Community

I've seen an interesting trend on some other threads around here discussing the meta-game.  I'd rather this particular thread doesn't turn into a war like the other one has but I wanted to get some views on the topic none-the-less.


I'm not terribly invested in this topic and I doubt its quite as much of a hot button as the other thread but I'll go ahead and kick it off with the following:


I would posit that meta-gaming does exist.  Not that it is easily identifiable, or that it can be 'proven', a little on that.  To prove something is deductive, which can only be done within the context of artificial languages such as logic or mathematics.  So I would prefer we all avoid using statements like 'prove they are metagaming' as they are standards that cannot be met.


To infer something, is to take a few facts and draw a conclusion from it, otherwise known as a hypothesis.  Theories are a broader inference drawn from a collection of facts and tested hypotheses.  So, just to get things straight, we will be talking theoretically here.


So, I will posit that the metagame does exist.  It is not easily identifiable, and that it is very difficult to adjudicate.  I would describe metagaming as any event wherein a player uses knowledge that would be unavailable to the character to make a game impacting decision.


An example of the preceding would be a player using his knowledge of illusion spells to make decisions about how his level 1 fighter who has never encountered magic before would attempt to counter the effect.  I will make no judgement as to whether this is good or bad behavior.


Thoughts?                 

Sep 20, 2012 -- 5:41PM, Detoxifier wrote:

I've seen an interesting trend on some other threads around here discussing the meta-game.  I'd rather this particular thread doesn't turn into a war like the other one has but I wanted to get some views on the topic none-the-less.


I'm not terribly invested in this topic and I doubt its quite as much of a hot button as the other thread but I'll go ahead and kick it off with the following:


I would posit that meta-gaming does exist.  Not that it is easily identifiable, or that it can be 'proven', a little on that.  To prove something is deductive, which can only be done within the context of artificial languages such as logic or mathematics.  So I would prefer we all avoid using statements like 'prove they are metagaming' as they are standards that cannot be met.


To infer something, is to take a few facts and draw a conclusion from it, otherwise known as a hypothesis.  Theories are a broader inference drawn from a collection of facts and tested hypotheses.  So, just to get things straight, we will be talking theoretically here.


So, I will posit that the metagame does exist.  It is not easily identifiable, and that it is very difficult to adjudicate.  I would describe metagaming as any event wherein a player uses knowledge that would be unavailable to the character to make a game impacting decision.


An example of the preceding would be a player using his knowledge of illusion spells to make decisions about how his level 1 fighter who has never encountered magic before would attempt to counter the effect.  I will make no judgement as to whether this is good or bad behavior.


Thoughts?                 

My very first encounters with meta gaming came straight from the DMG of 3.5. In it, it discussed the concept and that it should be discouraged. Over time, I have only found that I agree more and more with it. Though, I certainly and wholeheartedly agree that you can not eliminate it altogether from the game.

I do my best to encourage roleplaying and getting in the mind of the character you have created. After all, that is what we're there to do. Roleplay.  Become someone else. Think in a new light not our own. And get sweet loot and powers from doing that.

You can never truly prove someone is metagaming, but if you can get them to at least speak freely about why their character would do something, then you are roleplaying and are probably making progress towards even deeper roleplaying.

Sep 20, 2012 -- 5:59PM, yellowdingo wrote:

Sep 20, 2012 -- 5:44PM, CorranHornIsAwesome wrote:

I do believe meta-gaming exists. A good example of it from the SAGA CR was that a party of PCs was faced with a gully, and a bridge raised on the other side. They couldn't get across there, but one player reasoned that there must be a level on the other side to lower the bridge, becuase the GM wouldn't make an unsolveable problem. That's metagaming, to me.

I assume you meant Lever to lower the bridge? I dont see that as metagaming - that is simply logical reasoning of the player that his character will make use of - however if you are going with the idea that acts of logical reasoning require a DC check to see if the PC reaches the conclusion that there must be a leaver to lower the bridge then yes it would be Metagaming - and it would also be Rules overkill on the part of the D&D Game and a radical departure from older editions of the game.

For me metagaming would be the Player knowing that there is going to be hundreds of trillions of gold pieces worth of diamonds to be found in an impact crater and thus concluding that his refugee Farmer/first level warrior should go to the Great Crater and sieze control of its wealth unmined.

In my game, I'd ask what the intelligence score of the character is. If it's below ten, he probably can't reason that well. Thus, bam. Meta gaming. Try again, player. :P xD lmfao

That said, an important part of the metagaming post by Corran, is that the player based his decision on what the DM would or would not do. Not through his own reasoning that it makes sense for a lever to be on the other side. He knows the lever is there because he knows the DM wouldn't make it impassable.