On Metagame and in-character "Suddendly I realize...!".

[TheIronGolem]

When the GM says to a player ''your scared'', all too often the player(who is not scared) will just have their character ''act scared and stuff'.

Yes, this is called "roleplaying".

Also, a GM who says to a player "your(sic) scared" had better be referring to a concrete game mechanic, because otherwise he's overstepping his bounds and the player is right to ignore the GM and decide how the character feels.

[Beta Centauri]

Until such folks are able to be sated by the food described by the GM - who, herself, must have no role outside of the game, lest her participation be on a metagame level - and show the bruises of the combats that took place inside their heads, I'll find such claims difficult to put stock in.

Oh, same here, though from a slightly different direction: Do the players stomachs grumble when their characters are hungry? Do they become maddened when something drives the character insane?

What I do know is that there's no point in telling people that they don't feel what they claim to be feeling. But there's also no requirement to believe they're feeling it, either.

[NichG]

If you want to get visceral reactions out of players, you're not going to make progress in that direction by telling them what to feel or trying to guilt them for not feeling the same thing as their characters anyhow. If that's the target, then framing the discussion in the context of metagaming isn't really productive, because the player can't consciously choose to actually not know things, they can only make a conscious effort to not act on that knowledge. So 'you're metagaming, stop it and be scared already' is pointless.

You can evoke real responses from players, but never overtly. The most common one that most people figure out how to do is the sensation of righteous anger - basically, it's just good villain design. If you know how to make villains that your players love to hate, then that means you know how to evoke a real feeling of righteous anger in your players.

Often, in order to get real reactions, you really do need to explicitly acknowledge the difference between player and character, and then as the GM you can act as the translation layer which adapts things to match the out-of-game mood with the in-game mood. To do so, you have to realize that the player and the character are different - what scares the player is not going to be the same as abstract descriptions of things that would scare them if they were there, or even things that scare their character. So the GM can act as the layer in between - using music, dramatic pacing, suspense, etc to create an environment that is more evocative to fear responses; or often, use existential dread as a replacement for visceral terror - the player knows that nothing will kill them right now, but if you create a situation for their character where the player's mind fills in the blanks in very pessimistic ways, that can be a substitute.

Anyhow, there's nothing mystical about any of this. It's just recognizing that players have emotions too, but that what they see is different than what the characters see. Asking for too fine-grained a match between the two isn't going to work, but you can do a lot with broad strokes.

[Amphetryon]

Oh, same here, though from a slightly different direction: Do the players stomachs grumble when their characters are hungry? Do they become maddened when something drives the character insane?

What I do know is that there's no point in telling people that they don't feel what they claim to be feeling. But there's also no requirement to believe they're feeling it, either.

I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

[Pex]

There are two other types of metagame.

1) The player knows something out of character and his character should know as well.

2) The character should know something in character but the player hasn't a clue.

A common example of the first is knowing about monsters. Characters have lived and studied in the world. They are going to know about at least some of the creatures in it. Not every single creature is a complete unknown. Player characters are not incompetent know nothings. 3E handled it with Knowledge checks. You can do the same in 5E. Success of the roll is the game mechanic that lets a player use his knowledge in character. If the player actually doesn't know a monster statistic, he was aware enough out of character to have asked the DM for a roll to get the information if successful. Legendary BBEGs and some not Legendary but Important are obviously not so easily learned. It's a campaign plot point to learn about them through adventuring, not a die roll. This is not about them. This is about the ogre, the troll, the wraith, the medusa, etc.

It shouldn't only be a Knowledge roll because that favors the spellcasters and most likely wizards. It can also be a Survival roll, especially for creatures that live in the wilderness. Perhaps those proficient in the skill get Advantage but anyone can make a check. Perhaps being Proficient allows for a lower DC to make the check.

As for the second, it usually pertains to new players but not exclusively. If the party knows they have a month long journey to their adventure destination, they don't necessarily have to say they stock up on food. It's a game style and some people do like taking care of minutiae. That's fine, but even then just the flow of the game being played might mean no one said "Oh, by the way, I stock up on rations.", the party doesn't starve to death. Scarce resource scenarios are an adventure plot point, not a gotcha.

Similarly, searching a room. The Investigation check says how successful a character was in finding something if something was to be found. It shouldn't be necessary for the player to say "I search the bed, I check the sheets, I check the pillow, I look in the pillow case, I look under the bed, I check the door, I look at the hinges, I search the dresser, etc., but then the DM thinks to himself, "Ha! He never said he checked the closet so he never finds the treasure chest." Also, it is the rogue player's responsibility to say he searches for traps. It is not his responsibility to orate precisely how. His skill check determines the success to notice the trip wire before accidentally triggering it and not autofail because the player didn't specify looking for a trip wire, pressure plate, dart hole, poison gas bubble, or whatever.

[Flickerdart]

The metagame is crucial - it is the reason players need to think "why would my character accept this quest" instead of "why would my character refuse this quest." It's why parties of diverse individuals stay together and stay balanced between one another. It's why players and DMs decide to use or not use particular abilities in order to maximize the group's enjoyment of what is fundamentally just a game.

Refusing the metagame leads to Tippyverses, where all individual actors act rationally to maximize the achievement of their desires through every tool available to them.

