What is Meta-Gaming? Meta-gaming: an "out of character" action taken by a player in an rpg where that player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of, but that the character or characters in a group is/are not meant to be aware of. Meta-gaming in RPG games, is typically not well received , because a character played by a meta-gamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back story, and it affects game balance and outcomes in unfair ways. Historically, meta-gaming in RPGs referred to players applying out-of-game information to gain an unfair advantage in a game in how they play their characters. Tips to avoid meta-gaming. Ask yourself: 1. Does your character have the knowledge within their background and skill set. If you don't know, As k the GM (he may make you roll, or say yes or no. Accept it and use your characters abilities to solve the problem at hand). 2. Is it your turn? If its not your turn, you are not in control, and unless invited by the GM, you cannot and should not make comments which add to the other players actions or in some way alters those actions. If a player wants suggestions on how to play their character, they will ask for them. 3. Are you talking as a player in a given moment or is it your character speaking? It can't be both, declare if you are speaking out of character to ask large scope possible meta-game questions. Don't assume, and insert words into your character speech or play that the character may or may not know. We all have a huge amount of RPG knowledge, far more than our characters ever will so its best to be conscious of what is considered in-game character knowledge and speech, and what is player knowledge and speech. The Following are examples of meta-gaming but these are not the only examples of meta-gaming, they are just the most common, an experienced Game Master can explain many other forms of meta-gaming to his players and what he or she is willing to permit in his or her game and what forms of meta-gaming he or she is not willing to permit: Adjusting your character's actions based on foreknowledge of the long-term intentions of the game-master or deduced knowledge by the player of said GM designs, in such a way that it is evident that the character has not come by this information in-game. Using gained knowledge from Out-Of-Character sources and using them in-character in ones actions (similar to point 1, above) i.e. you are an experienced player who knows a lot about how Wizards or Rogues work, so you apply that knowledge in how you deal with them in-game even if your character has never before encountered a rogue or wizard to really know how to deal with them yet. Using knowledge from a previously played or dead character; just don't do it, because there is no way your current character could have knowledge obtained by a previously played dead character unless your current character somehow obtained it from another character with whom the dead character relayed such knowledge to before dying... Adjusting ones tactics to make use of certain types of attack or defense based on player knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of an opponent/NPC, that the player's character is unaware that opponent possesses; if you did not learn of that character type/opponents powers and abilities from prior in game exposure of fighting said person or if you have not gained intel on that opponent through in game character investigation, you are meta-gaming if you adjust tactics solely based on player knowledge. Acting on any knowledge that the character or other characters and NPCs in the game world are not aware of (such as creating gun powder or explosives in a Dark Ages or Middle Ages setting). Adjusting a character's behavior towards other players’ characters based on real-life relationships with other players; i.e. you and your buddy had a fight in real life and you take it out on their character in game....its just not cool to create in-game tension between two characters without any pre-established reason in the game story and history to do so. Using knowledge of the game's mechanics to gain an advantage in the game by having the character do something incompatible with that character's personality just because the player knows of a rule or game mechanic tactic they can exploit to their advantage; don't make your character do something they wouldn't normally do just because you as a player know if you do it another way your character normally wouldn't do it, is more tactically advantageous. Its just bad role play. Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome, without more significant regard placed on how the character would actually behave (similar to point 7 above) Power Gaming , one of the more annoying meta gaming exploits/actions that piss off both other players and the GM. i.e. during character creation, a player takes flaws or liabilities that they know the game-master is unlikely to fully exploit, or gets GM approval to use some supplemental rules, that the GM is not fully aware of that seriously un-balances the power that character will bring into the game, thereby acquiring extra features they can use to buff up their character, without paying any corresponding penalty in game because the flaws and liabilities just are unlikely to ever come up in the game setting, or the supplemental rules are not fully known by other players and the GM concerning how powerful the exploit actually is. In split-screen scenarios where the party is split, using another player's viewpoint or information another character learns in their split-screen, to make decisions that one's own character doesn't have access to; i.e. Player B tells Player A to do XYZ even though player B is not present in the same split screen scenario as player A. If Player B is not there, they should not be permitted to give suggestions on courses of action as their character is not present in the scenario to speak to Player A's character about it. Furthermore, telling another player what action to take, without making your character suggest it to their character in some role play fashion in-game, is also a form of meta-gaming. If your character does not know in-game what powers or skills their comrade possesses by not having previously witnessed it in-game, they cannot comment/suggest on what that other character should do. This is always a tough one because sometimes players are just trying to help their buddy out if their buddy doesn't know what to do or is about to make a "really stupid" choice. But that's part of the fun of role play, allowing a player to learn from the consequences of their own decisions. Also,Player A , B and C cannot adjust their actions in game based on what is happening to Player D E and F in another split screen scenario as all 6 characters are not all together to experience that knowledge together. If your party member is in danger of being captured, you cannot suddenly magically decide to go to their district of the town, conveniently, to save them, if your character has no knowable reason to decide to go find his other party members and abandon his current scenario. Players discussing things and sharing information that their characters have not specifically discussed or shared with one another with in-game role play interaction, to gain strategic advantage is a form of meta-gaming. Assuming an outcome is inevitable based on a failed dice roll, and acting accordingly to compensate for it,rather than playing out the outcome without the character knowing the outcome. i.e. assuming there will be a trap or ambush even though you failed your notice roll/spot check. If your character is not present in a situation in-game, or is unconscious, you as a player cannot comment to another player or character on what course of action to take without it being deemed a meta-gaming action because your character is not present or awake to have any awareness of what is currently happening, to contribute to the discussion in any way.
