In the case I mentioned, every NPC and his brother knew the PC's preferred tactics and magic items. They knew that all had Rings of Fire Resistance, so suddenly all the mages stopped throwing fire spells. What's more, in the example that started it all, the NPC's deduced the PC's entire gear set and tactics off the fact they had something with a Device rating of 6 (and the attendant Signal rating). That is cheating.

From your posts in the other thread, I know you think GM cheating is okay. Unfortunately, it isn't-- metagaming your knowledge to one PC is bad enough, but giving it to a lot of NPC's is even worse.

The other thread Cain is talking about (and more specifically, the post that got the whole discussion started)
is here

I personally hate meta-gaming both by players and GMs. I usually make all die rolls in the open where everyone can see and I never "fudge" die rolls either in favor of the PCs or NPCs. While I may have recurring villains adapt to PC tactics/abilities after a couple of run-ins, I think its poor GM form to have NPCs able to counter the PCs abilities at every step. But I do occasionally "cheat" in one particular way. Once in awhile I will setup a "paper-tiger" encounter with a group of NPCs. Basically an encounter or situation that appears more difficult than it really is and designed with the sole purpose of giving the PCs a chance to show off. I use it sparingly because an actual challenge is generally far more rewarding, but once in awhile its nice to give them the opportunity to strut their stuff in style.

I think we'll all agree that the GM has the right to bend the rules slightly, if ti makes for a more fun game. But there's a line between bending and breaking them rules, and metagaming GM knowledge to the NPC's is definitely breaking it.

Houserule: Anyone who doesn't allow the GM to meta game can play at their own house, drink their own beer, and eat their own pizza. Or someone else's. Whatever works for them.

My feelings aren't hurt if my style ain't yours, cause at the end of the day, I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me.*

Does everyone like me? Nah. But I'm cool with that.

Given a choice between "entertaining challenge" and "metagaming", I choose "entertaining challenge". Sure, sometimes there doesn't need to be a choice and maybe you always have both. If so, kudos for you.

---

* Really, it was funnier in the other thread. The delivery and timing are off in this one and I don't have the quote to play off of. What I do find funny, is that this thread is a large reaction to a throwaway joke about security teams and shadowrunner memes.

Oh, I fudge dice rolls all the time, but usually in the favor of the players. I never try to screw my players. I'm probably the least competitive GM in the world, and I encourage player empowerment, though to a limit. I'm all about helping my players tell an awesome story, and if they get taken out by some fluke dice roll at the beginning of a game, well, that bums me out.

Any good GM is forced to metagame to an extent - you have to design your adventures so that everyone has a role, and feels like they contribute. If you don't, then you're not doing your job. But it does depend on the "why" you're metagaming. If you're doing it so that everyone has a better, more interesting time, then it's fantastic - that's a GM doing their job. If you're doing ti to "beat" the PCs or some bulldrek like that, then you're just a crappy GM.

There's a world of difference there. Occasionally slipping in a bit of GM knowledge is one thing. Allowing the NPCs to deduce the party's entire armament and tactics based off one Signal rating, as suoq was suggesting, is cheating, plain and simple.

Yeah, I agree with that. I always try to ask what my NPCs would reasonably know.

Like if I have a certain group of NPCs acting as an antagonist, and the PCs pull off some slick tricks and really punk them, maybe that tactic doesn't work a second time, like they learn from it or something. But they won't psychically know how to one up the players, not unless they have access to a dossier or a some reasonable explanation as to why they are doing what they are.

Yes, there's a difference to an extent, but on the other hand if you have players trying to game the system to make things a little too easy, then having a target go to higher alert when obvious anomalies show up isn't out of line. (The S&S example was, admittedly, way into the realm of cheating)

On the other hand, metagaming that if S&S is so good, it would therefore be a standard tactic, and therefore defenses against it would be part of any moderately equipped security force would be fine, imo.

The ultimate point is always to give the characters the sense of accomplishment through overcoming challenging content - neither GM Screwyouover or GM Hasnospine is going to do a good job of that.

Thank You...
This is exactly my point... on all counts...



Actually, You would be wrong on that account. My point in the other thread was that the characters do not know what the opposition knows, so accusations of cheating are out of line. Extreme cases (like your example) may indeed be classified as Cheating, especially if they are constant and omnipresent. But, when an opponent learns something about you (as a character), then they do have the right to let others know about that weakness (or whatever) that they discovered. Accusations of cheating on that count are baseless in my opinion.

apparently my sense of humor with regards to stick n' shock ammo is way too subtle.

Two mages walk into a bar.
The awakened bartender yells. "Hey. Use the door next time."

Heheheh...

Okay, I may be new to Shadowrun, but I've been RPGing for over a decade, nearly two decades truth be told, and what you appear to be talking about isn't metagaming.

Metagaming is using knowledge of the system to make character decisions that the character wouldn't necessarily make.

