In the interest of illumination: Metagame

226 posts / 0 new
Last post
It seems in the D&D community, the concept of a metagame and what it means & implies is not only generally misunderstood, but also heavily misapplied to the point that many hold completely different views on what exactly it is or, indeed, what the word even means.

Now, let me preface this a bit...my trial period here has expired. In a given forum eco-system, I like to test the water...with that part over, I'm going to revert to my typical nature. If you find it abrasive, challenging or contrary, I offer no apologies.

So, what exactly is a metagame?

Simply put, the concept of a "metagame" is defined as "the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions".

The first thing to realize is that metagame is a fairly broad umbrella term. That does not mean it is an imprecise term. The term "sandwich" is a broad term...but when applied to foodstuffs it is easy to tell what is a sandwich and what is a soup. They are distinct things (yes, excepting for perhaps very peculiar out-lier situations).

As it applies to playing in a game (the context we're using) it simply means basing decisions on the knowledge that one is engaged in a game and that that game may have certain rules and/or expectations. To seperate this solely from D&D and give some further context, an example near & dear to my heart would be fighting games. For instance, for those familiar with the Street Fighter series, at the character select screen, if a player A notices their opponent B has chosen Ryu (who's offense strongly revolves around his project fireball game) and that player decides to avoid choosing E. Honda (a character that has a notoriously difficult time against projectil-based characters) and instead chooses a character that has good options against Ryu, that is a meta-game decision known as a counter-pick. Player A has actively used knowledge about his opponents pick to make his own decision.

Another example from a game would be chess and is an example found on wikipedia. If a would-be opponent watches a player complete several games of chess using the same quick-win series of moves when that opponent plays against that person it would be a meta-game decision if their gameplay revolved around countering the strategy they've seen employed.

And finally a third example and the simplest of all (forgive me for inaccuracies, I am no fan of football)...you are the coach of the Patriots. You are about to play the Jets who are known for their strong passing offense. As coach you say "Okay let's start the game with plays that will shut down their passing game"...that is a meta-game decision.

Now, some people will probably grasp how this applies to D&D very quickly...other's won't. That's fine. We all move at our own speed.

Let us get one thing straight immediately: In a competition atmosphere I play to win. If I over-match someone in a fighting game in a tournament setting I have no qualms obliterating them. If someone faces me with a weak Magic deck, I do not give consideration to drawing the match out. I gladly exploit every single facet of a game within the confines of the rules to win. If that means throwing 500 fireballs in a row, I will do it. If that means using a currently-believed-to-be-broken combination of legal cards, whatever.

One might think this would mean I would be all-for metagaming in D&D because, hey, after all, it is a means to an advantage in the game right? Right? Well, no. The "why" of that, however, is going to go unspoken for now. I kind of want to see if anyone else is on the same page with me on this topic. And, well, this OP is already veering long and it will probably make for more interesting initial conversation.

Have at it.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Personally, I've never seen meta-gaming as a very huge deal. I am definitely a narrativist, so the whole "no way Isidra could know in-character that ice dragons don't like fire" has never been my thing, although I can certainly understand it. If something is really big though, like knowing who/where the BBEG OOC but not IC, I can get pretty strict about not using OOC knowledge. 
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
I think the chess example just gave me an epiphany about D&D, but I am too tired right now to fully wrap my mind around the concept...or possibly too tired to realize it's not as insightful as it currently seems. I'll post more when I get the chance to develop it, if it still seems interesting. But it might hold an answer to the question of how to distinguish between metagaming that's okay versus not okay.
"the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions".

^I pretty much just try to stick to this definition.

I dislike metagaming because it either leads to bad roleplaying or no roleplaying. And that's one of the big reasons the game is played, after all... 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
One might think this would mean I would be all-for metagaming in D&D because, hey, after all, it is a means to an advantage in the game right? Right? Well, no. The "why" of that, however, is going to go unspoken for now.


You don't metagame in D&D because it's not a competitive game. Done. If you metagame, you're doing it wrong.
One might think this would mean I would be all-for metagaming in D&D because, hey, after all, it is a means to an advantage in the game right? Right? Well, no. The "why" of that, however, is going to go unspoken for now.

You don't metagame in D&D because it's not a competitive game. Done. If you metagame, you're doing it wrong.

That is a fairly broad statement to make that if you look at it in detail is bount to create problems. Sure, at the extremes it is easy to recognize meta-gaming and as a result avoid it. There is though a huge swath of grey in between. Is it meta-gaming to conclude the ice drake is likely immune to cold damage (or at the very least resistant)? How much does the world know about trolls? Even in RL mythology most monsters that are hard to kill are hurt by fire and so even the most clueless TV hero tends to go for fire quickly. So is it really odd that a PC without any serious monster knowledge to jump to the same conclusion?

