Metagame & Mechanics

[MachMoth]

It's my new game.  In M&M, you play the part of a person playing a roleplaying game.  You gain experience points for actions such as taking advantage of rules, hammy acting, and shaking up your friends soda before you give it to him.  It will invoke an unbending class/level system.

Just kidding.

Actually, I'm a little confused on this issue.  What makes a mechanic a metagame mechanic, and is there such thing as a non-metagame mechanic.  Examples appreciated.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

IIRC the difference is thus:

Your character attempts to jump the ravine. You compare your character's Jumping score to the difficulty rating of the ravine and roll the appropriate dice.

That's a mechanic.

You roll poorly so you spend a point that you can use to make a failure into a success.

That's a metagame mechanic.

To be honest, I have never really cared for the distinction and even tried to start a thread about it once. Everyone else seems to like so who am I to judge?

[Andrew Martin]

What makes a mechanic a metagame mechanic, and is there such thing as a non-metagame mechanic.  Examples appreciated.

Mechanics are the rules of the game. An example of a game mechanic is adding skill level and the result of thrown dice together and comparing to a target number to determine success or failure of the character at the action.

A metagame mechanic or meta-rule alters the rules of the game. As Jack points out, the concept of a hero point system, which changes the result from failure to success when a hero point spent by the player. Metagame rules are like another layer of rules.

[Cemendur]

So, does that make meta-game mechanics anologous to trumps? Or would that make trumps a form of meta-game mechanic?

In plain english.

Are meta-game mechanics a resource to be used at an opportune moment, a form of karma mechanism? Or are they any mechanism that outranks all other mechanics? Or are they like trumps where both definitions are valid.

[Andrew Martin]

Are meta-game mechanics a resource to be used at an opportune moment, a form of karma mechanism?

Yes, but they could also be Drama or Fortune mechanics. For example, some groups playing a conventional RPG where some game system results are ignored or not rolled for, and instead, the most interesting option is chosen instead of the randomly rolled option.

Or are they any mechanism that outranks all other mechanics?

The "meta-" indicates that this is so. "Meta-rules" out rank "rules". "Meta-meta-rules" out rank "Meta-rules".

Or are they like trumps where both definitions are valid.

I'm unfamiliar with trumps, so I can't say. Yes?

[pete_darby]

I always thought meta-rules were "rules about rules," and meta-mechanics were "mechanics that affect standard mechanics."

Hmmm, to needlessly GNS here.... Pure Sim gaming pretty much disallows meta-mechnics. If it isn't simulated in the mechanics of the rules of the world (character, flavour, etc), it shouldn't be in the game.

Tangentially, meta-mechanics pretty much operate a Directorial level, AFAICS. Perhaps some slide towards authorial, but certainly not actor.

Just blowing out ideas, hoping they're wrong in all sorts of interesting ways.

[MachMoth]

Okay, so I've done some definition hunting, and I got this:
Mechanic: rules (I'd rather not reference the "What's a Mechanic" thread.  It made my head hurt.)
Metagame:  Anything that is not in the game, or is happening literally "above" the game.  Rule discussions, bathroom breaks, character creation, talking about your date last night.  Anything that happens outside of actually running the game.
Metagaming:  Out of character discussion, usually based on the game.  D&D is hypocritical on this point.  They say to avoid it, but it is gamist in nature, and thus encourages that kind of behavior.

So, by my guess, a metagame rule refers to rules that do not effect in character play, such as whether rolls count if they fall off the table, who's allowed to touch who's miniature, and how to pay for pizza and drinks.  It makes sense like this, but if that's the case, then I've been hearing the term grossly miss used on these boards.  So I'm inclined to think I'm wrong.

Actually, now that I look around, I'm seeing it used to refer to any Gamist Mechanic.  I'm a horrid gamist (and sim-ist while we are being honest) so that sort of concept is a bit lost on me.  Any gamist element I insert, usually has a narrative goal.  I'm going to shut up right there, before someone thinks they're in the wrong forum.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The problem you're running into is that there aren't just "two levels."

The biggest level, including all the others, is Social Contract. This the pizza money, who drives who to the game, and who's sleeping with whom, as well as stuff like "which rules do we just ignore," and can you say "You suck!" to another player, and so forth.

Now let's look at the rules themselves, by which we're playing.

A whole bunch of them typically concern "in-game events," just as Jack described. The character's abilities, the width of the chasm, and so forth.

In many games, you also see a few "override" rules, most notably "burn experience points for a bonus" which began as a house-rule practically from the beginnings of the hobby. These allow a person, say a player, to alter the effects of the system, whether before or after the system is applied (e.g. rolled).

