Quote from: Chaomesh
Min/Maxers and metagamers rarely make for interesting characters.
Quote from: LordVreeg
Aye
Quote from: Sparkletwist
Wrong. Stormwind fallacy. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26203097/The_Stormwind_Fallacy_%28repost%29) Link added by Xathan
Quote from: Steerpike
Metagamers are awful, I think, but min-maxed characters can be great fun IMO. Llum's Gorethirst from my Cadaverous Earth game (a min-maxed Leechkin Berserker) comes to mind. Another player of mine had a Half-Oni mercenary character who was mercilessly min-maxed, but was absolutely hilarious and played with total gusto.
Quote from: Nomadic
Agreed, you can have good rollplay that compliments good roleplay. It's when the numbers take the place of the story that you get a problem
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
I have many, many words to say in defense of metagaming, and a "metagamer"'s capacity to improve the overall game experience for the group.
But that will have to wait until I am not leaving for work in five minutes.
Somebody remind me.
Quote from: Lord Vreeg
And I missed this conversation? Damn.
I have known some min/maxers that were excellent gamers and excellent roleplayers. One does not cancel the other.
Metagaming is a different thing, and it is, to me, in direct opposition of Roleplaying. I can believe that some metagaming can be helpful in a campaign (because what else is it when a PC decides to build a character based on the needs of the party?), but once the game is being played, I see roleplaying and metagaming as ends of a continuum.
I wanted to move this to a thread as well as add my 2 cp with a rather controversial statement: I don't think that metagaming is inherently bad, and I'm not going to claim that for the reasons of class and such that most players would.
Rather, I think metagaming
for your own benefit is bad.
However, a good portion of a good roleplayer, in my opinion, is to keep the game running. Not every DM is a great DM, and even great DMs have off days. I have been in games where we, the party, went along with a job offer that our characters normally would not take for in character reason. They were taken because it was in the interest of furthering the plot or the game. The DM didn't have a chance to plan the hook well or flubbed it's execution, and we weren't being railroaded, but we knew that if we turned down the job offer/damsel in distress/whatever it was, even though there were valid in character reasons to do so, the game would end for that night.
So we decided and chalked up our character's odd actions to being divinely inspired, or a moment of temporary insanity, or invented a new moment in our character's history that justified it, or said "Meh, whatever" and didn't explain it.
We metagamed. We took the job for non roleplay reasons.
The same was true when I was on the otherside of the equation. I've had great story ideas before but totally stuck on how to hook the players, and the players could tell I was floundering on it, so (in one example) the Lawful Good part decided that, for once, money would be enough motivation for them to do it. If they hadn't, I would have been sitting there going "uhh..." and there wouldn't have been a game that night.
Another question is when the players heard of a beholder in the area. It was intended to set up the threats they would deal with in the later parts of the campaign. I intended on them metagaming and knowing "we're level 2, a beholder will annihilate us in a round" and not going after it yet. I relied on my player's having meta knowledge to not get them killed.
Anyway, we should continue discussing this, and here lets us go more in depth. :)
I can't really agree that min/maxing is totally unrelated to roleplaying. The "Stormwind fallacy" addresses only the relationship between roleplaying and optimization for a specific player/character without looking at the changes to the group dynamic that optimization creates.
When I make a thrown-weapon-using character in D&D or PF, it is with the knowledge that an archer would be mechanically stronger; I am sacrificing mechanical strength to the concept (that is, the character concept I wish to roleplay). This poses no problem to me if all other players have made similar sacrifices or if the nature of the campaign allows me to fill a special niche that other players cannot, but if other players have mechanically optimized characters that "compete" with mine, there will be pressure on me to follow their lead even at the expense of my concept. That doesn't mean that optimized characters can't be roleplayed well, but it does mean that optimization has an impact on the roleplaying of the players generally. A bit paradoxically, it is often the non-optimizers - often, albeit not necessarily, the people most interested in roleplaying in the first place - who cut back on roleplaying the characters they originally wanted in order to keep up with those who are more adeptly using the system.
