Metagaming

[Kaptin Keen]

Yes. Why is charging a carrion crawler "willfully suicidal" and disrupting the game? What is the party meant to do against a carrion crawler? Run away?

Look - the correct answer is no. You do not, in actual fact, understand the example.

The example isn't 'charging a carrion crawler'. The example is 'using player knowledge to predict a situation that will be detrimental to the character'.

That propably sounds condescending, but I just cannot come up with a different way to say it - so my honest apologies, but you need to read my post in the way I meant it, or any discussion is futile.

Examples come in two kinds. A sparrow is an example of a bid. And an apple falling from the tree is an example of how gravity works. One is to specify, and the other is more of an analogy.

My example is the latter, and ... going into the specifics of whether charging is suicidal or not is quite simply missing the point.

[Kaptin Keen]

The flaw here is that you are not even playing a game then. If you will just go around or auto win any encounter or challage or obstical.....why even play the game?

Of course I am. It's totally possible to play the metagame. And two can play at that game - the GM is totally entitled to change up monsters, throwing players off with new spins on stuff they thought they knew.

But it's a different game. Last session, tuesday this week, we fought a dragon turtle. Since it was a published scenario, I knew we'd have a chance of defeating it - otherwise I'd have recommended we run for the hills. But because I knew (metagaming) that we should be able to win, I started looking more closely at the battlefield, spotting all the places the dragon turtle would be squeezing, all the things that could be ignited, or collapsed on it.

But figuring that a published campaign wouldn't have an unwinnable fight in it was purest metagaming. We won too - though I'm fairly sure the GM deliberately cut my character down in the second round of combat. And that's fair =)

Though I guess you are also saying a DM should use a lot more new/unknown stuff. Then the players simply won't know what to do and won't have to ''act dumb", right?

And yes, you're right: The GM should use new stuff - or spice up the old stuff.

Also, apologies for double posting.

[Boci]

Look - the correct answer is no. You do not, in actual fact, understand the example.

The example isn't 'charging a carrion crawler'. The example is 'using player knowledge to predict a situation that will be detrimental to the character'.

Okay sure, but the specifics of the example you choose isimportant. Maybe next time you should choose a better specific set of details to illustrate your point, rather than placing the burdon on the reader to understand what you meant.

As for your example, I disagree. Maybe you like to play that, wonderful, enjoy playing, but you likely wouldn't enjoy my games, where you are generally not expected to use player knowledge your character doesn't have to avoid a detrimental situation. I guess we aren't sensible and expirienced enough for your liking.

[Quertus]

So, the umpteen-bajillionth time I was forced to "roleplay" through my character being ignorant of what a werewolf was until the village idiot / wise woman / whatever explained it to the party, I started keeping track of exactly who knew what, who trained whom, etc.

That depends on the group and the game and the situation.

Example 1: The D&D group I'm playing with is currently going through a puzzle-based dungeon, and having lots of fum trying to solve the puzzles. Virtually all puzzle-solving is metagaming.

One puzzle was completing a sequence of green and red gems. I eventually figured out that the green one represented prime numbers. Well, I have a math-based Ph.D., but Gwydion does not.

A sphinx asked us a riddle: "Name three successive days without saying Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, ...". I replied, "Yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

This kind of game is enjoyable, challenging, ... and metagaming.

Similarly, any game that involves solving a mystery, or reaching a conclusion, or even competent melee tactics, requires either throwing dice for each decision, or some degree of meta-gaming. Most people don't think of melee tactics as metagaming, but if you used your intelligence rather than your character's, then it technically is.

... Hmmm... I don't think of "player skills" as "metagaming". Role-playing is "use character's knowledge / skill"; metagaming is using something else instead. But, in the case of player skill, it's not "instead", because "use character knowledge/skill" returned "error: file not found".

Maybe I'm just being naive, but I think that that "instead" matters.

