Defining Metagaming as a Pejorative

[quinron]

As others have noted, I think the perjorative part of it is what makes the definition here.

I would go so far as to say that given it’s the intent of the action that matters and garners condemnation, something like this:

“Deliberate exploitation and manipulation of the game system to gain advantage at the expense of the verisimilitude, internal consistency, and intended use of the system and/or the story”.

See, that feels very different from "pejorative." I read the term "pejorative" and I get the context of "insulting," which (at least from cursory dictionary website checks, because I started to question myself) seems pretty accurate.

I'd say that the use of "metagaming" as a pejorative is basically "an accusation intended to imply that a player's action meets the criteria of harmful metagaming." And I think what you've offered here is a pretty workable and useful definition of "harmful metagaming." But I also think that the number of pejorative accusations of metagaming vastly outnumber the actual instances of harmful metagaming.

[Quertus]

The guy who finds the one racial/class/deity/whatever combination that is exactly and perfectly optimized for what he wants even if there is no reason why this combination makes sense or reflects who he is playing. That sort of thing.

I don't think that that's "metagaming", bad or otherwise.

And how many people here know what the Playgrounder's Fallacy is? I'm one and there might not be two people in this thread because it never spread very far.

I do! Its not really a fallacy, but that system agnostic discussions are system agnostic and not just Dnd 3.5, which this being a very DnD 3.5 based forum, tend to forget. a lot. Playgrounder's Fallacy is thus assuming that the discussion is about DnD 3.5 when its about things regardless of system.

for this discussion, metagaming might take different forms depending on the system. some may even require it to function. see: any "narrative" game.

I know what it is, but that's in part because I'm not a huge D&D fan so I notice every time someone just assumes we're talking specifically about D&D.

Add me to the list. So 4 (so far). 4 is not 2. Does that make you technically correct?

[Max_Killjoy]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pejorative

[erikun]

Here's a fuzzy example: the rogue has climbed into the evil king's bedroom, and the evil king is asleep. The rogue should logically be able to kill him easily, but he refuses to do so because he knows that one Sneak Attack isn't going to kill most things of the party's level, and he doesn't want to get into a fight with this "boss monster" while the rest of the party is still climbing the rope to get up here. Is that metagaming? And if it is, who's at fault for it - the player for thinking like this, the GM for running a game that convinced the player that this is the way to think, or the designers for failing to tell the GM that sometimes it's okay if stabbing a character in the throat just straight-up kills them instead of allowing an attack that deals 8d6 extra damage on a hit?

I think this is a situation where the player just doesn't have enough information.

See, the character would have some basic knowledge of how their abilities work and how tough things in the world are. Anything past a 1st level rogue would've likely been fighting goblins and orcs and possibly over humans. They would've seen enemy throats getting slashed, and know if this causes someone to gurgle and fall over, or just spit blood and roar and keep fighting. They'd know if having a large chunk of metal inside your chest cavity is a paralyzing death sentence, or if this is a minor inconvenience. In short, the character would know "how HP works" and so understand how stabbing a helpless target would end up.

But the player doesn't necessarily know that. They just know that they deal +2d6 sneak attack and that enemies have HP. What should reasonably happen is the player ask the DM if they can even kill the target like this - that is, the player asking what the character would reasonably understand in this situation. (Note that I don't mean "Does the king have any magic protections I know about?" but rather, "Is stabbing someone in the eye fatal?") And, if not given any information, it would not be metagamey to assume the assassination attempt wouldn't work due to stabbing other opponents in the lungs not really preventing them from crying out or spellcasting either.

Then they, the player, is assuming a king NPC is a Conan, a leveled character or equivalent. There's no reason that doesn't translate to the character doing exactly the same thing in universe.

That's fine, and that does answer the question. Although it is assuming that a sleeping high-level character cannot be killed by one stab to the eye, something that isn't always clear at a particular table. (Even in D&D.)

