Metagaming and character capabilities

[sparkletwist]

Spun off from here.

Sometimes it's very hard not to unconsciously metagame. If I absolutely know that someone is lying to me or setting a trap for me or betraying me it's difficult to make a totally unbiased choice. It's kind of hard to genuinely deceive someone when they can see that you're lying. It changes the decision from being "do I trust this character and their motives" to "would my character trust this character and their motives?" The former is an exercise in strategic thinking and judgment, the latter just a reflection of how you view your character's judgment. Personally I prefer the former when playing roleplaying games. Strategic thinking and judgment are an important part of the experience, for me; it's not just a storytelling exercise.

Narratively speaking, though, not knowing things also increases a sense of identification with characters. If I only know the things my character knows I can more ably roleplay that character. This is the difference, to me, between roleplaying a character and telling a story about a character. Additionally, having and keeping secrets can be fun, as can manipulating and deceiving other people's characters. And I'll say again that suspense, the unknown, and the possibility of surprise/twists are a vital part of storytelling. Xathan might still have twists planned for us but essentially - it could be argued - leaving all the twists up to the narrator actually disempowers players. If we're co-storytellers collaboratively creating a narrative, shouldn't we have the chance to surprise one another? Even to create dramatic irony among ourselves - so that some players are "in" on a plan and others not? Sure, I might be "surprised" by the contents of certain orders as I read them, but reading orders and secret messages etc is more like reading someone's plans for a twist rather than experiencing the vertiginous jolt of the twist itself.

Reading orders and other hidden information only after a turn has passed would hugely mitigate metagame issues and help to preserve suspsense, secrecy, and identification. At the very least I think all orders should be finalized and locked-in before additional ooc reading is done. If people genuinely and sincerely don't want to metagame, then deferring the extra reading shouldn't affect what they do and say anyway. It's just changing the order in which information is received and decisions made.

Except you aren't your character. You are playing the character, so how you view the character's judgment is the key consideration. You are, as the name suggests, playing a role.

If your character is stupider than you are, then your character will probably be and should be fooled by things that you wouldn't be-- to use your judgment to its fullest means you're playing the character as astute as you personally are, and that means you're just dumping Int or Wis and then not roleplaying the effect that would have, which is the sort of behavior that gives minmaxers a bad name. On the other hand, though, if the character is smarter than you, then it stands to reason that the character may not be fooled by things that you personally might be. Here, you'd need some help from the system, because while it's possible to voluntarily fail to think of something, it's not possible to choose to think of something that you wouldn't have thought of. As such, I don't particularly mind metagaming if the end result is a character that feels more like the player's vision of the character, like giving the players some information the characters might not reasonably be expected to have, in order to allow them to actually make the spirit of the character come through.

I won't deny that there's a certain degree of player skill in RPGs, as in all games, but basing it heavily on players' own perceptions and abilities basically just makes mental stats unimportant and can be frustrating and annoying. Done to an extreme, relying on players' perceptions just gives bad flashbacks to asshole Gygaxian DMs who reveled in making players feel stupid. I want the strengths and weaknesses demonstrated by my character to be her strengths and weaknesses, and I favor the use of game mechanics that distance them from my strengths and weaknesses. There are situations where I would succeed and she would fail, and there are situations where I would fail and she would succeed, and I think the system should help provide those. One of the things I really like about Fate is that it does so.

I feel like character knowledge is related. I'd buy into your line of thinking about it a lot more if I also knew everything my character does know and had it as available as she does... which is of course impossible in any sort of fantasy RPG we have now. As it stands, I don't care particularly much about precisely mirroring my character's lack of knowledge because of all the knowledge she has that I don't have. And yes, you can ask the GM or make stuff up or whatever, but it's not the same as just knowing it.

Basically, to me, the difference is not between roleplaying a character and telling a story about a character, but rather, the difference between playing an adventure game and playing a roleplaying game.

Anyway...

leaving all the twists up to the narrator actually disempowers players

I agree with this, but my preferred solution is, most likely, quite different from yours. :grin:

[Steerpike]

We haven't had a good old fashioned debate in awhile  :D

You are, as the name suggests, playing a role.

Right - you are, for the moment, pretending to be your character. Putting yourself in your character's position. The closer you can get to your character's mindset, the more effectively you can roleplay. Things like OOC knowledge your character doesn't have complicate this process - sometimes not irreparably, but the more OOC knowledge you have that your character doesn't (or vice versa), the harder it is to get into your character's head and play them reasonably.

If your character is stupider than you are, then your character will probably be and should be fooled by things that you wouldn't be-- to use your judgment to its fullest means you're playing the character as astute as you personally are, and that means you're just dumping Int or Wis and then not roleplaying the effect that would have, which is the sort of behavior that gives minmaxers a bad name.

Sure, sometimes you intentionally play a character recklessly. I don't think OOC info helps with this bit much though.

On the other hand, though, if the character is smarter than you, then it stands to reason that the character may not be fooled by things that you personally might be. Here, you'd need some help from the system, because while it's possible to voluntarily fail to think of something, it's not possible to choose to think of something that you wouldn't have thought of.

I think this is where things like knowledge checks, spellcraft, Int checks and the like should come in, and a GM should sometimes call for them if appropriate (and players should ask for them when desired). This way it's your character "gaining" (or remembering) extra knowledge at the same time that you do. I don't see a reason for metagaming here.

As such, I don't particularly mind metagaming if the end result is a character that feels more like the player's vision of the character, like giving the players some information the characters might not reasonably be expected to have, in order to allow them to actually make the spirit of the character come through.

Can you give me an example where metagame info is preferable to in-character info delivered as the result of a high deduction/intuit/knowledge/what-have-you check?