And a lot of that latter part is rooted in the unspoken assumption that PCs "should" all start out as largely green and ignorant, the classic "farm boy call to adventure" cliche.

Dreadfully not interested, personally.

Of course, I *am* thoroughly delighted to be completely ignorant of the setting, both in character and out, and run someone "not from around here", to get to experience the Exploration of the setting.

Because adventurers never write books,

They don't. Academics, like Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, write books.

And other players have reported similar things on these forums.

I'll echo the validity of this statement.

[Pippa the Pixie]

Okay sure, but the specifics of the example you choose isimportant. Maybe next time you should choose a better specific set of details to illustrate your point, rather than placing the burdon on the reader to understand what you meant.

Maybe a Rust Monster would be a better example?

The charcters are deep underground in some ruins and see a odd roundish four legged creature with a tail and two long feelers.

The metagaming cheating players will say "Oh, we back up and rempve the metal from our characters and then move forward to attack the rust monster with only wooden weapons".

If it's just going to be Encounter Monster A-> Do metagaming cheat A-> auto win the encounter.....then your not playing much of a game.

Yes, the 2nd time your character encounters such a monster you can act with wisdom....but at this point it's not metagaming: it's simply using known game knowadge.

So, the umpteen-bajillionth time I was forced to "roleplay" through my character being ignorant of what a werewolf was until the village idiot / wise woman / whatever explained it to the party, I started keeping track of exactly who knew what, who trained whom, etc.

I get that some DMs want to have a sort of ''first time" expereince.....but it's just beyond odd to do it with something so common.

Some things, like say a werewolf, are just so common that nearly every geek/gamer/role player/fantasy fan knows what they are....and it least a bit of ''common lore".

So to ask players to stumble around and pretend they don't know what a werewolf is.....that is just silly.

There are, after all, two ways for a DM to get that ''first time" experence:

1.Use new/unique/unknown monsters. Really...this is SO simple. And it's even a thousand times better if you use a real lore monster that does not fit the ''tradational Hollywood/common knowladge. The Kludde is an evil spirt that can take the from of a cat, a snake, a frog, a horse and even as a tree or a shrub.......and also a winged black dog with a blue flame flickering around. Bet there is like a 1% chance anyone has heard of them....

2.Play with new clueless players. Again, this is not so hard.....there plenty of them to pick from.

[Boci]

I get that some DMs want to have a sort of ''first time" expereince.....but it's just beyond odd to do it with something so common.

Some things, like say a werewolf, are just so common that nearly every geek/gamer/role player/fantasy fan knows what they are....and it least a bit of ''common lore".

So to ask players to stumble around and pretend they don't know what a werewolf is.....that is just silly.

Maybe its because I played WoD which can often involve "pretend your character doesn't know werrewolves/vampires are real", but I wouldn't find the above unreasonable. If a good DM has us fight werewolves but tells us we don't know what they are or their weakness, I can totally feign not knowing to use silver on them.

I get that not everyone wants to do that, and if it wouldn't work for my players I would change something so they don't have to feign ignorance, either by having it known werewolves are vulnerable to silver, or changing the shifter mythology, like borrowing some influence from WoD wereravens or werecoyottees.

[Talakeal]

It happened to me back in the day, literally.

And other players have reported similar things on these forums.

A few months ago I was running some new characters on their second adventure and I made them roll a knowledge check to tell if the small humanoids they encountered were goblins or kobolds.

[zinycor]

I guess immersion is the thing which breeds Pippa's argument. Which has never been a priority on my games, that's why am having so much trouble understanding it.

[JNAProductions]

I guess immersion is the thing which breeds Pippa's argument. Which has never been a priority on my games, that's why am having so much trouble understanding it.

Eh... It goes beyond that, methinks. You can have a good, immersive game that still includes some amount of metagaming.

The biggest one probably being making sure the PCs stick together, for the most part.

[Max_Killjoy]

I guess immersion is the thing which breeds Pippa's argument. Which has never been a priority on my games, that's why am having so much trouble understanding it.