[Thrudd]

The metagame is crucial - it is the reason players need to think "why would my character accept this quest" instead of "why would my character refuse this quest." It's why parties of diverse individuals stay together and stay balanced between one another. It's why players and DMs decide to use or not use particular abilities in order to maximize the group's enjoyment of what is fundamentally just a game.

Refusing the metagame leads to Tippyverses, where all individual actors act rationally to maximize the achievement of their desires through every tool available to them.

The metagame is crucial outside the game, as in the players deciding to play the game in the first place and create characters that will want to participate in the premise of the game and work together. Once the game has begun, metagame knowledge should not be much required. The characters should be acting according to their motives and personalities to achieve their desires, as rationally as they are able, and the game should be designed with that purpose in mind. The player should be pretty much always be thinking "what would my character do, and what do they want?".

The character should take the quest because they will gain something they want by participating in it, not because the player knows the DM wants them to (although that may also be true). A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM.

[goto124]

I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

So the DM Raged too? :P

[Beta Centauri]

A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM.

That's true... if one accepts the definition that metagaming shouldn't be required. You're saying that the players should do something, and if they can't or don't do it it's bad. But nothing really proves that it's bad or its what the players should do, at least not to the degree that you and other imply. I've never read anything that says that once the game starts nothing further can be established about the characters or the world.

I'll accept that a GM can make, prior to play, something that hooks the characters by their backgrounds and dispositions, or whatever, but that's highly superficial and simplistic. The character wants X, and this adventure provides X (and also Y and Z for the other characters). It's very stimulus/response, very lock and key. I much prefer, when some fact is offered to the players, that they not only see where it can match up to the basic receptors on their characters, but that they do what they can to make it stick harder. Player A wants glory, and there's glory in combating the invading orc horde - plus, Player A says, one of the lieutenants of the chieftan killed character A's cousin, so there's a personal element, too. Player B wants money, and there's payment for combating the orc horde - plus, Player B says, there's a monastery in the path of the invaders and he doesn't want to see the place sacked, adding another personal element. Or maybe character A's cousin was character B's friend. Whatever. The point is that to require a "well conceived" quest to be one with all the details worked out before hand, is a pretty narrow approach. It may be what you strive for, but there are lots of ways to do it.

[draken50]

Frankly I consider metagaming in many respects to be good, with one very notable exception.

For instance metagaming that results in the following things often occurs.

Getting the party together: "Hey, let's talk to that PC looking guy"
Keeping the party together:"Instead of splitting up, why don't we... not... do that."
Resolving interpersonal conflict:"I suppose the money you stole from that orphanage is for a higher cause."
Not giving up: "I'm sure there's a way out of this pit"

Then there are knowledge's, I personally don't care if a player has knowledge their character doesn't have as a skill. I don't like "But your character doesn't know that" as a way to force behavior on a player/their character. Additionally, if its setting information that could be a problem, I tend to play with it, create exceptions so that players can't just say: "That guy is evil!"

The only kind of metagaming I don't abide is narrative/storytelling based metagaming. Though I do, often have tools to resolve those kinds of problems it often results in the offending player being excluded from the session or more likely the game entirely.

This kind of stuff:
"I kill the kings adviser, because he's totally the bad guy even though I have no proof and it's the first session, but he's the bad guy, you know he's the bad guy."

Full disclosure: I do not run PVP games or use PC antagonists, and tell my players beforehand I expect them and their characters to band together to overcome the obstacles I create. Additionally, I inform them that I prefer that players avoid splitting the party to avoid having stretches with non-participatory players.

I can absolutely see where metagaming would be a problem in a PVP game.

[NichG]

The metagame is crucial outside the game, as in the players deciding to play the game in the first place and create characters that will want to participate in the premise of the game and work together. Once the game has begun, metagame knowledge should not be much required. The characters should be acting according to their motives and personalities to achieve their desires, as rationally as they are able, and the game should be designed with that purpose in mind. The player should be pretty much always be thinking "what would my character do, and what do they want?".

The character should take the quest because they will gain something they want by participating in it, not because the player knows the DM wants them to (although that may also be true). A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM.

Whether or not the DM has made a mistake isn't relevant to determining what action you, as a player, should do. Its a reality of the world that people are not perfect - DMs will conceive plots poorly, write things into corners, not foresee potential pitfalls of PC interactions, etc.

So you can sit there and say 'well, that's not my fault' but have to live with the bad gaming that results, or you can actually take actions which try to help repair the situation. From the point of view of the players choosing their actions, whether or not the fault lies with the DM is irrelevant. Once things have gone wrong, if the players have the ability to repair the situation then choosing not to use that in order to stand on a point of principle is a mistake too.

[Amphetryon]

The metagame is crucial outside the game, as in the players deciding to play the game in the first place and create characters that will want to participate in the premise of the game and work together. Once the game has begun, metagame knowledge should not be much required. The characters should be acting according to their motives and personalities to achieve their desires, as rationally as they are able, and the game should be designed with that purpose in mind. The player should be pretty much always be thinking "what would my character do, and what do they want?".

The character should take the quest because they will gain something they want by participating in it, not because the player knows the DM wants them to (although that may also be true). A quest that requires metagame reasoning to work is poorly conceived on the part of the DM.

How are the Characters acting, without input from the Players? How are the Characters gaining something, that isn't expressed mechanically within the confines of playing a TTRPG? If the GM's primary motivation is moving the game forward and allowing the Players to have both agency and a good time, how does the Character (since the Player's decisions are based on playing a game) embark on a quest for reasons that exclude the GM wanting them to take a quest?

