Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Metagaming
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
deek
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 26 2010, 09:23 PM) *
If you only plan for A, B, and C, and someone comes up with a Q, then they deserve to bypass A, B, and C. If you read my posts, that doesn't mean it's a guaranteed cakewalk, but it will be easier than going through the door, guns blazing. Anything else, sucks, and is unfair as well as GM cheating.

I know we are just theorizing here, but just because the players go to Plan Q, doesn't mean that Plan A, B, and C are still in play, maybe just not in the same order as the GM had planned.

For example, if I put a lot of time and effort into creating a scenario for Plan A and let's say that it is a guard post at the front gate, then why is it cheating, suck-filled and unfair, if I move all the components of that guard post to say, a room inside the compound, or the part of the wall that the party is busting through to escape or even a random patrol?

I mean, assuming I put together a rather fun and challenging scene for my players, why should I dump it because they bypassed it? I'm all about reusing and reskinning stuff.
Faradon
I have some mixed feelings on this one both as a player and a GM.

First, I fully acknowledge Rule 0 in all its glory. Rule 0 is what keeps order at the table, ends arguments, and feeds starving children in third world countries. That said, Rule 0 is still a tool that should be used to keep the game fun for everyone.

So to get back on topic I think I would next ask each person to really define what metagaming means to them. The most simple definition I can think of is that metagaming is the use of knowledge outside the game which affects how you play your character. The bigger problem with this definition is that it really only applies to the player, and by default the GM would be incapable of true metagaming. So then I guess for a GM we'll have to say that when they use knowledge an NPC was incapable of acquiring to change how the NPC(s) act.

The big difference between player and GM metagaming is that players only have to deal with their PC... GMs have a LOT more to deal with. I may write an adventure based on where I think players will go, people I think they will interact with, etc. Unfortunately, as I think many other GMs can attest, players rarely will rarely hit a majority of what was set up for them and will likely take many twists and turns far from anything that had been planned for. *this isn't a bad thing* But it does for a GM to start tap dancing... and when they are forced into certain dances there are times, however intentional or unintentional, that metagaming gets used. I really think that if metagaming is that big of a deal to the players the GM will know... and then would need to write in some fluff, backstory, or give some abilities to the NPC/NPC organization to have legitimately have acquired the information or give them a reason for acting the way they did.

In the end it is all about having fun... and if you have a GM who is purposely using anything (not just metagaming) simply to make PCs suffer unnecessarily then perhaps you need to have a talk with them or just find someone new to run the game. I guess I personally am a bit of a glutton for punishment... I prefer a GM who makes things difficult over one where I never have a fear of dieing or "losing" because we are playing some script they have written.
Cain
I was reminded of a GM story tonight that I thought would help bring back this thread.

In a D&D 3.5 game, midway through a battle, a DM decided to nerf the Hold Person spell, claiming it was too powerful. Instead of paralyzing a target, he ruled that it just immobilized them-- held their feet to the floor for 1 round. The catch here was that the party sorceror had Hold Person as one of his slots, and the DM refused to let him switch it out. The sorceror essentially had a dead slot on his spell selection.

Taking this to more general terms, if you change something that affects someone's character, do you let that player go back and rewrite the affected part?
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 3 2010, 02:17 AM) *
I was reminded of a GM story tonight that I thought would help bring back this thread.

In a D&D 3.5 game, midway through a battle, a DM decided to nerf the Hold Person spell, claiming it was too powerful. Instead of paralyzing a target, he ruled that it just immobilized them-- held their feet to the floor for 1 round. The catch here was that the party sorceror had Hold Person as one of his slots, and the DM refused to let him switch it out. The sorceror essentially had a dead slot on his spell selection.

Taking this to more general terms, if you change something that affects someone's character, do you let that player go back and rewrite the affected part?


Absolutely. Especially in that type of situation where are sorc is already hurting for versatility in their repertoire as it is. But generally, any time there's a major change in the rules, anyone affected gets to redo their sheet.

