Metagame & Mechanics

[Christopher Weeks]

As a literate newbie here, it seems like local jargon contradicts English -- or at least my understanding of it.  It seems that you (no one specific) think:

Some rules about how you play a given game can be called "metagame" rules.  (Ignoring for now what differentiates these from "normal" rules.)

Is that right?

I think that metagaming describes something larger than any one game.  And I think it's centered on an individual rather than a social context.

I maintained a metagame strategy for many years in which I would always, always follow through on an agreement.  I applied this to my characters in D&D, Gamma World, etc.  I held to it in Diplomacy and other board- or war-games.  Sometimes it cost me a victory of some kind in some games.  Sometimes I felt like a doorknob for being taken advantage of.  But over those years, people came to understand that when I said something, they knew it was rock solid.  And overall I think I harvested more benefit than detriment from it.

One problem might be that as a prefix, meta- means several things.  Meta- doesn't mean exactly the same thing in metamorphosis and metacognition.  Beyond and above aren't really the same.  And scanning the dictionaries, there are more.  It seems that in common use, "one level of description up" is what people are shooting for.  But is it really one level up, or all the levels up?  And how does this relate to the "about itself" understanding in which metacognition is thinking about thinking and metalinguistics is talking about language?

Either way, spending a point to turn defeat to victory isn't a metagame rule, it's just a rule.  Even if you and the GM just decided to add it to your D&D game.

I don't think I buy that metagame rules even exist.  I think there are metagame strategies.  And offhand, they seem to largely be gamist oriented (or maybe I only think so because that's where most of my experience lies).  To always punish betrayal, no matter what the cost, no matter what character you're playing, and no matter what game, is a metagaming strategy...at least the way I'm thinking about it.

Metagaming is the way you game games.  Social contract-level rules are not metagaming, though the two things probably shape one another.

If you think I'm looking at it wrongly, I'd like to hear why.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there Christopher,

All of what you say is logical and straightforward ...

... except that gamer culture and history plays a role in the issue and in the terms. Rules that permit the real people to fiddle with the in-game causality are quite problematic for some modes and preferences of role-playing. When they started to crop up more and more often in game texts, "rules," at that time, as a term, had taken on a specially-privileged meaning of "in-game causality." Calling something like Fudge Points (spend one for a re-roll) merely a "rule" or "game mechanic" was not acceptable to many - it "broke" the imagined in-game causality and needed to be marked or signalled as a social phenomenon, not an in-game-world one.

I agree with you that the "social and intellectual approach to play" is one thing, and that the "procedures and fixed protocols of play" are another, and also that what we're here calling "metagame mechanics" clearly belong to the latter and not the former.

But historically, you get the latter by the former modifying a current rules-set. And the terms reflect the history of that transition.

Best,
Ron

[Dauntless]

I think I have a problem with the definition of Metagame mechanics as Ron defined them from an earlier post as:

"They are those mechanics which permit a player to over-ride the "usual" resolution system of the game."

The explicit concept of "override" is what I have a problem with.  In its purest definition, Meta means, "among, with after or change".  However, in everyday colloquial speech, it tends to mean "about".  In computer terms, when you talk about Meta-data, it is data about data.  When a linguist talks of Metalanguage, he is talking about a language to describe a language.  I do not see how "override" comes into play in any other semantic usage of the term meta.

So to me, Metamechanics are mechanics which describe the mechanics themselves.  They are another layer, but they do not necessarily override the in-game mechanics.  Instead they simply describe, define or sometimes alter the mechanics.

As a technology example, XML is metadata.  It is a language that holds data...but describes and structures that data itself.  XML on its own does nothing to data other than organize it and structure it.  However, XML can alter data in a sense by changing the definition of that data.

So I think metagame mechanics should be descriptions and definitions of the rules, and possibly a means to alter the rules.  So what makes this different than "override"?  Well, the best explanation I can think of is that by knowing the metagame mechanics, you can change the rules to better suit different contexts.  For example, let's say that your game only has melee weapons, and every weapon has a damage characteristic.  Unfortunately though, you don't know what these damage numbers mean.  If you have metagame mechanics, these mechanics explain and describe what exactly the damage characteristics are in relation to the health of characters (for example, perhaps the damage characteristics of weapons are based off of the wound area and mass of the weapon).  Armed with this metagame mechanic, you can now "manipulate" the in-game mechanics to create guns, energy weapons, etc. etc.  Nothing is "over-ridden" per se, but rather using the metagame mechanics one is able to change the in-game mechanics to better suit the environment the in-game mechanics will use.

So the best way to think of it is that the metagame mechanics are the foundation...the very essence of roleplaying design (in terms of the rules and mechanics).  They are the rules that you use to build other rules with.  One can then alter in-game rules by knowing the metagame mechanics.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread is beginning to look a lot like samples of "What meta means to me." Unfortunately, that is not helpful. Regardless of how insightful, consistent, etc, etc, any of these statements are, they fail on one crucial point:

Historically, the term metagame mechanic was utilized in the way I've described. The rules text that springs to mind is Fudge, over ten years ago, although I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up before then.

