What is Meta-Gaming?

Exploiting a games 'source code' isn't actually this cool.

Meta-gaming is a term that was coined to describe the practice of acting on information that was not intended to be available to you as you play the game. This includes information that your character in the fiction does not have access to, as well as knowledge of certain rules and statistics that affect the game.

Meta-gaming will happen at some level, no matter what. The fact is, players can't help the fact that their decisions are informed by previous experience and awareness of the game. However, most groups will prefer to establish guidelines to prevent the abuse of strategising from this position of omniscience.

Player Knowledge vs. Character Knowledge

The first kind of meta-gaming comes from the distinction between character knowledge and player knowledge. Sometimes you as a player are aware of something that your character in the fiction is not privy to. In these cases, there is a tacit agreement not to act on this knowledge. For instance, if a player character is separated from the party, I will often describe areas and situations to that player that her character is aware of. Obviously the rest of the party cannot know these things, but the players will still hear me describing them. If the players attempt to take action based on this knowledge, I will have to point out that their in-game counterparts don't have that info to act upon right now. "You don't know who the traitor in the castle really is," I might say, "Because only Elaina knows, and you're not with her in the throne room. What else could you do?"

Playing With Restricted Knowledge

The other kind of meta-gaming is based on knowledge of the rules and statistics that drive the game. Not all knowledge of this sort should be considered taboo. Players should have a working knowledge of the rules and using them to make informed tactical decisions is a big part of the game. Knowing that your dagger will not be effective against a plate-armored troll isn't really meta-gaming, it is common sense. The statistics of your dagger and the enemy armor class reflect a very obvious difference in their value in combat. It's fair enough to say that you have a puny weapon facing a staunch defense, common sense would let your character tell the difference. Even openly sharing armor classes and hit point values wouldn't necessarily break the game. It means that your character knows how tough or healthy the enemy is by assessing its wounds and armor. In any case, the player character should almost always know this information, even if he doesn't know the exact numbers. If you aren't comfortable sharing the exact stats, terms like "It looks like one more hit would finish him," or "His spiky armor looks really difficult to penetrate," are very useful. And of course a skilled fighter could conceal his true ability to the naked eye, but a skirmish with him will quickly reveal his true mettle. The only things hidden from the character should be aspects that could plausibly be concealed.

 It's important to distinguish between the kind of common sense information I just described, and info that the PC is not supposed to have. For instance, knowing that a monster has a secret weakness because you have access to the monster manual is a clear abuse of the game rules and can disrupt the balance of the game as well as annoying DMs and players. Maneuvering carefully around an area because the DM tipped his hand about an upcoming encounter is another example of gaming the system this way. Tactical information is one thing, but insider intelligence that involves secrets and spoilers can become a real buzzkill.

Where is your god now?!

Power Gaming

The ultimate form of meta-gaming is performed by the infamous power-gamer. This involves exploiting the rules of the game system to produce optimized characters that overpower and circumvent encounters. Characters that are built with maxed out stats and bonuses that allow them to take on challenges far beyond their own level. This is perhaps the most common and problematic of all meta-gaming.

The final result of this type of gaming is the need for the DM to exercise responsible veto power over the game. It's a tall order, because you don't want to unfairly restrict the players but sometimes you need to be the troubleshooter who corrects a game-breaking bug in the system and keeps the playing field level. The best way to be fair about this process is to base any decisions of this nature on its affect on the players, not your personal preference. If you notice a character punching out ogres, you can adjust the difficulty by sending in more ogres. But if they are punching out ogres while the rest of the team is having trouble with goblins, something's gotta give.

All your players should be on the same page when it comes to game balance. Each character should be different and unique, but they should also be fairly equal in terms of power. In most cases, you don't want a discrepancy of more than one or two class levels between characters on the same team. And if one of your group is more focused on being the best or toughest character on the board, you have a problem.

If you don't mind designing encounters of a proportionately higher challenge rating for an optimized group, then you already know you will be fine with a group of power-gamers. (As long as they don't exploit game-breaking gimmicks) If you have one power gamer in the group, it might even be okay for him to help the other players to optimize their own characters. The important thing is not for the players to be weaker or stronger, but for the playing field to remain level. Characters can be specialized in a varied array of abilities, but they should all have the same level of utility.

Unfortunately, if you have a player who doesn't understand this there is not a lot you can do for them. There are some individuals who are more competitor than player, and this can be a problem at the game table. If the rest of your group is feeling left out because of one players actions, they need to understand that and hopefully cooperate for the sake of the group's enjoyment of the game. If not, they may be better suited to another group of more like-minded players. Dems the breaks, but don't try to 'fix' a problem player if they refuse to acknowledge the feelings of other members.

Until next time, have fun and happy ventures!