(caveat - I'm known for being lenient on this point though, I've even allowed players to completely scrap their current character and rebuild a new character to the old one's level, just because they weren't happy with how it turned out)
Ascalaphus
QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 3 2010, 08:17 AM) *
I was reminded of a GM story tonight that I thought would help bring back this thread.

In a D&D 3.5 game, midway through a battle, a DM decided to nerf the Hold Person spell, claiming it was too powerful. Instead of paralyzing a target, he ruled that it just immobilized them-- held their feet to the floor for 1 round. The catch here was that the party sorceror had Hold Person as one of his slots, and the DM refused to let him switch it out. The sorceror essentially had a dead slot on his spell selection.

Taking this to more general terms, if you change something that affects someone's character, do you let that player go back and rewrite the affected part?


Certainly. I prefer to discuss such a change with the players who'd be impacted in the first place; they might convince me the change wasn't needed. Some powers seem fare more powerful from the outside than to the person actually using them.

But yeah, when you make a character you choose stats based on what they're worth at that point; it'd be unfair to change their value for the worse afterwards, and not let the player trade them in for something else.
deek
I'm pretty lenient as well. For SR, I let players tweak their characters up until they spend their karma. So, if they don't like their character after chargen, they really can tweak and change it as much as they want before adding experience. After that, well, its a case-by-case situation.

In DnD, its nice because you can retrain stuff each level. If they need more than that, I do allow complete character recreations. Its not really a big deal to me, as long as I know ahead of time and for players, well, seems sort of pointless for me to force them to play a character they hate.
Medicineman
I may be a little bit oldfashioned, but I dislike retconning a Char.
Once the Game starts, the Char can only be changed ingame & with Karma.
If I as a Player have made a wrong decisision.... Well I could've asked or read the Rules.I either stick to the Char or make a new one.


Hough !
Medicineman
Yerameyahu
I thought the situation was that the rules literally changed behind your back. smile.gif Your decision wasn't wrong, the world shifted.
deek
QUOTE (Medicineman @ Sep 4 2010, 01:48 AM) *
I may be a little bit oldfashioned, but I dislike retconning a Char.
Once the Game starts, the Char can only be changed ingame & with Karma.
If I as a Player have made a wrong decisision.... Well I could've asked or read the Rules.I either stick to the Char or make a new one.


Hough !
Medicineman

I understand that. And I'm the type of person that would have no problem randomly rolling my characters (if talking DnD) and just going with it. I enjoy the challenge of playing someone that is not optimally built and has some character. But, if I'm the only one in my group that is like that, there is no reason for me to hold everyone to those rules.

If the whole point is to hang out for a few hours each week and have fun, and a character is no longer fun...

Granted, this is completely opposite of my feelings that this world is getting way to socially neutral and we are losing our ability to be tough and persevere and feel like a winner and know what it feels like to lose. But, in a game, I think its okay to be soft:)
Medicineman
But, if I'm the only one in my group that is like that, there is no reason for me to hold everyone to those rules.
I'm just talking for Myself,not for the others in my Groups biggrin.gif

HokaHey
Medicineman

Cain
Yeah, but we're literally discussing changing a rule that deeply affects a character, then not letting him rewrite his character to compensate. Surely you see this as something different?
Medicineman
QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 7 2010, 03:26 AM) *
Yeah, but we're literally discussing changing a rule that deeply affects a character, then not letting him rewrite his character to compensate. Surely you see this as something different?

THAT is something completely different.
You mean the D&D Hold Person change ?
I'm totally with you biggrin.gif
As a GM I would neither change the spell midgame nor forbid the Char to change/redcon his spells accordingly
thats double bad GMs Fiat (I hope I'm using the right Words ? ) ImO
After a session I would ask my fellow Players if they think that the spell is too unbalancing, if we should change it and if the Sorcerer (to whom it concerns the most) wants to change his spells If we change them

He who dances together with his players
Medicineman
capt.pantsless
QUOTE (deek @ Aug 27 2010, 08:30 AM) *
I know we are just theorizing here, but just because the players go to Plan Q, doesn't mean that Plan A, B, and C are still in play, maybe just not in the same order as the GM had planned.