What is more, there are ample of situations in which it is virtually impossible to realize whether the player's knowledge is meta-gaming or not, especially in case of experienced players. There have been situations were I knew something to be a fact based on out of game knowledge, but than get confronted with a situation where I would react the same regardless of having that knowledge and still get DMs accusing me of meta-game knowledge. Just because I as a player know NPC X is a spy, does not mean my paranoid PC who never believes any NPC on face value now all of sudden have to buy whatever he is saying ;) Or a bit less obvious example, what if we observe fellow PCs getting into trouble in Tavern X were my PC is not yet? Is me appearing at the exact right time meta-gaming? Or is the story reason provided by me logical? Would it not have happened if I had not known of the problem? Again, at the extremes it is easy to answer these questions, but not in the middle.

Finally, it can also be difficult to differentiate meta-gaming from applying logical game mechanical conclusions and their impact on the world. It is a known game mechanic that in 4e the defenses of a monster is usually level +15 for AC and that their attack rolls is level +5 vs AC. We can also assume that PCs are experienced fighters and just as in RL a skilled fighter can estimate the skill of their opponents within a round or two. We also know that in D&D level represents skill. So is it meta-gaming that a player concludes monster X is an elite of around level X based on the fact that the monster spend an action point, hitted when the DM rolled a 9 or they hit when they rolled that 8?

Of course, that is also ignoring the whole idea of whether meta-gaming is wrong per definition. We play the game to have fun. If 2 of my PCs are going to be doing nothing for a whole night because I insist it is metagaming for them to arrive at the tavern just as the brawl starts, then I am not doing the game much justice. Sure, I as a DM could think of something for the other two to do, but is that worth my efford? Wouldn't both scenes suffer because of it?

In short, meta-gaming seems to be clearcut, but in my experience it never is in practice. It is certainly not always a bad thing.

I agree with Sven's deduction - the goal of DnD isn't (usually) to win, but to have fun & ideally beat up some monsters while you are at it.

That said, we're human. From the OP I assume the general idea is that metagaming as a whole is bad. While I agree with this, I think it is something that has to be qualified a lot.

After a few campaigns you instinctively know that a level 1 cannot defeat a gelantinous cube when stuck in a 10 foot wide corridor. You can try to roleplay your character fighting it as they would any battle, but chances are you will be more reluctant to use your daily, or more willing to run away from the encounter. You are using your personal experience to modify the game, because you don't want to waste your awesome daily on a battle you suspect the DM made purely to force you to flee, or do a special action. Or alternatively you might use your knowledge to use your action points & dailies in the right round of combat. It isn't definately the best RPing out there, but the game is still enjoyable. So you are using your metagame knowledge, but not necessarily for bad gaming. A successful monster check roll might mean that your character knows all about them to justify your OOC knowledge, but there are so many times when either you roll a natural 1, or your character isn't the type to do a monster check roll.

Without talking over long, I think that seeing a zombie & going "sweet, let me use my lvl 7 radiant ability" is bad & breaks the immersion (unless your campaign is more akin to warhammer as a tactical tabletop), but it is hard to not let your knowledge influence your gaming. It can heighten your emotional responses (the tension/fear of seeing an immacutely clean room but before the DM puts the gelatinous cube on the board), and at times it can be boring or tedious to play all of your characters as ignorant as a first time DnD player would.


Without talking over long, I think that seeing a zombie & going "sweet, let me use my lvl 7 radiant ability" is bad & breaks the immersion (unless your campaign is more akin to warhammer as a tactical tabletop), but it is hard to not let your knowledge influence your gaming. It can heighten your emotional responses (the tension/fear of seeing an immacutely clean room but before the DM puts the gelatinous cube on the board), and at times it can be boring or tedious to play all of your characters as ignorant as a first time DnD player would.

But why is the zombie example meta-gaming? Everybody knows undead are vulnerable for radiant energy. Zombies are easily recognizable as undead. Are you truely meta-gaming here? And that is exactly the problem with most meta-game discussions and why people like Iserith (or at least I think it was Iserith who objected against the word in another topic which triggered this thread) have problems with this word. People seem to think that the definition of the word is narrow applies to what they consider bad gaming, and as such simply use it judge other people's playing style. In reality it is a very broad term that in practice is not nearly as easy to attach to particular behavior than on paper and what you consider a clear example of meta-gaming, I just see as common sense (case in example: the zombies and radiant attack) ;)
Interesting posts so far. However I feel the need to point out one of the most toxic notions I've seen in d & d - that it is not competitive. While, perhaps, an understandable idea, it is flat wrong. That said, let me add a bit more focus to temper the exchange. Indeed some have given examples of what would be metagaming...but no one has come close to the real reason it can be anathema. As a hint...it has to do with railroading but the first thing that comes to probably 99% of people's minds will be quite incorrect. 1% anyone?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Ah Joshua you expect me to be upset. I am not. Instead I will use you as a useful example of the close minded. You are the zealous. You are the self assured. When asked to think or consider, you shrink away. This is within your right. However I challenge others to shun your example and go to that frightening terrifying place...the place where ideas are challenged and, scariest of all, someone might find out they were wrong about something.

