Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Metagaming
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Cain
QUOTE
So let me get this straight, just to be on the same page here...

If my character spends time observing his opposition, obtaining information on his hangouts, his preferences, his equipment, his operational tactics, his spell selections, and his tactics, then I am Cheating? If that is not the case, then why would it be cheating for an NPC to perform the same surveillance to acquire the same information? And, having gathered that information, why would it be cheating to pass it along to his allies so that they will be prepared whenever they encounter said character (Ad infinitum, of course).

It is not the Fault of a GM if characters become predictable in their operations, spell useage, equipment choices, or tactics.

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.
Grinder
The other thread Cain is talking about (and more specifically, the post that got the whole discussion started)
is here
Redcrow
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.
Cain
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.
suoq
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.
Abschalten
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.
Mooncrow
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.
Cain
QUOTE (Mooncrow @ Aug 14 2010, 01:38 PM) *
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.
Abschalten
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 14 2010, 05:44 PM) *
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.
Mooncrow
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.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Mooncrow @ Aug 14 2010, 03:38 PM) *
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.


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

QUOTE
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.


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.
suoq
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."
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (suoq @ Aug 14 2010, 03:54 PM) *
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...
codemonkey_uk
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!
Cain
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Aug 14 2010, 02:49 PM) *
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.

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.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (codemonkey_uk @ Aug 14 2010, 05:21 PM) *
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!


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.
Sephiroth
QUOTE (Mooncrow @ Aug 14 2010, 09:48 PM) *
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.


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 frown.gif . But that is an excellent point.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Sephiroth @ Aug 14 2010, 05:37 PM) *
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 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^^
Kruger
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.
Yerameyahu
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. 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. smile.gif
Kruger
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).
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 06:36 PM) *
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 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.
Kruger
QUOTE (Mooncrow @ Aug 14 2010, 03:46 PM) *
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.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 06:50 PM) *
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.
Kruger
QUOTE
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.

More specifically to roleplaying:
QUOTE
In role-playing games, metagaming can be defined as any out of character action made by a player's character which makes use of knowledge that the character is not meant to be aware of.

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.
Redcrow
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Aug 14 2010, 11:42 PM) *
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. smile.gif I thought it was amusing, and, incidentally, *not* an example of GM metagaming.


I suppose if the guards work at a place that is routinely infiltrated by Shadowrunners and their Procedures and Operations manual had a chapter on "How to Recognise and Handle Infiltration by Shadowrunners", then it might be understandable for them to jump to those conclusions. I certainly wouldn't handle things that way in my game, but to each their own. Without having read the actual thread in question and going strictly by this situation described here, it does seem like an example of GM meta-gaming to me.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 07:08 PM) *
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.


The first one seems fine, and I would agree with it. The second is terrible. There are plenty of in-character actions that can still be metagaming. Which of course is why wiki is for shit.

And yes, the only way a GM can not metagame is to either A. not know who or what his players are ahead of time or B. operate on rails with a published adventure.

Metagaming is neither bad or good on it's own, it's an unavoidable byproduct of how the game is played. What matters is what goal you use it towards. If you want an example of good PC metagaming, take a player who knows that another guy is feeling a little left out because say maybe he didn't build his character as well, but the first PC lets him take point (in spite of what his character would think) so that he can feel more involved and everyone can have fun. Metagaming? Absolutely. Good play? Also, absolutely.

Anyway, I forgot who you were for a moment, so I'll be done trying to convince you after this.
Kruger
I would imagine that the guards at any kind of corporate facility work on a set of SOPs. If we're talking 4e and the year 2070, there's twenty years of documented shadowrunning for corporate security agencies to work off of, lol.

I think it's just common sense that every guard, or at least security supervisor, has a manual titled "How to Recognise and Handle Infiltration by Shadowrunners". Probably in it's fourth or fifth edition. Dog eared. With notes and highlighting.

In fact, I think FASA published this book in 1995, lol.


You need to remember, as a GM, that NPCs are not just faceless mooks. Security guards are real people with hopes and dreams, aspirations and families. They also have a pretty dangerous job. So one would have to assume they are reasonably good at it. These aren't just the guys in red windbreakers checking tickets at the football game, walking some predetermined route, and easily fooled by cardboard boxes. They are also guarding things whose owners would prefer them not be stolen, and whom also routinely hire the exact same kinds of shadowrunners to steal from others.
Kruger
QUOTE (Mooncrow @ Aug 14 2010, 04:21 PM) *
And yes, the only way a GM can not metagame is to either A. not know who or what his players are ahead of time or B. operate on rails with a published adventure.
This is where I, with the utmost respect for your individuality and feelings as a person, choose to tell you that you are wrong, based on not only the very common sense definition of the term meta-gaming, but also on more than fifteen years experience gaming.