Therefore the "meta" in metagame is not referring to Social Contract, but rather to the distinction between in-game causality and "inserted" effects as determined by the people who are playing. "Game" in metagame is referring to the in-game causality.

Now, to make things even trickier, a whole helluva lotta games lately have taken metagame mechanics and made them integral, even primary to play. At which point, they become ... just the mechanics, and not "meta" at all, even though in their details they are much like what were metagame mechanics in previous games.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Whoops! Forgot to include these in my post:

Check out the old thread Metagame mechanics, which laid down the terms pretty solidly. You can also read more about them in my essay GNS and other matters of role-playing theory.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The problem I have with metagame seems to be that in the big GNS essay, they're discussed as if they are on the same level as effectiveness and resources. This is similar to say you have books with red covers, books with yellow covers and you have books written in Spanish. The sketchy example I gave above describes a metagame mechanic. It is also a resource. It is both unless you have a narrow definition of what a resource can be. If so, where do you draw the line?

I understand that effectiveness and resources are meant to relate to the character. Therefore, stats are effectiveness and things like ammo are a resource. Also Hit Points are an abstract resource for character health and wounds. However, Orkworld's Trouble has been cited as a metagame mechanics, yet is also related to the character as a kharmic force brought on by the character's actions. So, is it metagame or just another resource? I think it is both.

Personally, while I can see some value to this inside character/outside character distinction, I find it more useful to only look at the mechanics as they relate to the player, in which case Trouble is simply effectiveness.

What are called metagame can be either resource or effectiveness in terms of how they are used.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Now, to make things even trickier, a whole helluva lotta games lately have taken metagame mechanics and made them integral, even primary to play. At which point, they become ... just the mechanics, and not "meta" at all, even though in their details they are much like what were metagame mechanics in previous games.

My point exactly. Is all that separates metagame for the rest of the rules is lack of a paragraph rationalizing in-game causuality?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jack,

You're mistaking "metagame" as a component of Character for "metagame mechanics." They're not necessarily related.

All characters in all role-playing have a metagame component - it relates to their role in the Exploration and to the players' Social Contract with one another.

Sometimes it's explicit: When I choose "DNPC: girlfriend, 14 or less" as a disadvantage in Champions, it conveys an immense amount of obligation on my part in terms of my character's behavior, as well as demands obligations on the GM's part in terms of preparing and running sessions.

Sometimes it's not: Establishing a girlfriend character and playing toward her in a certain way in a Rolemaster game isn't on the sheet anywhere, but if the Social Contract reinforces exactly the same expectations as in the Champions game, then she's a metagame component of my character.

None of the above is necessarily related to "metagame mechanics" as being discussed in this thread, which are a subset of Resolution.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

You're mistaking "metagame" as a component of Character for "metagame mechanics." They're not necessarily related.

Hmm. Sounds like we have a Zelda II Life problem.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, in Zelda II Adventures of Link for the Nintendo Entertainment System, you had the RPG-like stat Life, which basically determined how much damage you took when hit. Damage was tracked on a red bar, called Life. You could replenish this with a magic spell, called Life. You also had a reserve of Lives. This last portion was less confusing since it would often be refered to in the plural or as Extra Life. However, you could say with accuracy, if not clairity "You should raise Life so you won't lose as much Life when hit. If your Life gets low, use Life to raise your Life because if you run out of Life you'll lose a Life"

[Cemendur]

Or are they like trumps where both definitions are valid.

I'm unfamiliar with trumps, so I can't say. Yes?

Trump 1. a. often Trumps. A suit in card games which outranks all other suits for the duration of a hand. b. A card of such a suit. 2. A key resource to be used at an opportune moment.

trumped, trumping trumps  To take (a card or trick) with a trump. To play with a trump card.

I am using a card game metaphor for a gamist mechanism.

[mrteapot]

It's my new game.  In M&M, you play the part of a person playing a roleplaying game.  You gain experience points for actions such as taking advantage of rules, hammy acting, and shaking up your friends soda before you give it to him.  It will invoke an unbending class/level system.

Just kidding.

Damn.  

I've been thinking, off and on, of designing a game to be played at conventions (it could only be played at cons, as far as I can tell) called "Six Player Characters in Search of a GM".  The players each take on the role of someone playing an rpg, but lacking a GM.  They wander around, asking random con people to GM their game for a while.  The real game, however, is that the players are each playing stereotypes of bad roleplayers (Powergamer, Angst ridden method actor, etc) and are each trying to frustrate the Gm into giving up, wherein points are then awarded.  The system would be set up such that no two of the characters can succeed in their goals simultaneously, and each causes problems when not getting their way.

Which is probably more amusing in theory than it would be in practice.