Taking a look at metagaming

"You charge the dark apparition. The cold of death envelops you, and he raises his two handed sword with a hissing noise."
"Ha, like I give a shit. That's just a Sable Knight. Think I never read the Monster Manual?"

This column - the second I've written for a society paper - will focus on an interesting phenomenon within the role playing culture. The English term (which I quite callously ripped off) for this playing style is metagaming. The word role playing game is a combination of "role playing" and "game", and metagaming is more akin to gaming than in-character acting.

Metagaming is role playing when in-game actions are influenced by knowledge from outside of the game. To wit, when the character acts upon knowledge that he logically could not have, metagaming ensues.

The gaming style of one group is seldom identical to another's. In some groups metagaming finds more acceptance than in others - emphasising gaming above being in-character, so to speak. But most players seem to agree that when the players begin only to talk to each other to compare skill values and game data, this tends to ruin the atmosphere.

The problem here is metagaming as opposed to role playing. Metagaming is attractive because it provides a path to greater gains than role playing your character in a believable fashion. Even an experienced player occasionally finds herself acting on information that the character could not plausibly possess, simply because this is more fun than losing an advantage or even the character. I recently caught myself, in the middle of a very adrenaline-charged session of NeoTech, loudly dispensing good advice to my fellow players, despite the fact that my character happened to be unconscious.

This is not always a problem. Profound characterisations can be great, but people who solely play in this fashion frequently forget that role playing also is gaming, and that it can feel quite liberating to let loose and just rock. Hence, even if metagaming sometimes becomes irritating, exterminating the phenomenon isn't a goal in itself.

So. A slight dash of metagaming can be a rather enjoyable experience. It can also prevent the momentum of the session from being held up, and avoid needless frustration ("Aha, a vampire! I stab him with my wooden stake!" "Oh no, your character doesn't know about vampires and wood, does he?"). Largely it's a question of opinion and personal taste on the GM's part whether she should allow it, and if so, in what quantities. The problem appears when metagaming crowds out the regular gaming; when dialogue between the characters ceases to be and the game in practical terms has turned into a board game (or any generic 3D-shooter).

Who is to blame then? Not just the player, really. Certainly the group can be counted among the bad guys - if discussing gaming data is accepted around the table it will occur, and if an in-character comment is met by silence of exasperated sighs, then soon enough no one will even bother trying to role play.

The GM can also be the reason, both because she partly controls the game and because she is able to reward good in-character efforts.

Additionally, the group's gaming style playes a part; dyed-in-the-wool character players will seldom base the actions of their character on information not in the game, while newly hatched dungeon crawlers just as gleefully assault superior opponents "since the GM obviously won't kill me right in the beginning of the adventure".

Finally, the fault could just as well lie in the system itself. A terrible example would be Synibarr, a game that numerous reviewers have referred to as the worst gaming system ever written. Allegedly there is a rule in this game that states that if the Game Master is caught violating one of the rules by a player, the player will be rewarded with experience points. Obviously this leads to long and heated discussions that have little to do with the actual game.

So, what to do? I believe it's up to every player group to find their own solutions, but I still have a few tips of things to try.
Firstly, when ingame, refer to each other by the name of the character. This is not as hard as it sounds, as long as the name is pronounceable. As a reminder, a slip of paper with the name can be placed in front of each player.
Secondly, as a GM you can demand that the players hold dialogues when they want to speak to non-player characters. Don't let then get away with "I buy food at the inn." Role play the dialogue, make the players play their characters instead of merely guiding them.
Thirdly, the players should not compare the gaming data of their characters. This may be obvious, but such activities frequently lead to envy and strip away a large part of the mystique. People may have their own opinion on this, but my own is that I'd much rather wonder whether I am better than my rival, than know that he has a skill of 14 when I've got 17.
Fourth, it can be entertaining to punish slayers of atmosphere. In the example at the beginning of the column, let the threatening figure in question be something quite nasty that poses as a Sable Knight, and at first opportunity makes mincemeat of the rash character.

There are more ways to promote in-character playing in the group, and such a style can help countering excessive metagaming. On the other hand, as I mentioned above, rabid character study can be far too rigid and thus stifle the fun. Evidently, the two ways of gaming work best in a healthy balance with each other.

--
Björn Paulsen, 28-02-2001