For example, if I put a lot of time and effort into creating a scenario for Plan A and let's say that it is a guard post at the front gate, then why is it cheating, suck-filled and unfair, if I move all the components of that guard post to say, a room inside the compound, or the part of the wall that the party is busting through to escape or even a random patrol?

I mean, assuming I put together a rather fun and challenging scene for my players, why should I dump it because they bypassed it? I'm all about reusing and reskinning stuff.



There's two things that the GM needs to balance here:
1.) Rewarding creative solutions - coming up with plan Q is a good thing - the players deserve a break on the difficulty but the lion's share of the reward
2.) The players (probably) still want to play the game - saying "that's all folks" and ending the session isn't all that fun.

I tend to follow the clock. I.e. if we're 1 hour into a 4-hour session, and the players come-up with plan Q, it's time to improvise and re-add some stuff or re-skin some things. However, make it a good bit easier, E.g. the guards might expect an attack from INSIDE the fence.

If things are getting towards the end of the session, then end things quickly and reward them greatly.
AppliedCheese
My three rules of GM-ing:

1. You can fudge dice for the players. Never against.

2. Run a world, then put the players in it.

3. If you need something soul crushingly awesome to happen no matter what, make the railroad invisible.
Cain
Right now, in a Deadlands game, I have a character who specializes in the weird and wacky stunt. If he manages to bypass most of my plot, that's fine. For example, he went out and bought $200 worth of fireworks... and right at the opening of the big climactic battle, shot one into a crate full of dynamite. That not only ruined the fight scene, it nearly killed all the player characters, which would have ruined the campaign.

The point is, rather than retcon or ruin his stunt, I rolled with it and decided to see what would happen. A clever mis-read of the explosive rules allowed most of the players to survive, while enough opposition was left to have a good combat scene. The various threats that went back and forth between the PC's was all in fun, and the PC who started it all isn't going to be allowed to light his own cigars anymore. wink.gif Net result: a more fun game for everyone, all because I didn't cheat or metagame.
Medicineman
....ooO(We're playing Classic Deadlands tomorrow.Note to self : Buy some Fireworks ! )

with a Dance to Himself
Medicineman
sabs
QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 8 2010, 07:10 AM) *
Right now, in a Deadlands game, I have a character who specializes in the weird and wacky stunt. If he manages to bypass most of my plot, that's fine. For example, he went out and bought $200 worth of fireworks... and right at the opening of the big climactic battle, shot one into a crate full of dynamite. That not only ruined the fight scene, it nearly killed all the player characters, which would have ruined the campaign.

The point is, rather than retcon or ruin his stunt, I rolled with it and decided to see what would happen. A clever mis-read of the explosive rules allowed most of the players to survive, while enough opposition was left to have a good combat scene. The various threats that went back and forth between the PC's was all in fun, and the PC who started it all isn't going to be allowed to light his own cigars anymore. wink.gif Net result: a more fun game for everyone, all because I didn't cheat or metagame.


wait
didn't you 'cleverly misread the explosive rules?'

how is that not metagaming.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (sabs @ Oct 8 2010, 05:15 AM) *
wait
didn't you 'cleverly misread the explosive rules?'

how is that not metagaming.


Indeed, I was going to ask the same thing... smokin.gif
Cain
Nope. I let someone else misread them, and didn't correct them. biggrin.gif
sabs
QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 9 2010, 06:04 AM) *
Nope. I let someone else misread them, and didn't correct them. biggrin.gif


Yeah
that's still metagaming
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (sabs @ Oct 9 2010, 05:27 AM) *
Yeah
that's still metagaming


Yep, Pretty much... smokin.gif
sabs
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

some of my best friends metagame.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (sabs @ Oct 9 2010, 08:41 AM) *
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

some of my best friends metagame.