[Mr Beer]

I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

Depends on the level of voice raising you did. If you just dialled it up with a dramatic tone, that's fine ofc. If I had a player belting out a primal Braveheart-style warcry at maximum possible volume, I'd be pissed.

[Thrudd]

That's true... if one accepts the definition that metagaming shouldn't be required. You're saying that the players should do something, and if they can't or don't do it it's bad. But nothing really proves that it's bad or its what the players should do, at least not to the degree that you and other imply. I've never read anything that says that once the game starts nothing further can be established about the characters or the world.

I'll accept that a GM can make, prior to play, something that hooks the characters by their backgrounds and dispositions, or whatever, but that's highly superficial and simplistic. The character wants X, and this adventure provides X (and also Y and Z for the other characters). It's very stimulus/response, very lock and key.

Certainly, characters can change over the course of the game. They should adjust to the world based on their experiences, and the world adjusts to them. But this should happen in-character, as a result of the events of the game. Evil characters can have a change of heart and turn good, characters that are greedy can learn to care about others. But the change should not be forced or assumed by the DM as a prerequisite for the quest of the day.

If you have to alter a character, without established cause, in order for the game to work, somebody has messed up prior to the session starting. For a simplistic example, my evil character shouldn't have to suddenly turn good in order to want to participate. Either I should not have made an evil character, or the DM should not be running an adventure that requires good characters.

Preferably, the DM doesn't need to "hook" characters into things with specific background information, but gives them a world in which there are ways for them to pursue their goals, and allow them to do that in whatever way they see fit. In this case, the more generic and long term the motives, the better. Want to gain glory and become famous hero. Want to get rich and be a king of my own kingdom. Want to learn every spell and become the most powerful wizard. Want to protect the realm from all threats for the glory of god. Those are things a DM can work with in the long term. Background stuff like "my sister is missing" and "find the men that killed my family" and "recover a missing heirloom" are nice, but are very one-shot motives.

Whether or not the DM has made a mistake isn't relevant to determining what action you, as a player, should do. Its a reality of the world that people are not perfect - DMs will conceive plots poorly, write things into corners, not foresee potential pitfalls of PC interactions, etc.

So you can sit there and say 'well, that's not my fault' but have to live with the bad gaming that results, or you can actually take actions which try to help repair the situation. From the point of view of the players choosing their actions, whether or not the fault lies with the DM is irrelevant. Once things have gone wrong, if the players have the ability to repair the situation then choosing not to use that in order to stand on a point of principle is a mistake too.

Yes, in that case I would call the metagaming an unfortunate necessity, rather than a "good thing".
Mostly, I would strive to avoid it with clear communication before the game begins, so that it is only a serious mistake that will result in such a situation, rather than an ongoing condition.

How are the Characters acting, without input from the Players? How are the Characters gaining something, that isn't expressed mechanically within the confines of playing a TTRPG? If the GM's primary motivation is moving the game forward and allowing the Players to have both agency and a good time, how does the Character (since the Player's decisions are based on playing a game) embark on a quest for reasons that exclude the GM wanting them to take a quest?

A player choosing the character's actions based on the character's personality and motives isn't metagaming, that's role playing. The DM wants to set up situations where it will make sense for the characters to participate, so the players can make decisions in-character rather than solely for metagame reasons, in order to create an immersive role playing experience as much as possible.

It would be undesireable, if every time the DM presented a plot hook, the player had to alter the character's outlook in order to explain why they should participate.

Such a condition existing is caused by lack of communication at the outset of the game, regarding its premise and the sort of characters that are appropriate. If the pre-game is done correctly, metagaming reasons to participate should be minimal, replaced by role playing.

Some game formats may include pre-game metagaming from session to session or at certain intervals. Such as an episodic adventure format, at the start of each adventure, the DM may describe the setting and ask the players to come up with reasons why their character is there, ie: "you're all on a ship heading south through the ocean, tell me why..."

But that is technically the pre-game. Once the game is underway, it should be all roleplaying.

[Jay R]

I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I had a DM actually get angry with me because I raised my voice while roleplaying the Rage of a Barbarian.

Well, of course. The Barbarian is not sitting down in a room playing a game with friends. You are.

I would also get annoyed if the player with a Fighter started swinging a sword, or the Thief player picked my pocket.

---------------------

In my current game, my defense against metagaming was described in the campaign introduction as follows:

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

[Thrudd]

In my current game, my defense against metagaming was described in the campaign introduction as follows:

Mine is basically the same. I know people that have been playing too long, it's the only way to keep things fresh.

[Flickerdart]

In my current game, my defense against metagaming was described in the campaign introduction as follows:

I feel like this steps from metagaming defense all the way into "how dare characters know anything about the world, this threatens my DM throne of power." Common knowledge is a thing.

[Thrudd]

I feel like this steps from metagaming defense all the way into "how dare characters know anything about the world, this threatens my DM throne of power." Common knowledge is a thing.

And the players will be informed what common knowledge is available to their characters, and some can be presented in the form of knowledge or intelligence/wisdom checks of some sort.

The point is, when your players have twenty-thirty years of D&D experience under their belts, your options for building exciting/interesting games are limited if you keep using the same standard published material over and over again.