I won't deny that there's a certain degree of player skill in RPGs, as in all games, but basing it heavily on players' own perceptions and abilities basically just makes mental stats unimportant and can be frustrating and annoying.

I agree, but I don't think it follows that metagaming per se is really necessary.

I want the strengths and weaknesses demonstrated by my character to be her strengths and weaknesses, and I favor the use of game mechanics that distance them from my strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe it's the phrasing here, but I totally differ here. I see the mechanics as compensating for the distance that exist between player and character to close that distance. I agree that mechanics can play a role, but again I don't think classic metagaming is necessary.

Basically, to me, the difference is not between roleplaying a character and telling a story about a character, but rather, the difference between playing an adventure game and playing a roleplaying game

I'm honestly just not sure what you mean here. An adventure game as in like a PC point and click adventure game, like Myst?

If that's what you mean, I see your point, but I enjoy a little adventure game in my roleplaying games sometimes - and a little wargame, too. This is totally subjective, of course.

I agree with this, but my preferred solution is, most likely, quite different from yours.

I think lots of different games could have different solutions. In some games you might have multiple narrators, mechanics for actually taking control of the narrative as a player, no formal narrator at all, etc. But not every game has those, and not every game should have them. I love GMing, but when I'm playing, I don't always want to have to think about the same things I do as a GM, so I often prefer games with a more traditional player/narrator division. This is a matter of taste, but in games where that division is in place, I feel like metagaming is something to be avoided, not exploited.

EDIT: To clarify here, and not to get off track... is your position that:

(A) Metagaming is not inherently bad but should be encouraged in certain situations to aid roleplaying,

or rather that

(B) It's simple/non-problematic to have relevant OOC information without metagaming, and that this is not an obstruction to roleplaying.

Or both?

I ask because in the previous thread you seemed to be making a case for B, whereas here you seem more to be supporting A if I'm reading you correctly. B might still assume that metagaming is detrimental.

[Polycarp]

I wonder if it's the term itself that's causing some problems here, seeing as "roleplaying" is frequently used to describe games in which there is virtually no in-character decision-making at all.  Certainly in the video game world all it means that you're acting through a specific person in that world, as opposed to being a disembodied force hovering over creation (e.g. Civilization) or a silent proxy of yourself (e.g. Myst).  It doesn't require that you spend even one second actually considering what your character would actually do if he/she were real and left to his/her own devices.

Tabletop RPGs are basically all "roleplaying games" by this standard, no matter how much players actually think about what their characters would do.  In the hobby, however, "roleplaying" tends to mean something more specific and more like what Sparkle is talking about - making decisions based on what you imagine your character would do even if you, the player, feel another decision would be smarter or more strategic.  When Sparkle contrasts a "roleplaying game" with an "adventure game," I presume she is using "roleplaying" in that narrower sense, and "adventure game" is an RPG in which you nevertheless spend little or no time considering what your character would do.

I agree with Sparkle that making in-character decisions is desirable and good.  Having players actually create fleshed-out characters and get a sense of what they would do if given life is, to me at least, one of the main points of the hobby.

But it's also hard.  In fact, it's impossible to do fully, because the character doesn't exist.  You have only your own judgment and intuition, and as has been pointed out thinking in someone else's head becomes especially hard when you're playing a supposed genius or sublime guru or something.

It's also not the be-all and end-all of what people want from roleplaying games.  Players generally like to be challenged, and for some that challenge lies in the game aspect as much as or more than the roleplaying aspect - tactical combat, character building, that sort of thing.

It seems like your areas of disagreement are primarily 1) how to close the gap between player and character (by consciously trying to put yourself in the character's shoes, or relying more on mechanics to limit your ability to play too far "out of character"), and 2) to what extent that gap should be closed, considering that player choices and strategic decisions are also part of the experience for some/many people.

As for metagaming, I noticed RR came up in the linked thread, so I thought I'd respond directly to that.

Does having everything out in the open in RR really change anything, ultimately? Like, do you think it actually matters, or does everyone just assume that other characters won't act on information they can't reasonably be expected to have?

There are also some spoiler tags in RR. I don't read other players' senatorial inquests, as Polycarp suggests we shouldn't. He's also made clear that particularly secret orders should be PMed.

I think hidden information does change things, and I could imagine a version of RR where everything is spoiler-tagged and only the public speeches are available for everyone to read... there are certainly schemes that might be kept secret etc. I don't know whether this would be "better" or "worse," but it would definitely feel different.

We actually are not supposed to read other players Orders or anything that is not addressed to us. We just do not use spoiler tags very often.

There is also a not insignificant amount of game text that is exchanged via PM- I've had more than a few intra-turn updates.

My chief consideration in RR was to give people interesting things to read.  Secret content is content that is wasted on the majority of the playerbase; it is, essentially, a poor use of my time.  While LD is right that business conducted by PM is not insignificant, PMs in RR usually don't give people much exclusive information - they just provide information to one player in advance so that player can make a decision, and then the content and the results of the decision become known to everyone in the next update.  While PMing secret orders is a thing that can happen, it's extremely rare - in three years of running this game I think I can probably count the number of "secret order PMs" on one hand.

The other issue with RR is that reading other people's orders - and, potentially, inquests - is pretty important in letting you know how to play the game.  In a game like Underdeep, the "moves" you can make are highly limited - there are resources, and things to spend the resources on, and set actions you can take with units, and the only really "open-ended" part is diplomacy with other players.  RR is much more free-form, and it's often helpful to see what other people are doing just so you can get an idea of what things are possible to do.  While there are "systems" which have developed in RR to give some things numbers and stats, most of the game is still essentially players doing what occurs to them and me acting as an arbitrator.  The more circumscribed a game's potential actions are by its rules, the less necessary this is.