Until then adieu, so long and goodbye. This conversation might be too much for your delicate sensibilities. If so, toodles.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Interesting posts so far. However I feel the need to point out one of the most toxic notions I've seen in d & d - that it is not competitive. While, perhaps, an understandable idea, it is flat wrong.

Where else are the rule books wrong?

That is a fairly broad statement to make that if you look at it in detail is bount to create problems. Sure, at the extremes it is easy to recognize meta-gaming and as a result avoid it. There is though a huge swath of grey in between. Is it meta-gaming to conclude the ice drake is likely immune to cold damage (or at the very least resistant)? How much does the world know about trolls? Even in RL mythology most monsters that are hard to kill are hurt by fire and so even the most clueless TV hero tends to go for fire quickly. So is it really odd that a PC without any serious monster knowledge to jump to the same conclusion?



Great questions. For what it's worth, this is how I handle it. Shared storytelling makes this whole transaction incredibly useful to the DM and interesting for the group:

DM: The trolls surge out of the cave and attack en masse!
P1: I grab out my torch and light it up.
P2: What? We've never encountered trolls before... how could Ragnar even know fire hurts them?
DM: Good question. P1?
P1: In the land from which I hail, we have a nursery rhyme. It tells the tale of a clever boy who tricks an "invincible" troll by making it think he's hidden in the chimney. When the troll climbs up the chimney and gets stuck in there, the boy lights the fire and that's all she wrote.
DM: Very cool. From where do you hail?
P1: The hamlet of Marshton. It borders a swamp.
DM: What's going on with troll activity in that region these days?
P1: It's on the rise. There are rumors of a bog hag rallying them for some reason.
P2: Sounds like we need to go to Marshton next! 

Whenever there is a disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge (especially if that sort of thing bothers you), just ask questions and establish fiction to explain it. The DM writes down the interesting tibdits and uses it for future adventures. In this example, we have a possible new adventure location, we've learned a bit about Ragnar, the world seems a little more dangerous and exciting, and nobody can gainsay P1 for using fire on the trolls now. Wins all around.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs  |  Re-Imagining Phandelver

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Ah Joshua you expect me to be upset. I am not. Instead I will use you as a useful example of the close minded. You are the zealous. You are the self assured. When asked to think or consider, you shrink away. This is within your right. However I challenge others to shun your example and go to that frightening terrifying place...the place where ideas are challenged and, scariest of all, someone might find out they were wrong about something. Until then adieu, so long and goodbye. This conversation might be too much for your delicate sensibilities. If so, toodles.



Yeah, no, you were the one who was being close-minded.




Back on topic, in what way is the notion that dnd is not competeitive (which is 100% correct) toxic? Do you do some sort of arena PvP game? Otheriwse, it isn't competitive.    
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Books are often wrong. In fact, I’ve seen school books contain factual errors in large quantities. To ascribe a given rulebook written by a human-being a Bible-like level of infallibility is…well…come on now.

The error you are mentioning, however, is a misunderstanding rather than a factual mistake. And yes, this is a mistake no the writer/designers part unfortunately.

You see, D&D is a game. A game, necessarily contains a challenge. Without a challenge, there is no game. It is one of the defining qualities of a game just as a square can be defined by several immutable mathematical rules governing squares. Now, since D&D is a game and game’s contain a challenge then it stands that D&D must therefore contain at least one challenge. The challenge of the game is what creates competition. Competition is the players of the game acting in opposition of the challenge.

This misconception is the silly notion that this means player vs player or player vs DM. This is very wrong. Like in a story, there are many kinds of competition/challenge/conflict. In literary terms these are things like “Man Vs Man”, “Man Vs Nature” and “Man Vs Self”. Some games (like stories) fall into one of these categories…most fall into at least two. Man vs Man would indicate that it is DM vs the players, but we know this to be untrue as the DM has infinite power within the confines of the game and, therefore, there can be no conflict as there is no challenge for the DM. Man vs Nature, however, embodies the idea of man vs an external force…meeting the challenge of the world, his environment or facets of that environment (wild animals, and the like). D&D firmly has a foot planted in Man Vs Nature. Your PCs are challenging the game world itself in whatever form that conflict takes whether it be staying warm for the night or overcoming a corrupt government. The “environment” of the game is abstracted into literally every facet of the PCs interaction in the world.

D&D’s other foot, however, is firmly rooted in Man vs Self which is defined as when “a character must overcome his own natures or make a choice between two or more paths - good and evil; logic and emotion.” It is by this mechanic that characters are defined, decisions are made and decisions are given their importance in the game. It is also through Man vs Self that a player defines themselves in the game world at large. They take risks, they make decisions, they play the odds…or spit in the face of them.

