risk?

I'm not strong and courageous like Master Chief. I'm not whimsical and risk-taking like Mario is. I'm not greedy and power hungry like a player is meant to be in Monopoly or Risk.

There's nothing "meta" about, essentially, playing pretend. "Meta" means self-referential, so in this case is generally accepted to mean changing how you play pretend in order to be better at playing pretend.

Then, would it be meta-gaming when replaying Mario Sunshine to know there are 120 shine sprites? Or to know how to get to a secret level? Or where to find the blue coins?

Would it be meta-gaming when replaying Dark Souls to know how to get certain weapons? Or how to save Reah from Petrus? Or what to trade to Snuggly?

Is it meta-gaming in Halo when I know where all the weapon/power-up spawns on Blood Gulch are? Or how the boss on the first Arbiter level in Halo 2 works? Or what weapons are best against Flood enemies?

I'm not changing how I play. This is the natural state of how I would play these games, especially on consecutive playthroughs. It's the same with D&D. If one plays it often enough, they'll develop skill and knowledge about how the game works. It would be kind of silly not to use it.

[cookieface]

Then, would it be meta-gaming when replaying Mario Sunshine to know there are 120 shine sprites? Or to know how to get to a secret level? Or where to find the blue coins?

Would it be meta-gaming when replaying Dark Souls to know how to get certain weapons? Or how to save Reah from Petrus? Or what to trade to Snuggly?

Is it meta-gaming in Halo when I know where all the weapon/power-up spawns on Blood Gulch are? Or how the boss on the first Arbiter level in Halo 2 works? Or what weapons are best against Flood enemies?

On a certain level, yeah. But when you play Mario Sunshine, you aren't expected to roleplay what your little plumber would do when he finds out Bowser Jr. kidnapped Peach (or whatever, I can't keep all of the inciting SMB incidents straight). You have plenty of ways to play the game, and the operating system allows this. The accepted level of meta-gaming is very high. Compare that with even, say, Bioshock or Fallout, where player decisions lead to different outcomes down the line. Do you harvest every Little Sister because it gives you a mechanical advantage? Or do you not, because killing these small children is morally wrong? Or is it dependent on other contextual events?

Even so, in those games you are allowed to play outside of your character's "knowledge" in game because, again, the game system allows it.

In DND, you are definitively asked to roleplay. You are going into another character's eyes and ears and boots and you are expected to constantly ask yourself, "What would [PC] do in this moment?" Your character may or may not have a lot of the knowledge that you have, but you are expected to play the game as though the character is making decision, not as though the player is. There are times when that line being blurred is okay -- for instance, I know I can walk away from this enemy because it already used its reaction! or I know I can cast this buff spell because that teammate's turn is next and they can utilize it before I might drop concentration!

Add to all this that your playing in DND is not part of some mechanical gaming system. You are playing in the DM's world at the DM's discretion. If they say you cannot seek a certain shine sprite because there is no way your version of Mario would know it is there, then uh oh! You won't be able to seek that shine sprite.

I'm not changing how I play. This is the natural state of how I would play these games, especially on consecutive playthroughs. It's the same with D&D. If one plays it often enough, they'll develop skill and knowledge about how the game works. It would be kind of silly not to use it.

No offense, but then I think you're missing a key element of what it means to roleplay. A level 20 fighter that you play your first campaign with is going to have far, far more experience than a level 1 fighter in the campaign you are about to start. If you are using the same "skill and knowledge" developed from playing a level 20 character for your level 1 character, then for me that is excessive metagaming.

(Here, I mean "skill and knowledge" as things like knowing what specific rays a beholder can fire, or how best to traverse a certain dungeon best in a rerun of the same campaign -- not the obvious mechanical advantages that a level 20 fighter gives compared to level 1, or knowing basic tactical strategies. No matter how often you, the player, plays the game, your PC only gains experience and knowledge from what they've done in-game/in-character.)

As an honest aside, do your DMs never say anything offhand when fighting a homebrewed monster like "This thing still has over 100 HP left, it's a freakin' tank" or "This beast has that one absolutely devastating attack, but it can only do it once a day so it's not like I set this up to be a TPK"? (in the case of the second, my DM just said something similar in a recent session, which was MUCH appreciated because otherwise the morale was super low in the group at that moment -- it felt like a fight we couldn't win when our Paladin was one-shot right away.) If they say something like that, to you the players out-of-game, do you really immediately weaponize that in-game to your advantage? For instance, if your DM responds to a large blow with "No, it's not bloodied yet -- this thing has non-magical resistance AND tons of HP" when your PCs were otherwise ready to fight to the death, do you turn and run away against the motivations of your PC?

[rel]

metagaming is the process of using out of character information to direct the action of a character.
It is in general most egregious when the GM does it; having cowardly creatures grimly fight to the death, flawlessly targeting the squishies and damage dealers regardless of disguises or chicanery, confidently ignoring illusions and taking hidden characters into account when taking actions, having dim or mindless creatures become inexplicable tactical geniuses once combat starts, the list goes on.

