Second in a series on meta-gaming by @TTBenjamin1 , read the first part here
Here’s a fun phrase I like to throw around when this topic comes up: The characters know more about the world than the players.
Think of all the things you know about the world you live in. Do it. Think of them all, right now. Every one of them. The whole sum of your accumulated knowledge could not possibly fit on a character sheet. I couldn’t fit everything I know about trumpet playing on a single sheet, I have two degrees that I’m not using very much, so that gets abstracted to something like ranks in Perform: Trumpet and when I need to use the skill or know something about the trumpet world, we roll to see if I know it and there we go.
The point is, when it comes to meta-gaming I assume that the characters know a lot more than the players would. I’m not a Catholic but through osmosis living in a Catholic town I know a surprising amount about saints and the like. Let’s say the farm-town party is heading into the biggest city in the continent, it’s safe to say that through stories and gossip they might know a couple landmarks and even maybe a couple cultural details. Even if you’ve never been to New York City I bet you know to have your deli order ready before you get to the counter, or not to cross the street too early because the drivers are especially aggressive. It’s okay to give them the basics without a roll.
What about that Iron Golem thought? What about knowledge beyond the basics? I think most GMs would solve it with a lore roll of some kind. But I think it’s better to telegraph the information ahead of the encounter. When building up to an encounter with a tough enemy that has a specific weakness it’s good storytelling to plant clues and opportunities that lead to the necessary information before the encounter happens. So yes, a lore check is good, but you can also plant someone who has fought one before, a book on golems, or something like that so the players can make preparation part of their plan.
Another case that comes up a lot is playing with veteran players. For the most part, a fellow GM will be more than happy to withhold information to avoid meta-gaming, that’s just common courtesy. I handle it a different way: I partner with my most veteran players and see if they’re interested in playing an intelligent or lore-skilled character so that they can do my exposition for me, tell the other players little secrets, and generally be helpful. If they’re up for it, it’s a great experience.
Let’s say the party splits. One group doing one thing, one group doing another. Sometimes for the sake of drama I’ll ask the absent party to leave the room which is incredibly fun. Sometimes that doesn’t make sense so everyone is listening to everyone else’s scene. What do you do if someone acts on knowledge that happened in a scene they weren’t present for? Well there’s a couple ways you can tackle it.
Common sense – This is all routine, maybe they’re all out shopping and using meta-knowledge to avoid buying the same thing twice. Who cares?
Retroactive knowledge – Maybe the party coordinated but the players didn’t. Remember, the characters know more than the players. If it makes sense that they would have coordinated a signal or talked through the plan, it’s okay to handwave it. If they made the plan under duress, or didn’t have time to plan? Move to the next solution.
Dramatic Irony – Dramatic Irony is when the audience knows something the actor doesn’t. Players can know things the characters don’t, players can know things that they weren’t present for. When they act on this knowledge in a way that doesn’t make sense, it’s totally appropriate to stop play and remind them that the character doesn’t know something. Ideally the players embrace the coming tragedy of acting on imperfect information, and let it play out. You can facilitate this by asking “If your character didn’t know this piece of information, what do you think they would do?” They might wriggle out of it, they might not. Either way, honestly it’s fine to let it go.
The final point I want to make in this section is simply this: It’s important to build trust with your table and help your players separate the fiction from themselves. Playing an RPG involves a lot of switching between in character and out of character information. It’s important for a good GM to be gracious and assume good faith until proven otherwise, to talk people through missteps, and encourage players talking through character motivations and decisions.
How to deal with meta-gaming
For the most part, I don’t bother. But I basically always homebrew so the players can’t read ahead. I also don’t prep much, so if I don’t know what I’m doing, the players won’t. But that’s not fair to you who are seeking information, so I’ll get into it anyway.
The most important rule is this: Solve in-character problems with the character. Solve player problems with the player.
Did someone spoil a monster’s weakness? Some GMs would quietly change the weakness to punish the player for meta-gaming. I would just stop play, tell them they shouldn’t have done that because it spoils the drama for everyone else, then continue play as normal with the now less fun fight. They will almost certainly not do it again because they know they just sucked the energy out of the room.
Do you suspect someone is reading ahead in the module? Heck, did they brazenly indicate they had? I would tell them that they shouldn’t do that and ask them to tell you what they know. I would then ask them to not act on that information and let the rest of the party take the lead. If they push further, well, it might be time to ask them to leave the table. Why should you have to do a bunch of work changing the module because someone cheated? They can either change their behavior or they can go elsewhere.
Is someone trying to exploit a quirk in the game with a weird build? I try to stay very involved in my players’ builds so I usually know what they’re going for. That said, things slip. Ultimately, it’s time to ask them what they’re going for with that build. If they’re shooting for an exploit, tell them you won’t allow that build to work that way or that you won’t allow the build at all. If they’re just min/maxing, that’s not a meta-gaming issue and we can talk about balance between players another time.
In all of these examples, the GM has the conversation instead of playing their own meta-game with their party. That way leads to adversarial GMing. Now it’s the GM vs the Players instead of the Players vs the Conflict. Think of it this way: Say you put a meta consequence in for meta-gaming, like the above example with the GM raising the DCs on checks for meta-gaming. That is GM meta-gaming and it creates a literal meta-game where the players must constantly intuit what the GM will or will not punish them for. It’s madness. Don’t do it. Separate the story from the game from the people playing it.
Conclusions
Handwave 90% of meta-gaming, focus on what is malicious and intentional.
Handle player problems with the players, don’t try to solve them in-game. It doesn’t work and doesn’t make the point you think it does. Maybe I’ll do a post on that sometime.
It’s okay to lean on the meta-game to keep the game moving. It’s more often a shortcut than a disruption.
TTBenjamin is a game designer and Actual Play producer/performer. You can catch him on Twitter @TTBenjamin1 or @great_lawful