It's hard not to sometimes... wobble.gif
Yerameyahu
It's impossible not to, and still run the game right. wink.gif
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Oct 9 2010, 08:43 AM) *
It's impossible not to, and still run the game right. wink.gif


Possibly, Though I would say that there are definitely levels of Metagaming in my opinion; the less invasive/prevelant it is, the better... when it is obvious, then it causes issues... wobble.gif

A GM tends to employ it more than the characters in my opinion... wobble.gif
Cain
QUOTE (sabs @ Oct 9 2010, 03:27 AM) *
Yeah
that's still metagaming

How so? What out-of-game knowledge am I giving to my characters?
sabs
QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 9 2010, 11:01 PM) *
How so? What out-of-game knowledge am I giving to my characters?


You intentionally mis-used a rule in order for most/all the characters to survive another character's clearly legal (though douchebaggy) action.

You 'fudged' the result.
Cain
QUOTE (sabs @ Oct 9 2010, 04:09 PM) *
QUOTE
How so? What out-of-game knowledge am I giving to my characters?

You intentionally mis-used a rule in order for most/all the characters to survive another character's clearly legal (though douchebaggy) action.

You 'fudged' the result.

Again, what out-of-game knowledge am I giving to my characters?

Second, I didn't fudge the rule. I just didn't look it up to confirm what I thought. Do you stop game to look up every rule you might have misremembered?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 9 2010, 06:21 PM) *
You intentionally mis-used a rule in order for most/all the characters to survive another character's clearly legal (though douchebaggy) action.

You 'fudged' the result.

Again, what out-of-game knowledge am I giving to my characters?

Second, I didn't fudge the rule. I just didn't look it up to confirm what I thought. Do you stop game to look up every rule you might have misremembered?


That is not what you did though... and I quote:

QUOTE
Nope. I let someone else misread them, and didn't correct them.


Sounds like you remembered perfectly what the rule was and purposely allowed someone to misinterpret the ruling... Sounds like Fudging to me... smokin.gif
Yerameyahu
You said 'cleverly', so we assumed you meant it was intentional; that is, you intentionally altered the game for a specific outcome. That's metagaming.
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Oct 9 2010, 08:49 PM) *
You said 'cleverly', so we assumed you meant it was intentional; that is, you intentionally altered the game for a specific outcome. That's metagaming.

I thought we established that metagaming was using out of game knowledge toy our own benefit?

At any event, the point here is to demonstrate that you don't need a heavy hand or railroading to ensure a fun game. In fact, they're counter to having a fun game for everyone.
Yerameyahu
Except that's what 'cleverly misreading' rules is: manually controlling the outcome.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 10 2010, 12:36 AM) *
I thought we established that metagaming was using out of game knowledge toy our own benefit?

At any event, the point here is to demonstrate that you don't need a heavy hand or railroading to ensure a fun game. In fact, they're counter to having a fun game for everyone.


I'd point out that most folks in this thread weren't talking about heavy handed railroading either.

Largely just subtle tweaks to occasionally steer players in the vague general direction of the plot.

Personally, if the players in my home game are bound and determined to head off to left field away from my planned plot, I'll run with it. But most of the time that's not the case - my players usually mostly stay on the path I'd planned of their own volition. When I speak of metagaming, it's mostly just dropped hints when they seem to be floundering on where to go next ("you hear the sounds of pounding feet getting louder coming from the left door"), or minor behind the scenes tweaks to keep the game in the "challenging but fun" zone and away from "boring" or "too hard, and not in a fun way" (Like increasing or decreasing the number of guards in the next room based on how ell the players seem to be handling themselves).

I think the problem in this thread is that some of the participants seem to treat meta-gaming as some clearly defined on/off switch, where if you use it you MUST be horribly railroading your players into rigidly following your lead.

