There’s a fairly widespread attitude among gamers that can be summed up like this: “Metagaming = Bad.”
This should really be “Some kinds of metagaming = Bad, for some gaming groups.” Or even better, “Many kinds of metagaming = awesome, for nearly any group.”
Why? Because there are at least two kinds of metagaming — the one that’s generally bad, and the one that’s nearly always a good thing.
This topic grew out of the comments on When an Adventure or Character is “In Check”. TT reader brcarl rightly pointed out that the idea of metagaming in constructive ways has been something of a trend in recent TT posts, and I thought this would be a good subject for its own post.
Bad Metagaming
When most GMs think of metagaming, this is what they’re thinking of: player knowledge being used in place of character knowledge in a way that negatively impacts the game.
For example: The party has split up: Merry and Pippin followed the right-hand path, while Frodo and Samwise went left. They’re now in two completely different areas.
- GM: Merry and Pippin, when you round the next corner you’re ambushed by orcs. Roll for initiative.
- Samwise’s Player: Frodo and I run back to help Merry and Pippin!
- GM: You don’t know that they got attacked.
- Samwise’s Player: I…uh…had a hunch. I can tell when my friends are in danger. We start running back.
In 99% of games, this kind of player behavior isn’t a good thing — and it gives other kinds of metagaming a bad name, tarnishing them by association.
Good Metagaming
In general, good metagaming is any kind of meta-level, out-of-character discussion that makes the game more fun for the whole group. This kind of metagaming usually doesn’t just happen on its own, either — it requires an active, mature effort on the part of both the players and the GM.
That’s partly because it flies in the face of the “Metagaming = Bad” generalization, and partly due to the fact that as play styles go, using metagaming constructively isn’t all that common (at least in my experience).
There are lots of ways to use constructive metagaming — here are four examples that illustrate a few general types of good metagaming:
• Players telling the GM about their plans. Unless you have a good reason to maintain an adversarial relationship with your players, encouraging them to spell things out gives you, the GM, a chance to consider the outcome of their plans from a very constructive standpoint: “How can I make what happens more fun?” There are lots of good ways to be surprised as a GM, but this isn’t one of them.
• Making sure your players understand their options. “If you scale the wall, the rain will give you a -4 penalty to your roll. If you can land a grappling hook up there, though, it’ll only be -1 with the rope.” Describing things in detail is part of being a GM, but what about sharing some of the mechanics behind those details? This is doubly true when a PC’s life is on the line, but it’s good advice in other circumstances as well.
• Guys, I’m not having any fun. If you’re not having fun during a session, sometimes it’s best to bring that up. Everyone’s there for the same reason (to have fun), and as long as you aren’t being a dick about it your friends will listen to what’s bothering you. After a few minutes of discussion, you’ll probably be able to resolve things and move in a slightly different direction — one that means you get to have fun as well.
• Play to the rest of the party’s character concepts. Even if your character doesn’t know that another PC hates spiders (perhaps because the game has just begun), there’s a good chance you, the player, do know that. Why let a good background flag go to waste? Find a way to work spiders into the game, and everyone wins.
Not all of these examples will work for your group — heck, you might not like any of them. But this list is just scratching the surface: there are tons of ways to use metagaming to improve your group’s overall experience at the gaming table.
That’s how I come at this topic — what are your thoughts? Do you agree with the premise? If you disagree, why? Are there other archetypal examples of constructive metagaming?
Good Metagaming is indeed a rare thing, especially the first point you make about letting the GM know your plans.
I’ve frequently asked for information from players on what they’re plans were and getting nothing in response it not only is it frustrating but it also leaves you with only one conclusion – the players like what you’re doing, whether they do or don’t.
Thanks for the post.
I agree that forms of metagaming can be good. The first two types – sharing plans and informing players – are the best and most important. Interestingly, to some degree metagaming in these areas simulates an important part of the game world.
Many react to the idea of players learning specific difficulties for tasks with distaste – “Your character doesn’t think in terms of a Defense modifier!” – because it seems to inappropriately bridge character and player knowledge. But this is how the world works, just through a fuzzier lens. In any task, there’s a natural and rapid learning curve for the actor.
When Lady Junill leaps into a fight with some new demon, she doesn’t know right away how strong it is, how tough it is, or how much damage it’s going to deal. After a couple rounds, though, she knows it’s really fast but her few successful sword thrusts connect well, and it’s claws have sliced weapons in have.
Translation to the player: the demon has an AC somewhere between 25 and 28, it’s speed is probably 40 ft, it’s got no damage reduction, and it probably has the Improved Sunder feat.
Once the player figures things out, he can play his character more appropriately. People, whether or not they live in a fictional world, are good at figuring out what they’re dealing with. There’s no good reason to deny that this would happen to PCs.
I’m a big fan of players sharing their plans with the GM. For one thing, it’s simply fun to be the GM and here it hashed out among the players how they’ll overcome the encounter I’ve been working on. I like being in on that discussion.