So while I do mention metagaming in the RR rules, for the most part it's just not something I think about.  I encourage people to make characters and follow the agendas of those characters; sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.  What's important to me is to make as much content available to as many players as possible, and if that enables some people to metagame in a way I would find unfortunate, well - that's unfortunate, but so be it.  I don't think I would read the spoilered content if I were playing in RR, but I know that some players certainly do.  If they feel like that doesn't affect their decisions, fair enough.

[Steerpike]

I agree with Sparkle that making in-character decisions is desirable and good.  Having players actually create fleshed-out characters and get a sense of what they would do if given life is, to me at least, one of the main points of the hobby.

But it's also hard.  In fact, it's impossible to do fully, because the character doesn't exist.  You have only your own judgment and intuition, and as has been pointed out thinking in someone else's head becomes especially hard when you're playing a supposed genius or sublime guru or something.

I agree, also, that making in-character decisions is desirable and good. That's why I'm against metagaming in classic roleplaying games - because by definition it's based on information gained out of character, not in-character. If you realize a decision you're making might imperil your character, for example, you're placed in a weird position. Like, example:

[ic=Example]A rogue comes to a door in the temple of an evil cult. He has 3 keys, Black, Red, and Purple. The Purple key is the only key that can actually open the door. Attempting to use the others triggers dangerous traps. If the rogue has been skillful and paid attention, they will have noticed that purple is a sacred colour for the cultists - the cultists have purple robes, for example, and some of their other important cult objects are purple.

If the player and the character have the same information, the player has to deduce all this. They might well have missed the hints and will use the wrong key. Maybe they're smarter than their character, though, and just have their Wisdom 8 rogue start trying keys. That's fine, even if they suspect the Purple key is correct. Ideally, they would try not to even exercise their deductive skills if they felt their character wasn't up to it. But the player doesn't actually know which key is correct. Maybe the DM is an evil bastard and made it Red, and there was some esoteric clue to this they missed.

If the player absolutely knows with certainty that the Purple key is unquestionably the right key and that their character might be severely injured if they use the wrong one, this choice utterly changes. Now, if they dare to use the Purple key first, they can't really be sure if they're acting in character as best they can based on what they know and their own judgements. They might be making the choice because of the OOC knowledge. In other words, the OOC knowledge ("metaknowledge") has made it harder for the player to genuinely roleplay their character. To choose any key but the Purple, they would be deliberately harming their character, which means that at that moment they're completely out of their character's head. They can't be identifying with the character directly at all.

EDIT: I should point out that if the rogue has Knowledge (religion) ranks or whatever, I'm fine with the player making a roll to see if their character has any insight into the cult's colour preferences. That's not OOC knowledge, it's IC knowledge that the player lacked. This is the opposite of metagaming, where decisions are made based on knowledge the character lacks.[/ic]

It seems like your areas of disagreement are primarily 1) how to close the gap between player and character (by consciously trying to put yourself in the character's shoes, or relying more on mechanics to limit your ability to play too far "out of character"), and 2) to what extent that gap should be closed, considering that player choices and strategic decisions are also part of the experience for some/many people.

I would submit, with regards to 2, that to some extent all characters are going to reflect the player inevitably in some way, even if they're quite different in lots of other ways. "Filling in" a character's judgment and strategic abilities with your own to may not always be perfect, but to a certain degree it's unavoidable. And because strategic decision-making is fun, it's not such a bad thing to fill in using your own abilities to a degree.

With regard to 1, yeah, I'm definitely in the "close the gap" camp (we might call this the "method acting" camp?) for roleplaying. This is part of the fun and challenge of roleplaying - can I think in a different way and from a different perspective than I usually do? And I'd argue that an excess of out of character information does not aid in trying to get into a character's shoes at all. But that said, I don't think that using mechanics to supplement player knowledge of things the character would know is inimical to roleplaying, or metagaming.

To me, I want to feel like I am the character. If I've got a lot of OOC information that's relevant to my in-character decision making I need to actively factor that information out, and/or try to use it to start thinking of things like "which would be more appropriate/exciting for the narrative here" as opposed to "what would my character do"? This is totally some people's cup of tea, but it makes me feel like my character is a kind of marionette with me pulling the strings.

In essence, I like to play with the first person view on, not the third person.

[sparkletwist]

Sure, sometimes you intentionally play a character recklessly. I don't think OOC info helps with this bit much though.

Having extra OOC info won't help in this case, but the topic of OOC info is still relevant; you're probably going to discard information that you know OOC because the character wouldn't be smart enough to think of it. What I'm saying is that if you are already open to that, it seems like you should be open to the opportunity to do the opposite as well, and use additional information to a smarter character's benefit. As an example from one of our games, Dagny with her 20 Int and 7 Cha is a pretty good example of a character where a few allowances in both directions seem to enrich the character far beyond any harm done by the metagaming it introduces.

I'll also point out that being immersed and trying to think as your character (e.g., your example of asking "do I trust this character and their motives" rather than "would my character trust this character and their motives?") only seems to work if the character's capabilities are similar to your own. Otherwise, you have to start accounting for a discrepancy in ability (either upward or downward) or you're not playing your character believably any more, so saying "sometimes you intentionally play a character recklessly" kind of undermines your original view, because now you're intentionally playing the character according to their capabilities-- in other words, asking the second question, not the first.

Can you give me an example where metagame info is preferable to in-character info delivered as the result of a high deduction/intuit/knowledge/what-have-you check?

