Got Metagame?

[Erudite]

It doesn't look like there is really a good definition of metagame or metagame mechanics. So...

Does anyone here have an example of what constitutes a metagame mechanic?
Are they really needed in a game?
If they are needed, why do they seem elusive?

If there are some good threads on this already please post the links.

[Eero Tuovinen]

"Metagame" is mostly not used as a term of art because it's vague - there is no body of prior discourse that would use the term in an exact manner, so it's just easier to not suddenly start using it. This is a local historical incident, really - we started using other terms years ago and haven't felt the need to hone "metagame" into a theory term.

This being the state of the discourse, what we really need is for you to tell us what you mean by metagaming, what would be a metagame mechanic and so on. I've seen the word used to mean "anything that is not game-related, like shopping for food", but I've also seen it mean "the awareness of the players, in contrast to their characters, that they are just playing a game and not really living an imaginary life" and of course "game mechanics that are not initiated by events in the fiction, but rather by direct player choice".

With a term this vague, I have no idea what you'd consider a metagame mechanic. Would having the player whose character got the least amount of xp in the night's session do the dishes qualify? This mechanic concerns an issue that is traditionally outside the game (who is doing the dishes), but it is at least indirectly based on what happened in the game (whose character performed the most xp-worthy stuff). Or how about if the player who does the dishes gets a hero point that allows him to reroll a die in the game? That's the opposite situation, with the dishwashing influencing the game. And there are many other possibilities, too, but I don't know which you'd consider proper metagaming, which would be just "normal gaming" and which would be just gratuitous weirdness.

[Erudite]

I have no idea of what metagame mechanics or metagaming means really. In the groups I have gamed with we refer to metagaming when a player has their character act based on their personal knowledge and not the character's knowledge or they encourage other players to do so. I don't know if that is really what metagame means.

My limited understanding of the term meant anything that characters did that did not fit the story, or the character's "alignment", skills, goals or knowledge. These actions would usually be motivated by one or more the players' knowledge or goals instead of the character's.

I guess any game mechanics that encouraged or discouraged the above would be the only thing I can think of that would qualify as a metagame mechanic. The only thing I can remotely think of in the respect is the use of some type of alignment system in some games.

What lead me to ask the question was some of the review Ron game of games that were in his Fantasy Heartbreakers article. He mentions that these games for the most part lack metagame mechanics. He mentions a couple that have some type of metagame, but I am not familiar with those games or the mechanics.

I see that the term is basically undefined and other terms are sort of used to replace it. Maybe I should have just asked Ron what he meant directly in a PM. Too late for that now.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Heh, it's not too late to ask Ron. I'm pretty sure that it's nothing too strange, what he meant - what you said is probably pretty much it: "metagame" as the nimbus of decision-making that happens around the fiction of the game, the sphere wherein the invisible hands of the players operate to make things happen in the fiction. I don't know that the concept would make any sense in a game without a strong curtain in between the actions of the players and the actions of the characters, though - it seems to me that you can't even talk about a "metagame" without having some sort of unnaturally limited "in-game" area sectioned off, outside of which the "meta" part happens. This is true of many games which state that the players should only act through their characters and to depict their characters. In those games the "metagame" makes sense as a term, as the rules themselves quite clearly section off some game decisions as valid and others as invalid. So one might say that metagame is an useful concept for controlling the choices players make; you can accuse others of metagaming when you don't like the reasons they make their choices in the game, in other words.

[Will]

I don't have a good definition for you but I have an example...

In my regular gaming group we have one referee who carries around a box of poker chips. During play he hands these out for creatively advancing the plot, being particularly funny, surprising him with something unexpected, and whenever the whim takes him.

You can use these chips to add or subtract a +1 to any roll anyone makes. This means that during particularly tense moments there can be fierce bidding wars on a roll as everyone tries to get it right where they want it.

This isn't part of any one system but is used for whatever we play. Sometimes he even gives you chips outside of game to bring in and use and you usually can have one or two to take with you for the next game.

That's a metagame mechanic.

[David C]

If we were to apply literary terms, 'in game' would be like 1st person viewpoint.  'Metagame' would be like 3rd person view, aka, omniscience. That's why it is "metagaming" when a player has a character act on knowledge the character does not have... only the player has. 

Now, most people only think of metagaming as a negative thing. However, in most games there's usually a player who *only* metagames... the GM!  With this understanding, we can define what a metagaming mechanic is.  A metagaming mechanic is any mechanic that allows a player to direct the flow of the game (or story) without "using" their in-game character representation. So, for metagaming mechanics, we see things like...