[Jay R]

I feel like this steps from metagaming defense all the way into "how dare characters know anything about the world, this threatens my DM throne of power." Common knowledge is a thing.

The players don't know anything about the world even more than you suspect. In that game, all the players grew up in an isolated village deep in a haunted forest. They don't know world history, monster stats, or anything outside the village. Here's a further description:

Spoiler: spoilered for length

Show

You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

The world is basically early medieval. You all speak a single language for which you (reasonably) have no name. If you learn another language, you’ll know more about what that means.

It’s a really small village. There are fewer than 100 people living there, which is smaller than it used to be. There are chickens, goats, sheep, a couple of oxen, but no horses or cows.

The village has a single road going out of town to the north and south, and you’ve never been on it. The only travel on it occurs when a few wagons go off to take food to market – and even that hasn’t happened in the last few seasons. Very rarely, a traveler may come through, and spend the night with the priest. You have all greedily listened to any stories these travelers tell. Your parents say this isn’t good for you – what’s here in the village is good enough for you, and all travelers are always liars, anyway.

The village is surrounded by a haunted forest nearby. You have occasionally gone a few hundred feet into it on a dare, but no further, and never at night. I will modify this (slightly) for any character who wishes to start as a Druid or Ranger. Nobody gets to know the modification unless they choose one of those classes.

The old folks in the village sometimes talk about how much better it was long ago. There was real travel, and real trade. Nobody knows what happened since.

You have heard many mutually conflicting tales of all kinds of marvelous heroes. You may assume that you have heard of any story of any hero you like – Gilgamesh, Oddysseus, Sigurd, Taliesin, Charlemagne, Lancelot, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Prester John, Baba Yaga, Prince Ōkuninushi, Br’er Rabbit, anyone. The old stories seem to imply that there have been several Ages of Heroes. Your parents don’t think these tales are good for you. Takes your mind off farming.

I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

Yes, exploring the world is a major part of the game as planned, and the players are enjoying it. They've had fun learning about goblins that are not D&D goblins, and have learned how to handle zombies when it's hard to pull a sword out of their dead flesh. The forest is no longer haunted, they have met the Fair Folk, and they are the heroes of several towns and villages.

But I have a question for you. What does this have to do with some assumed "DM throne of power"? Isn't that kind of an insulting term to apply to a campaign in which you have zero experience and almost no knowledge?

[Amphetryon]

Well, of course. The Barbarian is not sitting down in a room playing a game with friends. You are.

I would also get annoyed if the player with a Fighter started swinging a sword, or the Thief player picked my pocket.

Ah, so using other than a flat monotone to express in-Character frustration is inappropriate, in your campaigns? Because "of course" reads as "any reasonable person would be upset with you for making your Barbarian Character sound frustrated, and you should know that."

[Jay R]

Ah, so using other than a flat monotone to express in-Character frustration is inappropriate, in your campaigns?

No. One can actually speak perfectly naturally, with normal modulation, timbre, and pitch, not in a flat monotone, without raising one's voice.

[Seerow]

Ah, so using other than a flat monotone to express in-Character frustration is inappropriate, in your campaigns? Because "of course" reads as "any reasonable person would be upset with you for making your Barbarian Character sound frustrated, and you should know that."

I just got hit hard by poe's law, and I'm not sure if it's from Amphetryon, Jay R, or both.

[Broken Twin]

@Jay R: That actually sounds like a lot of fun. In fact, I may steal that blurb for my own usage...

-----------------

As to the barbarian voice debate, I think it all depends on whether such a thing is expected in your group. If you suddenly roar out of nowhere, with no prior voice roleplaying? I can imagine someone taking an issue with that, for no other reason than not appreciating the volume. If you're playing in a group that frequently acts out their characters personalities, than such a thing would be encouraged, if not expected.

[Beta Centauri]

Certainly, characters can change over the course of the game.

That's not what I'm saying and not what I'm talking about. I'm clearly talking about players making changes to the reality of the character and even the game world, in order to improve the game and make their engagement stronger.

But this should happen in-character, as a result of the events of the game.

That's one way to do it, but it's not more valuable than another. There's no "should" here.

Evil characters can have a change of heart and turn good, characters that are greedy can learn to care about others. But the change should not be forced or assumed by the DM as a prerequisite for the quest of the day.

I'm not sure how you got to this being a forced thing. My example was not about anyone being forced to do anything. The players were hooked based on their backgrounds, but they went further and found a way to drive the hook deeper, thereby making the game better if for not other reason than they had deeper engagement.

If you have to alter a character, without established cause, in order for the game to work, somebody has messed up prior to the session starting. For a simplistic example, my evil character shouldn't have to suddenly turn good in order to want to participate. Either I should not have made an evil character, or the DM should not be running an adventure that requires good characters.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but that's a much different issue. No one in that example is necessarily saying that a character needs to act in a way contrary to their design, just that the restrictions on character design weren't adequately conveyed. It would be like someone making a character with a disallowed race: no one would suggest that the character be turned into a member of an acceptable race. At most, they'd ask that the character be remade and imagined to have always been that class, or that another character be used.

Preferably,

to you

the DM doesn't need to "hook" characters into things with specific background information, but gives them a world in which there are ways for them to pursue their goals, and allow them to do that in whatever way they see fit. In this case, the more generic and long term the motives, the better.

for you.