QUOTE
Metagaming is neither bad or good on it's own, it's an unavoidable byproduct of how the game is played.
Again, taking your self esteem into consideration, I choose to tell you that you're wrong.


And as far as disagreeing with the second definition? Perhaps you'd like to provide an alternate one, bearing in mind that thus far you're trying to refute the commonly accepted definition. Calling Wiki "shit" is a weak proposition at best. It's usually done by people who don't have a solid argument, so they attempt to poison the source instead of refuting the statement. The Wiki is modifiable by anyone, sure. However, that also means that anyone can modify it back. And considering mady edits have taken place, but no significant changes have been made to that page or that definition within the last four years, I think it can be reasonably considered common usage.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 07:39 PM) *
This is where I, with the utmost respect for your individuality and feelings as a person, choose to tell you that you are wrong, based on not only the very common sense definition of the term meta-gaming, but also on more than fifteen years experience gaming.

Again, taking your self esteem into consideration, I choose to tell you that you're wrong.


And as far as disagreeing with the second definition? Perhaps you'd like to provide an alternate one, bearing in mind that thus far you're trying to refute the commonly accepted definition. Calling Wiki "shit" is a weak proposition at best. It's usually done by people who don't have a solid argument, so they attempt to poison the source instead of refuting the statement. The Wiki is modifiable by anyone, sure. However, that also means that anyone can modify it back. And considering mady edits have taken place, but no significant changes have been made to that page or that definition within the last four years, I think it can be reasonably considered common usage.


Fine, counter example. The most basic metagaming you can do - a player sees the map of the adventure, and then they sit down to play. They come to a fork in the dungeon. The player knows that left is a fat sack of treasure, and the real way to continue the story, while right is a trap filled time sink. His character obviously knows none of this, and unless he has some "right turning phobia" doesn't have a real preference. So, the character goes left. Is that out of character? Obviously no. Is it metagaming? 100%

No offense to you, but these are the discussions that filled hours at cons and get-togethers back 15-20 years ago. I hate playing the "I've been gaming for X years" though, so I avoid it when I can.

Sigh, I know that you'll never admit the possibility of being wrong, but in this case, you are.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Mooncrow @ Aug 14 2010, 05:51 PM) *
Sigh, I know that you'll never admit the possibility of being wrong, but in this case, you are.


Well, You know those Marines... Stubborn Individuals they are...
Oh yeah, wait a minute... Stubborn Individauls WE are...
Heheheh... wobble.gif
Kruger
Your example leaves much to be desired. And even if it were flawless, its relevance would be called into question, and the point it was trying to prove also be bizarrely ambiguous, if not absent.

Are you trying to suggest that the type of metagaming you described wasn't bad? I mean, if we're judging this on some kind of utilitarianesque scale, your example still ends up being negative because it is a detriment to good storytelling, immersion, and the spirit of the game. However, any adventure so poorly written as to have a "time sink" written into it might have further fault laid at the feet of the GM. Not to mention the player cheating, or the GM being so lackadaisical about leaving game documents lying around. The imperfect response to the imperfect scenario hook seems a bit shaky ground to base an argument on.

However, I'm sure we can come up with nonsensical and irrelevant exceptions all day. After all, role playing is limited only be the imagination.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 08:05 PM) *
Your example leaves much to be desired. And even if it were flawless, its relevance would be called into question, and the point it was trying to prove also be bizarrely ambiguous, if not absent.

Are you trying to suggest that the type of metagaming you described wasn't bad? I mean, if we're judging this on some kind of utilitarianesque scale, your example still ends up being negative because it is a detriment to good storytelling, immersion, and the spirit of the game. However, any adventure so poorly written as to have a "time sink" written into it might have further fault laid at the feet of the GM. Not to mention the player cheating, or the GM being so lackadaisical about leaving game documents lying around. The imperfect response to the imperfect scenario hook seems a bit shaky ground to base an argument on.

However, I'm sure we can come up with nonsensical and irrelevant exceptions all day. After all, role playing is limited only be the imagination.


Sigh, I was trying to come up with an example of something we both could agree was metagaming and yet was not consistent with the second given definition.

And I have never said metagaming was always a good thing - I very rarely use absolutes when speaking. In fact, I've said multiple times that it can be either good or bad. but from your language, you like to deal in absolutes, so your response puzzles me a bit. If something "always" is, then starting to nitpick about details in examples starts to be laughable.