So yes, D&D is very much competitive when one fully understands what that means. When that is not understood, however, or when it is only understood in a limited way, we get truisms like “D&D isn’t competitive”. Now, of course it “feels” good to say such things because D&D is very much a cooperative game. However, so is football. So is kayaking. Unfortunately, people have, in their minds, put cooperative and competitive at odds, as if they are matter and anti-matter, cursed to never interact lest they mutually annihilate one another. Again…football? When one understands the natures of games, this makes a statement like “D&D isn’t competitive” patently absurd. This is the same sort of thinking that tells us that the entire point of D&D is to “have fun”…does it feel good to say? Sure. Is it warm and fuzzy? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Assuredly.

Now, with all that out of the way, but also to further frame the OP, I really would like to see the conclusions people draw about meta-gaming and the actual damage it causes. The how’s and why’s of that damage are actually what is very interesting as it flips a dynamic we are all probably quite used to. Again, though, I will avoid just vomiting it out because this is, after all, a discussion…not a lecture, and some people have already been batting back and forth quite good conversation. I am particularly intrigued by the epiphany Jtheta might have had!

Post script: there is great irony in stating someone is close minded when they are the ones that have been put on "ignore".

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I feel the need to point out one of the most toxic notions I've seen in d & d - that it is not competitive. While, perhaps, an understandable idea, it is flat wrong.

Thank you for revealing yourself as a one-true-way'er so that I may put you on ignore without remorse.



+1, especially since your sig doesn't exactly set the atmosphere for a good-natured discussion. 
Yagami, you don't seem to understand what a competitive game is. A cooperative game features players working together. A competitive game features players playing aghainst each other. D&D is cooperative.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
No, corran, I fully understand.

Is football competitive or cooperative?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

No, corran, I fully understand. Is football competitive or cooperative?



Competitive, obviously.

But correct me if I'm wrong when I say I don't see two teams of players facing off in D&D. (At least, not outside some sort of cool PvP adventure, like the thread on the front of this forum). 
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Football is competitive, therefore not cooperative, therefore football is....1 on 1?

Honestly, there is no cooperative game element to football?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

svendj:

Discussion - consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

I see nothing about "nature" there. I am under no obligation to fret over other peoples emotions. That sort of thing just muddies actual discussion. In fact, I am openly challenging other peoples pre-conceived notions. Their emotional response to that is far beyond my control, so I will not attempt to control it.

If every discussion you take part in has to be carefully moderated so as to avoid offending your sensibilities, that is unfortunate. I won't change though, just as I won't get upset. Do as you will.

However, if you have not yet put me on ignore, I offer you this: If you are 100% sure of everything with D&D, why be on a discussion board about D&D? I am here to challenge peoples notions and to have my own challenged. I accept that I cannot be correct about everything. I have had my thoughts overturned on many things in my life, D&D included...and I've never put someone on ignore for putting forth a different idea.

Has no one seem Dogma? Don't believe things. People die for beliefs. Think things instead. People change what they think all the time. The important thing about that is that thinking things requires one keep thinking...belief does not require any thinking at all. And how telling is that?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Football is competitive, therefore not cooperative, therefore football is....1 on 1? Honestly, there is no cooperative game element to football?



Reread the definitoons, slowly.


A competitive game features players playing aghainst each other.

"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
The important thing about that is that thinking things requires one keep thinking...belief does not require any thinking at all. And how telling is that?



It's telling me that for some reason you feel the need to turn everything into a philosophical debate. Kinda strange, dontcha think?
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Corran, discussion is nothing but the collision of philosophies especially as games go.

So tell me, is there no cooperative aspect to football? A team sport. I would say their certainly is.

I have never espoused a player vs player dynamic. The competition is of the players (who are cooperating) meeting the games challenge. They compete in man vs nature and man vs self conflicts.

You are conflating competition with strict human vs human. I am using broader terminology. There is no box here...d & d will not fit neatly.

Yes, more philosophy...how it haunts mans every moment

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Any game that includes multiple people on both sides is both cooperative and competitive. Because if one side isn't working together, no game can be had. And if both sides choose not to compete, then it's not competitive.

I feel D&D has both elements firmly rooted in place. Whether that be DM vs. Players, Players vs. Players, Players co-oping, etc. etc. etc. whatever. The game has both elements and room to firmly plant itself on one side or the other based on what the individuals involved want. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Yes, thank you, Lunar.

Any thoughts on the metagame issue I have been circling?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Interesting posts so far. However I feel the need to point out one of the most toxic notions I've seen in d & d - that it is not competitive. While, perhaps, an understandable idea, it is flat wrong. That said, let me add a bit more focus to temper the exchange. Indeed some have given examples of what would be metagaming...but no one has come close to the real reason it can be anathema. As a hint...it has to do with railroading but the first thing that comes to probably 99% of people's minds will be quite incorrect. 1% anyone?