I am pretty certain that people who are currently posting are not familiar with the text-based approach to jargon that's used here. We're stuck, you see, with terms people have used. Unless you want to propose a reworking of all the related terms, you have to live with the old ones.

Bear in mind, I'm not referring to my essay. I'm referring to texts of role-playing games.

Here's my point. Sure, we could consider whether "polyhedrons" is a far better term than dice, and perhaps a few well-argued posts could make such a good case, that we all agree. OK, everyone, "polyhedron" it is.

The real question is whether that is a powerful addition to the understanding of role-playing, or needless wheel-spinning, when "dice" is (if inaccurate according to the hypothetical posts) adequate and does relatively little harm.

So ... all that said, I do agree with the logic presented by Dauntless and Christopher. Yes, the jargon contradicts "ordinary English" - all jargon does. Some of that is due to careful specification through dialogue here, and some of it is due to historical constraints. "Metagame mechanic" is one of the latter.

Wanna change that? Then present a history of role-playing mechanics that distinguishes among various sorts of resolution, relative to player and to character, with terms that communicate the distinctions as well as you can. I'm listening.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Weeks]

For what it's worth, I buy the historical explanation you provided.  I also agree that the whole point of jargon is to be different from "proper English," else why have a special term for it?

But at the same time, changing 'dice' to polyhedra  is not only wrong (e.g. polyhedra don't have pips, not all dice use polyhedral forms), it's also trivial.  I'm not sure that clearing up the understanding, or even setting the terms to rights -- if one were so inclined, of 'metagame' is similarly trivial.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christopher,

Agreed - the issue of "metagame [X]" as a term is definitely not trivial, unlike the dice/polyhedron example. That's why further discussion is welcome, perhaps on a new thread.

But it'll have to be a really hefty discussion, and not a "what meta means to me" free-association session. To be worth the time, it'll have to present a pretty detailed re-cap of role-playing procedure and resolution methods, using whatever terms it uses in some detail.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Wanna change that? Then present a history of role-playing mechanics that distinguishes among various sorts of resolution, relative to player and to character, with terms that communicate the distinctions as well as you can. I'm listening.

But is this a distinction that is needed, is my question. Recent threads have noted that the character does not exists (or only does only in the mind of the player and thus the character is only a function of the player) That and I am sure there are some mechanics that cross this line of mechanics for the player/mechanics for the character. Given this, what is the purpose or usefulness of this distinction?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

That's up to whoever wants to address it, Jack. I think the terms as they stand are usable, although they are potentially aggravating at the level that Christopher and Dauntless are talking about. If anyone disagrees and wants to pursue it further, they can. They'll have to answer your question when they do.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

That's up to whoever wants to address it, Jack. ... They'll have to answer your question when they do.

Groovy. I think the tone of my question shows my own viewpoint on the matter.

[John Kim]

Historically, the term metagame mechanic was utilized in the way I've described. The rules text that springs to mind is Fudge, over ten years ago, although I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up before then.
...
I do agree with the logic presented by Dauntless and Christopher. Yes, the jargon contradicts "ordinary English" - all jargon does. Some of that is due to careful specification through dialogue here, and some of it is due to historical constraints. "Metagame mechanic" is one of the latter.  

I would agree with Ron here.  I also see the illogic of "metagame mechanic" as a term.  However, if it is being widely used, it may be one of those things which should explained as not meaning what the literal words imply.  Since I have my copy of Fudge handy, I thought I might throw in what it says.  (From page 11, section 2.36)

Fudge points are meta-game gifts that may be used to buy "luck" during a game -- they let the players fudge a game result.  These are "meta-game" gifts because they operate at a player-GM level, not character-character level.  Not every GM will allow Fudge Points -- those who prefer very realistic games should probably not use them.

Now, this fails some simple logic.  All mechanics are at the player-GM level.  The players are the ones who roll the dice to see whether they hit.  I think the real distinction here is representation.  The "metagame mechanics" are ones which do not easily map to in-game objects or concepts.  For example, a player has a set of hit points for his character and a set of fudge points.  You can take a systemless description of a fictional character and try to reason how many hit points he has.  

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested this as a fairly thin difference.  For example, in Torg, probability points are in-character because in that universe Storm Knights have probability energy which that corresponds to.  This is despite the fact that probability points are very similar to meta-game fudge points in affect.  However, I think it is an important one to some people.  Not all metagame mechanics can or should be reified as in-game reality.  For example, in Torg the Drama Deck is still metagame even though Probability points are in-game.  

There will naturally be grey areas.  Just as there is a grey area between abstract and representational in visual art.  However, I think the distinction still has validity and is important to some people.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

There will naturally be grey areas.  Just as there is a grey area between abstract and representational in visual art.  However, I think the distinction still has validity and is important to some people.

Interesting thought. Files for later pondering.