I think the big problem with rolling a check and getting the information is that it feels a bit like the GM is just handing the players a trail of bread crumbs to follow, because the info is always filtered through what the GM thinks is relevant. Unless, of course, the GM just hands the players a bunch of information and expects them to sort it out, but then we're back to a clever character being able to make more sense of that information than a player might and probably needing prompting. Basically, my objection is the GM just handing too much clear information to the player after a roll can feel pretty railroady and disempowering. I prefer letting players think through things themselves, even if it takes a little bit of extra information or whatever other stuff you might call metagaming. I feel like it makes the decision making process more satisfying. I'd also say it also helps player empowerment if the player, rather than the GM and dice, get to decide the limits of the character's knowledge and ability, within reason, anyway.

An adventure game as in like a PC point and click adventure game, like Myst?

More or less, although I meant it a little more broadly. I mean a game where there are few (or at least few non-hardcoded) stats and/or character build options, and player skill is the most important concern when determining whether the character succeeds or fails.

I ask because in the previous thread you seemed to be making a case for B, whereas here you seem more to be supporting A if I'm reading you correctly.

Both, really. I was advocating B for WWSUN, but when the thread branched off into a tangent and we started speaking more generally, I stopped restricting my position to only what I was requesting for WWSUN and started talking about my general views, which are much closer to A.

If you realize a decision you're making might imperil your character, for example, you're placed in a weird position.

I think it's important to separate the weird position created purely by having to break character and think in meta terms, from the weird position created by "I don't want to do this because I'm trying to play smart and this is a tactically poor decision." These two often go together, especially in the play style you seem to prefer, but they are separate concerns. That's why I really like the compel mechanic in Fate, actually-- when you're in that position, the system encourages and rewards you to go ahead and put the character into peril because you'll get a fate point out of the deal. It, admittedly, doesn't really make the decision any less meta, but it makes it a whole lot easier to justify as a tactical decision. For me personally, this makes it much easier to go ahead and do it without any weird feelings.

[Steerpike]

What I'm saying is that if you are already open to that, it seems like you should be open to the opportunity to do the opposite as well, and use additional information to a smarter character's benefit.

I just don't see why the additional information should be OOC information as opposed to IC information the smart character would have. Those are different things. And aren't both either divulged or withheld by the GM, ultimately?

I'll also point out that being immersed and trying to think as your character (e.g., your example of asking "do I trust this character and their motives" rather than "would my character trust this character and their motives?") only seems to work if the character's capabilities are similar to your own. Otherwise, you have to start accounting for a discrepancy in ability (either upward or downward) or you're not playing your character believably any more, so saying "sometimes you intentionally play a character recklessly" kind of undermines your original view, because now you're intentionally playing the character according to their capabilities-- in other words, asking the second question, not the first.

Well, for me, trying to think as your character means trying to think differently than you normally do. You do have to account for discrepancies, but for me that means adopting the character's mindset and then making decisions according to that mindset. So, like, if I'm playing a religious character that means adopting the character's religious values; or if I'm playing a murderous thug, it means ditching my conscience during play. Mechanics should help to bridge this discrepancy to make it easier to get into your character's head. OOC info that a character should not have but that a player does seems to me to make it harder to get into the character's head and act as they would, since you're by definition aware of things that they are not.

I think the big problem with rolling a check and getting the information is that it feels a bit like the GM is just handing the players a trail of bread crumbs to follow, because the info is always filtered through what the GM thinks is relevant.

Not necessarily. It depends how the check works. A player might be asking the GM specific questions and then get information and/or make rolls for info. But the thing is, the GM does know what's relevant, since they have all the information already. A good GM knows just how many bread crumbs (and false trails) to leave.

Unless, of course, the GM just hands the players a bunch of information and expects them to sort it out, but then we're back to a clever character being able to make more sense of that information than a player might and probably needing prompting.

A good GM should balance this, not giving players answers so easily as to prevent there from being any deductive challenge (or railroading the players) while providing enough hints and extra info that the players don't feel hamstrung. Good GMing is absolutely vital, I think, when it comes to things like mysteries and puzzles, probably more so than combat and similar situations.

I prefer letting players think through things themselves, even if it takes a little bit of extra information or whatever other stuff you might call metagaming.

I'd only call it metagaming if it's information their character wouldn't have. If it's info their character wouldn't have, by its nature it can't be reflecting the abilities of the character. How could it be? And anyway, metagaming - using OOC knowledge to make IC decisions - is the opposite of letting players think for themselves. Like in my example, if the player knows for a fact that the Purple key is correct (maybe because a party member elsewhere in the dungeon has found this out, for example), they're not then thinking for themselves when they use the Purple key, they've just been handed the answer.

I'd also say it also helps player empowerment if the player, rather than the GM and dice, get to decide the limits of the character's knowledge and ability, within reason, anyway.

This is one of those places I maybe just disagree. To me this is part of the GM's job. I mean, I'm fine with players deciding they want to play a very smart character or whatever, but it's the job of the GM to then reflect that intelligence through the information they give out. The GM roleplays the world, so how could they not be the arbiter of the character's knowledge and ability? Unless we're playing a very postmodern game, where, like, it's a murder mystery where the players decide whodunit by consensus rather than actually unraveling a mystery the GM has created.

I think it's important to separate the weird position created purely by having to break character and think in meta terms, from the weird position created by "I don't want to do this because I'm trying to play smart and this is a tactically poor decision."