That doesn't mean I'm "against" optimization; rather, I think it's important for players to be on the same page regarding how effective they're going to be, and for the GM to adjust the campaign to soften the blow of non-optimal character choices made by players more interested in roleplay concepts that are mechanically weak.
I think part of that comes from a definition of min-maxing.
If I am making a thrown weapons character in DnD or PF, I know that I'm going to be weaker inherently than an archer, for the sake of the concept. However, as someone who is a bit of a min-maxer, I'm going to make absolutely sure that my thrown weapons character is as optimized as possible to be as effective as a thrown weapons character could be.
A min-maxer (a good one, that is) does their best to maximize their build's effectiveness at filling their character concept, IMO - to make their character as mechanically effective as they can be within the character concept. They don't sacrifice concept, they do their best to fit within it, if that makes sense?
QuoteA bit paradoxically, it is often the non-optimizers - often, albeit not necessarily, the people most interested in roleplaying in the first place - who cut back on roleplaying the characters they originally wanted in order to keep up with those who are more adeptly using the system.
I think this depends entirely on the group and the game - if the game has enough roleplay, they non-optimizers will have fun even though the optimizers do better in combat, since that's not what most non-optimizers want in my experience. (meaning they don't care how awesome they are in combat). However, in a game with a lot of combat/dungeon crawling, I think you're absolutely right on the problem there - it's important for everyone to be on the same page.
QuoteA min-maxer (a good one, that is) does their best to maximize their build's effectiveness at filling their character concept, IMO - to make their character as mechanically effective as they can be within the character concept. They don't sacrifice concept, they do their best to fit within it, if that makes sense?
The thing is, there's a difference between roleplaying a character and concept-creation roleplaying. I don't really consider people who just try to make their concept as mechanically fit as possible to be "min-maxers;" to me, that term is reserved for people who choose a concept to fit the mechanics, rather than coming up with a concept and then exploring how it could be optimized while still remaining true to concept. If someone is a min-maxer just for trying to make their concept as workable as possible, then it's not a very useful term, because we're really all min-maxers (unless someone just truly gives no shit about the effectiveness of their character, which itself can be a problem for the group).
I don't doubt that a "min-maxer," as I've defined one, can roleplay a character well. The question is whether a min-maxer is willing to apply that roleplaying skill to anything other than an ideal and fully optimized build. I've known players who are just dandy at roleplaying a wizard - but you'll never see them roleplaying anything else, because they consider all other classes to be mechanically weak and won't even consider playing them. Over time, that kind of attitude and concentration on a very narrow range of "concepts" can get pretty tiresome, and can cause resentment among the rest of the party (who, after all, would rather like to be "the wizard" themselves every now and then).
Yes, I made the distinction as well.
I have little problem with Some metagaming in character creation, etc, but playing the game, in proper, I have all sorts of issues.
(Merging in another tavern post)
Quote from: ChaomeshST, the Stormwind Fallacy only applies when one claims they are mutually exclusive. I did not. I know several min/maxed characters that were great fun. Rare, however, does not mean always or never.
Metagamers, though, I've never had a good experience with.
Well, it does imply a certain degree of mutual exclusivity when you claim something is "rare" in the presence of something else. I personally think they're not that related at all-- so, in my opinion, stating that min/maxing causes a
rarity of good RP is still invoking the fallacy, at least to a degree.
But anyway. I would also like to say that I think that saying "metagaming is bad" is generalizing too much. It's using a term rather broadly (and dismissively) that can mean a lot of different things. My thinking is more aligned with Xathan and LC in this regard, I'm pretty sure.