[Halzebier]

But at the same time, changing 'dice' to polyhedra  is not only wrong (e.g. polyhedra don't have pips, not all dice use polyhedral forms), it's also trivial.  I'm not sure that clearing up the understanding, or even setting the terms to rights -- if one were so inclined, of 'metagame' is similarly trivial.

Just a brief note (no point here, really):

The German word for "die" is the same as "cube", namely "Wuerfel" and used by RPGers as usual, i.e. a W8 is a d8.

This is technically wrong, since a d8/W8 is not a cube, obviously.

[Dauntless]

Ron-
We don't have to settle for past definitions or colloquial meanings as long as everyone abides by a standardized definition of it now (at least for The Forge members).

Afterall, a definition is just an explanation of a concept which by consensus we all agree upon.  If we change the semantics now, we may cause confusion to people who do not regularly visit this site, but at least we will have a standard definition that applies to The Forge members.

And I further posit that the definition I proposed makes more sense and is more applicable....especially to an outsider of roleplaying games.  If you asked someone who's never played role-playing games and asked them what a Metamechanic is....if he has a good grasp of the English language, he will say "mechanics about mechanics".  If roleplaying game design is ever to advance beyond a niche hobby market, and into serious academic endeavor (don't laugh...look at the computer game industry which is set to surpass Hollywood in revenue generated and already has several Universities offering Game Design BA degrees) then I think we should seriously look at a standardized definition that "makes sense".

And a Metamechanic are essentially rules about rules.  As someone earlier pointed out, I think we are mistaking Meta-(game rules) for (metagame)-rules.  The former is what we are trying to formally create a definition of.  The latter is the social contract and the things that make gaming fun (the game about the game).  

If we merely define metamechanics as rules which allow one to override in-game rules, then it misses the essence of what they truly are.  Metamechanics are the underlying principles, foundations and guidelines that are used to develop the rules themselves.  By knowing these underlying principles, you can alter in-game effects.  It also allows one to get rid of the seemingly circular definition that:

"...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.

In such a case, the author of the game has simply taken his knowledge of the metamechanics and created a regular in-game mechanic that allows one to redefine what happens (much like in XML, if you redefine a tag, it changes the definition of that element...but the element itself has the same value).  So my definition circumvents this "trickiness" altogether because it subsumes the ability to override, and allows for other aspects as well.

[MachMoth]

O_o
Yeah, uh, wow.  I know what it means now...  

Since Metagaming Rule covers a concept that really doesn't exist outside of "classic" gaming, I really don't think it needs any indepth discussion.  Now, if I see it, I'll know what it means, and I'll probably never use it in my entire life.  I prefer calling it "Custom rule for making people not die as much."  Yeah, I know, I'll never learn.

[M. J. Young]

We don't have to settle for past definitions or colloquial meanings as long as everyone abides by a standardized definition of it now (at least for The Forge members).

Afterall, a definition is just an explanation of a concept which by consensus we all agree upon.  If we change the semantics now, we may cause confusion to people who do not regularly visit this site, but at least we will have a standard definition that applies to The Forge members.

And I further posit that the definition I proposed makes more sense and is more applicable....especially to an outsider of roleplaying games.  If you asked someone who's never played role-playing games and asked them what a Metamechanic is....if he has a good grasp of the English language, he will say "mechanics about mechanics".

Unfortunately, meta is one of those Greek prepositions that has a dozen different meanings dependent on context, and in compound words you can't guess, you just have to know. What does it mean in metastasis? in metamorphosis? in metabolism? I think the most common meaning in construction is probably change (a concept which in English exists as noun and verb, but not preposition). Thus it makes perfect sense to suggest that metamechanics or metagame aspects are those which change the mechanics or the game by being partly outside of them or it.

Your definition is certainly wonderful, except that it seems to mean exactly the opposite of every known use of the word to date. As Alice says to Humpty Dumpty, the question is whether you can make words mean whatever you want. Sure, we can all agree that we'll use metagame to mean something completely different from the way every other gamer in the world is using it--which will only further marginalize us as a fringe group whose discussions are intentionally opaque to those not part of the initiate. It's certainly good to want a clear and sensible vocabulary in which to discuss these things; but it is not good to obfuscate everything we say by redefining terms already in use within the hobby to mean the opposite of what they're understood to mean. To the non-gamer, metagame means nothing at all; he'd have to look it up or draw the meaning from context. To the gamer it means something maybe a bit vague and difficult to identify in practice, but generally definable as rules which change the events dictated by the regular rules. To the Forgite is it to mean something entirely different from this as well? That makes no sense.

Yes, it's good to have intelligent and meaningful jargon; but to intentionally take existing jargon and redefine it so far from its common usage that others in the field won't know what we mean when we say it is the wrong way to get there. If a term has some meaning, clarifying that meaning within its existing usage is the best way to refine it. If you've got a concept that needs a term, grabbing a term that has already been used for another concept, no matter how much more appropriate you think it is for this new concept, is the best way to ensure that no one will have a clue what you're saying.

I don't always know how to identify metagame and metamechanics, but your definition isn't going to get me closer to that.

--M. J. Young