For a long time, all my own PCs have been knowledgable -- that way I don't have to play dumb or feign naive, and I don't have to metagame, neither of which is good for my sense of immersion.

[AMFV]

That's fair, though've never encountered that problem in an actual game. When I tell my players not to metagame it means that the characters haven't read and memorized the monster manuals, even if they have, not that they cannot make deductions based on what they percieve.

The problem is that there is no way to make the players aware of everything the characters perceive. Sights, smells, general feelings about things, those are very different for something that you are perceiving in person, from something that is being narrated to. Basically there are context clues that would probably inform a particular action that we might not know about, and those I think are fine. There is of course a spectrum, knowing that trolls (which are not uncommon monsters in most settings) are vulnerable to fire or acid is not something I would say even takes a knowledge roll. There are things that would, like knowing what type of nests trolls build, or their taxonomy, or very specific weaknesses, or about specific trolls in specific areas.

[Pippa the Pixie]

I guess immersion is the thing which breeds Pippa's argument. Which has never been a priority on my games, that's why am having so much trouble understanding it.

Maybe examples from other games?

Battleship: if you look at your oppoents board to see where they places thier ships...and then just attck those set locations: this is metagame cheating.

Clue:You read the cards and just solve the 'murder'

The biggest one probably being making sure the PCs stick together, for the most part.

Metagaming is cheating....so it's not really right to call good things that are not cheating ''metagaming".

This needs it's own name....like Social Grouping, or something:

When a couple people sit down to play a game together...they have to play the game together. Even if your ''character" does not like another players ''character". You are both players in a game, and you must work it out.

The above is not metagaming. There is no cheating and no using information to your advantage.

[AMFV]

Maybe examples from other games?

Battleship: if you look at your oppoents board to see where they places thier ships...and then just attck those set locations: this is metagame cheating.

Clue:You read the cards and just solve the 'murder'

But those games are first and foremost, competitive, do not involve portraying a role, and are far less complex. Also the examples you gave would probably not constitute metagaming, they are rather directly cheating.

Metagaming in Battleship would be something like this: "I know that John always puts a ship on A5, so I'm going to start there." That would be as close to metagaming as you can get in Battleship. You can't really use knowledge of the systems or rules to gain any sort of advantage in either game (Battleship or Clue), which is what metagaming is.

What you're describing would be something like deliberately seeking out and reading the module you're playing, or stealing the DM's notes.

[Talakeal]

For a long time, all my own PCs have been knowledgable -- that way I don't have to play dumb or feign naive, and I don't have to metagame, neither of which is good for my sense of immersion.

This. So much this.

[CharonsHelper]

Metagaming is kinda important for group games, especially when a new character needs to be introduced midgame. I don't RP my suspicions as much for a new PC joining the party than for an NPC, because well, it wouldn't be fun for my character to reject them. Even joked about this before:

"Hello two random strangers we've never met before in a tavern. We're off to save the realms from the Blood God. You two seem like the trustworthy sort. Would you like to come along?"

Classic scene from The Gamers (the first 30 seconds or so) - "You seem trustworthy!"

[Pleh]

Metagaming is cheating....so it's not really right to call good things that are not cheating ''metagaming".

This needs it's own name....like Social Grouping, or something:

You don't win an argument by redefining the terms unless you can show the alternative definitions to be in some way superior.

Metagame is not defined as cheating, except by you. We all agree it can be, not must be, cheating.

Maybe read that AngryDM article Tanarii shared. That's the definition that your definition is competing with. You have to make a more convincing definition and argument than that to be persuasive.

[zinycor]

Metagaming is cheating....so it's not really right to call good that are not cheating ''metagaming".

I don'y think most people agree with this, I most certainly don't.

As said by others some forms of metagaming (like reading ahead on the adventure book) is considered cheating. But others (like your character knowing trolls weakness to fire) are not, since they can be easily explained.