I agree. I think the former is metagaming, and problematic. The latter is more ambiguous. Exactly what a character's stats represent and how tactically sound they are isn't always clear cut. I wouldn't call making a smart move with a dumb character metagaming per se, or at least not in the same way. That said, I'm fine with using a mechanic like Compels to reward those decisions, even if I don't think every game needs that kind of mechanic. Ultimately, a Fate Point could be awarded as much for thinking like your character (immersing yourself in your character's mindset, making decisions as your character would - closing the gap between player and character by adopting a different perspective) as it might be from consciously making a decision that you wouldn't if you were "playing yourself." It's a given that there's a difference between you, the player, and the character you're playing, hence roleplaying. Part of the challenge and fun of roleplaying, for me, is to temporarily assume a different (sometimes radically different) personality and mindset, trying to let your own personality and values sort of temporarily fade, as opposed to being consciously and clearly aware of two very different sets of choices (what my character knows/feels/would do and what I know/feel/would do) and then electing the former.

I'm increasingly unsure of what you really mean by "metagaming," in this discussion, though. I was mostly thinking of the original context of the conversation i.e. reading messages and briefings in Who Will Save Us Now? and thus uncovering secrets that your characters do not know within the game-world.

[sparkletwist]

I'm increasingly unsure of what you really mean by "metagaming," in this discussion, though. I was mostly thinking of the original context of the conversation i.e. reading messages and briefings in Who Will Save Us Now? and thus uncovering secrets that your characters do not know within the game-world.

This is probably important enough to put up front. The scope of the discussion has widened a bit, so I do admit it evolved from a discussion about briefings in WWSUN to the more general topic of "metagaming," which I am using to mean thinking about game actions as a game rather than trying to think of it in a purely in-universe context. I took issue with you using "metagaming" in a generally disparaging sense and I wanted to address that.

I just don't see why the additional information should be OOC information as opposed to IC information the smart character would have.

Because "being smart" is a lot more than "knowing facts." In computing terms, you have a better CPU, not just more data. For example, in Fimbulvinter, a couple of times you have told me something that Dagny will find out well in advance of when she would've actually known it, so I could emulate her greater intelligence by having far longer to consider what to do with the information than she would have. Until she found it out, it was OOC information, but it really helped me play her in a way that felt right, and consistent with how smart her stats said she was supposed to be. Another good example that has come up in Fimbulvinter a couple of times is when the OOC information is far more useful because it allows use of game mechanics to better reflect a character's own abilities. A bunch of florid prose describing a monster from a purely IC standpoint is nice to read, but hard numbers with no real IC analog like the monster's CR, HP, AC, saves, and whatever help a lot more in planning tactics that let me play my character like someone who is good at fighting monsters, like most adventurers are.

But the thing is, the GM does know what's relevant, since they have all the information already.

I don't agree with this statement. The GM does not necessarily have all the information or always know what's relevant, because the game's world is not objective truth. In systems like Fate and Asura, the system allows and encourages players to add truths to the game world that the GM must then assimilate and react to. Even in systems where that isn't true, the players can and do subtly shift what's most relevant by what they choose to spend time on, and part of being a good GM is to go along with it rather than putting up one dead end after another until the players successfully guess what the GM wanted them to do.

Like in my example, if the player knows for a fact that the Purple key is correct (maybe because a party member elsewhere in the dungeon has found this out, for example), they're not then thinking for themselves when they use the Purple key, they've just been handed the answer.

That's a bad example for the kind of thing I'm talking about, because it's just telling the players the answer... which is exactly the thing I was arguing against. I'm thinking more along the lines of informing the players about the situation and what their options are, without worrying too much about presenting it in an IC way or making sure the characters could've realistically found out everything. I feel it helps the players make a better decision if everyone is clear on what's up, even if it might not be quite so clear in the minds of their characters. By virtue of actually being there, the characters have a leg up on understanding, anyway.

The GM roleplays the world, so how could they not be the arbiter of the character's knowledge and ability?

I guess this is in line with my previous disagreement. I don't think this kind of thing is always up to the GM. While it's completely reasonable for the GM to generally be the arbiter of what happens in the world, I don't think the GM should necessarily have veto power over what goes on inside a character's head.

Part of the challenge and fun of roleplaying, for me, is to temporarily assume a different (sometimes radically different) personality and mindset, trying to let your own personality and values sort of temporarily fade, as opposed to being consciously and clearly aware of two very different sets of choices (what my character knows/feels/would do and what I know/feel/would do) and then electing the former.

I don't disagree with this, but I also feel like assuming the different personality is simply a matter of getting so good at asking and answering those questions about "what would my character do?" that you no longer have to consciously think about it much. Since we both "feel immersed" when we do what we do, I think we might just be splitting hairs at this point.

[Steerpike]

This is probably important enough to put up front. The scope of the discussion has widened a bit, so I do admit it evolved from a discussion about briefings in WWSUN to the more general topic of "metagaming," which I am using to mean thinking about game actions as a game rather than trying to think of it in a purely in-universe context. I took issue with you using "metagaming" in a generally disparaging sense and I wanted to address that.

Cool. Defined that way, I think there are some forms of metagaming I am less critical of than others. In general, as a personal preference, I tend to enjoy games with a minimum of metagaming even in the general sense you're using, but I can see why some games require certain levels of metagaming in that broad sense of the term.

Because "being smart" is a lot more than "knowing facts." In computing terms, you have a better CPU, not just more data.

To a certain extent I see what you mean, but I still feel this can be handled by selective in character information dispensation, as opposed to giving the player facts/details the character doesn't know; but if we're talking a level of meta that's just like the GM saying "this seems significant to you" or "you notice this detail" as a kind of hint to the player, I'm fine with that. I feel like just the identification of certain details as potential clues/things of import is hint enough in most cases.

That said, puzzles and mysteries are pretty boring if you're not actually deducing things or solving them.