Want to gain glory and become famous hero. Want to get rich and be a king of my own kingdom. Want to learn every spell and become the most powerful wizard. Want to protect the realm from all threats for the glory of god. Those are things a DM can work with in the long term. Background stuff like "my sister is missing" and "find the men that killed my family" and "recover a missing heirloom" are nice, but are very one-shot motives.

Which is fine. After they achieve that motive, they can come up with another. Any of those things could be part of a larger plot, for example.

A player choosing the character's actions based on the character's personality and motives isn't metagaming, that's role playing. The DM wants to set up situations where it will make sense for the characters to participate, so the players can make decisions in-character rather than solely for metagame reasons, in order to create an immersive role playing experience as much as possible.

It's still metagaming. The metagame is "Don't Give Anyone A Reason to Suspect That You're Metagaming."

It would be undesireable, if every time the DM presented a plot hook, the player had to alter the character's outlook in order to explain why they should participate.

That's an extreme no one is talking about. But just as you suggest having generic, long term goals, a character can have a generic, flexible background. TV shows do this all the time. We learn a character's background bit by bit, as the story requires. When it becomes relevant or useful for the writer to reveal more background, they do. The character hasn't changed, because the new information doesn't (or anyway, isn't intended to) contradict anything else that has been established. So, if I don't see a reason why my character would go on a quest, I'll make something up that gives him that reason. My character isn't in it for the money in the long term, maybe, but he's just heard that the orphanage run by a priestess he's got a crush on needs money, so he's in.

Some game formats may include pre-game metagaming from session to session or at certain intervals. Such as an episodic adventure format, at the start of each adventure, the DM may describe the setting and ask the players to come up with reasons why their character is there, ie: "you're all on a ship heading south through the ocean, tell me why..."

But that is technically the pre-game. Once the game is underway, it should be all roleplaying.

There is no "should." There's no reason why that exact same sort of question couldn't or shouldn't be asked as any point it would prove useful, and lots of reasons why it should. The primary reason is that having multiple brains independently working to create something is very often faster and easier than having one, particularly if those brains are coming up with something they will directly benefit from. Sure, the GM could come up with a reason, but what often happens, even to good GMs? "I don't see why we would do this?" "My character would never be in this situation," etc.

The start of the game is not some sacrosanct event horizon. If you insist that it must be, then what you're insisting on is multiple starts and stops to the game so that the "game" runs as well as it can. Oh, it can run without those, but it's not going to be smoothly unless the players are metagaming their little minds out in an effort to find ways and reasons to go along. Even in the case of those broad goals you had in mind, it's just as plausible for someone to say "I don't think this will help my quest" as it is to say "I think this will help my quest." They do the latter, because it moves the game along. And that's metagaming. And that's a positive thing.

[Thrudd]

That's not what I'm saying and not what I'm talking about. I'm clearly talking about players making changes to the reality of the character and even the game world, in order to improve the game and make their engagement stronger.

That's one way to do it, but it's not more valuable than another. There's no "should" here.

I'm not sure how you got to this being a forced thing. My example was not about anyone being forced to do anything. The players were hooked based on their backgrounds, but they went further and found a way to drive the hook deeper, thereby making the game better if for not other reason than they had deeper engagement.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but that's a much different issue. No one in that example is necessarily saying that a character needs to act in a way contrary to their design, just that the restrictions on character design weren't adequately conveyed. It would be like someone making a character with a disallowed race: no one would suggest that the character be turned into a member of an acceptable race. At most, they'd ask that the character be remade and imagined to have always been that class, or that another character be used.

to you

for you.

Which is fine. After they achieve that motive, they can come up with another. Any of those things could be part of a larger plot, for example.

It's still metagaming. The metagame is "Don't Give Anyone A Reason to Suspect That You're Metagaming."

That's an extreme no one is talking about. But just as you suggest having generic, long term goals, a character can have a generic, flexible background. TV shows do this all the time. We learn a character's background bit by bit, as the story requires. When it becomes relevant or useful for the writer to reveal more background, they do. The character hasn't changed, because the new information doesn't (or anyway, isn't intended to) contradict anything else that has been established. So, if I don't see a reason why my character would go on a quest, I'll make something up that gives him that reason. My character isn't in it for the money in the long term, maybe, but he's just heard that the orphanage run by a priestess he's got a crush on needs money, so he's in.

There is no "should." There's no reason why that exact same sort of question couldn't or shouldn't be asked as any point it would prove useful, and lots of reasons why it should. The primary reason is that having multiple brains independently working to create something is very often faster and easier than having one, particularly if those brains are coming up with something they will directly benefit from. Sure, the GM could come up with a reason, but what often happens, even to good GMs? "I don't see why we would do this?" "My character would never be in this situation," etc.

The start of the game is not some sacrosanct event horizon. If you insist that it must be, then what you're insisting on is multiple starts and stops to the game so that the "game" runs as well as it can. Oh, it can run without those, but it's not going to be smoothly unless the players are metagaming their little minds out in an effort to find ways and reasons to go along. Even in the case of those broad goals you had in mind, it's just as plausible for someone to say "I don't think this will help my quest" as it is to say "I think this will help my quest." They do the latter, because it moves the game along. And that's metagaming. And that's a positive thing.

"To you/for you" goes without saying, because I'm the one that said those things.