Second, it makes my job as GM so much easier. In the real world, I’m not a master vampire with telepathic links to my spawn and dominated minions; I’d probably have trouble coordinating monsters to defend a flying castle in the sky. As I GM, when I’m sitting in on the players’ planning session, I benefit from reverse metagaming – my NPC’s knowledge enhances my own as a GM, giving me information I couldn’t have a regular person but which I could have as a monster. Armed with knowledge of the players’ intentions, I can play the encounter intelligently and help keep it fun for the players.
The players might plan to assault the castle by having their illusionist create multiple images of different adventure teams striking the fortress at once so as to split the defenses. Knowing that the defenders use alchemist fire, the cleric will plant various Glyphs of Warding set to trigger the Shatter spell inside. The barbarian, wearing a stolen set of the enemy’s robes, will silently make his way to the center of the fortress for the overlord to return to his power center.
Hearing this plan saves me all kinds of trouble since I know what I’ll be dealing with. I can focus on the abilities of the fortress defenders who will be in the few areas with which the PCs will interact with. I can prep myself on the rules for interacting with illusions. I know to be ready to handle the effect of 10 vials of alchemist fire exploding simultaneously on anyone who triggers those traps. I know that I need to set a DC for the Spot check of the overlord when the barbarian enters his power center. The whole series of encounters will pass more smoothly.
I can also help the players – “Sorry, but Glyph of Warding won’t let you set a Dismissal to banish the demons.” The metagame planning phase makes the game easier and more fun for both players and the GM.
• Players telling the GM about their plans.
• Making sure your players understand their options.
Are these two really that unusual? In *every* traditional RPG I’ve played, the players have always hashed out their plans in front of the GM (even if it meant CCing with email), and included in it a discussion of the relevant rules. I can’t imagine the frustrations that would arise from an hour’s long planning session in a back room, followed by, “Uh, guys, that’s cool, but it’s belladonna, not wolfsbane, that harms lycanthropes.”
Brian: I think they’re referring to the “Plethora of Questions” player who asks a bazillion questions of the environment, encounter, opponent, etc, then devises some ridiculous plan using obscure rules and/or his own interpretations.
Player: “It’s a free action to release an object, right?”
GM: “Right.”
“OK. How’s the ground in here?”
“Um, dirt, some rocks.”
“Any loose dirt?”
“Sure. Why not?”
“Can I grab a handful of dirt while tumbling?”
“I guess.”
“OK, I tumble past Baddie 1, using a free action to release the handful of dirt in his eyes to blind him, then go on to Baddie 2 and stab him with my sword.”
“You can’t do that.”
“Why not, you just said I could.”
(Game-crushing argument ensues.)
This silliness could have been handled like this.
Player: “Can I grab some dirt or something while tumbling, and release it in someone’s eyes?”
GM: “Cool idea. I don’t know if there’s a rule, but here goes… it adds 10 to the Tumble check, and throwing it at their eyes is a Standard Action. They’ll get a DC 15 Reflex save or be blinded for one round.”
The “make sure players understand” part is probably referring to giving out numbers instead of general comments. I had a character fall forty feet when I misunderstood “normal natural rock wall”. This could have been avoided by saying, “It’s DC25”.
Regarding the OP, I think there is also good and bad metagaming, and that there should be some kind of additional vocabulary here. My opinion:
Using rules to communicate is not cheating, or we’d never know what level NPCs we’re hiring, or how difficult something actually is.
Using player knowledge for character knowledge is cheating, whether that knowledge comes from overheard conversation (the hobbit-orc example given) or from “reading the monster manual”.
Leaving character to explain something is not generally cheating, but it could be. If the GM explains that “It’s just not gonna happen like that”, we can skip an hour of attempts and re-attempts to do “that”. On the other hand, telling your buddy the most efficient way to play his character is uncool, unless he asks. (Yeah, this last one can fit a couple of categories…)
When one is not having fun, how should one “not be a dick about it”?
I don’t know why I’m compulsed to answer all the questions here… : I just feel there’s a lot of room for work in this area.
When you’re not having fun, don’t ruin it for everyone else if they are having fun. If you suddenly wind up at a table of tactical mini players, and you want some moral exploratory roleplay, don’t rain on their parade. Don’t call them names, make fun of their style, or derail the story to get your time in. Instead, be nice, make a polite but pointed comment, wait for a break to talk to the GM/group, politely bow out, etc.
I think that’s the most important area of positive metagaming: recognizing that everyone is there to have fun, and trying to support that.
That means things like NOT derailing the plot just because you think you’re clever; it includes comments like “Hey, guys, we’re all in this together” or even “This is the story, gang; do we want to play tonight or not?”
And it short-circuits the vicious backstab sessions where everyone shouts “I’m Just RolePlaying My Character!” (Yeah, to the active detriment of everyone else at the table. Congratulations, here’s your Oscar for Best Portrayal of a Stubborn Asswipe.)
