Playing the Metagame
Whee. So it's now officially against policy for our little ol' department to be involved in any practical jokes. Heh. I would have thought that common sense. The last people you want playing jokes would probably be the IT personnel. We could give people heart attacks. >.>
Otherwise, I mentioned metagaming in a previous post and felt a need to ramble on some about it.
So what is metagaming?
Well, it's playing the game outside the game - using things that are not technically a part of a game to influence what is. In Magic this would be making design/play decisions based on not what you see in play, but things like how you know your friends tend to play or what decks are popular at tournaments. In a tabletop RPG, it's taking action based on things your character wouldn't know, like having your character poke the first chest they come across with a spear because the DM used a mimic to ambush people in a previous campaign.
It's not exactly "fair," but it happens to some extent all the time and it's really not always a bad thing. In competitive games, it's usually something of an advanced technique that can give a big edge. Even in typical roleplaying, it can be good simply because we're playing the game to have fun, so making decisions as players (rather than characters) to steer things in a more enjoyable direction makes the game more rewarding to the people playing it. That's all good, right? Well... often, but not always.
See, there's often a point at which it becomes too much. Sometimes, this is outright "cheating" - such as reading the GM's notes, or looking at an opponent's hand of cards (in a game that doesn't allow that, naturally). In those cases, the effort to metagame actually does violate the rules of the game itself.
Sometimes what's "too much" is more subtle. While steering things toward a player-desired outcome can lead to more enjoyment, there are cases in which it can lead characters from what they would do, strain suspension of disbelief, and actually make things less enjoyable in the end. As an example, I made recent reference to someone who likes to play characters that are a combination of whup-ass + cute + funny-talking/in their own little world. Personally, I find the extra tolerance my character is required to show to work alongside one of these other characters detracts from the game most of the time. It isn't game-breaking in this case, but I'd enjoy things more if I didn't have a little voice in my head saying "and why is my character putting up with this again?" Of course, in this example, that lessening of the game may still be worthwhile, since the alternative would probably be losing one or more players.
I once considered metagaming to be a sin of roleplaying. I've learned and grown since then, and come to terms with it. It can still be bad sometimes - and if we made all our decisions based on metagame thinking, we wouldn't be doing much in the way of roleplaying - but it has its place and its benefits too.
Otherwise, I mentioned metagaming in a previous post and felt a need to ramble on some about it.
So what is metagaming?
Well, it's playing the game outside the game - using things that are not technically a part of a game to influence what is. In Magic this would be making design/play decisions based on not what you see in play, but things like how you know your friends tend to play or what decks are popular at tournaments. In a tabletop RPG, it's taking action based on things your character wouldn't know, like having your character poke the first chest they come across with a spear because the DM used a mimic to ambush people in a previous campaign.
It's not exactly "fair," but it happens to some extent all the time and it's really not always a bad thing. In competitive games, it's usually something of an advanced technique that can give a big edge. Even in typical roleplaying, it can be good simply because we're playing the game to have fun, so making decisions as players (rather than characters) to steer things in a more enjoyable direction makes the game more rewarding to the people playing it. That's all good, right? Well... often, but not always.
See, there's often a point at which it becomes too much. Sometimes, this is outright "cheating" - such as reading the GM's notes, or looking at an opponent's hand of cards (in a game that doesn't allow that, naturally). In those cases, the effort to metagame actually does violate the rules of the game itself.
Sometimes what's "too much" is more subtle. While steering things toward a player-desired outcome can lead to more enjoyment, there are cases in which it can lead characters from what they would do, strain suspension of disbelief, and actually make things less enjoyable in the end. As an example, I made recent reference to someone who likes to play characters that are a combination of whup-ass + cute + funny-talking/in their own little world. Personally, I find the extra tolerance my character is required to show to work alongside one of these other characters detracts from the game most of the time. It isn't game-breaking in this case, but I'd enjoy things more if I didn't have a little voice in my head saying "and why is my character putting up with this again?" Of course, in this example, that lessening of the game may still be worthwhile, since the alternative would probably be losing one or more players.
I once considered metagaming to be a sin of roleplaying. I've learned and grown since then, and come to terms with it. It can still be bad sometimes - and if we made all our decisions based on metagame thinking, we wouldn't be doing much in the way of roleplaying - but it has its place and its benefits too.
I found your example of 'why' pretty amusing. I think we all experience that at some point. I also thought your lead-off with metagaming in Magic interesting. Because I have never played MTG as anything but a card game with no RP aspect at all. In those sorts of games, I think the metagame (so long as it's not cheating such as looking at your opponents cards when not allowed) is really just an aspect of the game as a whole. Though in roleplaying, too much metagame ruins the game, IMO. I am of the opinion that in roleplaying, too little metagame ruins the game too, for the reasons you listed above.
ReplyDelete*nods* Well, as far as Magic, they even go so far as to call that "the metagame." It very much is a part of tournament-level play, but it's still beyond the bounds of the game rules as designed (save, as mentioned, blatant cheating). There's "what do I think he has and is trying to do," and then there's "I see these cards, so the only tournament-viable deck he can be playing is this one, so his strategy with be this, and I need to do this to counter it." The former is sort of an unspoken part of the game. The latter requires knowledge beyond what's just at the table. I suppose I could label theorycraft sites for WoW as MMORPG "metagaming." While much of the game design is about getting better healing/damage/survivability out of talents/gear, sites like Elitistjerks go past what shows up in the game and crunch numbers to find the formulas behind it all. Generally that doesn't break/ruin the game. But roleplaying... yeah, that's probably the touchiest of the bunch, since what qualifies as "too much" varies. I think most experienced gamers will agree, though, that there is such a thing as too much.
ReplyDelete