I see what you're saying, in general. Some of what you are calling "metagaming", I would call "desire to play the game". Of course, the player should have a character that will choose to engage in the premise of the game, otherwise nothing will happen. This is established when they make the character. If the game is an episodic, the players know that and "My character would never be there " is basically saying "I don't want to play". The answer would be "ok, then make a character that does want to be there."

I'm thinking of "metagaming" as applying out of character information while playing the game, informing the actions of your character.
IE: I go to the town, because I know the DM wants me to inspite of the fact that I can't think of any reason my character should do it.
I fight the monster, even though it makes more sense for my character to run away and try a different approach, because I know this is the DM's big set piece boss battle.
I look for a hidden gem or jewelry box, because this is obviously a lich and it must have a phylactery somewhere, even though my character doesn't know what a lich is and this is the only one he's ever seen.

Some of these things can be avoided by making more open ended campaigns. The DM should generally not be expecting or requiring the characters to go or do anything specific, so the players shouldn't ever have cause to think "the DM wants me to do this specific thing, so I better think of why my character wants that."

In terms of motives, usually the adventures/quests the players are presented with will clearly have something the characters want. Want to get rich? There will be no question that the adventures you choose will have significant monetary reward. Want magic? The world is full of ancient ruins where magic items and lost scrolls are found, that's where you're going. If there weren't lots of such places, I would not have let you create a character with those motives.
If I've created a world where the players can't find anything their characters want to engage in, then something went wrong. metagaming might be a solution to correct this error.

Choosing to engage in the game by having your character make logical choices (for them) in pursuit of their goals, is called playing a role playing game.

[Amphetryon]

"To you/for you" goes without saying, because I'm the one that said those things.

I see what you're saying, in general. Some of what you are calling "metagaming", I would call "desire to play the game". Of course, the player should have a character that will choose to engage in the premise of the game, otherwise nothing will happen. This is established when they make the character. If the game is an episodic, the players know that and "My character would never be there " is basically saying "I don't want to play". The answer would be "ok, then make a character that does want to be there."

I'm thinking of "metagaming" as applying out of character information while playing the game, informing the actions of your character.
IE: I go to the town, because I know the DM wants me to inspite of the fact that I can't think of any reason my character should do it.
I fight the monster, even though it makes more sense for my character to run away and try a different approach, because I know this is the DM's big set piece boss battle.
I look for a hidden gem or jewelry box, because this is obviously a lich and it must have a phylactery somewhere, even though my character doesn't know what a lich is and this is the only one he's ever seen.

In terms of motives, usually the adventures/quests the players are presented with will clearly have something the characters want. Want to get rich? There will be no question that the adventures you choose will have significant monetary reward. Want magic? The world is full of ancient ruins where magic items and lost scrolls are found, that's where you're going. If there weren't lots of such places, I would not have let you create a character with those motives.
If I've created a world where the players can't find anything their characters want to engage in, then something went wrong. metagaming might be a solution to correct this error.

Choosing to engage in the game by having your character make logical choices (for them) in pursuit of their goals, is called playing a role playing game.

The thing is, the Character doesn't have those motives. The Player assigns those motives to the Character, making the motives a metagame construct. "I, Rorik Ebonblade, wish to be the richest mercenary in all the land" is rooted in exactly the same motivation as "I, [Amphetryon,] wish to be able to write 'eleventy billion gold' in the Wealth slot on my Character sheet with the GM's express consent." The former is simply disguised under an additional layer of 'good game-speak.' A Character truly having motives that are without any knowledge or consent on the part of the Player is either impossible, so near to impossible as to be a statistical anomaly, or an indication of needing professional help from a mental health expert.

[Red Fel]

I think the point is that there are levels. It's not a binary division between "what my character would do" and "what I, as a player, want my character to do." Part of the flaw in that analysis - and I'm not accusing anyone of having made such an analysis - is assuming that there is only one course, at any given time, that a character would take.

This is a role playing game. And your character, as a person, has to make decisions, just as you would. Sometimes, those decisions are binary - do this, or don't. Sometimes, they are multiple-choice questions - do A, do B, do C, or do none of the above. But sometimes, they are nuanced and complex - you could do A, B, C, some combination of them, none of them, or do any one of them in any number of ways.

That's where the slightest hint of metagaming comes in, and in this case, it's a highly tolerable level of metagame. This metagame is called "What can I do that's in line with my character, but still moves the game along and keeps everyone engaged?" This is the metagame that emerges from Wheaton's Law. This is the metagame that emerges when the Giant suggests that you should decide to react differently. This is a good metagame.

This illustrates that there are levels of metagame. When you decide to do what your character would do, but in such a way that it keeps the party together, that's good metagame. When you decide to do what your character would do, but in such a way that it allows the GM to move the plot forward, that's good metagame. When you decide to do what your character would do, but in such a way that everyone at the table has a good time, pat yourself on the back, because that's great metagame.

When you do something "because that's what my character would do," irrespective of player knowledge, that's good role playing. But when you do it knowing, as a player, that it will slow down the plot, frustrate the players or GM, or generally make things unpleasant (as opposed to challenging, which is a different thing), that may be good role playing, but it's being a bad role player. Some ability to use player knowledge, if for no other purpose than to keep the game from grinding to a halt, isn't a bad thing.