I, for one, feel a lot less taken out of the game's fiction when my players pull out clubs and maces to fight skeletons than when one player pulls out a spear and says, "my character wouldn't know that skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage."

Because with the oft-repeated troll example, the GM is doing something that takes the players out of the game - telling them they can't use fire because they "don't know they should" - for an in-game benefit - the GM's cool troll fight is (ostensibly) more challenging.

This is, sort of, why using the metagame isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, some tables might have fun with using inappropriate weapons against the wrong enemies until they find the right ones. But I've been at a lot of tables where having one character intentionally using the wrong weapon until they roll and Awareness high enough to recognize the problem - it tends to drag the fight down, making simple fights take much longer or hard fights much more lethal. In the troll situation, this is the GM intentionally making the fight more annoying (and probably less enjoyable) by denying players the obvious solution just for their own benefit - a more dramatic fight. The GM easily could've manipulated things for much the same result, such as a troll encounter in a rainstorm, for probably better results.

This is where I'd say that players should metagame for the purpose of helping the game along - that they should come up with some reason to know about maces vs skeletons or fire vs trolls to avoid causing the game to stall.

[Quertus]

This is, sort of, why using the metagame isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, some tables might have fun with using inappropriate weapons against the wrong enemies until they find the right ones. But I've been at a lot of tables where having one character intentionally using the wrong weapon until they roll and Awareness high enough to recognize the problem - it tends to drag the fight down, making simple fights take much longer or hard fights much more lethal. In the troll situation, this is the GM intentionally making the fight more annoying (and probably less enjoyable) by denying players the obvious solution just for their own benefit - a more dramatic fight. The GM easily could've manipulated things for much the same result, such as a troll encounter in a rainstorm, for probably better results.

This is where I'd say that players should metagame for the purpose of helping the game along - that they should come up with some reason to know about maces vs skeletons or fire vs trolls to avoid causing the game to stall.

I favor role-playing (aka realism) over challenge or pacing.

I've been the guy who (as the primary damage dealer) *ran away* from a fight, causing it to "drag down", making the simple fight take much longer. (Iirc, it was our first encounter with undead. That stuff ain't natural!)

I imagine that that was one of the more memorable fights for that group.

I like for fights to be tense etc not based on what the GM *wants* them to be, but based on what they *are*. If we laugh at their "scary" monster, trounce the BBEG, and struggle with mooks? *That's* a good game.

I'm opposed to metagaming to try to guess what the encounter is "supposed" to be, and instead just take it as what it is.

Still, if *someone else* sees me pull out a sword, and tells me use bludgeoning weapons against the skeletons, well, that's just realistic, and an opportunity for my character to learn something. And lets us *both* have the game that we want. Wins all around!

[Cluedrew]

role-playing (aka realism)

What? How are those the same thing? I can see a tangential connection through consistency (role-playing a character involves staying consistent to the character and reality is consistent at a fundamental level, probably) but that's it.

[Quertus]

What? How are those the same thing? I can see a tangential connection through consistency (role-playing a character involves staying consistent to the character and reality is consistent at a fundamental level, probably) but that's it.

Lol. I should have colored it blue.

To the extent that it was serious, if it is *realistic* that my character doesn't know that swords aren't good for killing skeletons, they'll draw their trusty sword, just like they do against any other thread, and that's good role-playing; OTOH, if it's realistic that they do know how skeletons work in-universe, then they'll act accordingly, beat the uppity bones with a staff/mace/whatever, and it'll be good role-playing.

[icefractal]

I do! Its not really a fallacy, but that system agnostic discussions are system agnostic and not just Dnd 3.5, which this being a very DnD 3.5 based forum, tend to forget. a lot.

Forget, or just hit the limits of talking about things in too abstract a manner. Like, for many subjects the amount you can meaningfully say about them that's relevant to all RPGs is pretty limited. Talking about a specific RPG means things can have an actual answer and not go in circles forever (this also applies to talking about a specific character vs a quantum wizard).

