Following Droog's remarks over on the thread about whether one is a better Gm than a player, I engaged in a little introspection and I realised something about the way that I play.

In particular I'm an inveterate meta-gamer.  By 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.

By and large I'm not overly interested in rules and worldbuilding annoys me, but what I do enjoy at the gaming table are the relationships between the players and also how the GM thinks.

So I've noticed that I will do certain things at the table.

For example, some GMs will listen to what the players' take on a situation is and, if the players analyse the situation in more depth than the GM did, he'll take his cues from the players to fill in the gaps.  This effectively places quite a bit of power in the hands of the players as it means that they, in effect, get a degree of editorial control over the content of the game.  Knowing this, I will, as a player, talk up certain interpretations and minimise others despite knowing full well that another interpretation is just as credible and commensurate with what we know about a situation.

Quite frequently, in cases where the GM clearly hasn't put that much thought into a question, this means that as a player you can write your own outcome subject to some static.

Another example is knowing the GMs ideological tics.  If they see the world in a certain way then chances are that they'll motivate their NPCs in accordance with these views.  This in effect gives you, as a player, a certain amount of skill at reading the minds of NPCs.  You can make reasonable assumptions about how they are going to react.


These are two examples of ways in which, as a player, you can influence the outcome of a game purely by paying attention to the social elements of gaming.

Can anyone else think of any others?

QuoteThese are two examples of ways in which, as a player, you can influence the outcome of a game purely by paying attention to the social elements of gaming.

In Spione, it´s the only way of gaming at all. You have to make the other players like what you introduce to have your way.

Your other Metagaming technique is not new to me, but I see it as a problem. Mostly a problem with the DM. He oughta have everyting defined and thougt out beforehand, or at least a very firm grip of the plausabilities. Giving in to tricks like these is very bad in my eyes.

Quote from: SettembriniYour other Metagaming technique is not new to me, but I see it as a problem. Mostly a problem with the DM. He oughta have everyting defined and thougt out beforehand, or at least a very firm grip of the plausabilities. Giving in to tricks like these is very bad in my eyes.

  I don't think it's bad.  I 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.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI don't think it's bad.  I 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.

I find it helpful when I GM, if I don't have a view prepared or immediately suggesting it to me then the odds are it's not critical to me, a suggestion (even if I am unaware of it being made) that leads to a view that is interesting to at least one player is valuable.

After all, I'd far rather go with a player suggestion than have dead time while I check notes or think up something myself, if I care greatly I will already know what view I want to take and will ignore the suggestion.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAnother example is knowing the GMs ideological tics.  If they see the world in a certain way then chances are that they'll motivate their NPCs in accordance with these views.  This in effect gives you, as a player, a certain amount of skill at reading the minds of NPCs.  You can make reasonable assumptions about how they are going to react.

There's actually a section in Complete Warrior (page 95) that says something similar. Observe Your DM. This is largely advice on how to select feats for maximum effectiveness and how they run the game as opposed to how they view the game world, but still, it suggests the same thing as you mentioned above.

As well as ideological tics, of which more shortly, GMs may also have certain stories or characters they find more interesting and so which are more likely to occur and GMs may have pet situations or NPC types which tend to recur.

For example, Dan plays in my group and GMs sometimes.  He tends to have lots of characters motivated by honour, I don't think that reflects his view of the world, but I think it does reflect what he finds interesting in terms of character and story.

It also means he catches a motivation I often miss, the motivation that one feels good about one's own conduct.

Now, personally I tend to take a homo economicus view of the world, I see humanity as essentially self-interested with the variations from self-interest being largely driven by an inability to properly assess where one's interest lies in a situation or an inability to properly assess risk.  That's not quite like Dan's which is driven by what he finds interesting, it's ideological.  It's driven by how I see humanity as a species.

Incidentally, I must fuck with you in my next game now by introducing more ideologically motivated opponents.

That does mean of course one can to an extent make educated guesses about the ways my NPCs will tend to think, but that's fine because in the real world we have access to a whole host of social clues that are missing in a game.  Being able to read my mind makes up for the deficit in information that one would actually have within the game world.  Besides, I'm interested in what the PCs do about what's happening, not in them working it out.

Favourite situations and NPCs are more perilous I think.  If a GM really likes the plot where the patron turns out to be a traitor, they may think that they are running a mystery game where in fact the mystery is all too obvious.  Similarly, players may start to react to NPCs based not on anything actually in the game but in the way that category of NPC has acted in previous games.  Then again, this can also be useful, a way of editing out dull content.  In my games urchins are often used to run messages, not one I think has ever just absconded with the money or got the message wrong.  That's a bit unrealistic, but to be honest I'd rather have the slightly metagamey element that the players trust random urchins than the tedium of playing through Urchin:  The Betrayal.

Hm, ok, so I see four so far:

Making suggestions to guide the GM.

GM ideology

GM story and character preferences.

GM stock situations and characters.

The trick I think is to use these things knowingly, problems arise most where the GM is unaware they have these things.

Quote from: SettembriniYour other Metagaming technique is not new to me, but I see it as a problem. Mostly a problem with the DM. He oughta have everyting defined and thougt out beforehand, or at least a very firm grip of the plausabilities. Giving in to tricks like these is very bad in my eyes.

That's a little harsh, dude.  There's always room for prep that the GM didn't do.  It's part of the structure of roleplaying.  If the GM could account for every variable and every possible PC response, then we'd be playing wargames, not rpgs.