I agree with everything here, but I think even the “bad” metagaming example can be good. I am a-okay with players translating player-knowledge into character actions, as long as those actions can be believably justified. That is, it’s cool for Sam and Frodo to run back to help Merry and Pippin, as long as their players can come up with a *plausible* reason why their characters would go back there. I think it adds to the drama of the situation.
I also don’t like asking players to “firewall” when it comes to monster stats and what not. If the PCs are fighting their first troll, but the players are familiar with their stats, how do you know if they’re “cheating?” If the party wizard cuts loose with a Burning Hands spell, how do you know he wouldn’t have done that anyway? Too much of a pain, IMHO. As long as the players aren’t leafing through the Monster Manual at the table, I don’t usually worry about it. (Besides, the game should be challenging in ways that don’t require secrecy, too, don’tcha think?) 🙂
I think there are some systems where metagaming is not just good, but required. Games where determining stakes are important in particular. D&D doesn’t really lend itself to this kind of thing, and so hence the metagaming = bad in that case.
(RocketLettuce) When one is not having fun, how should one “not be a dick about it”?
Telas said it better than I could have in his reply (comment #6). I’d add that timing is important — bringing up the fact that you’re not having fun during a break is a lot better than doing so in the middle of combat.
(Will) I agree with everything here, but I think even the “bad” metagaming example can be good. I am a-okay with players translating player-knowledge into character actions, as long as those actions can be believably justified.
I’d argue that if those actions can be justified, it’s probably by way of the rules. My example of bad metagaming was explicitly not supported by the rules — but (continuing the example) if Samwise had an ability called Hunch (detect when other hobbits are in danger), that wouldn’t be metagaming at all.
I definitely agree with Martin on this one (and pretty much with all the above responses).
I’ll add that one thing I hate is players calling for random rolls to determine if they can act on player knowledge that the character’s don’t have. In my opinion, once the player has learned that trolls in D&D regenerate most damage, it’s totally fine for their character to be aware of this. Now if the GM wants to make trolls difficult, he should surprise the players so they don’t have the opportunity to stock up on fire damaging spells and gear. But once the troll shows up, if they can figure a way to do some fire damage, cool! Even if their PC is 1st level. If you need to justify the PC knowledge, consider that trolls are actually pretty common in D&D, and it will be general knowledge, especially to adventurers.
If you want to spring a truly unknown monster, create a new monster (or put an existing monster in a new skin). But also make sure that the way you use the monster supports this lack of knowledge (i.e. don’t create krolls that are sort of like trolls, that have been ravaging a particular area for centuries, but somehow, no one knows they are susceptible to lightning damage). Put the kroll in a deep tomb that no one has ventured into.
Frank
Oh, another good metagame – playing along with the GM and the campaign concept. This highlights the connection between metagame and social contract since the whole “why are we playing this game?” question should result in players “going along with the GM” as appropriate. This means in a horror game, actually going into the haunted house… Or in D&D actually going into the dungeon…
It’s also worth pointing out that player use of the rules and metagaming is probably totally appropriate for gamist play (though I would argue that for any play, the rules should support the desired play style, and thuse EVERYONE should be exploiting the rules to make the game what it is intended to be).
Frank
(Martin) I’d argue that if those actions can be justified, it’s probably by way of the rules. My example of bad metagaming was explicitly not supported by the rules — but (continuing the example) if Samwise had an ability called Hunch (detect when other hobbits are in danger), that wouldn’t be metagaming at all.
Sure, but what I mean is…what if Sam and Frodo ran off to where Merry and Pippin were for some unrelated reason, such that being there to help for the fight just turned out to be really good timing? The players are sending their PCs there to help with the fight, but the characters are going for some other reason altogether. This sort of thing happens all the time in movies and such, so I kind of dig it when players come up with good excuses to put their characters in serendipitous places when they’re needed the most.
(Telas) telling your buddy the most efficient way to play his character is uncool, unless he asks
Actually, this brings up another good subject for discussion: when is it appropriate for players to meta-game to help other players?
I, for one, thinks it’s totally appropriate to have other players help when the PC in question has the stats that call for it. For example, if the massive-intellect wizard is separated from the party for some reason and is stuck trying to solve a puzzle, I think it’s totally appropriate for the players of the non-present PCs to give some help. The same goes for helping out the seasoned fighter with tactical suggestions, the smooth-talking street-thief with some bluff ideas, etc.
For me, this goes back to supporting heroic and fantastic actions from the PCs even if the corresponding players don’t have the ideas to back them up. Assuming the goal is escapist enjoyment, then why not let everyone chip in?
(Will) Sure, but what I mean is…what if Sam and Frodo ran off to where Merry and Pippin were for some unrelated reason, such that being there to help for the fight just turned out to be really good timing?
I see what you’re getting at, but it still doesn’t sit quite right with me. If it was done in the spirit of making the game more fun for the whole group, I’d be down for it — but it’s definitely a toughie.