The problem isn't the use of metagame absolutely. It's the use of metagame beyond this. When you decide not to attack the monster, because you know from reading the manual that it only attacks when attacked, that's bad metagame. When you go straight for the spring when you enter the forest, because you know this GM and you know he always puts plot points in a spring in the middle of the forest, that's bad metagame. When you kill the vizier upon meeting him, because he's a vizier and all viziers are evil and he had a goatee for goodness' sakes, that's bad metagame. Funny as hell, but bad metagame.

And as an aside, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to play a Barbarian - or any class, race, or concept with MUSCLE-BULGING RAGE as its central focus - without the ability to produce a barbaric yawp on command.

[Beta Centauri]

"To you/for you" goes without saying, because I'm the one that said those things.

Yeah, I know that line, and it doesn't fly on this forum. Stating preference as fact is frowned upon. I know it's hard to resist, but please try.

I see what you're saying, in general. Some of what you are calling "metagaming", I would call "desire to play the game".

Right, and that's "meta." Anything the player wants, I think we can agree, is "outside" the game, is "meta." "Desire to play the game" isn't a "game," so much, but it's part of the social scene. "How do I convey, via my in-game choices, that I'm interested in and enjoying the game, and am being friendly and sociable as a player" is what it amounts to. That's all still metagaming.

I'm trying to get us away from the term "metagaming" meaning a bad thing that only every breaks immersion and makes the game worse. It's not.

Of course, the player should have a character that will choose to engage in the premise of the game, otherwise nothing will happen. This is established when they make the character. If the game is an episodic, the players know that and "My character would never be there " is basically saying "I don't want to play". The answer would be "ok, then make a character that does want to be there."

It can also be established during play.

I'm thinking of "metagaming" as applying out of character information while playing the game, informing the actions of your character.

Agreed.

IE: I go to the town, because I know the DM wants me to inspite of the fact that I can't think of any reason my character should do it.

Solved by: thinking of a reason your character would do it, or asking for help thinking of a reason. Result: it's no longer metagaming, but roleplaying.

I fight the monster, even though it makes more sense for my character to run away and try a different approach, because I know this is the DM's big set piece boss battle.

Same solution: think of a reason why retreat doesn't seem like a good idea to the character. Maybe they're just mistaken.

I look for a hidden gem or jewelry box, because this is obviously a lich and it must have a phylactery somewhere, even though my character doesn't know what a lich is and this is the only one he's ever seen.

Same basic solution, though it helps not to paint oneself into a corner like that. Just don't make a background that specifically states, in detail, what the player does or doesn't know. For lots of characters, it's going to be plausible that they at least know what a lich is.

Beyond that, as with the other cases, maybe there is a reason the character would know to look for something like that. This is a bit more adversarial, as now it really is up against what the GM wants, rather than aiding it. The GM has less incentive to help the metagaming become roleplaying. But they still could, or could find a compromise, especially if it's clear that the player is more not all that interested in a game in which they're facing an undefeatable enemy.

Some of these things can be avoided by making more open ended campaigns. The DM should generally not be expecting or requiring the characters to go or do anything specific, so the players shouldn't ever have cause to think "the DM wants me to do this specific thing, so I better think of why my character wants that."

I agree, but there's another aspect to it that your examples didn't touch on:

"I want to do this specific thing, so I better think of why my character wants that."

And I think we all do that, to a degree, both before and during play, and both consciously and unconsciously. And I don't think it's an intrinsically bad thing for players to do what they want, and to find an in-character reason why they would do that.

In terms of motives, usually the adventures/quests the players are presented with will clearly have something the characters want. Want to get rich? There will be no question that the adventures you choose will have significant monetary reward. Want magic? The world is full of ancient ruins where magic items and lost scrolls are found, that's where you're going. If there weren't lots of such places, I would not have let you create a character with those motives.

If I've created a world where the players can't find anything their characters want to engage in, then something went wrong. metagaming might be a solution to correct this error.

Exactly, but I feel like you're overstating how "wrong" and "erroneous" this is. It's perfectly normal and to be expected that a world will have gaps in it, because the world is not real, and to the degree it is real, it's conforming to the preferences of the GM which are informed by the preferences of the players which... are imperfect, ill-defined, and almost always poorly explained.

To chalk it up to error, of a kind that "should" be caught up front, is just going to make people feel bad and stressed, and like solving the problem is putting a shameful patch on it. In reality, that "patch" might be a far better answer than anyone could have come up with upfront. And this is, largely, how fictional worlds and characters are created.

Choosing to engage in the game by having your character make logical choices (for them) in pursuit of their goals, is called playing a role playing game.

Fine. But, as is mentioned below, "logical" doesn't mean "this one thing is what my character would do." It's enough that the player and everyone at the table finds it plausible that the character would do that thing. And guess what: when what's going on in front of us is entertaining and engaging, our standard for what's "plausible" is much lower. This is why a brilliant rocket scientist can enjoy Star Trek: they know that what's going on is not "logical" but they enjoy it enough not to poke at it. Poking at it would just pull them out of they thing they're enjoying.

The thing is, the Character doesn't have those motives. The Player assigns those motives to the Character, making the motives a metagame construct. "I, Rorik Ebonblade, wish to be the richest mercenary in all the land" is rooted in exactly the same motivation as "I, [Amphetryon,] wish to be able to write 'eleventy billion gold' in the Wealth slot on my Character sheet with the GM's express consent." The former is simply disguised under an additional layer of 'good game-speak.' A Character truly having motives that are without any knowledge or consent on the part of the Player is either impossible, so near to impossible as to be a statistical anomaly, or an indication of needing professional help from a mental health expert.