^is this what you're referring to?

To be honest, I think you're referring to the possibility of the DM doing some meta game thinking himself and basing his decisions and actions on ways to stifle the players or render their abilities useless. Or even possibly set out to kill them in the most bastardly and efficient manner possible. Despite whatever the villain may or may not know about the PCs. Though it's equally likely you're referring to lack of player choice. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
That is indeed the point I am addressing from my post. However that is not the conclusion.

Mine is a more dire consequence that erodes player trust and blows up games...and its from the act of players metagaming.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

That is indeed the point I am addressing from my post. However that is not the conclusion. Mine is a more dire consequence that erodes player trust and blows up games...and its from the act of players metagaming.



The DM losing trust in his players ability to roleplay? Or player entitlement? Meaning that when they finally do reach something that stumps them, they become upset and upturn the table hulk smash style?
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
The latter is right in intent if not in tone.

Metagaming by players can be a form of player railroading. And it is unfair to the dm and table....heck, its unfair to the person doing it because it all forgets that drama, the unexpected and adventure itself are a part of the game

I could begin with examples but I'll let this simmer so discussion can continue.

Simultaneously I'll prepare for attacks on my character.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

The latter is right in intent if not in tone. Metagaming by players can be a form of player railroading. And it is unfair to the dm and table....heck, its unfair to the person doing it because it all forgets that drama, the unexpected and adventure itself are a part of the game I could begin with examples but I'll let this simmer so discussion can continue. Simultaneously I'll prepare for attacks on my character.



Haha, that's a pretty good point.

You can borrow my spare +5 flame shield of iron skin. Gives you a +5 natural armor bonus on top of it's other defenses. ;) 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
Without talking over long, I think that seeing a zombie & going "sweet, let me use my lvl 7 radiant ability" is bad & breaks the immersion (unless your campaign is more akin to warhammer as a tactical tabletop), but it is hard to not let your knowledge influence your gaming. It can heighten your emotional responses (the tension/fear of seeing an immacutely clean room but before the DM puts the gelatinous cube on the board), and at times it can be boring or tedious to play all of your characters as ignorant as a first time DnD player would.

But why is the zombie example meta-gaming? Everybody knows undead are vulnerable for radiant energy. Zombies are easily recognizable as undead. Are you truely meta-gaming here? And that is exactly the problem with most meta-game discussions and why people like Iserith (or at least I think it was Iserith who objected against the word in another topic which triggered this thread) have problems with this word. People seem to think that the definition of the word is narrow applies to what they consider bad gaming, and as such simply use it judge other people's playing style. In reality it is a very broad term that in practice is not nearly as easy to attach to particular behavior than on paper and what you consider a clear example of meta-gaming, I just see as common sense (case in example: the zombies and radiant attack) ;)

I would only say that a character with a level 7 radiant ability probably knows that it is effective against undead, so it's not really meta-gaming to have a character use such an ability on the creature it was designed for. The character himself/herself knows the proper prayers/rituals/what-have-you to cause the radiant ability to activate.

But.... It would be better (for a more serious campaign, anyway) if they stayed in character with "Creature of Death walks, a blasphemy, a curse! Lord of Light! Shine! Shine! By the 7th Level of the Radiant Sphere! Destroy this mockery of your living spirit with true light! Shiiiiine!!!"...

(or something like that)

Rather than "zombies. radiance. boom. And what."

But the zombies-radiance-boom guy isn't meta-gaming by this example. He might be min-maxing, though. Even the best* role-player sometimes just feel like moving on and say, "Radiance on the Zombies".

*No offense intended if my hyper-aggressive superlative offends any particularly sensitive fellows as I am defining best as meaning one who is exceptional at creating immersive role-playing.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
The important thing about that is that thinking things requires one keep thinking...belief does not require any thinking at all. And how telling is that?



It's telling me that for some reason you feel the need to turn everything into a philosophical debate. Kinda strange, dontcha think?

Belief comes from knowledge and experience. Thinking can also lead to understanding and belief and thus deeper thought. If you are hungry, then eat. If you are thirsty, go drink tea. If you do not understand, go ask a statue. He will have a good answer for you.

A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.

I would only say that a character with a level 7 radiant ability probably knows that it is effective against undead

This is important. Characters have knowledge and experience that predates the start of the campaign. This is why I like the “tell me how your character knows X” approach. Generally, when a player is overtly metagaming, I get an answer akin to “Oh, I guess my character wouldn’t know that.” Otherwise, we learn a little more about that character's story.