Like for example, stabbing a sleeping king - that's going to work completely differently depending on the system. And in 3E for example, it is in most cases an insta-kill, because forget the damage, the save DC on the CdG is what's going to end them.

[Cluedrew]

Add me to the list. So 4 (so far). 4 is not 2. Does that make you technically correct?

I mean it was more than I was expecting. Of course I was expecting all there people circling the thread to swoop in to support it.

Forget, or just hit the limits of talking about things in too abstract a manner.

Yeah, if you are just drawing on D&D for examples or even just some terms (like fighter not as the class but the name as a physically empowered character). But the term was made in response to people who would show up in a system agnostic thread, quote the D&D 3.5 rule book and then we have to explain to them that that is merely an answer. It hasn't happened a lot recently, probably still happens occasionally but a few years ago it was happening so often it felt like it was worth it to put a name to it.

[Mordar]

I feel like you're reminding a player of something the character would know -- Flanking is a basic tactic IRL and in-game -- and reminding someone of a thing that the character knows seems like it's not taking them out of character, but rather helping them choose an in-character action.

The +2 is meta, but to me it's not particularly bad because it's in service of choosing an appropriate in-character action.

The "+2" not only is not bad, it's actively good: it's translating the IC action into actionable game mechanics. Without this, we get drawn-out turns, which *are* bad for the game.

That's much of why I suggested it wasn't the "bad" metagaming. It was reasonable in-game for pretty much anyone that should be adventuring, and it ties to a game effect, so it serves to help teach the player what the character knows.

Yeah, if you are just drawing on D&D for examples or even just some terms (like fighter not as the class but the name as a physically empowered character). But the term was made in response to people who would show up in a system agnostic thread, quote the D&D 3.5 rule book and then we have to explain to them that that is merely an answer. It hasn't happened a lot recently, probably still happens occasionally but a few years ago it was happening so often it felt like it was worth it to put a name to it.

For the record, my example was very much the easy example that everyone should understand (or at least parse from context)...not meant to suggest that this conversation was only about DnD.

Interestingly, I think I've seen this most in Champions, then DnD (but not AD&D). Interestingly to me, anyway.

- M

[pwykersotz]

Metagaming is when people try gaming the metagame.

The metagame is an intrinsic part of playing the game. It's what really makes it a game in the first game and not randomly generated fiction.

All the complains come from people trying to exploit this element. And I would say not even to get an in-game benefit, but to do something that displeases the other players.
Metagaming is considered bad not because it breaks the mechanics of the game, but because it's disruptive to the metagame.

Doing something as a group for everyone to have fun is not something that a single player should manipulate for selfish reasons. You're supposed to beat the enemies in the game, not outsmart the other players.

Without an upvote system it's hard to be sure, but I feel like this post needs acknowledgement. Well said.

[Grek]

The idea behind metagaming is that there's a game; there is an ineffable way that you're supposed to play the game; and there's a set of rules which try to describe the correct gameplay using the unfortunately limited medium of words written on paper. A metagamer is someone who, when faced with a misalignment between the spirit of proper gameplay and the letter of the written rules, prefers to go with what the rules say if (and only if!) that would give them an advantage within the context of the game. Essentially, it's accusing a player of being 'unsportsmanlike' in the context of a shared storytelling experience.

[icefractal]

Ironically, I've seen anti-metagaming used to exploit the metagame!
For example: "My character is secretly working against the party - but you don't know that IC of course." And then accusing anyone who gets suspicious IC of metagaming, even if they're not hiding it remotely well.

They're exploiting the "it's bad to use OOC knowledge" metagame to deny other players the ability to use their normal observational abilities. And that's as bad as stealing 40 cakes.

Similar concept - exploiting the "the PCs will be a party" and "no PvP" metagame by playing an obnoxious / outright ****ty character that annoys the other players and would normally be booted out of the group IC, then hiding behind "Just playing my character!"