So, questions for you then, since you want to continue:

1. was the example I gave metagaming? (feel free to changes details if it makes you feel better - he bought the same module the DM was using, the right hand turn was also exciting, but took longer, etc)
2. was it consistent with the second definition you gave from wiki?

If you really want to keep going, I would suggest taking your own advice and reading the whole thread to see what my actual stance is. Trying to pick up pieces from a strawman you've torn down gets old.
Kruger
Ahh. I see we're hung up on the use of the term "out of character". However, the question I'd pose is, why would the character go left? Did they have a feeling (that tonight was going to be a good night)? I mean, if it is in character to simply make arbitrary decisions, sure, I guess it makes the definition of metagaming situationally incorrect. However, like I said, coming up with very improbable exceptions seems a waste of time.

You like to say I am dealing in absolutes, however you are the one arguing semantics. I don't think metagaming can ever be a good thing. I can sometimes consider it close to neutral, but in my opinion, it's always a negative since it detracts from the story aspect. It seems that in almost any situation, there will be a better alternative than metagaming. Whether it be in helping a new player rework/improve a weak character from your previous example, or simply having players avoid buying adventure modules if they aren't the GM. Some things are just unavoidable happenings in life. But they are still "bad", even if there is no real fault. I mean, it's nobody's fault an earthquake happens. That doesn't mean earthquakes can be good (though I'm sure you can come up with another silly and irrelevant exception like how a small earthquake can raise public awareness for earthquake safety). In the same way, metagaming will always be "bad", even if superficially it seems like a good thing.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 08:29 PM) *
Ahh. I see we're hung up on the use of the term "out of character". However, the question I'd pose is, why would the character go left? Did they have a feeling (that tonight was going to be a good night)? I mean, if it is in character to simply make arbitrary decisions, sure, I guess it makes the definition of metagaming situationally incorrect. However, like I said, coming up with very improbable exceptions seems a waste of time.

You like to say I am dealing in absolutes, however you are the one arguing semantics. I don't think metagaming can ever be a good thing. I can sometimes consider it close to neutral, but in my opinion, it's always a negative since it detracts from the story aspect. It seems that in almost any situation, there will be a better alternative than metagaming. Whether it be in helping a new player rework/improve a weak character from your previous example, or simply having players avoid buying adventure modules if they aren't the GM. Some things are just unavoidable happenings in life. But they are still "bad", even if there is no real fault. I mean, it's nobody's fault an earthquake happens. That doesn't mean earthquakes can be good (though I'm sure you can come up with another silly and irrelevant exception like how a small earthquake can raise public awareness for earthquake safety). In the same way, metagaming will always be "bad", even if superficially it seems like a good thing.


You're right, it is semantics, but annoying semantics. And yes, what you mean by metagaming is not a good thing. But when I'm at a con and I'm talking to a group of GMs about improving their knowledge of their players' metagame to improve their adventure writing, it gets annoying having at least one person always pipe up that metagaming is always bad.

Metagaming is using out of game knowledge in the game. Period. Whether writing it or playing it. I think it's good if it helps everyone have more fun, I think it's bad if it's used any other way. There's my definition, there's my stance.

Now, for real, I'm done.
DrZaius
Not to get in the middle of a big argument here, but I think the most basic example of metagaming is players acting a bit more concerned, and asking to roll perception checks while the GM draws a map.

Kruger
Not beating a dead horse, but the prefix "meta' comes from the Greek for "after, beyond, adjacent". GMing duties that require knowledge of the game and characters can't be metagaming. That's the game itself, not something outside or beyond its natural scope. It is the GM's role in the game to create the story and challenges for the characters. It would be rather silly for the GM to do that with no knowledge of the background. or characters Even the published modules are created with a certain assumption of player capabilities.

That's why metagaming can never refer to anything that doesn't directly have to do with the interaction of characters, things, or events. Interaction being the key term. A GM writing in a certain challenge to address a player capability (or incapability) isn't metagaming. That's the GM's job. That's just plain gaming. A GM who knows that a character has no impact armor and thus deciding an NPC will pick up a baseball bat instead of drawing his pistol for that surprise attack might be metagaming.