For example, when playing a more "narrativist" system like FATE, a certain amount of metagaming is actually essential to making the game flow smoothly, and helps to
create good roleplay, rather than doing anything inimical to it. Additionally, I feel like a certain degree of manipulation from above, so to speak, can help get the game story to the parts the players actually want to play, which makes a better game for everyone. Sometimes it's fun to RP a trip into town to shop for supplies, but, other times, everyone would rather just say "you go back to the inn, buy some stuff, let's go back to the dungeon."
I think I tend towards a narrow definition of Metagaming, in that it is using out of game knowledge for supposed in-game decisions/actions. So I see it is on a continuum with Roleplaying on one side, and Metagaming on the other, especially when the players are actually 'playing the game and playing the role of the character'.
However, as mentioned before, there are times, like character creation and in Sparkle's example above, where the group decides while not in character to do something that makes less in-game sense, but makes for a better game when they return to playing 'in-character'. Because making a game enjoyable is still the end goal.
I still feel personally that any amount of metagaming while playing in character requires a similar reduction in playing 'in character'. But in certain games, that is the point of the rules, to create the story (narrative) and to succeed in doing this, the metagamed position is needed. And as above, if this is what creates the most fun for the table, then that is the way to go.
The following are observations and propositions,
not proscriptions or statements of fact.
Quote from: sparkletwistBut anyway. I would also like to say that I think that saying "metagaming is bad" is generalizing too much. It's using a term rather broadly (and dismissively) that can mean a lot of different things. My thinking is more aligned with Xathan and LC in this regard, I'm pretty sure.
I think you're right to point out that using the term "metagaming" broadly isn't useful, sparkletwist. I'll clarify my previous remark: metagaming
your character's behaviour is bad roleplaying. So, if you're playing a "narrativist" style of game in which the player has control not only over their character but over some other elements of the greater narrative (the "director" role, as it were), some degree of "metagaming" - making decisions about the narrative's shape - is necessary and indeed productive; but, I would contend, your
character should ideally still act as a character in the game world, without any knowledge obtained outside of that world. In other words, when you've got your director hat on, a certain degree of "metagaming" is vitally necessary to help shape the narrative, but when you have your actor/character hat on, you should try to avoid metagaming. Does that make sense?
Granted I'm using some loaded terms here ("should," "ideally") and I don't want to imply that players who metagame are having badwrongfun, but in my experience roleplaying is made more gratifying when players resist the temptation to metagame their character's behaviour.
Example: a character is in a mysterious room full of clocks and other strange machinery. It's a time machine, but the character doesn't know that; the way it works is that once coordinates are set and the time machine activated, the door to the room opens onto a new vista somewhere else in time. In an attempt to figure out what the machinery does, the character flips a switch. Because the players are using a system in which they have some control of the narrative, the player of the character decides their character's fiddling has transported the machine back to the primordial past. The GM has dropped hints that a powerful artefact created by the Ancient Ones that could stop the evil wizard currently ravaging the land was destroyed long ago, and the player, hoping to steer the narrative in an interesting direction, thinks that transporting the character back to this bygone time will yield dramatically fecund roleplaying situations. This is, in a sense "metagaming," but it's not metagaming the character's behaviour.
But the player's
character doesn't know any of this, except maybe a few legends about the artefact and the Ancient Ones. After the machine appears to do nothing except whirr and make strange noises, the character exits. While the player knows that their character is likely to step into a primeval and possibly dinosaur-infested landscape, the character does not. If the player has their character don safari gear, equip their +1 Velociraptor Bane Crossbow, cast an odour-masking spell to ward off hungry thunder-lizards, and open the door with the utmost caution, that's metagaming the character's behaviour, and
that's the kind of metagaming I think detracts from the roleplaying experience.
Quote from: XathanRather, I think metagaming for your own benefit is bad.