Yes, but a DM must be the "Master of the Universe", in that he can come up with the most plausible solution for the given universe. EDIT: Even at the seat of his pants.
Of course this is driven by the underlying ideological assumptions the DM makes about the setting.
So you can go meta-meta and try to use your knowledge of the DMs brain to second guess how those lead to in-Universe rulings.

That´s what Balbinus is talking about, right?

All I´m saying is it´s no good if a player knows his DM isn´t prepared well and uses his own knowledge to shoehorn the DM into something. In that case the shoehorner oughta take over the DM-seat.
If I find myself in a position where I have more knowledge of a setting or rulesset, I make it very clear that I totally trust the DM in question, and that his universe might be totally different from the official version.

Maybe I understood Mr.A wrong. I thought he basically said: If you are smarter/better informed than the DM, manipulate him. I think this is bad metagaming on a social level.

I had something like a FR setting afficionado as a player in mind.

Hope that clears that up.

Quote from: SettembriniMaybe I understood Mr.A wrong. I thought he basically said: If you are smarter/better informed than the DM, manipulate him. I think this is bad metagaming on a social level.

  What I'm saying is that, like Poker, RPGing has quite a large metagame element that isn't that commonly discussed.  What I am talking about is on the level of the GM having "tells" or noticing that novice players who want to bluff bid big from the start whereas if they have nothing, they bid just enough to make the pot grow.

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that, like Poker, RPGing has quite a large metagame element that isn't that commonly discussed.

Is that so?
I mean, that it´s not discussed?

It´s in all D&D PHBs, ain´t it?

But surely it´s interesting and it exists. Sorry to disrupt with my judgement. Your examples definitely exists.

Quote from: BalbinusAs well as ideological tics, of which more shortly, GMs may also have certain stories or characters they find more interesting and so which are more likely to occur and GMs may have pet situations or NPC types which tend to recur.

For example, Dan plays in my group and GMs sometimes.  He tends to have lots of characters motivated by honour, I don't think that reflects his view of the world, but I think it does reflect what he finds interesting in terms of character and story.

It also means he catches a motivation I often miss, the motivation that one feels good about one's own conduct.

Now, personally I tend to take a homo economicus view of the world, I see humanity as essentially self-interested with the variations from self-interest being largely driven by an inability to properly assess where one's interest lies in a situation or an inability to properly assess risk.  That's not quite like Dan's which is driven by what he finds interesting, it's ideological.  It's driven by how I see humanity as a species.

Incidentally, I must fuck with you in my next game now by introducing more ideologically motivated opponents.

That does mean of course one can to an extent make educated guesses about the ways my NPCs will tend to think, but that's fine because in the real world we have access to a whole host of social clues that are missing in a game.  Being able to read my mind makes up for the deficit in information that one would actually have within the game world.  Besides, I'm interested in what the PCs do about what's happening, not in them working it out.

  I think that last point is a really valid one.  This type of stuff shouldn't concern a GM or even interest a player unless you're having quite a confrontational or gamist style of game.

  In the real world you do make assumptions about what people want and how they think and, in general, when those pop psychological models fall apart it's rarely seen as another person getting one over on you it's more likely to result in you thinking the other person to be "not quite right".  I'm reminded of the scene at the end of Peep Show series 3 where Mark and Sophie encounter this couple in a restaurant and Mark starts going "Alert! Alert! there's something wrong with them... they'll probably offer us group sex".

  I don't meta-game all the time but I am aware of people's creative ticks and the power relationships in groups, but then I'm always aware of that kind of stuff... it's how I see the world really.

  As for fucking with us, you do.  There was the actress in Naples, the Priest in the Xenobia game and the eldest daughter in the Viking game.  We couldn't cut deals with these people and they all essentially came after us for reasons that weren't overly clear.  However, this fits rather nicely with the homo economicus thing as, in the real world, if you did meet someone that you couldn't ignore, corrupt or cut-in they would, by definition, be an enemy.  Like in the first episode of Deadwood where Swearingen assumes Wild Bill and Bullock are plotting against him just because they don't seem interested in short term gain.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWhat I'm saying is that, like Poker, RPGing has quite a large metagame element that isn't that commonly discussed.  What I am talking about is on the level of the GM having "tells" or noticing that novice players who want to bluff bid big from the start whereas if they have nothing, they bid just enough to make the pot grow.

I'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.

The metagame is the purview of the GM.  Play your guy.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think that last point is a really valid one.  This type of stuff shouldn't concern a GM or even interest a player unless you're having quite a confrontational or gamist style of game.

Perhaps not on a conscious level but actually it's crucial to the smooth functioning of a game group. I'm thinking of that "urchins as messengers" trope, for example. The fact that Balbinus has allowed this to become a standard element of his games has turned it into a sort of idiom that fosters communication.

If you have a tolerance for academic-speak I'd encourage reading (or re-reading) Chris Lehrich's article on Ritual Discourse. (Or you could probably find similar stuff in genre theory, based on what I've read from Brand Robins. Or just think about what you know from studying literature. Basically, tropes and cliches are often not merely repetitive but the foundation of communication; just as we don't invent new words every time we speak, we often use larger agglomerations of words and concepts as the building blocks of meaning.)

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.

The metagame is the purview of the GM.  Play your guy.

Totally agreed.

RPGPundit

Also, since it really seems indefensible to argue otherwise, given that the word "Theory" is right there in the title, I'm moving this thread too, to the Theory forum.

RPGPundit