Personally, I don't see the appeal on having to play dumb.

[Saintheart]

Certainly support the suggestions to look at the Angry DM article: it made my life a hell of a lot easier in adjudicating this sort of stuff. That said, a few observations:

First, 3.5 implicitly assumes that players will metagame. The evidence for that is in the first Monster Manual, page 8: "The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the player characters." Which in short means that the game is expecting at least the characters, i.e. the players themselves to have some knowledge of at least some of the monsters some of the time and what they're capable of. The Monster Manual does not contain any text in it that says "For DM's eyes only" -- indeed there are rules around when a monster itself can be used as a player character, so the suggestion that a player who looks at the monster's statblock is committing some sort of breaking of the rules akin to looking round the other side of the table while playing Battleship is really reaching. Apples against oranges.

Second, monster statblocks have to be understood for what they are. They are primarily intended to tell the DM what a monster can and can't do during combat rounds. That is, they are there primarily to tell the DM when it's time to end an encounter already and do something else. Those stats are not statements of objective truth, they are numbers that tell the DM "This is how often the fighter hits it, this is how often a mage's spell affects it, this is how fast it can close with the cleric, this is whether or not the rogue's weapons do it much damage." That's it.

My point being, the stats are not conditions for victory as such, they ultimately come down to being a guide for when the encounter is getting boring; no DM is bound to run a combat right down to the last opponent's last hitpoint, in fact there's a good argument that if the combat has hit the point where it's going to just be a beatdown on the unfortunate Rust Monster, it's time to end the combat without another roll, give the players the XP, and move on. Because the narrative question, which generates the tension in the encounter -- "Will the party lose any of its metal weapons on top of a few HP?" -- has been answered with a firm 'No'.

Third: an encounter is ultimately about choices. Specifically, the choices the players make. In the case of a combat encounter, the relevant choices are the strategies the players use in order to make the enemy die or flee (or maybe force it to negotiate). Different character classes have different first-order, go-to strategies to make these things happen. The fighter charges and hits, thief circles round and shanks, mage casts spells, cleric buffs and heals. At least in theory, the ideal encounter is one where a no-casualties strategy to defeat the enemy isn't immediately apparent, and the party therefore has to experiment. Ranged attacks don't work - huh, the enemy's got Wind Wall or DR 5/slashing, we're going to have to think of something else. When the party does figure out a solution that works -- especially an unorthodox one that ideally you the DM didn't think of -- that's what generates the main pleasure in the encounter. (There are other forms of pleasure so generated - critical hits are one - but notice that the main thrill one gets out of a critical hit is that it's unexpected, that it possibly changes the strategy you've got a little bit.)

What the metagamer does, in the most obvious cases, is cut the number of possible strategies for dealing with the encounter down to one. "It's a Rust Monster, stow your metal weapons and beat it to death like a baby harp seal!" And

If you run into that situation, you then have two options: you can either concede that strategy and let the encounter play out in accordance with it (and do it quick smart. Pointless combats are death in D&D.)
... or you can make something unexpected happen, i.e. make the characters consider a different strategy to resolve the encounter. (And notice I said resolve the encounter, not resolve the combat. These are very different things.)

Metagaming player: "It's a Rust Monster, stow your metal weapons and beat it to death like a baby harp seal!"
DM: "Surprisingly, the Rust Monster doesn't charge in. It hesitates, its dark insectoid eyes suddenly filled with doubt. Then it turns ... and begins to emit a high-pitched squealing, full of terror, at a nearby cave wall. It backs away, thrashing its feelers at that wall."

Tell me that wouldn't make the previously-confident metagaming players hesitate too. And we changed their focus, changed their strategy: what the hell is scaring the Rust Monster? What are we dealing with here? What do we do now?

That is, we forced them to consider changing their strategy for solving this encounter. At this point, even if they still beat the hell out of the Rust Monster, we've given them agency. We've given them a choice. We have fed them another blue pill and kept them in the Matrix for a few moments longer.