I would only say that a character with a level 7 radiant ability probably knows that it is effective against undead

This is important. Characters have knowledge and experience that predates the start of the campaign. This is why I like the “tell me how your character knows X” approach. Generally, when a player is overtly metagaming, I get an answer akin to “Oh, I guess my character wouldn’t know that.” Otherwise, we learn a little more about that character's story.



This is a valid point. Characters do certainly know things that their players don't and vice versa...there is a give and take there. This is sometimes forgotten in favor of just thinking about what the players know that characters don't. I have even had players ask things like "Would I [speaking of their character] know to hurt X with Y?" and the like.

The real insidiousness of the situation is how it can erode the impartiality of the DM and, in doing so, create a a loop that feeds itself, getting worse as time goes on.

Let me paint an example to further illustrate the point...

The PCs have just fought a series of 3 grueling battles, at least one of which ended up quite dire and hard. Though spent, they press on a bit in a direction and come across a major grouping of enemies. 3 of the 4 players want to rest and prepare for the battle ahead now that they know where their foes are...player 4, however, has a different mindset. "Let's go for it" he says and when he receives looks from everyone else he explains his reasoning as "We've only had 3 battles today. We're supposed to have 4. The DM wouldn't let us get into a fight if we couldn't win it"

Now that is a metagame influenced decision. And it is about the most dangerous kind.

See, if Player 4 convinces the other three players to plow on ahead what are your options as a DM? Well you could warn your players against it, but that seems very much like trying to influence your players. Aren't they allowed to make their own decisions? Or will you always tell them what is or isn't a good idea? Where is the line drawn?

So then you soften the encounter so that the severely depleted PCs will survive it. Congrats, you have just reinforced metagame thinking that has nothing to do with the actual events your characters are interacting with. Additionally the three other players are probably skeptical as heck...after all, they were skeptical of the validity of the plan but, what do ya know, it somehow all worked out. How convenient.

So now this occurs again and again. "The DM wouldn't do this to us because X"..."This won't happen because Y"..."This should be like this because Z" and, as a DM, you have been dug into quite a little no-win well because that meta-gaming player is actually railroading the campaign and the other players.

So what happens when you finally don't meet these expectations? Calamity. The metagaming player is upset because you have broken the expectations they have put forth. Expectations you were, for a bit, actually reinforcing by making changes on the fly to accomodate assumptions based on game logic that had no actual basis for being good ideas in the first place. The other players are also upset because it becomes clear that you have been fudging things in the other players favor by playing to their wreckless choices. Essentially, you have been playing favorites.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.


I would only say that a character with a level 7 radiant ability probably knows that it is effective against undead

This is important. Characters have knowledge and experience that predates the start of the campaign. This is why I like the “tell me how your character knows X” approach. Generally, when a player is overtly metagaming, I get an answer akin to “Oh, I guess my character wouldn’t know that.” Otherwise, we learn a little more about that character's story.



This is a valid point. Characters do certainly know things that their players don't and vice versa...there is a give and take there. This is sometimes forgotten in favor of just thinking about what the players know that characters don't. I have even had players ask things like "Would I [speaking of their character] know to hurt X with Y?" and the like.

The real insidiousness of the situation is how it can erode the impartiality of the DM and, in doing so, create a a loop that feeds itself, getting worse as time goes on.

Let me paint an example to further illustrate the point...

The PCs have just fought a series of 3 grueling battles, at least one of which ended up quite dire and hard. Though spent, they press on a bit in a direction and come across a major grouping of enemies. 3 of the 4 players want to rest and prepare for the battle ahead now that they know where their foes are...player 4, however, has a different mindset. "Let's go for it" he says and when he receives looks from everyone else he explains his reasoning as "We've only had 3 battles today. We're supposed to have 4. The DM wouldn't let us get into a fight if we couldn't win it"

Now that is a metagame influenced decision. And it is about the most dangerous kind.

See, if Player 4 convinces the other three players to plow on ahead what are your options as a DM? Well you could warn your players against it, but that seems very much like trying to influence your players. Aren't they allowed to make their own decisions? Or will you always tell them what is or isn't a good idea? Where is the line drawn?

So then you soften the encounter so that the severely depleted PCs will survive it. Congrats, you have just reinforced metagame thinking that has nothing to do with the actual events your characters are interacting with. Additionally the three other players are probably skeptical as heck...after all, they were skeptical of the validity of the plan but, what do ya know, it somehow all worked out. How convenient.

So now this occurs again and again. "The DM wouldn't do this to us because X"..."This won't happen because Y"..."This should be like this because Z" and, as a DM, you have been dug into quite a little no-win well because that meta-gaming player is actually railroading the campaign and the other players.

So what happens when you finally don't meet these expectations? Calamity. The metagaming player is upset because you have broken the expectations they have put forth. Expectations you were, for a bit, actually reinforcing by making changes on the fly to accomodate assumptions based on game logic that had no actual basis for being good ideas in the first place. The other players are also upset because it becomes clear that you have been fudging things in the other players favor by playing to their wreckless choices. Essentially, you have been playing favorites.