I mean, I understand that this is contradicting the definition you've created for the word and used for a long time. And that it is hard to abandon the concept (old dogs and tricks, as they say), but people also use labtobs, and do things for all intensive purposes, and have deep seeded convictions, and might well look at your definition and say "same difference".
Johnny Hammersticks
QUOTE (DrZaius @ Aug 14 2010, 08:55 PM) *
Not to get in the middle of a big argument here, but I think the most basic example of metagaming is players acting a bit more concerned, and asking to roll perception checks while the GM draws a map.



that's when you throw a bunch of dice behind your screen and hem and haw a little. make a note that means nothing. Suddenly say "Oh yeah, that!" and make another note. Smile so everyone can see, and continue drawing the map.

wink.gif
Johnny Hammersticks
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 08:59 PM) *
Not beating a dead horse, but the prefix "meta' comes from the Greek for "after, beyond, adjacent". GMing duties that require knowledge of the game and characters can't be metagaming. That's the game itself, not something outside or beyond its natural scope. It is the GM's role in the game to create the story and challenges for the characters. It would be rather silly for the GM to do that with no knowledge of the background. or characters Even the published modules are created with a certain assumption of player capabilities.

That's why metagaming can never refer to anything that doesn't directly have to do with the interaction of characters, things, or events. Interaction being the key term. A GM writing in a certain challenge to address a player capability (or incapability) isn't metagaming. That's the GM's job. That's just plain gaming. A GM who knows that a character has no impact armor and thus deciding an NPC will pick up a baseball bat instead of drawing his pistol for that surprise attack might be metagaming.


Unless, of course, the NPC with the bat sees that the character has no impact armor (maybe a perception test on his part, depending on that NPCs knowledge and background), right?


Kruger
Hence the word "might". I'm pretty crafty. I already know what you're going to reply, before you type it and choose my wording accordingly.
Mooncrow
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 08:59 PM) *
I mean, I understand that this is contradicting the definition you've created for the word and used for a long time. And that it is hard to abandon the concept (old dogs and tricks, as they say), but people also use labtobs, and do things for all intensive purposes, and have deep seeded convictions, and might well look at your definition and say "same difference".


Going by pure definitions, it not really. The quibble would be what constitutes the "game" proper and what is outside of it. Granted, back when the phrase was first used, most people ran pre-written modules, and we would talk about making "metagaming" changes based on what players we had, etc. I guess you could say that the metagame of the RPG industry is what's changed^^
Kruger
Agreeing to disagree and dropping semantics, let's simplify my stance to be any use of metagaming in order to circumvent parts of the story, gain an advantage, "win" a scenario, or "beat" players is always bad. I see no gain in arguing definitions when the meaning is what counts. I studied English way too much and the grammar Nazi in me always wants to goose step.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 07:26 PM) *
Agreeing to disagree and dropping semantics, let's simplify my stance to be any use of metagaming in order to circumvent parts of the story, gain an advantage, "win" a scenario, or "beat" players is always bad. I see no gain in arguing definitions when the meaning is what counts. I studied English way too much and the grammar Nazi in me always wants to goose step.


As a Marine, you should take strict control of that inner Grammer Nazi and throttle him into unconsciousness... smokin.gif
Badmoodguy88
Two definitions of interest. For things like this urban dictionary sometimes has some good definitions, because they take into account how many people agree.

QUOTE
The highest level of strategy in many complex games, metagame refers to any aspect of strategy that involves thinking about what your opponent is thinking you are thinking. Metagame comes into play in any game where no single strategy is dominant and opposing sides are aware of multiple strategies that can succeed dependent upon opponents' actions. In order to perform at the highest level, it then becomes necessary to think about what your opponent thinks you will do (which may depend on what he thinks you think he thinks he will do, etc.) and to make decisions based on clues regarding what level they are thinking on. This term is most commonly used to refer to poker and other complex card games, but is increasingly being used in relation to video games with complicated player vs player elements and even traditional sports.
Normally I would raise the flop with this hand as a semi-bluff, but I've been so aggressive lately that taking metagame into consideration I think he will go all-in with any pair, so instead I'm going to fold.

This guy thinks that I'm going to zergling rush which means he will waste resources defending early. Instead I am going to focus on resource development for mid game, and metagame will win me this match.

QUOTE
The act of using outside or previously gained knowledge within a gaming universe for personal gain or advantage.
John was accused of metagaming when he immediately moved his player to the most protected area of the map to snipe the enemy team members, since he had played the map before and knew from experience.


The first definition makes sense. It explains the name and where it came from. Literally metagamaing is the act of playing the game around the game.
Saint Sithney
As long as things make sense internally, it isn't meta-gaming, it's just gaming.

Guards use shock weapons, because they don't want to accidentally croak the wrong guy.
Guards wear shock-resistant armor, because they don't want to be that wrong guy.

That's a procedure which makes sense in the moment.

A spirit using its confusion instead of its far superior Fear power just because it somehow knows that the player is dosed with Guts, makes no sense internally, and is therefore meta-gaming.
Kruger
QUOTE (Badmoodguy88 @ Aug 14 2010, 07:57 PM) *
The first definition makes sense. It explains the name and where it came from. Literally metagamaing is the act of playing the game around the game.
I dunno about that first definition. That is certainly something, but it isn't metagaming. At least metagaming in the roleplaying sense.