This is why the Monster Manual contains 'permission' for the DM to mess with the monster stats so as to give the player characters a surprise - because if you have to come up with a different strategy for dealing with an encounter, it generates interest. That said, this is best done before the game, when planning the encounter. And I further suggest that you only do it once in the encounter -- because it is very easy for sudden changes in tactics by a monster to be seen as the DM trying to positively shut down the players' strategies for solving an encounter. That is indeed a DM screwjob because you are -- for no good reason, I repeat, for no good reason at all -- trying to keep the players from making choices. You are trying -- at best -- to force them into one strategy for solving an encounter. You know what that's called? Railroading, and that's a failure of DMing far greater than a failure of PCing by a player's metagaming.

Want to no longer be bothered by metagaming? Understand what an encounter really is and design better ones. D&D fails at helping DMs to do this, but that's part of why forums like this exist.

[Kaptin Keen]

I guess we aren't sensible and expirienced enough for your liking.

Yes - that's very good. Take it personally. Very mature and reasonable. And it's both reassuring and entertaining to know that the carrion crawlers in your groups setting needn't worry about going hungry.

The specifics of the example are not important. I'm telling you a character can tell in advance that he has the choice between two actions (charging an opponent that will gobble him up - or safely kiting it), and that he knows which of those actions will succeed and which is likely to fail, because of player knowledge.

You don't need to even look at the specifics. You just need to realise that option one means a reroll, and option two means xp and loot.

So what you generally do - and several posters have said as much - is you disguise your metagaming. You state that 'well, my barbarian Joe isn't charging that thing, that looks dangerous AF. I'm going to kite it to death with my bow!' Which is something a barbarian can easily do, because he has 40 movement, and the carrion crawler has only 30.

But it's still metagaming.

[Boci]

Yes - that's very good. Take it personally.

Don't worry, I wasn't taking it personally. I'm just using a little snark to remind you not to pass off your table play style or your own preference as what should bbe expected at every "sensible" and "expirienced" gaming table.

The problem is that there is no way to make the players aware of everything the characters perceive. Sights, smells, general feelings about things, those are very different for something that you are perceiving in person, from something that is being narrated to. Basically there are context clues that would probably inform a particular action that we might not know about, and those I think are fine. There is of course a spectrum, knowing that trolls (which are not uncommon monsters in most settings) are vulnerable to fire or acid is not something I would say even takes a knowledge roll. There are things that would, like knowing what type of nests trolls build, or their taxonomy, or very specific weaknesses, or about specific trolls in specific areas.

The problerm is you seem to be manufactoring problems. I never said players had to make a roll to know fire and acid trolls if they were uncommon in the setting, in fact my one story about it was me allowing players to do that. I just didn't correct them when they made a mistake, because it seemed a mistake one could reasonable make when relying on stories and legends.

[LudicSavant]

I'll add to the voices recommending to read the Angry DM article.

[Kaptin Keen]

Don't worry, I wasn't taking it personally. I'm just using a little snark to remind you not to pass off your table play style or your own preference as what should bbe expected at every "sensible" and "expirienced" gaming table.

Well, that's a relief. However, I'm not going to preface every statement I ever make with a IMO, or similar disclaimer that my opinion isn't universally applicable fact.

[OldTrees1]

Well, that's a relief. However, I'm not going to preface every statement I ever make with a IMO, or similar disclaimer that my opinion isn't universally applicable fact.

RE: Your argument with Boci
Sometimes it is hard to tell whether you know your opinion isn't universally true. This is especially true if you follow up by claiming someone disagreeing with you clearly failed to understand your example (also that is dangerous waters considering the forum rules for this forum). If it was a subjective opinion then clearly merely having a difference of opinion does not make someone incapable of understanding. Such a follow up opinion/claim clearly signals that you meant the former as a claim about objective truth rather than sharing a subjective opinion. Currently you are implying you miscommunicated back there. Obviously you don't have to preface every statement you ever make just as I have not included a preface to this statement. However clearly you failed to communicate (or are trying to retcon the context) so it is wise to be mindful of that in future.


