Turning meta into regular-gaming

[Oli Ironbar]

I’ve run into this issue consistently and I wonder what our collective thoughts on the matter might be.

First, I’ve never been a fan of prepared casters, so my first solution to the problem of having so much player experience that it conflicts with PC experience — which is to be super knowledgeable about all kinds of situations and backed by thorough studying, both me and my PC can produce an exceptional plan.

The fall back I’ve used is to play super wise characters who work exceptionally well on an intuitive level, so maybe hours in meditation each day or an extraordinary knowledge of the natural world flavor the solution to the problem at hand.

But now I’m playing a charisma character and have landed only on the idea that they are a more than decent story teller and that this imaginative play allows outside the box thinking that surpasses intellect and wisdom.

Do physical stats work as well? Your hammer itself knows when to swing, your body moves first as if it knew what to do before your mind? (No idea about Con).

[Azothath]

lol... I think you are talking about acting, roleplaying, and improvisational(or cooperative) storytelling. TOTALLY different skills than system mastery or effective PC builds.

Keeping people in their role is a mix between GM and the Player (don't make the GM your 'heavy' having to be the enforcing parent - we're adults here!). RP involves a LOT of projection and people naturally assume the PC knows what they know (a big no-no, presentism). Skill checks are the main counterbalance along with understanding the base campaign mindset of PF1. Chemistry != Alchemy.

People want to rationalize the Game into Realistic terms and experiences as this feeds into their ego and transferring PC success into their success. Yes, it's a common delusional activity. As I say, A d20 Game is an adult version of "Let's Pretend". In Reality people sit around a table and have a big BS session pretending to do stuff by rolling dice.

so - what to do

Players need to engage with their Character and create a believable personality profile within the context of the game. It's really working on their acting skills. They need to keep an intellectual wall between themselves and their character. You don't think Paul Rubens ever believed he was really Pee-wee Herman.
Part of this is creating a written personality profile (say two pages). Then filling in the background details and modelling what choices they would make. Writing out what the PC thinks is important, their fears, goals, is all part of it. see HEXACO, OCEAN, Myers-Brigg.

Players/GM need to discuss Campaign assumptions, what Skills in the game encompass, and what Magic and Technology mean. The two hardest are; not being able to identify monster vulnerabilities without specific knowledge skills, and, that game skills/knowledges are pre-renniasance skill sets. You need to discuss the various assumptions otherwise people go off on their diverse tangents - you must herd the cats!

My last bit will be that GMs are the adult in the room while players get to play kids. Yeah yeah yeah. GMs need some management and directorial skills to keep people's goals and tasks somewhat aligned. Don't waffle too much and don't move goal posts until the end of an adventure section. You don't want to be a RAW Ogre or Rule-o-Cool Luke. You are the Director of a Play and don't get in competition with the Actors (unless it helps them Play the Role better).

note:

Please stop saying some roleplaying activities are better than others. It's always a mix. What you mean is you value some more than others.
People always bring different skill sets to the table(a group effort/activity). You have to manage that to create something nice as it almost never happens spontaneously.

I play wizards, A LOT. So I'm used to the wizard hate and bias. Envy and Jealousy along with Fear don't make you any better. Could I cause problems? Sure. Do I? No (unless it's really needed like a PC or GM out of control or a Scenario that's gone overboard with the railroading/boxed text). It's a Game and nobody wants to be the rude boy.
Sure, I get that there are munchkins and poor players out there. No need to spread your fears as commonplace. I'm a good GMs best friend.
I've had to let crap slide as I thought it was in the realm of "Fair Play". Did I like it, no. It is a Game and you have to give people some room to be creative and create an experience. Usually there's more than one 'bad actor' involved. You can always vote with your feet and for some GMs/Players I do just that.

[Andostre]

Oli Ironbar wrote:

I’ve run into this issue consistently and I wonder what our collective thoughts on the matter might be.

First, I’ve never been a fan of prepared casters, so my first solution to the problem of having so much player experience that it conflicts with PC experience — which is to be super knowledgeable about all kinds of situations and backed by thorough studying, both me and my PC can produce an exceptional plan.

The fall back I’ve used is to play super wise characters who work exceptionally well on an intuitive level, so maybe hours in meditation each day or an extraordinary knowledge of the natural world flavor the solution to the problem at hand.

But now I’m playing a charisma character and have landed only on the idea that they are a more than decent story teller and that this imaginative play allows outside the box thinking that surpasses intellect and wisdom.

Do physical stats work as well? Your hammer itself knows when to swing, your body moves first as if it knew what to do before your mind? (No idea about Con).

Can you elaborate on what the issues or problems that you're talking about are? Is it that your PC is acting based on player knowledge? Is it something else? Your topic is not very clear to me.

[Oli Ironbar]

Andostre wrote:

PC is acting based on player knowledge

There lies the tragedy of metagaming.

[Sysryke]

I'm also a little confused as to what your question or point is.

From the title, I can't tell if you're lamenting that meta-gaming is becoming more common, trying to normalize meta-gaming, or looking for a way to integrate meta-gaming into "better" more organic or story driven games. Can you clarify your prompt a bit?

[Azothath]

Oli Ironbar wrote:

Andostre wrote:

PC is acting based on player knowledge

There lies the tragedy of metagaming.

there's always some, it is a Game. You just have to keep it mild or tasteful and try to keep the campaign setting and rulez in mind. That's why you need discussion. Metagaming can be a learned/rewarded behavior, some misunderstanding about the rules of a social game, or too much desire to "win" (poor sportsmanship).

I want to emphasize that acting is a skill and takes practice.
Pretty much everyone is working on their acting skills and hopefully trying to portray a character. When people get too invested/involved you just have to remind them it is a Game and the character outline is on *that* piece of paper/device. Otherwise take a short break or at worst delay the game until people come to their senses.
It is also why I think a few written paragraphs of text giving the character description are so important. Class advancement only describes one part of the character. If people wrote down their paladin vows there would have been very few deviations... it's just an unwritten part of the game that designers have ignored/forgotten.

Other games like Toon!(silly), Stormbringer(stylistic/drama), Call of Cthulhu(horror/drama), Amber(mostly silly drama) can focus on the roleplaying more.

Another tool is to assign PCs to players randomly and tell them to play them as written. Don't do it "as the other player" as it can get too personal. It should prove instructive.

I'll add that too many combat challenges encourage/reward players to be successful in that way. So keep martial challenges to 50-66% to demonstrate that skills, investigation, non-combat feats, cooperation have value.