Μετά - A. in the midst of, among. Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1992
Aristotle’s Metaphysics was likely so-named because it was the book he wrote after his Physics, “after” being one of the definitions of the Greek preposition meta. Because of the subject matter of the Physics, which Aristotle called “first philosophy”, modern readers have preferred the definition of meta meaning “beyond” and transformed it into a prefix meaning “transcending”, akin to the German ūber. For the purposes of this essay, we will apply the first definition of the term, and discuss how Meta-gaming might be viewed as an activity that occurs “in the midst of” tabletop role-playing.
Central to this discussion is what can be considered the mental traits of a player character in role-playing games (typically Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma). While a player may pantomime a battle maneuver, a petty theft, or downing a quart of ale, their success is constrained by their character sheet and the rules. A player does not earn greater success if they actually parry a lampshade, steal the DMs dice, or shotgun a beer. Mental activities have significantly fewer constraints and “rely [more] on player ingenuity … than a character sheet”.1 A player character may have more success if the player says the right thing, says it in the right way or to the right NPC, or asks a pertinent question.
And this is when the DM needs to make a decision: should a player’s incisive question, sick burn, or well-honed sycophancy benefit the player character? We must make an aesthetic decision regarding how much of the real world we will allow to creep into our game. While this is a personal or game-to-game decision, that decision must begin with the understanding that this creep will necessarily happen to some extent, that that is a good thing, and that we can control the amount of creep.
Players engage in Meta-gaming as a matter of course. Some forms of meta-gaming are unacceptable, such as using out-of-game knowledge. I tend to agree with Seth Skorkowsky that these instances are usually easy to discern and should just be called cheating.2 This essay will focus on the grey area of acceptable meta-gaming. For instance, to promote efficiency, DMs often describe a room or divulge a secret to the whole table, even if only one character is privy to the knowledge, assuming that they will find out eventually. After a couple of hits and misses, players often discern an enemy’s Armor Class. And awarding inspiration or luck is definitively meta-gaming.
But beyond these examples, characters plan battle strategies, heists, and court intrigues using their own minds, unconstrained by the abilities of their player characters. And to subject these plans to the constraints of the play character’s mental acuity runs the risk of mitigating a good deal of the fun people have playing the game. Conversely, nor should we rule solely based on the player’s ability while ignoring the player character’s strengths and weaknesses. And this is the heart of the game “in the midst of” the game that we play.
Adjudicating these situations will always require some judgement on the part of the DM, and should be made with expediency, fairness, and fun in mind. Here are four methods for contending with these meta-gaming situations, which can be used separately or in conjunction, at the DM’s discretion:
1. Player rolls beforehand (with bonuses/penalties) to mitigate the circumstances, i.e. the ceiling of possible success. Player then speaks or acts (meta-games) for player character.
2. Player rolls afterward (with bonuses/penalties) and DM applies the player’s “meta-gaming” as a bonus/penalty to the die roll at the their discretion.
3. Player does not roll and DM judges the player’s “meta-gaming” (with or without bonuses/penalties) vs. the difficulty of the task.
4. DM asks the player “what would you like to accomplish,” then determines the result with a die roll, without a die roll, or just taking the player character’s attribute score into account.
Now, let’s look at some examples of when each of these methods might be used.
Method 1 can be used any time, but can be useful when there are various fail/success states available, or when the task itself is impossible, but something good could come with a successful roll. For instance, an overmatched warrior may attempt to Intimidate an entire squadron of enemies. The DM deems this impossible, but allows a roll, which is a 19. After the warrior unleashes a screed of threats, the DM may judge that one or two of the enemies turn and flee, that those with WIS below 12 may attack or defend with disadvantage, that enemies with WIS over 15 grow enraged and attack the warrior en masse, or any combination of these. This result may be a result of the die roll, the speech, or a combination of the two.
Method 2 can also be used any time, but can be useful in encouraging players to role play, and to think strategically about their words and actions. For instance, a player may concoct a plan to solicit the friendship of a beast by “saving” its young from a fabricated threat. Depending on the efficacy of this plan, which was conceived by the player, not the player character, a bonus or penalty may be applied to the ensuing Animal Handling roll.
Method 3 is effective in a role play-heavy game, or any game where the guile of the players is rewarded, such as in an OSR or any rules-light system, and can be used to reward players who have paid attention to the details of the adventure. For instance, a player character may gain the approval of a local ruler by recounting to them a relevant story of the ruler’s ancestors. This knowledge could be assumed as known based on the player character’s History acumen, but must be wielded by the player appropriately.
Method 4 is a catch-all method, best suited for situations where a DM needs to improvise for an unusual situation or request from the player. This method can be useful to avoid a game-stalling, “20 Questions” scenario, while still forcing the players to work for a desired outcome. Any or all of the first three methods may be used to ultimately decide the outcome. The important part of the game action here is the Meta-game, in which the player(s) must negotiate with the DM, subject to constraints such as a time limit, what exactly they want to do. Once the they declare their intent, the DM assigns a difficulty and asks for a roll, a role-play, both, or neither.
One final point on adjudicating situations which involve the interweaving of player skill and player character skill: players should be encouraged to use these skills in combination or in sequence. A player character who demonstrates knowledge of Medicine to the local Alchemist will be more likely to Deceive or Persuade them in order to see the ingredients stored in the “back room.” In this, as in all cases, the DM should bear in mind the goals of fairness, fun, and expediency.
Finally, we must briefly contend with player character knowledge, which is the flip side of out-of-game knowledge. How do we deal with knowledge that a player character would certainly possess, but the player might not bring to bear? In essence, what a player character “knows” is only meaningful if it is something the player knows, and the responsibility for determining the extent and utility of this knowledge rests with the DM and the players. It is incumbent on the players to get to know the world of the adventure and the characters contained therein, that their characters might better employ the mental
traits they possess. Players should be rewarded for gaining knowledge of the game world, and their players characters should benefit. At the same time, DMs should try their best to divulge as much information as is necessary for players to make good decisions. A prepared DM should have a good idea of what each player character would and wouldn’t know about the setting and the NPCs.
Ultimately, what is tricky about meta-gaming is that no one playing an RPG is a passive observer. There is no fourth wall. As stated in my article Tabletop Roleplaying Can Never Be a Movie, But Can It Be an Opera?, the DM not only conducts the orchestra, but also the audience, and the players fill both of these roles. But this very trait of RPGs make them more personal, collaborative, and authentic. And though this type of play, this playing in the midst of playing, may border at times on the surreal or the absurd, we may find humor and comfort in that absurdity, and even glimpse some sense in the surreality.
Questing Beast. “Ask Questing Beast 4: Runehammer and Miscast.” (1:19:09) YouTube, uploaded by Questing Beast, Mar 16, 2021, https://youtu.be/N10hFki4C94
Seth Skorkowsky. ”Metagaming Isn’t All Bad - RPG Philosophy.” (1:38) YouTube, uploaded by Seth Skorkowsky, July 20, 2019, https://youtu.be/XJyRzn78IE4
1
2
Eco's Chamber