PS: I understand you don't enjoy playing characters less knowledgeable than yourself. So a greater degree of metagaming makes sense when you are surrounded by others that share that opinion. In contrast the Horror genre can often be found more enjoyable when the audience (the players) know just a bit more than the characters (the PCs). So clearly there are times when the exact same metagaming could be either good or bad based upon who is playing.

[Boci]

Well, that's a relief. However, I'm not going to preface every statement I ever make with a IMO, or similar disclaimer that my opinion isn't universally applicable fact.

As OldTrees1 said, you don't have to preface EVERY statement with an IMO, but some benefit from it, like the opinion that "X is expected and sensible in any experienced group".

So what you generally do - and several posters have said as much - is you disguise your metagaming. You state that 'well, my barbarian Joe isn't charging that thing, that looks dangerous AF. I'm going to kite it to death with my bow!' Which is something a barbarian can easily do, because he has 40 movement, and the carrion crawler has only 30.

When I initially asked for details on the carrion crawler encounter, you said it was unimportant, but you're return to it implying maybe it is. So, what edition of D&D are you playing that a carrion crawler is such a dangerous foe that the barbarian doesn't want to charge it? Or are you assuming its a random encounter against 1st or 2nd level PCs?

[Kaptin Keen]

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether you know your opinion isn't universally true.

No. However, it is universally true that it's virtually impossible to have a conversation with anyone looking constantly for any excuse to be offended.

This is especially true if you follow up by claiming someone disagreeing with you clearly failed to understand your example.

He clearly didn't, though. I clarified, because if he want's to argue a point I've made - he needs to target the point. My point wasn't what he was targeting, so what, pray tell, would you have me do?

If it was a subjective opinion then clearly merely having a difference of opinion does not make someone incapable of understanding. Such a follow up opinion/claim clearly signals that you meant the former as a claim about objective truth rather than sharing a subjective opinion. Currently you are implying you miscommunicated back there. Obviously you don't have to preface every statement you ever make just as I have not included a preface to this statement. However clearly you failed to communicate (or are trying to retcon the context) so it is wise to be mindful of that in future.

I didn't say he was incapable, but it's clear that he misunderstood. It also seems clear that he understood once I explained. I'm not making any sort of statements about Boci's understanding, I'm clearing up confusion.

I am not going to pad my words for fear someone mistakes my opinions for declarations of universal truth. That is a condensate of utter madness. The expression of opinion is as universal as comments about the weather - and if someone perceives a given opinion as preaching universal truth, the problem is theirs, not mine.

PS: I understand you don't enjoy playing characters less knowledgeable than yourself.

No, you do not. While riding your high horse, kindly refrain from stuffing your assumptions about me down my throat. You know precisely zip of any sort about me.

[Quertus]

Metagaming is cheating....so it's not really right to call good things that are not cheating ''metagaming".

This needs it's own name....like Social Grouping, or something:

The above is not metagaming. There is no cheating and no using information to your advantage.

You don't win an argument by redefining the terms unless you can show the alternative definitions to be in some way superior.

Metagame is not defined as cheating, except by you. We all agree it can be, not must be, cheating.

Maybe read that AngryDM article Tanarii shared. That's the definition that your definition is competing with. You have to make a more convincing definition and argument than that to be persuasive.

I thoroughly agree that metagaming is not *defined* as cheating. However, the way I was taught to play, all forms of metagaming were vilified - role-playing was the "greater good". It took me quite some time to see that not all metagaming was inherently evil / cheating / whatever.

[Kaptin Keen]

I thoroughly agree that metagaming is not *defined* as cheating. However, the way I was taught to play, all forms of metagaming were vilified - role-playing was the "greater good". It took me quite some time to see that not all metagaming was inherently evil / cheating / whatever.