It's not that way at all. There are many levels of meta-gaming.

My qualifier on whether a particular instance of meta-gaming is "bad" or "good" is dependent on the reasons for the meta-gaming. The intent.




-k
Cain
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Oct 9 2010, 08:44 PM) *
Except that's what 'cleverly misreading' rules is: manually controlling the outcome.

Out and out nullifying a player decision would be "manually controlling the outcome".
Yerameyahu
Yes, it would. And so would helping the player. As you did. smile.gif

They *both* are, obviously. Surely in the 5 pages of this thread you've seen that metagaming goes both ways?
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 9 2010, 11:36 PM) *
I thought we established that metagaming was using out of game knowledge toy our own benefit?


Actually, it's been said many times that it doesn't matter whose benefit the metagaming is for. I think what you did was perfectly legit and the mark of a good GM.

It's still metagaming.

Can you see where the other side has been coming from now? wink.gif
Cain
QUOTE (Mooncrow @ Oct 11 2010, 05:41 AM) *
Actually, it's been said many times that it doesn't matter whose benefit the metagaming is for. I think what you did was perfectly legit and the mark of a good GM.

Thank you, but I see a difference between nudging a story and metagaming. Had I used out-of-game knowledge to kill the PC's off, that would have been different.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Cain @ Oct 12 2010, 06:13 PM) *
Thank you, but I see a difference between nudging a story and metagaming. Had I used out-of-game knowledge to kill the PC's off, that would have been different.


Okay, But I do not see that difference...

By definition, GM's MUST use out-of-game knowledge... Everything they do is out-of-game by default after all... Want to design a challenging scenario? You have to reference the Character Statistics, which are OUT-OF-GAME knowledge...

Game Mechanics do not exist within the game world, only fluff... Which makes it metagaming at that point... GM's more often than not Metagame, it is in the nature of running the game after all... They cannot avoid i wobble.gift...
Glyph
Metagaming is part of the game. Things like character creation happen outside of the game itself. It is merely a question of whether metagaming is appropriate or not. Giving NPCs knowledge that they should not have is usually inappropriate. Sometimes it is not even deliberate, but the result of the GM forgetting that a particular NPC might not know a certain piece of information.

I think it has some uses, though. A GM has to emulate superhumanly intelligent NPCs such as dragons, and design logical security systems that would be used by corporations with a long history of dealing with runners. So a GM might be justified in metagaming, just a bit, to keep that superhumanly intelligent NPC from being killed because he made a boneheaded mistake that was exploited by the players. Or to keep the PCs from exploiting the same successful tactic again and again. I mean, the GM has to run the entire world, and he is kind of outnumbered by the PCs. A bit of metagaming is, in my opinion, not too big of a deal, as long as it is not used vindictively, or to railroad the PCs, or to negate a clever plan by GM fiat.
Yerameyahu
Yes. But 'nudging' falls under 'metagaming'. Nothing wrong with that, because it's just one more thing that GMs basically have to do.
toturi
QUOTE (Glyph @ Oct 13 2010, 11:03 AM) *
I think it has some uses, though. A GM has to emulate superhumanly intelligent NPCs such as dragons, and design logical security systems that would be used by corporations with a long history of dealing with runners. So a GM might be justified in metagaming, just a bit, to keep that superhumanly intelligent NPC from being killed because he made a boneheaded mistake that was exploited by the players. Or to keep the PCs from exploiting the same successful tactic again and again.

Conversely a player could have to emulate his superhumanly intelligent PC and/or who is highly skilled/experienced at circumventing maximum security systems that are used by corporations with a long history of dealing with runners.
Dahrken
That's where skills, attributes and dices comes into play, allowing the GM to give infos to the player about mistakes the character definitively would not do.
KarmaInferno
Also this is why we had a thread about Planning Pool house rules.

That is structured player metagaming by design.