However, a good portion of a good roleplayer, in my opinion, is to keep the game running. Not every DM is a great DM, and even great DMs have off days. I have been in games where we, the party, went along with a job offer that our characters normally would not take for in character reason. They were taken because it was in the interest of furthering the plot or the game. The DM didn't have a chance to plan the hook well or flubbed it's execution, and we weren't being railroaded, but we knew that if we turned down the job offer/damsel in distress/whatever it was, even though there were valid in character reasons to do so, the game would end for that night.
So we decided and chalked up our character's odd actions to being divinely inspired, or a moment of temporary insanity, or invented a new moment in our character's history that justified it, or said "Meh, whatever" and didn't explain it.
We metagamed. We took the job for non roleplay reasons.
The same was true when I was on the otherside of the equation. I've had great story ideas before but totally stuck on how to hook the players, and the players could tell I was floundering on it, so (in one example) the Lawful Good part decided that, for once, money would be enough motivation for them to do it. If they hadn't, I would have been sitting there going "uhh..." and there wouldn't have been a game that night.
Another question is when the players heard of a beholder in the area. It was intended to set up the threats they would deal with in the later parts of the campaign. I intended on them metagaming and knowing "we're level 2, a beholder will annihilate us in a round" and not going after it yet. I relied on my player's having meta knowledge to not get them killed.
These examples are interesting, and I'd consider them the gentlest form of metagaming possible, and thus very forgivable. In the first case, it's quite possible to argue that the characters in question are simply obeying a whim; after all, in reality, people make decisions all the time that they can't fully explain. In the second case it'd be very easy to justify the "monetary" motivation - the Lawful Good character wants to use the money for a noble purpose (founding an orphanage or donating to his temple, etc). Both cases are very "soft" forms of metagaming at worst, IMO, and don't
really count. I think you're right to point out that "selfish" metagaming is often the worst form of metagaming, because it tends to cause what Ron Edward would call "GNS degeneration in the direction of Gamism," or somesuch jargonistic screed.
The third example I wouldn't consider metagaming at all. Presumably the statistics of characters are only a reflection of their "actual" abilities, with which characters would be well versed. Characters are going to be aware of their own strengths and limitations, so when they hear about the beholder it wouldn't be metagaming to assume they couldn't handle the creature till they'd gained some experience. It's quite possible they might even know what a beholder is and how dangerous they are, and so would know not to go seeking one out right away. I don't think of that as metagaming.
EDIT: This is, of course, totally distinct from the Stormwind Fallacy, which has nothing to do with metagaming. I tend to agree with Polycarp on this front (in fact, agreeing with Polycarp on anything is usually a safe bet).
Quote from: Steerpike(Room of Clocks)
[...] This is, in a sense "metagaming," but it's not metagaming the character's behaviour.
I think this distinction might be a little too fine for me - but that might just be because I'm not much of a narrativist.
To me, metagaming is like cheating, in the sense that the word always refers to something undesirable. I don't consider there to be such a thing as "good metagaming" any more than there can be "good cheating;" if it was good, it would be called something else (like rule-bending or lateral thinking), not called cheating. If you're running a narrativist campaign in which the player is expected to control the environment as well as their own character, then influencing the environment to the benefit of the game/story isn't really metagaming - it actually
is the game. It may not be "in character," but the nature of that game is that you're not expected to act fully in character anyway.
When metagaming is used as a more neutral term it seems to get conflated with simple out-of-character actions and considerations, which makes it less useful - but here we're talking more about semantics than anything else, so perhaps that's best left alone.
I think you're right Polycarp; I was trying to unpack different possible uses of the term in relation to sparkletwist's argument that metagaming in a "narrativist" game was necessary and/or productive, but I essentially agree that in those cases it's not really metagaming per se.
Quote from: Steerpikewhen you've got your director hat on, a certain degree of "metagaming" is vitally necessary to help shape the narrative, but when you have your actor/character hat on, you should try to avoid metagaming. Does that make sense?
Yes, this makes sense. Well said. I agree. :)
Quote from: PolycarpIf you're running a narrativist campaign in which the player is expected to control the environment as well as their own character, then influencing the environment to the benefit of the game/story isn't really metagaming - it actually is the game.
