Tales of High Adventure: Metagaming and why it's not all bad

Metagaming is the perceived scourge of modern roleplaying, right up there with other things that do not exist but we think they do because we have names for them, like "balance" or "canon". 

I have just one thing to say, although it may take quite a few words to say it. But it basically boils down to: there are several kinds of metagaming and not all are bad, although some definitely are. Oh and if you are a Game Master and don't like metagaming, there are ways for you to curtail it, and one of the best ways to do it is so meta. Ok, so that's definitely more than one thing I have to say, but it all falls under one label:

Learn to roll with metagaming.

This is a part of a bigger (meta?) framework which can be summarized as: learn your role as a Game Master. Know what you bring to the group and remember that you are a part of a group and that acting with that knowledge in mind will bring the best out of the players which will in return enrich your game. So learn your role.

Your role may vary with your players and what they expect, what they like and can roll with, so there is no hard and fast rule about that except to get to know your players. Incidentally, that is why most of us will always prefer campaigns or just playing with friends - we know what they like, they know what they can expect of us. If we are friends, we will try to adjust to each other so that the grail of optimum fun is reached (another thing that does not really exist inasmuch as we have words for it).

One of your roles is what could be called a lubricant. And yes, that could mean that your players are in for rectal annihilation, but that is not the primary meaning. Your role is to make them slide into a coherent focus.

Sometimes, being high with the right people can make even metagaming completely ok (and of course, metagaming is not bad in itself, it is how the player leverages it and to what ends, but more on that later).

The best example I have for this is when we were playing the legendary Warhammer 1st ed adventure Shadows Over Bogenhafen and we were mucking around, chasing red herrings, we were about to go to Nuln, on the other side of the Empire, when one of the players was like "Guys, if we were supposed to go to Nuln, the adventure would be called Shadows Over Nuln" and everyone was like... Yeah. The GM's sigh of relief was audible.

Is this metagaming? Definitely. Did it detract from the game? Absolutely not, in fact, the opposite. This is what I like to call constructive metagaming. It adds to the game, by informing player choices without destroying the collective illusion or, rather, immersion. (although it is a bit harsh to say that metagaming destroys immersion, I believe you understand what I'm talking about if you ever played with a player who knows the Monster Manual by heart - the part of the immersion that is destroyed is the fear, wonder and sheer thrill of exploring and encountering the unknown and potentially lethal).

Another example: when running the phenomenal (although heavily adapted to fit into my DCC setting) LotFP adventure Going Through Forbidden Overworlds, I introduced a twist on the mechanics in the adventure that dictates that demons are formed in the dungeon if the characters cannot control their fears. In my interpretation, a slaad formed every time the players were metagaming - this means thinking in concepts foreign to their characters (like monsters stats) and discussing things that would be impossible to discuss were we keeping to what the characters know and can do (for example, coordinating actions in combat during combat). It worked wonderfully, the tension was super-high, immersion was reinforced, and it didn't quite stop them from metagaming - but it made it meaningful in ways that are not your usual serving of meta.

Okay, so metagaming can be good. But when does it suck?

Simply, it sucks when it detracts - from the action, the roleplaying, the experience at hand. That is the other kind of metagaming, the detracting kind. Now, you could say that most of the time metagaming detracts, but I'm nor sure that's true. In my experience, players metagame ALL THE TIME, but the game does not suck ALL THE TIME. So, something else must be at hand. 

And now we come back to the beginning of this small thesis: metagaming is as your table does. There is actually no hard rule when it sucks, except that it sucks if it detract from your play. 

But, again, in my experience, players who metagame in a detracting, distracting or disruptive way are the players that play in a detracting, distracting or disruptive way and usually have the type of overall personality to go with it. So, again, as in too many "problems" in this hobby, the issue lies with the player, not with the concept of metagaming itself. 

And so here we are again, back at your table. 

One difference between a great and a passable GM is their ability to make stuff work, to keep the game going, to pull the player into the fold of their - and the group's collective - imagination and purpose in play (I would like to say more about purpose in play at another time, note to myself). A great GM will make even metagaming work. But any GM can make it a non-issue, and that will be much, much easier to do at a table where the GM knows the players. 

Get to know your players. You are likely to have much less trouble, with metagaming or anything else. And also, various D&D groups, threads and channels will become a tad less cluttered with posted questions about "what to do about my player, they constantly..." that should have been addressed to a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Or most likely, your player's parents.