It's entirely possible that the poker crowd has just co-opted the term without caring/knowing about the role-playing term. More akin to the alternate definition of meta to mean transcending or an advancement of, like metaphysics, or even metahumans, than it is to the concept of metagaming in RPGs. Which, of course, is all just a mistranslation of the ancient Greek referring to the work Metaphysics by Aristotle ("the book that comes after the book Physics").

http://palmgoon.com/wp-content/uploads/200...e_you_know2.jpg
toturi
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 15 2010, 12:19 PM) *
I dunno about that first definition. That is certainly something, but it isn't metagaming. At least metagaming in the roleplaying sense.

Why not?
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Kruger @ Aug 14 2010, 11:19 PM) *
I dunno about that first definition. That is certainly something, but it isn't metagaming. At least metagaming in the roleplaying sense.

It's entirely possible that the poker crowd has just co-opted the term without caring/knowing about the role-playing term. More akin to the alternate definition of meta to mean transcending or an advancement of, like metaphysics, or even metahumans, than it is to the concept of metagaming in RPGs. Which, of course, is all just a mistranslation of the ancient Greek referring to the work Metaphysics by Aristotle ("the book that comes after the book Physics").


It's the other way around. Metagaming in the "play the game around the game" sense has been around for a LOT longer than Roleplaying Games have been. It's a term used in Poker, Chess, and a lot of other classic games, although usually only at high levels of play.

The "acting on information his character wouldn't have" is a later usage generated specifically by roleplayers.

The two usages are really not related.

Even in Roleplaying, there is one way that GM metagaming can be positive. When the GM is trying to simulate a hyper-intelligent or hyper-connected opponent.

It's difficult to simulate having a 400 IQ or the mega-spy-network when you yourself as a GM don't have one. So sometimes a GM has to cheat a bit. Like Batman always has a billion plans in motion so it seems he always has the perfect counter for any situation, the uber-opponent for the PCs might have an absurd number of counters to PC tactics. You can explain it in many ways, but it boils down to "the NPC figured out what you were going to do somehow".

Now, you really can't pull this too often. It cheapens the effect and breaks immersion.

It works best, of course, if the PCs find out afterwards how the NPC did it. This of course requires you as a GM to think fast on your feet to come up with reasonable methods the NPC might have used to get his information.

It's great, though, if you can pull it off. If he next time the NPC makes an appearance the characters have a "Oh, god, not THAT guy." moment, well, those moments make my GMing all that more special.

smile.gif



-karma
Voran
Gming has always been an art. Sure you can just barrel through it by the numbers and have passable results, but the best flow comes from tuning experiences based on the actual experiences at the table.

That being said, I have no problems scaling-up NPC responses to make things challenging. Players tend to think their ideas are the best and that they're the only ones to think of them. The common output of such thinking is the 'super alpha striker' and the 'boss raper' etc etc. But often it fails to address the situation of, 'if you've thought of it, why haven't other people'? Players who think they can just wander in with a little bit of planning and take out the Ancient Dragon in one round tend not to like things like backhistory of said dragon being thousands of years old, having fought off paladins and wizards and dragonslayers and other dragons, but yeah, he's totally vulnerable to your level 17 alphastriker.

That being said, not everyone has the resources or mindset to do extra research in formulating their defenses against PCs. Consequently not every NPC group or individual should be able to immediately counter PCs, but that doesn't mean SOME NPCs can do that very thing. It should never be a cakewalk or EZ Mode for PCs, they should be challenged at times, and that challenge should ramp up as their intentions do. You wanna take a run at the SK Corporate HQ? Expect difficulties. You on the path to becoming a prime runner, or you are a prime runner? Expect a dossier on you, especially if you keep using the same damned tactics.

Bull
*shrug* I'm telling a story when I GM. The players are the central actors, and the story revolves around their actions. And at the end of the day, I have two goals... Make that story I'm telling a good one, and make sure my players have fun.

Everything else is secondary. I'll fudge dice rolls, I'll cheat, beg, borrow, and steal. I make about 90% of my adventures up on the fly, and half the time I don;t know whats on the other side of the door till my players open it and find out for themselves. The rules are there to give the game a loose structure, not to pen the game in.

It's worked for me for over 20 years with several dozen different regular players over that time period, so despite some sentiments on this board about metagaming, GMs not playing fairly, winging it, etc... Obviously, I've been doing something right.

Bull
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