Right, but what do you call the act of doing that? It's usually called metagaming. If you're going to say "metagaming is always bad," then you have to rename "the act of manipulating the game world in a way beyond what the characters' abilities would allow them to do" to something.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see your edit. I see the term in a more neutral way, but I do agree that it's a largely semantic issue and debating at it length is not likely to be productive. :grin:
I do think that communications problems exist here and that better definitions help, but that spinning those wheels now, in this thread, is likely to be a distraction from the issues at hand.
----
I metagame unapologetically. I think it's a useful group contribution, and that everyone should do it, or at least consider doing it, in most games.
In group games where one person hasn't gotten the spotlight for a while or seems distant or disengaged at the moment, I'll act-- as a player-- to pull that person into the action. If I see that the player of the group's sniper is looking bored, I will start suggesting ambush plans that require a sniper in a key, central role, or I will start dropping hints that I'm still worried about the underworld kingpin that wants to recruit our sniper or ruin her life trying. Whatever. I use in-character actions and suggestions to deliberately try to steer the in-game actions towards a course that will address an out-of-character issue, and if you don't think that's metagaming then I don't know what to tell you. It's also useful and helpful-- any player who can shine the spotlight on someone else and then get the hell out of the way when needed is an asset to a group.
There are lots of ways to go about doing this sort of beneficient metagaming, and some of them skirt the rules. I'm sure people have talked about games like FATE where players can steer plots to some degree, to turn up the heat on their characters and increase tension in a way that's built into the game by design. There are ways to do this creatively in other ways, though, even in systems that don't specifically allow it. Using oracular/future-scrying powers to ask an unprepared GM something like "who's the biggest threat to our plan that we don't already know about?" while knowing full well it's going to essentially require the GM to make up a new, additional antagonist on the spot-- that's turning up the difficulty level in a way that's probably not directly sanctioned by game mechanics. And it's certainly metagame territory-- it may be totally in-character for a character to want a prophetic heads-up about currently unknown threats, but if the intention behind the action is to create new threats, that's a step beyond the curtain.
Every time "That's what my character would do!" is swiftly followed by "but it would screw up the game for someone else, so I won't do it," that's metagaming.
Every time a player and GM talk about backstory elements where a character has an evil twin, or a family murdered by a ninja clan he seeks revenge upon, or a tragic destiny the character doesn't know will come to pass-- same thing.
This is a power that can and should be used for good. It's a tool that lets us acknowledge the totality of the group experience we're creating and take unselfish steps to improve it overall. I think a blanket condemnation of metagaming is a rejection of a lot of good (or is at least hypocritical, if you're doing some unacknowledged metagaming while insisting all metagaming is a terrible sin), and it ought to be reclaimed and destigmatized, and used in all groups, games, and situations where it is appropriate and is likely to improve people's Fun Quotient (FQ).
Quote from: Xathan
Rather, I think metagaming for your own benefit is bad.
Surely, in the context of playing a roleplaying game, anything that you do for "your own benefit" is going to enhance the group experience as well? The goal of an RPG is to have fun with your friends. I mean, I get what you mean, as in "metagame that gives your character an advantage over the rest of the party and/or more-or-less breaks the adventure is bad," but the issue is not really the metagaming in that situation, it's that you're playing the game with someone who is prepared to sacrifice the enjoyment of their friends for their own increased enjoyment, which essentially is not an RPG issue but a real-life social issue. Like if you had to ask your housemate "Would you mind not leaving dirty dishes in the kitchen for days at a time, because it decreases my enjoyment of the kitchen we share?" it would be basically the same as asking your gaming friend "Would you mind not metagaming in this particular way, because it decreases my enjoyment of the game we share?"