For example, in Fimbulvinter, a couple of times you have told me something that Dagny will find out well in advance of when she would've actually known it, so I could emulate her greater intelligence by having far longer to consider what to do with the information than she would have.

Interesting... can you provide an example more specifically?

Another good example that has come up in Fimbulvinter a couple of times is when the OOC information is far more useful because it allows use of game mechanics to better reflect a character's own abilities. A bunch of florid prose describing a monster from a purely IC standpoint is nice to read, but hard numbers with no real IC analog like the monster's CR, HP, AC, saves, and whatever help a lot more in planning tactics that let me play my character like someone who is good at fighting monsters, like most adventurers are.

Oh, I'm totally fine with that level of metagaming (at least to an extent). The stats are the "OOC" reflections of the universe of the game. This is different, to me, than knowing about an in-universe detail or fact or whatnot. It's true these might impact your in-character decisions, but I feel they're the equivalent of your character's intuitions and instincts. So it's like the translation of details that are very hard to communicate through words into a more comprehensible form. That much I'm up for, by and large. There are still instances where I think certain stats/abilities should be kept mysterious or hidden until used, of course, but I don't think you'd disagree with that?

I don't agree with this statement. The GM does not necessarily have all the information or always know what's relevant, because the game's world is not objective truth. In systems like Fate and Asura, the system allows and encourages players to add truths to the game world that the GM must then assimilate and react to. Even in systems where that isn't true, the players can and do subtly shift what's most relevant by what they choose to spend time on, and part of being a good GM is to go along with it rather than putting up one dead end after another until the players successfully guess what the GM wanted them to do.

The game world may not be objective truth, but in games where the narrator has final say in assimilating details he or she still "fixes it" in place and has ultimate authority over it, surely. And not all systems are like Asura or Fate. There are some where the players cannot really add truths to the game world in the same way, and there's nothing wrong with those games (or with Fate/Asura); and even in Fate/Asura the GM still moderates what truths are acceptable additions. The player cannot just suddenly say "My character has spontaneously developed reality-warping abilities and turns all the enemy mooks into bunnies and teleports them to a moon-palace," at least not in most games. The GM remains the authority on what is and isn't permissible, even if they relinquish some of the burden of creation at times. They might alter things on the fly, but by doing so they fix them in place in the game-world, make it so. So it stands to reason they're in the best position to provide hints and information to characters, I'd think...

I guess this is in line with my previous disagreement. I don't think this kind of thing is always up to the GM. While it's completely reasonable for the GM to generally be the arbiter of what happens in the world, I don't think the GM should necessarily have veto power over what goes on inside a character's head.

Hmm. I agree up to a point, in that I don't think the GM should have control over what a character thinks or feels or believes, but I do think they should have power over the world (at least in many games) and thus, to some extent, the character's relation to it. Like, if the characters are exploring a completely unknown continent, the player should not get to decide independently of the GM that his or her character is actually fully conversant in the rituals of the people living there. Or, say, if it's really important that the players figure out whether the current King actually murdered his brother to seize the crown, a player should not get to decide independently of the GM that his or her character witnessed the murder while hiding behind an arras. Would you agree with that?

I don't disagree with this, but I also feel like assuming the different personality is simply a matter of getting so good at asking and answering those questions about "what would my character do?" that you no longer have to consciously think about it much. Since we both "feel immersed" when we do what we do, I think we might just be splitting hairs at this point.

Could be. I think you're a bit more comfortable with the idea of stepping back from a character and evaluating the shape of the story you're constructing as a player than I am when I'm a player. Which is totally cool, I don't think you're "roleplaying wrong," I just think they're both valid approaches.

[sparkletwist]

Interesting... can you provide an example more specifically?

I think it was mainly a couple of hints about stuff at the end of sessions related to the next session. You told me about the sunstone before Dagny actually received it, too.

There are still instances where I think certain stats/abilities should be kept mysterious or hidden until used, of course, but I don't think you'd disagree with that?

I would not disagree.

And not all systems are like Asura or Fate. There are some where the players cannot really add truths to the game world in the same way

Yes, I know. Hence my statement immediately after about systems that aren't like that. Even when players don't have overt narrative authority, they can still choose where to focus their attention, and, by doing so, they change what's relevant.

Like, if the characters are exploring a completely unknown continent, the player should not get to decide independently of the GM that his or her character is actually fully conversant in the rituals of the people living there. Or, say, if it's really important that the players figure out whether the current King actually murdered his brother to seize the crown, a player should not get to decide independently of the GM that his or her character witnessed the murder while hiding behind an arras. Would you agree with that?

These examples are ridiculous because they're so large and disruptive it's hard to see a mature player doing them in good faith. If the players are immature or not acting in good faith, that's a problem with the social dynamic of the group that needs to be addressed. Even if they are mature and acting in good faith, it still seems like it's a problem with the social dynamic of the group, and the real issue here is to find out why, not immediately try to ban a certain behavior. Maybe there is a good reason that the player is having trouble articulating. Like, maybe the character's core concept is some sort of adventurer anthropologist and the player honestly believes the character should know, because that character hasn't had the spotlight in the last three sessions and this looked like a time to shine. Or maybe the players are completely uninterested in the king murder mystery plot but know it's vital to the overall campaign they're enjoying, and don't want to derail the game, so they try to solve it IC as quickly as possible. Or something.

My point is simply that while a player probably should not get to unilaterally decide independently of the GM that her character knows some huge game-breaking information, I also contend that the GM should probably not get to unilaterally decide that a character couldn't possibly know something that would seem to correspond to that character's areas of competence. Giving a player a bit of extra knowledge and the latitude to decide what the character does or doesn't know is less likely to result in toes being stepped on, and if a player does overreach, it's better to find out why rather than simply try to block the action.

