Quote from: RedFoxI'm not a fan of metagame thinking, and I prefer to discourage it when I GM.  When I play, I'd rather keep it the furthest thing from my mind possible.

If there's one problem that's infesting modern games, it's too much metagame thinking.  Or the assumption of a great deal of it.  Most of those "Forge-based" games I dislike have players thinking in terms of plot coupons or motivation mechanics or whateverthefuck when they should (IMO and IMG) be thinking about whether or not Tordek wants to stick his hand in that hole to get the loot.

I can't speak about the full breadth of these games but from the reading and playing I've done (slated for a DITV game this Saturday) it seems more like a converging of the metagame rewards (because these have been there a looooong time, hello XP) with what the character motivations are.

So 'XP' are for Tordek being whoever Tordek is. Not for Tordek wacking another rat, to borrow some MMOG terminology. Of course when Tordek's goal was/is wacking rats then that killing XP does the job or if reaching into the hole to get the gold was Tordek's thing, using that old gold=XP rule, then it worked. But when this wasn't/isn't the case you ended up with players thinking about both things lest they be the rat that gets wacked or end up destitute on the streets.

EDIT: Very often you ended up with the players not thinking about the character motivations at all because focusing on the other was the action that was rewarded by the game. Or you ended up with characters who had the incredibily superficial 'motivation' of wacking rats or grabbing the gold from the hole that were really just pure metagaming with the cheap coat of paint already peeling off.

I'm familiar with the ritual discourse piece but thanks for reminding me as I haven't read it in ages but it did remind me of how bad and muddled an essay it was in the first place and why I so massively failed to enjoy the qualitative methods classes I had at grad school.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI don't think it's possible to prepare a game to the extent to which this type of thing doesn't go on.  It's an integral part of the game.

Are you saying that GMs cannot prepare enough for the level of effort players will put into some aspect of the game, and at that point the balance of power between the GM and other players is different than normal?

If you are, and you think it's good, then why do you think it is good?

I've seen this happen before, but I've never done it as a GM.  I'm always prepared for the things my group tries.  I don't think it's something I would seek.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalBy this I don't mean that I cheat, I simply mean that for me the important knowledge to be had at a gaming table is not knowledge of the game's rules or the game setting but of the GMs decision making processes.

When I GM, I try to play the game setting and I roll dice -- a lot -- to decide what happens.  My goal is to not be predictable or make overtly meta-game decisions.  I'm guessing that my GMing style would drive you nuts.

I think that for a game like D&D, if you can metagame the DM to alter major elements then they are, as Settembrini says, not well enough prepared.  If you make suggestions about minor things (eg. "Hey, make the Inn Keeper like the guy from Les Miserables!") and the GM goes with it -- that's awesome.

Learning to game your GM is crucial for success - for maximum effectivenes you must come to understand what ideas they will be receptive to and what ideas they will stamp on.

It is just understanding the Real Rules under which the campaign operates.

Quote from: StuartI think that for a game like D&D, if you can metagame the DM to alter major elements then they are, as Settembrini says, not well enough prepared.  If you make suggestions about minor things (eg. "Hey, make the Inn Keeper like the guy from Les Miserables!") and the GM goes with it -- that's awesome.

  No, it's more about the gaps in the GM's preparedness.  Some stuff he'll be attached to and other stuff he'll be improvising or not having done that much work on.  If the GM has stuff actually written down I'd be surprised he changed it.

  It's also not a question of making suggestions, more a question of thinking out loud in front of the GM.  So you might discuss a raid on a custom's house and whilst making the plan you'd make arguments as to why they'd have less guards on at night.  On one level what you're saying is addressed to the other players in a "we can safely make this assumption" way, but on another level you're actually obliquely making the case to the GM that there are grounds for making said customs house lightly guarded.

  If your GM is the kind of guy who likes to listen to his players and feedback what you say to you, then my point is that you can influence the content of the game by intentionally changing what you say in front of the GM.

Maybe we should seperate the taxanomy of metagaming elements and the judgement upon them?
I think thast would be a wise move:

Collect the different metagaming techniques, and discuss them later.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIt's also not a question of making suggestions, more a question of thinking out loud in front of the GM.  So you might discuss a raid on a custom's house and whilst making the plan you'd make arguments as to why they'd have less guards on at night.  On one level what you're saying is addressed to the other players in a "we can safely make this assumption" way, but on another level you're actually obliquely making the case to the GM that there are grounds for making said customs house lightly guarded.

I've seen this and I think it's sort of an interesting phenomenon. I'm sure I've done this as a player, and a GM who listens is good. On the other hand, if the GM really disagrees with the argument the player's making, there's a problem. Does the GM counter-metagame and explain his viewpoint to the player? Or does the GM allow the player to continue in the error, on the theory that the character might well make exactly that sort of mistake?

Generally I prefer the GM to argue back, but discretion is called for. Basic assumptions of "how the world works" should be revealed on the theory that the characters will often know better than the players; things that are specific to the situation (like NPC motivations or whatever) should probably be left to the players to grapple with on their own.

Quote from: Erik BoielleLearning to game your GM is crucial for success - for maximum effectivenes you must come to understand what ideas they will be receptive to and what ideas they will stamp on.

It is just understanding the Real Rules under which the campaign operates.

I agree, in some campaigns and some GM philosophies, this is often not only a handy skill, but a vital survival skill!*

On the other hand, I personally prefer a game where our assumptions and preferences are out in the open and I'm not having to play "Guess what the GM's thinking." At least, not any more than I have to play "guess what any player is thinking."

Peace,
-Joel

*"Survival" including, but not limited to, avoiding character death. Referring more to the holistic goal of enjoying the game--survival of fun, not of character.