Whichever side of the screen the players are on the issues with metagaming are twofold; spoiling peoples fun and breaking the verisimilitude of the fictional universe.

The best solution is to talk things over out of game and get everyone on the same page.

Trying to institute rules to stop metagaming runs into the problem that, like card counting, it exists mostly in a persons head. You can ban the notebook and the calculator but you can't stop an enterprising soul from thinking wrong or even prove that they were.

And the kind of people who enjoy meta gaming often also enjoy examining rule systems, exploiting their flaws and finding the loopholes.
Like trying to counter optimisation by ramping up monster difficulty, it risks setting off an arms race, great if everyone is invested in that, but often an unintended consequence.

[Glorthindel]

I have always interpreted metagaming a "playing the rules of the game" instead of "playing the game"; where you use knowledge of the games rules and interactions to short-circuit events and encounters, that would have taken longer or been more difficult had you just played the game straight.

I am going to use a non-roleplay example of what I mean:

I was recently playing a Blood Bowl 2 (PC version of the GW board game) league. The final game of the league between me and another player would decide the league (if he won, he would win the league and I'd come third, if I won, I would come second and him third). Both of us had a surplus of cash to spend on inducements (bonus players, and special effects like wizards throwing spells onto the pitch) for the game, as we expected our game to be the decider. However, a quirk of how the game is programmed was the handicapping system - the team with the lowest team rating got bonus cash equal to the rating difference for inducements (this is fine and normal), BUT, the team with the highest rating had to spend any inducement cash first, and that spent cash was added to their rating before the second team spent theirs, so if they spent any of their cash, their rating would shoot up, and give a massive bonus of 'unearned' cash to the lower rating team (this creates a bit of a weird effect where its actually beneficial to have a lower rating, as you can always spend cash as you like, while a higher rating team will always be penalised for spending any cash - I am not sure if this is a mistake in the game or intentional). As it stood before the game, my rating was 20 points higher than my opponent, and we both had around 150k to spend on inducements. As things stood, if I spent my 150k, my rating would inflate to 170 above my opponent, giving him 320k (170 for the difference, plus his own 150) to spend, a massive, game-changing amount. However, I knew about this rule quirk, and I was fairly sure my opponent didn't, so I sacked a player (worth 50 rating) immediately before the game, dropping my rating below his, which meant the game forced him to buy his inducements first, which he did, giving me the massive inducement value advantage. This I consider the definition of metagaming - I did something that made no sense in the context of the game 'world' (firing a player from my team) because I knew that it would create a rule interaction that would give me an advantage - I played the rules not the game.

[OldTrees1]

I have always interpreted metagaming a "playing the rules of the game" instead of "playing the game"; where you use knowledge of the games rules and interactions to short-circuit events and encounters, that would have taken longer or been more difficult had you just played the game straight.

This I consider the definition of metagaming - I did something that made no sense in the context of the game 'world' (firing a player from my team) because I knew that it would create a rule interaction that would give me an advantage - I played the rules not the game.

I use a similar but slightly broader definition (partially due to metagame being a term defined outside of D&D).

Metagaming is "playing the game outside of the game".

In your example you engaged in learning the rules to find a rule interaction that would provide you an advantage. You then used that knowledge disparity and the rule interaction to out maneuver your opponent inside the game.

In Magic the Gathering, I might edit my deck between weeks based upon the shift in what decks other people brought last week. Deck construction is part of setting up the game of MtG and I am making moves (amending my deck to flank or avoid being flanked) on that meta level. The net result of everyone doing this defines the main part of the metagame for magic. https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Metagame

However not all metagaming is about trying to get a competitive advantage. In cooperative games the metagame level is where all of the compromises and arrangements happen.

When building a commander deck in MtG (commander is a more laid back / friendly format) to play with my friends, I take into account what gameplay would be fun / unfun for them. If a card / mechanic would hurt the fun of the group, then I don't want to include it during deck building.

In D&D our session 0 discussions are similar. We are talking outside of the game and configuring the game based upon these metagame elements. We are playing a cooperative game of seeing what campaign configurations would be the most fun for the group.

So metagaming is about anything stemming from the metagame (game outside the game) whether it is to gain an in game advantage or cooperation to satisfy an out of game objective.

[Garimeth]

However not all metagaming is about trying to get a competitive advantage. In cooperative games the metagame level is where all of the compromises and arrangements happen.

When building a commander deck in MtG (commander is a more laid back / friendly format) to play with my friends, I take into account what gameplay would be fun / unfun for them. If a card / mechanic would hurt the fun of the group, then I don't want to include it during deck building.

In D&D our session 0 discussions are similar. We are talking outside of the game and configuring the game based upon these metagame elements. We are playing a cooperative game of seeing what campaign configurations would be the most fun for the group.

So metagaming is about anything stemming from the metagame (game outside the game) whether it is to gain an in game advantage or cooperation to satisfy an out of game objective.