Incidentally, yes, having a character that's known OOC to be a double-agent but not suspected IC could be fine. But it's not a thing that one player can unilaterally declare. They can propose: "I think it would be fun if I wasn't suspected until the final showdown", but someone else can also propose "Well I think it would be fun if you got caught the first time you slipped up" or "I think it would be fun if you started out a spy but switched loyalty to the party mid-campaign", and those are equally valid.

[Democratus]

Metagaming is a perjorative when the speaker intends it to be such.

It's not the definition of the word that matters, it's how the speaker is using it.

[oxybe]

"You all meet in a tavern" is metagaming.

the simple idea that the game we are all sitting around the table, be it a real or virtual one, to play will just happen to focus on this particular group of characters, at this place and time in the game world, is a metagame consideration.

That, for the sake of playing a game instead of... not, everyone at the table will agree to make characters who just so happen to be willing to engage with the core concept of the Curse of Strahd module or whatever adventure, published or homebrew, the GM brings at the table... is a metagame consideration. does it sometimes mean going out of character a bit? yeah but you don't want the be the Richard that hilds up the game for ylur own selfish reasons.

To paraphrase a previous post: there is no game without a metagame.

Metagaming is a word with more then one meaning, depending on the context used. Yes some may use it to denigrate another who's actions are taking into account information the character does not have, but it also refers to the cogs and wheels behind the screen the characters have no privvy to that make it so we're playing a game and not just doing rather terrible improv theater.

Or at least I would be doing terrible improv. An actor, I am not.

Metagaming in itself is neither good or bad. It's all about intent of the person metagaming.

[quinron]

Ironically, I've seen anti-metagaming used to exploit the metagame!
For example: "My character is secretly working against the party - but you don't know that IC of course." And then accusing anyone who gets suspicious IC of metagaming, even if they're not hiding it remotely well.

They're exploiting the "it's bad to use OOC knowledge" metagame to deny other players the ability to use their normal observational abilities. And that's as bad as stealing 40 cakes.

Too often, this seems to be how metagaming operates. You're not allowed to use stuff that you learn out-of-game; so if you learn something out-of-game, you're automatically not allowed to use that knowledge. This ends up tying your brain in knots as you try to figure out the quickest way for your character to learn that thing in-game in a way that seems legitimate to the person accusing you of metagaming. This is itself a form of metagaming, and one that I think is a lot more frustrating and harmful for everyone at the table than just letting your character know the thing that you know.

At the end of the day, it's basically punishing players for learning more about the game, and in a circumstance where a player knows about something because a previous character of theirs encountered it, it's punishing players for playing the game.

[Democratus]

"You all meet in a tavern" is metagaming.

No, it isn't.

the simple idea that the game we are all sitting around the table, be it a real or virtual one, to play will just happen to focus on this particular group of characters, at this place and time in the game world, is a metagame consideration.

No. That's a game consideration. Not metagame.

[Tanarii]

No, it isn't.

It absolutely is.

So is "my character is someone that isn't me, because of personality traits A, B, C and ability scores and features X, Y, Z"

[Mordar]

It absolutely is.

So is "my character is someone that isn't me, because of personality traits A, B, C and ability scores and features X, Y, Z"

How is that metagame and not regular game?

Is just the underlined metagame?

- M

[oxybe]

No, it isn't.

yes it is and I explained why in my post. Nothing about d&d ingerently requires you to actually step into a tavern at any point. it's an out of game choice to have the game start there.

No. That's a game consideration. Not metagame.

again, it's a metagame consideration made to simply make the game run easier for all parties involved and just getting to the actual play.

The Gm and/or players are making the CONSCIOUS and OUT OF GAME decision to have all their characters start off together and know each other BECAUSE they just want to go out and play at kiling the Vampiric Goblins of the Gnoll Knoll.

the opposite is ALSO metagaming, where they make the decision to start seperately and not know each other.