I think you're a bit more comfortable with the idea of stepping back from a character and evaluating the shape of the story you're constructing as a player than I am when I'm a player.

I guess so, although I'd contend that not stepping back and considering the story as a whole will almost inevitably lead to "my guy syndrome," so you have to do it sometimes.

[Steerpike]

Good point about the sunstone. That felt pretty harmless - though maybe that's your point.

These examples are ridiculous because they're so large and disruptive it's hard to see a mature player doing them in good faith. If the players are immature or not acting in good faith, that's a problem with the social dynamic of the group that needs to be addressed.

I was going for absurd/exaggerated examples just to illustrate the point that the GM has some theoretical final authority over the world, not as realistic possibilities of things players would want.

My point is simply that while a player probably should not get to unilaterally decide independently of the GM that her character knows some huge game-breaking information, I also contend that the GM should probably not get to unilaterally decide that a character couldn't possibly know something that would seem to correspond to that character's areas of competence.

I can agree with that! I think a reasonable GM should be open to characters knowing certain things, for sure. I wouldn't call this metagaming, and a GM absolutely adamant about not giving characters such information are being silly.

I guess so, although I'd contend that not stepping back and considering the story as a whole will almost inevitably lead to "my guy syndrome," so you have to do it sometimes.

Yeah, that makes sense. Certainly there are times when being completely immersed or being a total purist about acting IC can be a detriment to the game, for sure.

EDIT: Basically, I'm not concerned or critical of players wanting their characters to know things that their characters could/should reasonably know but which they as players do not. That's totally fine by me. I'm critical of players who use in-universe knowledge that they have obtained out of character but which their characters definitely don't/couldn't/wouldn't possess to make in-game decisions as their characters. There might be some games where metagaming of this sort very much built-in to the fabric of the game, which is fine, but I'm talking about games with games with a typical narrator-player division. There might be some innocuous examples of metagaming of this sort, but if it's a "serious decision" with lasting consequences in-game I don't think metagaming of that kind is a good mechanism for facilitating roleplaying.

[Kindling]

It seems to me that this discussion is basically coming down to what we interpret a character's mental abilities as representing, and how, if at all, we decide those should interact with or relate to the percieved mental abilities of the player.

Now for some kinds of mental stats there seems to be a pretty easy answer.
A character with a high charisma is more likely to be able to persuade someone, even if the argument the player can come up with might not be perfectly convincing. We roll the charisma check, and the odds are that because of the character's high stat, the NPC will buy their story - not because it's logically sound, but because we assume that the character is able to say it in such a way, and use things like tone of voice and body language to support that, that the NPC finds it very difficult not to believe them. It's less about the NPC judging their words analytically as it is about them judging the character's personality intuitively, and the high-charisma character is able to present themselves as being a believable sort of person.
A character with a high willpower is more likely to resist the effects of psychological influences. We can be fairly confident that most of us as players would soil ourselves and run screaming if we saw a corpse reanimate before our eyes and move to attack us, but the character with high willpower might be able to grit her teeth, swallow her fear and stand her ground. Here, again, it seems easy for us to distinguish where the player's mental contribution to the situation ends and the character's begins.

Intelligence is a bit more difficult. We all have an idea of how to play someone more stupid than ourselves, but it's a little harder to decide how best to act more clever. What are we even using intelligence to measure, exactly? Is it scope of education and general knowledge? In some games those are seperate statistics. Is it speed of thought, the ability quickly process information? Does it represent a kind of intuition, the ability to leap to accurate conclusions or pick out the most relevant details from the information available?

One of the problems could be that in real life a person's "intelligence" is a much more varied and nuanced thing than a simple numerical value. For example, I like to think I'm pretty "intelligent" in some areas - words and language, music, analysis of creative works, for example. I'm not very good at maths and science, though. So, if I was an RPG character, what does that mean for my intelligence score? For that matter, if we're using the intelligence stat to measure the character's knowledge, I like to think of myself as having a pretty good memory and being fairly well-informed on a number of subjects - but again, there are gaps in my knowledge. I might have a lot to tell you about proper handling and service of real ale, the current state and performance of Arsenal Football Club or Patrick Leigh Fermor's interpretation of certain Northern Renaissance art in his book A Time of Gifts, but I have only the vaguest knowledge of North American geography or the comparative merits of early 21st century mass market internal-combustion-engine vehicles.

My point is that to be at all believable a character's intelligence stat has to be something quite abstract and flexible, yet mechanically for the game rules it often has to be incredibly concrete - a fixed numerical value. The player, and the gaming group as a whole, is always going to have to decide how exactly they interpret that value, not only for high-intelligence characters but low-intelligence ones as well. My gut reaction, I have to say, is against OOC knowledge playing a large part in the way this is interpreted, but essentially that is going to be a matter of taste. I think the use of OOC knowledge would only become game breaking, as sparkletwist says, if the social contract between the members of the gaming group has broken down. In a functioning, friendly, co-operative gaming group, either route works, it's just a case of which is more fun for the people playing - and that could change from situation to situation. But in either case, I would argue, the intelligence statistic is more problematic than other mental statistics in that it is both harder to pin down its exact definition and harder to clearly delineate the break between the player and the character.

[Steerpike]

I think I'm realizing my point is essentially twofold. I'm partly addressing the fairness of the game and the way that knowledge floats between player and DM. In that sense, I'm essentially in agreement that OOC knowledge only becomes a problem when it threatens the social contract of the group, a contract shared by both all the players with one another and the GM with them. I think the potential for such disruption is quite possible when it comes to OOC knowledge and so it should be handled delicately.

