Community

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:07AM, iserith wrote:

Oct 12, 2012 -- 9:53AM, LunarSavage wrote:

I assume you just kick out the player who's constantly metagaming at your table and ruining the experience for others?

No, because the problem is not with the person who is "metagaming." It's with the person who's getting annoyed by it. If anyone has to go, it's that guy. This is provided, of course, that the person who is using metagame knowledge isn't also acting like a jerk.

Oct 12, 2012 -- 9:53AM, LunarSavage wrote:

What do you do when the player tells you that he takes action based on what he thinks you would do and refuses to give you any other answer? Call him a jerk and wash your hands of him?

If he's acting like a jerk, he's gotta go. That would be self-evident in context and has nothing to do with "metagaming." However, simply using metagame knowledge in the game, even without an in-game explanation, does not make you a jerk.

It depends on the group Iserith, if the whole collective of the group finds the "meta-gamer" to be a jerk, then regardless of what quality of person they are they'll have to find another group that does not dislike the way they play.  

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:00AM, YagamiFire wrote:

Shaddylogic: of course I can define it, and my bad for not doing so more clearly. Pure game logic is the logic derived from game conceits or the mechanics of the game itself. For example, "my opponent has picked e Honda, I will pick ryu because ryu does well against e honda" This is a game logic decision...a metagame decision. In and of itself it is not bad or good. It is informed but only to the extent that that discrete instance of the game might support it.After all, the e Honda player could be a superior player and the mechanical advantage ryu offers will not close the gap. The metagame logic is still, technically sound, but in this instance will not pan out. And yes indeed your assumption is both bold and correct. I believe this concept is very important for dms to understand the particulars of because it allows them the ability to more easily explain it pre game...especially as dms generally take on the role of "voice if experience" so it behooves them to know the why rather than just the what

I thought we might be on the same page about the subject.  I think the example with Street fighter is throwing me off a bit because of other factors that cloud my mind with regard to it such as play skill, changes to the balance and tactics that result within a match, and the fact we could possibly consider character match-ups as part of the game depending on how we define what the game of street fighter is.  These are at least a few things running through my mind about it.


Also out of curiosity: What Street fighters do you play, and who do you usually main?    

Shaddylogic: I meant the example only to illustrate that while metagame logic IS logic, it is not always reinforced in every discrete game instance. Will there be many times ryu trumps Honda? Absolutely, because that is how the metagame has evolved from the mechanical aspect of the game. Will it always be the case? Certainly not because of a myriad factors.

The decision and factors are less important than the reaction tho...a fair reaction would be to gladly accept that the logic did not pan out this time and to learn...and unfair reaction is to get upset at the game itself (or dm) or the other player.

To answer your other question, I've played every sf. The only ones I've put great focus on to learn are super turbo and the 4 series.

In super turbo I main Vega (claw) and balrog (boxer) with bison (dictator) as a back up.

In current 4 Ae I main Adon and Seth with a major focus on Adon tho have begun to learn evil ryu.

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:23AM, iserith wrote:

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:14AM, LunarSavage wrote:

...why do the others get kicked? They're not getting to solve the problem different ways because he's always coming up with perfect metagame solutions...I would think any rational mind would find this the bigger issue. Not the person who's getting upset over the metagaming.

And for my example, presume the metagamer isn't being a jerk. He's just doing it so he can burn through the campaign so he comes out on top all the time because that's the way he plays. And this puts him at odds with the other players because they don't want to play that way.

How is it that the others who are having their fun ruined the problem here? 

Because you can only have your "fun ruined" if YOU choose to see "metagaming" as a problem. Since it exists and is not a problem unless you choose to make it one, the problem is not with the other guy - it's with YOU. You are the architect of your own unhappiness in this case. Change your perception and the "problem" goes away. Or just play with a bunch of other people who have taken the same position as you. It's certainly not a hill I'd choose to die on since I know it's possible to move beyond these perceptions.

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:14AM, Shaddylogic wrote:

It depends on the group Iserith, if the whole collective of the group finds the "meta-gamer" to be a jerk, then regardless of what quality of person they are they'll have to find another group that does not dislike the way they play.  

This is a given. If you've got a group of people that have chosen to make "metagaming" a problem for themselves, then they're made for each other and have at it. Lunar was addressing me directly, as far as I can tell and my responses are in that light.

That person should not have to change their perception if the other guy refuses to change his. Thus, it's a problem no matter how you look at it.