 Let's look at the other extreme, you never meet the players expectations. By going against player expectations then you start "teaching" the players that they're not supposed to think a certain way.  This can lead to the result of the players feeling like they are just at the DMs whim and powerless to have any real interaction with the world.  If the players are one minute able to fight off goblins, and then the next time the golbins are super strong it creates paranoia/distrust from the players.

Granted that is not the best example since it assumes that the DM just changes things to suit their own fancy, but just like your example it also assumes the like. Slippery slopes are slippery both ways. 
Slippery slopes are slippery both ways. 



Nice, Shaddylogic. Yagami, not to sound like a jerk (perhaps that's too little too late), but was that example the Big Reveal we've all been waiting for today? It's a reach and, as Shaddy said, it's just the slippery slope fallacy at work.

Whatever "problems" metagaming supposedly creates can easily be "fixed" with collaborative storytelling as above. I haven't found a single issue this technique won't square away when it comes to matters of metagaming, game continuity, and consistency.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs  |  Re-Imagining Phandelver

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith


I would only say that a character with a level 7 radiant ability probably knows that it is effective against undead

This is important. Characters have knowledge and experience that predates the start of the campaign. This is why I like the “tell me how your character knows X” approach. Generally, when a player is overtly metagaming, I get an answer akin to “Oh, I guess my character wouldn’t know that.” Otherwise, we learn a little more about that character's story.



This is a valid point. Characters do certainly know things that their players don't and vice versa...there is a give and take there. This is sometimes forgotten in favor of just thinking about what the players know that characters don't. I have even had players ask things like "Would I [speaking of their character] know to hurt X with Y?" and the like.

The real insidiousness of the situation is how it can erode the impartiality of the DM and, in doing so, create a a loop that feeds itself, getting worse as time goes on.

Let me paint an example to further illustrate the point...

The PCs have just fought a series of 3 grueling battles, at least one of which ended up quite dire and hard. Though spent, they press on a bit in a direction and come across a major grouping of enemies. 3 of the 4 players want to rest and prepare for the battle ahead now that they know where their foes are...player 4, however, has a different mindset. "Let's go for it" he says and when he receives looks from everyone else he explains his reasoning as "We've only had 3 battles today. We're supposed to have 4. The DM wouldn't let us get into a fight if we couldn't win it"

Now that is a metagame influenced decision. And it is about the most dangerous kind.

See, if Player 4 convinces the other three players to plow on ahead what are your options as a DM? Well you could warn your players against it, but that seems very much like trying to influence your players. Aren't they allowed to make their own decisions? Or will you always tell them what is or isn't a good idea? Where is the line drawn?

So then you soften the encounter so that the severely depleted PCs will survive it. Congrats, you have just reinforced metagame thinking that has nothing to do with the actual events your characters are interacting with. Additionally the three other players are probably skeptical as heck...after all, they were skeptical of the validity of the plan but, what do ya know, it somehow all worked out. How convenient.

So now this occurs again and again. "The DM wouldn't do this to us because X"..."This won't happen because Y"..."This should be like this because Z" and, as a DM, you have been dug into quite a little no-win well because that meta-gaming player is actually railroading the campaign and the other players.

So what happens when you finally don't meet these expectations? Calamity. The metagaming player is upset because you have broken the expectations they have put forth. Expectations you were, for a bit, actually reinforcing by making changes on the fly to accomodate assumptions based on game logic that had no actual basis for being good ideas in the first place. The other players are also upset because it becomes clear that you have been fudging things in the other players favor by playing to their wreckless choices. Essentially, you have been playing favorites.




 Let's look at the other extreme, you never meet the players expectations. By going against player expectations then you start "teaching" the players that they're not supposed to think a certain way.  This can lead to the result of the players feeling like they are just at the DMs whim and powerless to have any real interaction with the world.  If the players are one minute able to fight off goblins, and then the next time the golbins are super strong it creates paranoia/distrust from the players.

Granted that is not the best example since it assumes that the DM just changes things to suit their own fancy, but just like your example it also assumes the like. Slippery slopes are slippery both ways. 



You are very much correct. Neither situation is good. And I would never advocate either.

That is where I dismissal of the arbitrary comes into play...when the players know you are not going to change things one way or the other, they realize fully that the game is competitive, not against you, but against the game environment, which is set. When that environment is set, it becomes a constant against which one can be challenged.

I posted the importance of challenge and how it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to legitimately be competitive between the DM and the players because the DM cannot be challenged by the PCs...the DM has too much authority. The world however can find plenty of challenge with the PCs and as it struggles against the PCs, the DM has to act as judge between the two. That means the world must be logical and consistent.