Thus these decisions are part of the metagame.

[Democratus]

yes it is and I explained why in my post. Nothing about d&d ingerently requires you to actually step into a tavern at any point. it's an out of game choice to have the game start there.



again, it's a metagame consideration made to simply make the game run easier for all parties involved and just getting to the actual play.

The Gm and/or players are making the CONSCIOUS and OUT OF GAME decision to have all their characters start off together and know each other BECAUSE they just want to go out and play at kiling the Vampiric Goblins of the Gnoll Knoll.

the opposite is ALSO metagaming, where they make the decision to start seperately and not know each other.

Thus these decisions are part of the metagame.

Those are IN GAME decisions. Not out of game.

It's not metagaming. It's gaming.

[oxybe]

Those are IN GAME decisions. Not out of game.

It's not metagaming. It's gaming.

I think we're talking over each other, or at least i'm talking and you're not really expounding on your points.

I dunno about what term you're using for metagaming, but I prescribe to the game theory definition. I'll quote wikipedia, which is a brief description but largely puts forth what I think about with "metagaming"

Metagame, Hypergame, or game about the game, is an approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

Metagaming might also refer to a game which functions to create or modify the rules of a sub-game. Thus, we might play a metagame selecting which rules will apply during the play of the game itself.

Let's look outside of D&D for a moment and peek at Magic the Gathering. unless something's changed and I didn't hear about it, the standard format is largely based around the last few sets released. This sets up the metagame of Magic the Gathering. The overall rules used, like the phases of a turn or how the Trample ability works, largely doesn't change with each new set... but because the individual cards available do change, different deck types rise up due to the card interactions and card bans. These deck types are part of the metagame and a player will likely have to learn how to play them and play against them. But because humans are humans, different areas may very well have a preference for a type of deck, one place may simply play a lot of Jund decks... so someone looking to exploit the local metagame will build their deck expecting jund and either maindeck or at least sideboard counters.

All these are considerations you take before building your deck and labbing it out. it's the game about the game, the hypergame... the metagame.

bringing this back to D&D: so you and 4 friends decide to play D&D. your metagame will include: agreeing on the setting, if you're going to explore themes, the characters and their generation, if you'll use pregenerated adventures, homebrew material and houserules, etc... all things outside the act of the actual D&D play but still affect the playing. And yes, this does include little Timmy using his knowledge of the monster manual to get a leg up on that troll his character never encountered before, but it encompasses far more then just that and if it's an unredeemable slight against the most holy of entities: Deetwenti, the god of RNG and his avatar, RNGeesus.

[Mordar]

bringing this back to D&D: so you and 4 friends decide to play D&D. your metagame will include: agreeing on the setting, if you're going to explore themes, the characters and their generation, if you'll use pregenerated adventures, homebrew material and houserules, etc... all things outside the act of the actual D&D play but still affect the playing. And yes, this does include little Timmy using his knowledge of the monster manual to get a leg up on that troll his character never encountered before, but it encompasses far more then just that and if it's an unredeemable slight against the most holy of entities: Deetwenti, the god of RNG and his avatar, RNGeesus.

I can understand that, but I believe that I would still label some of the above "pregame" or "game" as they are even steps described or recommended in the actual game/rules. YMMV, I suspect, depending on the ruleset itself. Of course, this is totally based on my connotation about metagame, driven by previous wargaming and ccg experience along with the RPGs.

Building the army/deck based on the environment in which I'll be playing seems slam-dunk metagame to me, as does knowing the Jane the GM likes to use fire-resistant creatures in her AD&D games I'll choose my Wizard to learn something other than Burning Hands. Session 0 stuff is more borderline, but doesn't feel any more metagame to me than saying we'll play on Saturdays at noon. The GM running Masks of Nyarlathotep instead of Mountains of Madness I never would have considered Meta, but I guess it kind of depends.

A deeper pile of considerations than I expected.

- M