The second point is more personal and subjective and deals not with fairness but with my own preferences and abilities as a roleplayer. I feel that knowing lots of in-universe things that my character does not (at least plot/adventure-specific things) impedes my ability to get into their head. I don't feel it helps me play smarter characters if I know lots of relevant stuff that they couldn't/don't, because it means I have to feign things like being fooled or surprised where I would have been genuinely fooled or surprised had I shared my character's ignorance, or else struggle to concoct in-universe explanations for how I deduced things I never deduced and which even an intelligent character probably wouldn't have. It exacerbates the kind of conflict of interest that always exists between player and character, a conflict as a roleplayer I'm always trying to minimize by ceding to the character's mindset over my own, by making me acutely aware of the stark difference between my perspective and my characters.

[sparkletwist]

the intelligence statistic is more problematic than other mental statistics in that it is both harder to pin down its exact definition and harder to clearly delineate the break between the player and the character.

Yes, I agree.

I feel that knowing lots of in-universe things that my character does not (at least plot/adventure-specific things) impedes my ability to get into their head. I don't feel it helps me play smarter characters if I know lots of relevant stuff that they couldn't/don't, because it means I have to feign things like being fooled or surprised where I would have been genuinely fooled or surprised had I shared my character's ignorance, or else struggle to concoct in-universe explanations for how I deduced things I never deduced and which even an intelligent character probably wouldn't have.

First of all, if you've ever played a character that was less smart than you, you probably had to throw out stuff that you figured out that they likely wouldn't have, so you might have had to feign being fooled or surprised already. So I don't think this is the worst thing in the world, considering how easily it could happen anyway.

So, anyway, I think the key there is where you draw the line on what the character "couldn't" know. I see two relevant questions:
- How do you know the character couldn't know it? I mean, sometimes it's obvious, but other times, just because it doesn't occur to us mere mortals doesn't mean it wouldn't occur to a character who is supposed to be some sort of super genius, so I think that should be considered. I could see it being a sort of fun roleplaying exercise to play some sort of Sherlock Holmes-esque deductive genius, and concocting all kinds of crazy explanations using subtle clues... but I could see how this wouldn't be for everyone, and would probably be more suited to the kinds of games I like to play rather than some other types of games.
- Is it really that the character couldn't ever know it, or just doesn't know it now? One of the simplest ways to pretend to be someone smarter than you are is to simply have more time. It's easier to play a high Charisma character in a play by post game no matter how socially awkward you are because you've got hours or days to think of your brilliant speech or your witty comeback. So, relatedly, for a character who is really sharp and good at planning, it doesn't hurt that you got a tip ahead of time and had the time to formulate a really good plan.

[Steerpike]

First of all, if you've ever played a character that was less smart than you, you probably had to throw out stuff that you figured out that they likely wouldn't have, so you might have had to feign being fooled or surprised already. So I don't think this is the worst thing in the world, considering how easily it could happen anyway.

Yes, that's true. It's kind of unavoidable, though. And a lot of the things I know which my character doesn't aren't necessarily relevant to the world itself. I certainly might have suspicions about plot developments or puzzles that my character doesn't, but suspicions aren't the same thing as knowledge. The fact that I have to dumb myself down when playing dumb characters isn't quite the same thing as actually knowing a plot or secret with certainty ahead of time and then having to feign discovering that secret.

- How do you know the character couldn't know it? I mean, sometimes it's obvious, but other times, just because it doesn't occur to us mere mortals doesn't mean it wouldn't occur to a character who is supposed to be some sort of super genius, so I think that should be considered. I could see it being a sort of fun roleplaying exercise to play some sort of Sherlock Holmes-esque deductive genius, and concocting all kinds of crazy explanations using subtle clues... but I could see how this wouldn't be for everyone, and would probably be more suited to the kinds of games I like to play rather than some other types of games.

I'm talking mostly about characters who are of roughly human-level intelligence; incredibly super-intelligent characters (in D&D terms like Int 20+) might require a slightly different set of "knowledge mechanics." But even then I don't see why that kind of knowledge needs to be gained out of character. If the character should knows things that I don't I can point this out to the narrator and ask for the info, or the narrator may volunteer the info to me. What I mean by "things a character isn't supposed to know" would be like, say I'm playing through a module that I have GMed before, and that the GM hasn't altered... I know what's going to happen, and I know specifics of treasure and encounters and stuff. That's meta-knowledge I gained out of character.

Here's a great example of what I mean (it's long but very illustrative of the kind of knowledge I'm objecting to). We can call it Geordi's Complaint, or Pulaski's Critique. It's not just that Data is amazingly smart, here, it's that he knows the results of the program ahead of time, because of his extensive knowledge of the Holmes stories.

- Is it really that the character couldn't ever know it, or just doesn't know it now? One of the simplest ways to pretend to be someone smarter than you are is to simply have more time. It's easier to play a high Charisma character in a play by post game no matter how socially awkward you are because you've got hours or days to think of your brilliant speech or your witty comeback. So, relatedly, for a character who is really sharp and good at planning, it doesn't hurt that you got a tip ahead of time and had the time to formulate a really good plan.

I don't mind giving people time to think when they're fast-talking or solving a puzzle in a hurry. But I wouldn't, for example, give a player all of the puzzles in a dungeon ahead of time and expect them to be solving them in their spare time as "homework." The puzzles shouldn't be that hard, surely!

I don't mind very vague hints as to what's to come. Like, in a Star Trek game I'm playing, the GM suggested at the end of last session that we all think about where our characters stand on the Prime Directive. That's fine.