-k
crimson ronin
w/o having read all the posts im going to say nobody should metagame players or gm but also the players ought to make sure that they can alter theyre tactics as well
and arent filmed by cameras and such so that said badguys dont have ready access to there comings/goings if your characters become too predictable well there ya go

ie all ought to use disguises and masking and alter travel routes i mean isnt that all part of SHADOW-run ? if not your game should be called lightwalk
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (crimson ronin @ Oct 13 2010, 10:56 AM) *
w/o having read all the posts im going to say nobody should metagame


Er. You don't exactly start off with a strong foundation for your argument, if you admit you haven't done the research to figure out what we're all actually discussing.

Granted, some of the arguments in this thread have been because folks apparently didn't realize the other participants have slightly different definitions of "metagaming".



-k
crimson ronin
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Oct 13 2010, 11:13 AM) *
Er. You don't exactly start off with a strong foundation for your argument, if you admit you haven't done the research to figure out what we're all actually discussing.

Granted, some of the arguments in this thread have been because folks apparently didn't realize the other participants have slightly different definitions of "metagaming".



-k


anyone who doesnt already know the definition of metagaming shouldnt be gaming metagaming is using information for your character that you as a player or gm
was privy to-thats metagaming to me the only plausable excuse is when the gm pulls you aside and tells you something that the others just arent aware of yet!
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (crimson ronin @ Oct 13 2010, 01:19 PM) *
anyone who doesnt already know the definition of metagaming shouldnt be gaming metagaming is using information for your character that you as a player or gm
was privy to-thats metagaming to me the only plausable excuse is when the gm pulls you aside and tells you something that the others just arent aware of yet!


Well, for example, the original poster was assuming metagaming only meant when you are doing it for your own personal benefit. Like a dick GM altering his adventure because the PCs did something he didn't like.

But it's possible for a GM to metagame to make things MORE fun for players.

Like increasing the number of mooks behind the next door because the players seem bored with the challenge so far. Or having a key enemy die at a cinematically appropriate moment even if he really had plenty of health left.

Also, a GM trying to simulate a genius NPC when the GM isn't, in fact, a genius. One of the hallmarks of a genius is that he always seems prepared for anything, so you almost have to metagame to achieve this effect. It's justifiable because that particular NPC should capable of guessing ahead of time what the player characters have or do, even if the GM can't.

I also mentioned the Planning Pool house rule, for players. The idea behind that is a pool of dice that players earn by doing planning activities. Getting a floorplan from a fixer nets some dice. Researching a target's habits might get more dice. And so on. Later, the players can use the pool during the run to simulate stuff their characters might have reasonably thought of, but the players did not. Like, nobody has a crowbar and you need one for this part of the mission - the GM can allow the player to spend some of the pool to just say, "We had one with us, we planned for that." Or add dice to a critical test. In this way, you can allow a structured form of metagaming to your players, to represent capabilities that their characters might possess but they as the players do not.

It's not JUST the metagaming that matters. The intent behind the metagaming matters as well.



-k
KnightRunner
The litmus test that I use do make the determinations s to when meta-gaming is bad is simple:

1. Will/would I tell the players/GM?
2. Is their a legitimate reasonable in-game explanation?

examples of not metagaming:
Wearing armor to a meet with Johnson that I not not trust.
Adding guards to a fight because you have little doubt the fight would be a cake walk otherwise.
Buying a medkit for when your spell-slinger goes down.
Having the Johnson ignore a call from the runners and a dramatic point in the story.


examples of meta gaming:
Wearing my non-conductive armor because this DM almost always gives his guards Stick-n-shock.
Adding a couple hackers to a fight because you know none of the runners bothered to buy a decent firewall.
Buying a respirator because I noticed the GM looking up the rules on toxic gases before we started.
Having the Johnson ignore a call from the runners because the runners clever plan would derail my campaign.


Note: These are all based on my opinion of what meta-gaming means.
Yerameyahu
Fudging the explosives rules because you know everyone's dead otherwise. smile.gif Absolutely the right move, too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012