Eh, I think it's generally best to avoid any implication that someone might have a mental disorder.

I don't understand it and I'm rather disturbed by it, but I know people who will swear blind that they do undergo some sort of mental shift whereby they really aren't making any out-of-character considerations. I don't know how, and I doubt they really do it, but I can't really prove they don't. Even if I could, I bet they'd still never admit it.

And what's really wild is that if what their character does bothers another player, it's that player who is out of line, for taking in-game happenings personally. So, I strongly recommend not playing with people who think about the game drastically differently than you do.

I think the point is that there are levels. It's not a binary division between "what my character would do" and "what I, as a player, want my character to do." Part of the flaw in that analysis - and I'm not accusing anyone of having made such an analysis - is assuming that there is only one course, at any given time, that a character would take.

Right, thank you. This is important.

When you do something "because that's what my character would do," irrespective of player knowledge, that's good role playing. But when you do it knowing, as a player, that it will slow down the plot, frustrate the players or GM, or generally make things unpleasant (as opposed to challenging, which is a different thing), that may be good role playing, but it's being a bad role player. Some ability to use player knowledge, if for no other purpose than to keep the game from grinding to a halt, isn't a bad thing.

Yeah, the response I got from someone when I confronted them about annoying in-game behavior is that I was the bad roleplayer, because I was trying to resolve an in-game conflict out-of-game. The player claimed no responsibility for or control over the character and so talking to the player about it was pointless and foolish, according to them. Of course, I see that as a brilliant way to needle people via the game, but there's no way you'd ever get them to admit that. Fortunately, what he was doing was merely annoying and not abusive or disturbing, since by his logic he'd have no responsibility for that, either.

Since then, I make sure I know whether another person at the table is like this before I start playing with them. Neither of us is in the right, necessarily, but we're both going to make the other miserable.

[Frozen_Feet]

The metagame is crucial - it is the reason players need to think "why would my character accept this quest" instead of "why would my character refuse this quest." It's why parties of diverse individuals stay together and stay balanced between one another. It's why players and DMs decide to use or not use particular abilities in order to maximize the group's enjoyment of what is fundamentally just a game.

Refusing the metagame leads to Tippyverses, where all individual actors act rationally to maximize the achievement of their desires through every tool available to them.

Hah, no. What leads to a Tippyverse-like play (actual Tippyverse being impossible without specific game mechanics) is a bunch of logically inclined players who know their ruleset inside-out. Metagame or lack thereof is tangential to it. There's no direct link whatsoever between refusing to metagame and playing efficiently.

Most people who don't, or fail, to metagame in the way you describe are new players who haven't learned it yet. They usually can't be described as playing very rationally or maximizing anything either, because they haven't learned those either. The only thing in your statement that does hit the mark is that in absence of metagame, RPG characters tend to act more as inviduals than as a party, as the concept that player characters should act as a team is itself a metagame assumption, and one that can be rather trivially be done away with even in games that traditionally center around such play.

---

Back on topic, whenever a player tries to utilize information their character should be blatantly ignorant of, as a GM I just say "your character doesn't know that" and require them to come up with a different action, or at least a different justification. This doesn't mean I'm opposed to metagaming - quite the opposite. But it's the responsibility of the player to maintain plausible deniability and translate their decisions to legitimate in-game, in-character moves, no matter how much those moves are informed by metagame considerations in actuality.

[Beta Centauri]

Back on topic, whenever a player tries to utilize information their character should be blatantly ignorant of, as a GM I just say "your character doesn't know that" and require them to come up with a different action, or at least a different justification. This doesn't mean I'm opposed to metagaming - quite the opposite. But it's the responsibility of the player to maintain plausible deniability and translate their decisions to legitimate in-game, in-character moves, no matter how much those moves are informed by metagame considerations in actuality.

Why is is the responsibility of the player? That implies that it's not in anyone else's interest to maintain plausible deniability or translate those decisions, which in turn implies that those decisions are only ever inconvenient for others at the table. It also implies that there's some arbitrary bar that the player has to meet in order to get the GM's approval, and a bar like that can easily be moved out of the player's reach if the GM wants to do so.

Many is the time that I've been the GM and a player has wanted to do something that I thought was cool, but that the player couldn't justify. It used to be that I would say, yeah, sorry, your character wouldn't do that. These days, I try to help them come up with a reason. And why wouldn't I? I like what they're trying to do, and it doesn't matter to me where they get the idea for justifying it. And my bar is generally quite low: if the player thinks its a good justification, then my default is to agree. Why wouldn't it be?

The key example of this is the introduction of a new character into a group, especially if it has some trait that's offensive to another character. The player doesn't want to attack the other player's new character, but the character plausibly might. The player may feel they have no choice but to attack. That's when I think it's a good thing for another person at the table to offer some reason why the character wouldn't attack, either drawing from an existing fact about the game, or establishing some fact that is plausible and non-contradictory and would be known to the character.

I know some people would say, yeah, attacking him is logical, so let's see what happens, but that's what they enjoy: just seeing how the simulation plays out. Not everyone enjoys that, and I think it's reasonable that people get to spend their free time doing a thing they enjoy in a way they enjoy doing it. Of course, if the people involved can't agree on a way to enjoy it, then they'll probably have to part ways.