I think this is an important distinction. I do the same thing when I play Civilization with my wife. I am competitive, and she is not. she just wants to explore and found her cities and manage her resources. I want to win. So when I play a game with her, I do not do domination (military) victories. Because that would make the game unfun for her, and we are playing together to have fun. I stick to "soft" victories.

Session 0 is the time to discuss specifics, but I do unspoken versions of this all the time in the one game I get to play, which is CoS. I chose a Twilight cleric, and I just make everyone else awesome at what they do. I am a high OP player, and the others aren't. If I start playing my high OP playstyle unleashed the others will have less fun, so I don't.

Granted, this does lead to me rolling my eyes and cursing behind my monitor (we play online) but hey whatever, they are my friends and I want them to have fun their way.

[KorvinStarmast]

The game world exists in our *shared* minds. And that makes all the difference. No single person contains the entire thing. Which makes them more that just us, individually. And thus requires separation between character and player.

I mostly agree, but as regards your last sentence I am going to disagree with you in a different way than Tanarii did, because I think we have a terminology problem.

The Player and the Character can't be separated, else the Player can't make decisions that the Character acts upon. They are connected at the very least at the conceptual level, or as a matter of ideation.

The issue, in a discussion like this, is the degree of intersection of the two sets, with "sets" substituting in for "states of being" or "condition". The player and the character are well illustrated, I think, as intersecting sets or overlapping circles.



The extent of the overlap will range from there being a sliver of red to having the two circles nearly be on top of each other and it be nearly all red. That represents to me the range of 'depth of immersion' - which is another facet of player / character distance versus proximity. You are right in this respect: the player's ability to utterly fill in the boots of the character is incomplete.

I didn't, to use an example, grow up in "that game world" for 22 years before we started our adventuring career.
I rolled some dice or picked an array and met the character during chargen. She emerged as a result of my process of creation of her existence. That is the foundation of our bond, of our intersection, our overlap.

A great deal of intuitive knowledge and understanding that my character possesses is unknown to both the player and the DM. Playing a character with which you have less in common is (IME) a bigger challenge than playing one where you have a few RL parallel skills or knowledge bases or predilections in common.

Spoiler: one of my bad chargen habits

Show

I have a bit of a habit of defaulting to the Sailor background because I spent a lot of years in the Navy, I like pirate stories and sea stories, I have sailed, and I have learned a lot about sailing ships through history. But I do play PCs with other backgrounds. It is easier, I think, to play a character where your own skills overlap somewhat.

1. IRL, I know how to play guitar, albeit not all that well, and I can carry a tune, though at present my singing is best done in the shower.
2. The bard that I play is an excellent enough singer and musician to earn money from doing that. I most certainly am not. My daughter, however, is. (Voice major, and now in the music industry).
3. My bard and I are in a state of imperfect overlap between player and character without that overlap being debilitating. I am able to play her, and role play her, well enough.

What makes this possible? Among other things, the Die rolls help us flesh out, when needed, how well the character's understanding, talent, or knowlege surfaces when I decide that the bard recites a joke or poem, persuades a sheriff not to arrest a friend, scares a pirate captain into helping the party, or what have you.

As for the magical spells like dissonant whispers I, the player, can't do it. What I the player can do is decide that the character casts the spell because I understand how a given spell works. I, in the real world, understand how the spell works in the imagined world, or as you call it, our shared world.
Yet the bard (Character) can't do anything until I make a decision, or the DM narrates something.

While this may sound nit picky, I don't think the term separation is a very good choice of terms for the relationship between player and character in this particular RPG.

Beyond that, and to return to the topic, where metagaming discussions can get prickly is where the overlap, illustrated above, is perceived as being of different amounts by the participants in the discussion. The two sides can, as The Dude might opine, respond to the other's points with "well, that's your opinion man" and both be right.

This can make these kinds of conversations quite challenging. (All that the Forge succeeded in doing, for the years that it existed, was to pour fuel onto that flame in my opinion).

--------------------

As for metagaming being described as playing the rules versus playing the game, we see it in profesional sports all of the time.

Killing the clock in football and in basketball, for starters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, so go back and edit "separated" to be "have non zero but not total overlap". That's all I meant anyway. It's a separation, just not a complete one. There are things that I know that the characters should be treated as if they don't know (otherwise the game devolves into comedy of the 4th wall breaking and/or isekai types).

[stoutstien]

Ok, so go back and edit "separated" to be "have non zero but not total overlap". That's all I meant anyway. It's a separation, just not a complete one. There are things that I know that the characters should be treated as if they don't know (otherwise the game devolves into comedy of the 4th wall breaking and/or isekai types).

I think the level and intensity of the PC/player overlap is in a state of fluctuation most of the time. Every time something changes or a dice is rolled the whole relationship warps to fit the new state the game is in. Sometimes this means that players need to willingly play down knowledge they have or play up to knowledge the PC has. It's mostly a self regulated concept and trying to establish any sort of hard parameters isn't going to remove it and cause a lot of extra work with no noticable impact.

There are more efficient ways of making sure the game runs well for all involved then trying to constantly judge players actions to determine if they have breached some arbitrary knowledge separation.