I was actually taught the same way. It's only because I'm a mean old cynic that I eventually arrived at the conclusion that this view of metagaming would also serve wonderfully as a crutch for less inventive GM's =)

[MoiMagnus]

The metagaming is when the players are more important than the characters.

Going to the extreme, having your 8 Int 8 Sag character making tactically sound choices while fighting is metagaming (I mean, a 8 Int 8 Sag character may not remark that its actions will give to its opponents the possibility to flank him). Similarly, solving a puzzle/riddle with your own intelligence rather than with an Int check is metagaming.

Metagaming isn't bad by itself. However, it is true a lot of uses of metagaming are bad and negative to the game. Everything depends on conventions and expectations between players and DMs.

If you're making an exploration or plot centered game, using your personal knowledge of the universe will undermine the fun of the whole group, as you skip the interesting parts. But if you're on a game of "munchkin players vs munchkin DM", you are probably expected to know by heart how to beat the enemies from the Monster Manual that are the most dangerous against your build.

[Knaight]

This whole discussion focus on knowing the monster manual is ridiculous. If the interest in your game is based on a series of fights that don't even hold up without the players feigning ignorance you need to step up your GMing. Even if it's all about just the combat you can make interesting fights that stay interesting when they're comparatively transparent - there are plenty of tactics games which clearly illustrate this. If it's not just about the combat then all that depth elsewhere can be useful instead.

That's not to say that metagaming can't be done harmfully. We've all heard stories about that player who knows how to make gunpowder, and so their illiterate iron age tribesman does too, every action involved described, regardless of how little sense said tribesman rowing out to some remote desert island to collect guano actually makes in character.

It can also be done very beneficially, in some styles. Deep immersion tends not to particularly benefit, but even there there's some scene management going on, in terms of what does and doesn't get focus, pacing time, switching focus between PCs when parties are split at opportune times, etc. That's just the GM side. Moving away from deep immersion a bit and there are other potential benefits. The actual term "metagaming" doesn't see much use here, but "author stance" and "actor stance" have a lot of words written on them about specifics. Examples include deliberately setting up other players character scenes, making character decisions that are more narratively interesting and that generally lead to a smoother group dynamic (keeping in mind that any given character can generally do multiple things at any given time while still in character unless they're really 1D; Rich Burlew himself even has a pretty decent article on it), and even things like not splitting the party in D&D because leaving half the players to wait for the other half to have a half hour combat scene is considered rude.

[Earthwalker]

Whelp not going to try to define metagaming as that will just lead to a nice circular argument about how my definition doesn’t cover aspect x or y.

I would like to move the discussion on metagaming into the area of metagame currencies as I believe they are known. It’s an issue that annoys me (mostly because I come up against GMs with conflicting goals set up in the system they are playing)

So the GM..
a) Hates Metagaming
b) Wants to use a system with metagame currencies.

In the example I will go with Pathfinder and Hero Points. Hero Points are a meta game currency that the player has control over, in no way is the character aware of them. It’s a tool used by a player to smooth out some random from the game. They allow you to re-roll a dice, add a value on the result of a die, I think they have an effect that saves a character from dying. (its been a while).
Let’s just deal with the

Give +4 to a action after the dice is rolled
And
Allows you to re-roll the dice.

So Jack McStab the Rogue is in position for his super nashwan power sneak death ninja blow. If he hits he is going to total murderize the NPC.

He rolls and gets a 15 + 9 for 24. The GM tells him it’s a miss.

So Jack’s player asks what AC the bad guy has. He is wondering weather to spend a hero point on bumping up the attack roll by 4 making sure he hits or not. If the bad guys AC is like 29 he may as well not bother re-rolling or raising the dice result.

Of course the GM hates metagaming… so he won’t tell Jacks player the AC.

So there we are. Jacks player has a way to influence the dice but not the knowledge to know if influencing the dice is useful. So why give out the metagame currency?