Similarly, I think min/maxing and party balance in general only becomes an issue when it impacts on the enjoyment of the game, and that is entirely down to the specific people playing. Like, one PC could be a combat god compared to the others, but that's not a problem in itself, it's only a problem if one or more of the players feels that the game is less fun as a result. Personally party balance doesn't worry me when I play, because I know that through roleplaying in certain ways I can enjoy the game even if (and sometimes especially if) my character sucks mechanically compared to the others, but I know it does bother a lot of people, and I'm not saying those people are wrong - just that it's a personal preference and a case-by-case thing, to be resolved by each gaming group based on how everyone in that group likes to play.
From my experience and in my opinion, min/maxing can create interesting characters but more often than not they tend to feel incomplete.
Quote from: Luminous Crayon
I do think that communications problems exist here and that better definitions help, but that spinning those wheels now, in this thread, is likely to be a distraction from the issues at hand.
----
I metagame unapologetically. I think it's a useful group contribution, and that everyone should do it, or at least consider doing it, in most games.
In group games where one person hasn't gotten the spotlight for a while or seems distant or disengaged at the moment, I'll act-- as a player-- to pull that person into the action. If I see that the player of the group's sniper is looking bored, I will start suggesting ambush plans that require a sniper in a key, central role, or I will start dropping hints that I'm still worried about the underworld kingpin that wants to recruit our sniper or ruin her life trying. Whatever. I use in-character actions and suggestions to deliberately try to steer the in-game actions towards a course that will address an out-of-character issue, and if you don't think that's metagaming then I don't know what to tell you. It's also useful and helpful-- any player who can shine the spotlight on someone else and then get the hell out of the way when needed is an asset to a group.
There are lots of ways to go about doing this sort of beneficient metagaming, and some of them skirt the rules. I'm sure people have talked about games like FATE where players can steer plots to some degree, to turn up the heat on their characters and increase tension in a way that's built into the game by design. There are ways to do this creatively in other ways, though, even in systems that don't specifically allow it. Using oracular/future-scrying powers to ask an unprepared GM something like "who's the biggest threat to our plan that we don't already know about?" while knowing full well it's going to essentially require the GM to make up a new, additional antagonist on the spot-- that's turning up the difficulty level in a way that's probably not directly sanctioned by game mechanics. And it's certainly metagame territory-- it may be totally in-character for a character to want a prophetic heads-up about currently unknown threats, but if the intention behind the action is to create new threats, that's a step beyond the curtain.
Every time "That's what my character would do!" is swiftly followed by "but it would screw up the game for someone else, so I won't do it," that's metagaming.
Every time a player and GM talk about backstory elements where a character has an evil twin, or a family murdered by a ninja clan he seeks revenge upon, or a tragic destiny the character doesn't know will come to pass-- same thing.
This is a power that can and should be used for good. It's a tool that lets us acknowledge the totality of the group experience we're creating and take unselfish steps to improve it overall. I think a blanket condemnation of metagaming is a rejection of a lot of good (or is at least hypocritical, if you're doing some unacknowledged metagaming while insisting all metagaming is a terrible sin), and it ought to be reclaimed and destigmatized, and used in all groups, games, and situations where it is appropriate and is likely to improve people's Fun Quotient (FQ).
I'm good with all of these and think they have been well written and well thought out, and are described properly in how they can increase the fun, and can actually increase the chance of more interesting roleplaying down the road. Esecially when we are in the 'outside the game' phase, or even, to call it what it is based on the conversation, the 'Metagame phase' of a game. When we talk about things from the outside perspective, the top down. When you are in this position, which happens in any game, it might as well be called that.
But what it is not mentioned is that in a roleplaying game, the amount of time spent playing the role is important, and in some games critical. So I find it useful to seperate these modes of the game (Metagame mode-topdown/Roleplay Mode-in character). And that while all games have some of both, there are games that are more roleplaying and some that are more metagamed, but I still see the metagame perspective while being in the roleplay mode to reduce the actual roleplaying.