What is Meta-gaming anyways?

[Brown Jenkin]

As I quote myself. Let me give a couple examples of things I am thinking about.

To all you ENWorlders out there:
1. What is meta-gaming to you?

I understand the definition of using OOC knowlege IC. however reasonable people disagree on what is OOC knowlegde.

Can characters know that Trolls need fire to be killed or that you need silver for lycantropes. I've seen some DMs complain about 3rd level characters using silver on lycanthropes while others feel that this is something everyone in a world of monstes would know.

I have seen complaints about players who plan out thier level progression to meet a PrC requirement while others argue that we do this in the real world by taking classes we need for a degree in college to get a job we want so this is not unreasonable in DnD either.

2. Is it all that bad?

In our group when I ask how damaged people "look" so I can decide who to heal. I am willing to accept both "pretty bad" or I'm down to 13. No one tells me who to heal though, that is my choice. I personally am not bothered by a number and can do the math myself as to how bad it is. Some people are more comfortable giving a number and I won't try to make them change since it doesn't bother me.

As for the PrC planning, even if you think it is "Meta-gaming" how bad is it realy?

3. Should we try to stop using it as an insult?

Since reasonable people disagree at times on what Meta-gaming is it strikes me as elitist when another's reasonable opinion is dismissed as invalid because it is "Meta-gaming".

 

[Desdichado]

The proper definition of meta-gaming, according to most gaming books, is using the knowledge that you are playing a game to make decisions. Such as, "there has to be a lever here, the DM wouldn't let us all die like this", or "that couldn't be an -insert monster here-, it's too high a CR for us, the DM wouldn't just kill us like that". Too many people incorrectly use the term to mean use of Out-Of-Character knowledge, such as the Monster stats etc.

That's only incorrect if we assume that your definition is, well, definitive, which I don't know why you think you can do. Clearly amongst the community here (and other online locations in general, if not all RPGers in general) have a broader definition in mind when they use the word. Not only that, I submit that what you call a definition is really only an example and there's no substantive difference between the example of what you call "metagaming" and what you call "not metagaming."

IMHO, metagaming is a bad thing, as it ruins the suspension of disbelief needed for a good RPG session. It's not much good as an insult though, though I'd have a hard time telling some friends that. :\

I've never heard of metagaming being an insult, like you say. I'm surprised at the initial post in the thread that asserts that it is. Rather, though, it's certainly something that a great many gamers dislike and discourage.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

It depends. In most cases, yes- its one of the most destructive things that can happen when other people at the table are trying to stay in character and role-play. On the other hand, if the DM and other players in the group are all comfortable with a certain level of meta-gaming, then no- for them it would probably be fine. From having played in settings with extreme amounts of meta-gaming vs nearly no meta-gaming, I can say that meta-gaming is jarring and obnoxious in most cases.

This is what in part bothers me. The implication is that by staying "in-character and roll-playing" is the best way to play the game. Just as people like to play in a range from high magic to low magic people like to "role-play" from imersion LARPs to Drinking beer with friends once a year and killing some monsters in a getting some loot in a fun lighthearted way with more Roll-Playing than Role-Playing. Should any of these ways be considered superior to others if that is what you like. I'
ve played "Role-playing" heavy games and personaly don't enjoy them as much as a lighter game, but I don't claim my way is more fun than yours except to me.

 

[Desdichado]

...but I don't claim my way is more fun than yours except to me.

The quote you replied to didn't either. I think most gamers prefer to minimize metagaming -- certainly in my experience across a fairly broad range of groups that's been true. But for those who don't care, or even actually like it, more power to them.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I've never heard of metagaming being an insult, like you say. I'm surprised at the initial post in the thread that asserts that it is. Rather, though, it's certainly something that a great many gamers dislike and discourage.

The way I see it as an insult is that since "a great many gamers dislike and discourage [it]" they consider it "inferior" roleplaying and that they therefore play the game better when they make the assertion that you are a meta-gamer for doing something you might consider perfectly reasonable (see above).

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Brown Jenkin:

This is what in part bothers me. The implication is that by staying "in-character and roll-playing" is the best way to play the game. Just as people like to play in a range from high magic to low magic people like to "role-play" from imersion LARPs to Drinking beer with friends once a year and killing some monsters in a getting some loot in a fun lighthearted way with more Roll-Playing than Role-Playing. Should any of these ways be considered superior to others if that is what you like. I'

If you take a second look at what I wrote, I didn't say one level of meta-gaming is superior to another. I did say that:

"...its one of the most destructive things that can happen when other people at the table are trying to stay in character and role-play."

That is, if the other players are trying not to meta-game and stay in character, and one or two players are meta-gaming, it quickly destroys the mood and pacing of a game. It all depends on the group though- some groups are more comfortable with it than others.

 

[Desdichado]

The way I see it as an insult is that since "a great many gamers dislike and discourage [it]" they consider it "inferior" roleplaying and that they therefore play the game better when they make the assertion that you are a meta-gamer for doing something you might consider perfectly reasonable (see above).

Well, it is inferior, if your preferences are along other lines. It's a question of style and preference. I happen to think that Britney Spears sings inferior music, but obviously a great many teenage girls (and others) disagree with me. No biggie, I don't see why either me nor my teenage sister-in-law (to pick one notable example with whom I've had the conversation many times) have to be offended over it. For some bizarre reason, she also thinks my underground synthpop, EBM and futurepop music is inferior.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The quote you replied to didn't either. I think most gamers prefer to minimize metagaming -- certainly in my experience across a fairly broad range of groups that's been true. But for those who don't care, or even actually like it, more power to them.

I'm with you on the tollerance part the the quote included the statement

Originally posted by Gothmog

From having played in settings with extreme amounts of meta-gaming vs nearly no meta-gaming, I can say that meta-gaming is jarring and obnoxious in most cases.

If it was quilifed with an "I think" or "in my opinion" it would be fine, but it is an absolute statement that "meta-gaming is jarring and obnoxious in most cases."

If Gothmog ment to include such a modifier but forgot or I am misinterpreting him then I apologize in advance.

[edit: gothmog posted while I was still working on a response]

 

[Kweezil]

That's only incorrect if we assume that your definition is, well, definitive, which I don't know why you think you can do. Clearly amongst the community here (and other online locations in general, if not all RPGers in general) have a broader definition in mind when they use the word. Not only that, I submit that what you call a definition is really only an example and there's no substantive difference between the example of what you call "metagaming" and what you call "not metagaming."

Apologies, it's been a long day and I tend to get a little prickly about terminology at the best of times, I didn't mean to sound so arrogant about it all.

 

[Cedric]

The troll example isn't a really good one since trolls are fairly common in most game worlds, and fire is probably the only way a commoner could drive one off if he was threatened.

Now this is exactly what I am talking about...I figure, Troll - regenerates - kill with fire. That makes sense, right?

Well, I had a GM who jumped on the whole party for Meta-Gaming, cause he said we were 3rd-4th level and don't know how to kill a troll and keep it killed.

So back to what I was saying before in my first post...sometimes it's hard to draw the line.

Cedric