1. the aforementioned bidding to help or hinder a character with "luck bonuses"
2. a mechanic that allows you to add plot complications, especially to other characters. (for example: as he tries to convince the council, the Baron makes a counter argument, because he's secretly being blackmailed!)
3. a mechanic that allows you to alter or define a character (for example: the king loves food and is very jolly)
4. a mechanic that allows you to narrate or frame a scene
etc. 

[Erudite]

Eero, I PM'ed Ron. Although, I think Will and David have helped.

Will, that is a great example and an interesting idea.

David, I think your explanation of comparing metagame to point of view as in first person verse third person is great. I also like your expended definition. I think your first example is the best. And, it reminds of the use of force points in the D6 Star Wars game. I have initially forgotten about that.

I think we may on to a good definition of what metagame and metagame mechanics might be. I understand from reading some of the articles here that defining metagame may be unneeded, or even may conflict with other GNS or Big Model terms and concepts, but for me I think there is some value in it. I'm going to have to ponder this...

[Vulpinoid]

Are the terms "metagame" and "mechanic" opposites? Is metagame mechanic an oxymoron?

Once a mechanic is established, the metagame become a part of the game?

I realise that this is picking at semantics and everyone is going to have different answers and opinions, but I just thought it was worth considering.

V

[David C]

Are they really needed in a game?

By examining some of the big RPGs, we can tell they aren't "needed."  However, in RPG design, anything you don't 'define' with a game mechanic will result in ad hoc playing.  Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of room for bad playing.  After all, Eero's blog is called "Game Design is about structure" for a reason.  Since RPGs tend to be more about "metagame" play than in-game play (even in D&D, the tactical scenarios widely vary and have a lot of thematic elements), it's generally wise to make a mechanic for that, or at least create a rigorous method for "metagame."

If they are needed, why do they seem elusive?

Well, they aren't intuitive.  Do you often encounter the situation where you need a rule for how to swing your sword? Yes.  Did you ever encounter a situation where you need a mechanic for how to best advance the story? Probably, but you didn't know it at the time. 

With all that said, I believe metagame mechanics usually lend themselves best to -not- gamist games.  In gamist games, the creative agenda is very competitive and players have a lot of desire to leverage advantages, and metagame mechanics tend to end up being used ass-backwards. 

[Will]

Are the terms "metagame" and "mechanic" opposites? Is metagame mechanic an oxymoron?

Once a mechanic is established, the metagame become a part of the game?

I realise that this is picking at semantics and everyone is going to have different answers and opinions, but I just thought it was worth considering.

V

An interesting point.

It could be argued that any game with a "hero point" system has a metagame mechanic, some sort of nebulous pool which you can use to push your influence into the game in a way that is an exception to the normal rules. But is it truly "meta" if it is written right there in the rulebook? My personal opinion is that yes, if it is an exception to the normal internal logic of straightforward play, and in fact the game could be played without it, then it can be called a metagame mechanic.

Where the line between a metarule and an obscure one would lie? I'm not going to try to pin it down too closely. Sure the section in the book on car chases is an exeption to the normal flow of the game and can safely be ignored, but I wouldn't call it a metarule. I vote for wide fuzzy meandering lines in this case

In my previous example I would say it deserves the prefix. It is certainly a mechanic, but it transcends not only the internal logic and structure of the game, it can wander off into other games or on occasion the real world. It is certainly a mechanic, and it undeniably effects the game, but it does not belong to that game.

-Will

[Erudite]

Okay, I think I have basic definitions for metagaming and metagame mechanics.

Metagaming: The influence of game elements, player interaction, GM action, character action, story development, or system rules that exist either within the Shared Imaginary Space (SIS) of the game or outside of the SIS that can influence the other aspect.

Metagame Mechanic: Any game mechanic that allows or encourages players or GMs to use game elements that exist either within the Shared Imaginary Space or beyond it to influence the other aspect of the game.

An example would be the use of Willpower in White Wolf's system which allows a player to grant their character automatic successes in place of an actual die roll or to add dice to the roll to settle an instance of conflict resolution. This mechanic is part of the game that exists outside of the SIS and it is used by the player of a character to influence the outcome of an action within the SIS with. The character in the SIS has no idea of how many points are in his Willpower pool or that they can be used to shift the outcome of an action. The character also doesn't know that by taking certain types of actions the Willpower pool will be refilled or improved.

For the definitions to be true we must consider a gaming session, or game system, to be divided into two basic levels; Shared Imaginary Space and all other parts of the game outside of the SIS. As far as I can tell from my gaming experience this true. This basically equates to a first person view verse a second or third person view of the SIS.

I think the metagame of many games can become a game in themselves. But I also think written and used correctly they can add a lot to the gaming experience.