Having NPCs make decisions based on information about player behaviour that the GM has and that they should not have is just lazy GMing - it might make for a better game for the players - that's very context dependant - so it could be good (turning a situation that might otherwise be boring and predictable into a fun challenge) or it might be bad (making the world feel unfair and inconsistent can kill a groups enjoyment of the game stone dead), but it's not metagaming.

Anyway. Semantics out the way: In the circles I play in, metagaming is definitely frowned upon!

How do they know it's you that's doing the run? They're not going to figure that out unless you've been sold out, and then, you've got a lot more things to worry about.

Metagaming is using any knowledge outside of what the characters (PC or NPC) would know. That's the standard definition in every game system I've ever played in. And yes, I'm going to take exception to the term "lazy"; tailoring encounters for your players is the mark of a good GM, not a lazy one.

As I have found out myself with two very forceful players of mine who have threatened to quit on two occasions when misfortunes befell their characters, sometimes its not the GM's fault that he/she is GM Hasnospine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) . But that is an excellent point.

Very true, finding a balance with players like that can be very challenging. On the plus side, consider it a win that they were invested enough in their characters to get upset^^

Meta-gaming is pretty much always wrong, no matter who does it.

The GM is a "player" just like everyone else, and the NPCs shouldn't be working on information they wouldn't have either. It ruins the storytelling aspect and ruins the atmosphere. The object of role playing is to tell a story, not to "win".

And if you have crybaby players (calling them forceful makes it sound like something positive or admirable), you're probably better off having them quit. They will come back when they find their testicles and man up. Or your game will improve in their absence. In Vietnam they call it nguyen/nguyen.

To be fair to (I think it was suoq?), his example was based on SR NPC guards whose scanners basically said, 'Boop! Massive concentration of Signal 6 devices incoming!'; the guards then guessed that it must be shadowrunners, and that (being shadowrunners) they would be using Stick-n-Shock. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I thought it was amusing, and, incidentally, *not* an example of GM metagaming.

Obviously, egregious GM metagaming is wrong and unfun; player metagaming is roughly the same. There are occasions when 'GM metagaming' is just another word for 'tailoring the adventure', which is fine and good. So, that's the difference between good and bad GMs. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Writing an adventure to challenge the players isn't really metagaming. A good GM always presents challenges to characters' weaknesses, not to their strengths. Metagaming refers more to GMs allowing NPCs to act on information they wouldn't have, such as player locations or their specific gear. A GM designing a scenario where the NPCs had some kind of item to negate player gear that they could reasonably have presumed a player to have, that's not metagaming. It's simply presenting a challenge that requires an outside the box response from the player(s).

And when you have one player that goes into your store bought module (can't write one yourself, since you know your players, and we'll avoid sub-conscious metagaming too), solos it all while the rest of the team stands around and twiddles their thumbs because their skills weren't needed this run?

That's a story I guess, but not one I'm really interested in hearing. If you're not writing for your group and tweaking encounters to make them interesting, that's bad GMing, straight up.

It probably would have helped you to read all of the posts in the thread, instead of just that one. A suggestion for the future.

Modifying or writing to address player challenges is not metagaming.

Look at the time-stamp... it takes me more than 30 seconds to write up a post. And if you would bother to read the thread, you might notice that I have been involved in it throughout.

To the point: you're using a non-standard definition of the term then. What you're referring to is solely a GM trying to "beat" the players and using metagaming for that purpose. Yes, that's bad.

More specifically to roleplaying:

While you won't find metagaming in the dictionary, I think the Wiki definition is pretty standard.

Considering the GM creates the ruleset for any given adventure, things they write ahead of time to govern a scenario or an adventure aren't really "metagaming". Otherwise, GMing would be, by definition, metagaming automatically. The GM always knows everything that is going on, who has what and where, and the direction a story is headed and where it is coming from. The GM cannot possibly not use this information.

The difference between just GMing and metagaming comes when the GM "provides" the information he has to the NPCs that they would not normally be privy to.

Example: A GM decides that the NPCs have certain kinds of magical barriers and surveillance measures in place because they are guarding something important and the reasonably expected opposition to their goals would likely have such gear. This by happenstance makes a scenario much more difficult for the players.

This isn't metagaming. The GM knows what his players can and cannot do. He knows that this defensive set-up nullifies some of their existing gear or skills. The purpose is to make the scenario challenging and interesting. That's his job as a GM anyway.

On the other hand, if he allows the NPCs to formulate ambushes based on knowledge of the characters' hidden locations when they have no reasonable ability to have such information, that's metagaming.

Like I said, the game should never be about "winning" for anyone. I know that is often the tendency of newer gamers, to approach the games as something with a clearly defined objective, but it is hopefully a phase most people grow out of. The GM should never be looking to TPK their players. And conversely, the players should never really be looking to simply roll dice and be told what exploded.