In other words, the players are NEVER having their expectations met or refuted by the DM because the DM is merely the lens through which the PCs experience the world/challenge. The world cannot conjure things to stomp upon the PCs arbitrarily because that is illogical...but the players cannot arbitrarily invoke their will either. Please keep in mind that that is very different from the PCs influencing the world, as they will definitely do that. In this way, the PCs become (as they've always been intended to be) the means by which the players interact with and influence the world.

So, the DM's job becomes to arbitrate and judge the PCs ability to influence the world and the world's ability to respond in kind. Again, because I am sure this will all be heavily twisted against me, this necessarily requires the DM approach this from a logical, consistent stance.

In this way, if expectations aren't met, it is because they simply weren't met...it was an incorrect assumption as can happen in real life. Did the PCs have the ability to mitigate this assumption through other methods? Absolutely, the DM should allow & reward this just as research is rewarded in real life. The situation, though, was never the "fault" of the DM any more than it was the "fault" of the players unless there was a metagame assumption made. If that was the case...it is unfortunate, but what can one do? The dice have to fall where they may. It is only in that way that decisions have actual weight.

It's as Two-Face says. "The world is cruel. And the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair."

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Slippery slopes are slippery both ways. 



Nice, Shaddylogic. Yagami, not to sound like a jerk (perhaps that's too little too late), but was that example the Big Reveal we've all been waiting for today? It's a reach and, as Shaddy said, it's just the slippery slope fallacy at work.

Whatever "problems" metagaming supposedly creates can easily be "fixed" with collaborative storytelling as above. I haven't found a single issue this technique won't square away when it comes to matters of metagaming, game continuity, and consistency.



I think really any system can solve the whole problem of meta gaming just by making sure before you start playing what expectations at the table with regards to it.  To me it's more a group by group thing to handle rather than a stylistic choice. 





Slippery slopes are slippery both ways. 



Nice, Shaddylogic. Yagami, not to sound like a jerk (perhaps that's too little too late), but was that example the Big Reveal we've all been waiting for today? It's a reach and, as Shaddy said, it's just the slippery slope fallacy at work.

Whatever "problems" metagaming supposedly creates can easily be "fixed" with collaborative storytelling as above. I haven't found a single issue this technique won't square away when it comes to matters of metagaming, game continuity, and consistency.



Playing to win, is not a slippery slope. It is the reality of a game. It is not necessarily a reality all people have taken part in but I have and it is very much real. I also assure you that no one in a game enjoys it on as deep, thorough or meaningful a level as those that play the game at as high a level as possible for them.

Does this mean that everyone needs to play everything at the highest level? Absolutely not. I play a number of games but I only invest in about two or three of them at the level I am speaking of. However, I approach the other games with the same level of focus and understanding...that is to say, I respect what the games look at at the highest level of gameplay because it is the "pure" form of the game...a form that is always heavily influenced by the metagame surrounding it.

As for collaborative storytelling, as I have said before, that is perfectly fine a past-time. It is not, strictly speaking, a game, though. This is not a judgement call, by the way. That is not good or bad. That statement though is based on your use of "collaborative storytelling" as I understand it which is, admittedly, potentially faulty depending on your approach.

Would you allow me to understand it better? Or will I be rebuked for seeking that info?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I think really any system can solve the whole problem of meta gaming just by making sure before you start playing what expectations at the table with regards to it.  To me it's more a group by group thing to handle rather than a stylistic choice.



Yes, definitely. I just don't see it as a problem. All you need to do is use it in a positive way because it is a useful tool. As well, I think everyone does some level of collaborative storytelling, even if they don't want to admit it. It's inherent in the transaction of the game. Some may not go to my "extremes" (heh) with it, but it's not so big a leap to use a little more than one does currently to fix such a feared and demonized "problem" as metagaming.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs  |  Re-Imagining Phandelver

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

As for collaborative storytelling, as I have said before, that is perfectly fine a past-time. It is not, strictly speaking, a game, though. This is not a judgement call, by the way. That is not good or bad. That statement though is based on your use of "collaborative storytelling" as I understand it which is, admittedly, potentially faulty depending on your approach.



"If it's not a game, what are all these dice for?" Your suggestion that someone's way of playing D&D is not actually playing a game or that D&D is a competitive game in the first place is a nonstarter with me. That discussion will never go anywhere.

An example of the "radical" kind of collaborative storytelling that I use can be found above (the trolls thing). But I warn you - one slight step to the left of that and you're smackdab in a hippy commune.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Prep Tips | Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything | No Myth Roleplaying
Players: 11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer | You Are Not Your Character     Hilarious D&D Actual Play Podcast: Crit Juice!

FREE CONTENT: Encounters With Alternate Goals  |  Dark Sun Full-Contact Futbol   |   Pre-Generated D&D 5e PCs  |  Re-Imagining Phandelver

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith