[inca1980]

So I wanted to get some input about a question I have.  I have GM'd a lot, and I am soon about to start a table-top campaign.  I know the group very well and we have rotated GM's several times already.  I was wondering if there's anyone out there who feels that there is metagaming that actually makes the game more fun.  I agree that using knowledge of enemy stats, special powers of different enemies, or trying to psych-out the GM are all kind of detrimental.  But what about interaction between players at the table when it comes to discussing problem solving and cooperation.  Of course this would mean that sometimes players are speaking out of character about info their characters don't necessarily have yet.  The specific scenario I have in mind is that I have players who really love to eat up the spot-light and they guard it rather jealously.  Add into that the fact that shadowrunners are all freelancers and I have felt often times very sidelined as a PC because I'm more of the cooperative nature.  So I want to know what people think:
1.  Is it better to strongly enforce in-character communication between players, even if that means certain characters dominate the whole discussion for a while because in they're in the spot-light, i.e. the decker is doing matrix legwork.
2.  Is it ok to just let all the players freely discuss strategies and solutions for problems they're trying to solve, even if the action spot-light is on one PC.

Part of me is leaning towards the 2nd option because when players are discussing the game at the table, even when it's heated debate, that's already a win in my book. 
Let me know what you think about Good vs. Bad metagaming.

[Namikaze]

My table is pretty much completely open discussion at any time.  Players are free to discuss their strategies, and because of that I am free to adjust my strategies to make my enemies stronger or weaker as needed.  Thus, I don't have to finagle numbers - I just get people to step into the line of fire or not.  It's also a good way to reward creative strategies without necessarily saying, "Good job.  Here's a gold star."

There are times though when a player needs to be in-character.  For those events, I never let the table help the person out.  Since we're in-character at that moment, there's no reason to think that the character is getting support from his friends.

[Michael Chandra]

Keep in mind that the characters are more experienced than the players, so part of strategy debates and "you could say X" is something their characters might have come up with themselves. And there's also making them use Free Actions to shout instructions to each other that pretty much recap the strategy debate.

[susan_brindle]

Is it ok to just let all the players freely discuss strategies and solutions for problems they're trying to solve, even if the action spot-light is on one PC.

Part of me is leaning towards the 2nd option because when players are discussing the game at the table, even when it's heated debate, that's already a win in my book. 
Let me know what you think about Good vs. Bad metagaming.

Three points:

1. "if the group is having fun I'm winning" is the best philosophy a GM can have. Well done! Hearty group discussion is one of my favorite parts of shadowrun.

2. A certain amount of metagaming is highly conducive to good gameplay. For example, I strongly encourage parties not to include characters who are racist against races that are present in the party. Likewise, I also suggest that all starting characters, and any characters who join the group later, are built with the group in mind- don't build a second Decker!

3. Because I'm incredibly pedantic, I feel it's important to accurately define metagaming. Metagaming is when your characters benefit from knowledge they don't actually have. Ideas they could have, rules clarifications, and reminders of knowledge they do have aren't metagaming. EXAMPLE:

Steve's character, Cybersteve, is in a combat situation against five enemies. Todd is saying something to him-

THINGS TODD MIGHT SAY THAT ARE METAGAMING
"Remember what Carl's decker found out right before he died without telling anyone, and make sure not to shoot their booby-trapped left shins!"
"Try to make it quick- I remember this module from last time, and there's a wizard nearby!"

THINGS TODD MIGHT SAY THAT ARE NOT METAGAMING
"Since there's so many of them, a grenade is probably easier than shooting them."
"Don't forget that Chad's Gunbullet Blessing is still on, so you're at +4 defense"
"Remember that Mr. Johnson said we need at least two of them alive"
"What if you shot the switch and activated the giant electromagnet on the wall? That might be a smart way to nonlethal this."

Keep in mind that the characters are more experienced than the players, so part of strategy debates and "you could say X" is something their characters might have come up with themselves. And there's also making them use Free Actions to shout instructions to each other that pretty much recap the strategy debate.

Too true

[Reaver]

Meta-gaming happens at my table all the time. For the most part I allow it to happen as it encourages everyone to take part, even if their character isn't in the spot light at the time.

Also, its really hard to say just what random knowledge a character actually has, and often a player will spout some little known fact or bit of info that could entirely be character knowledge, just not player knowledge...

But there are times when Meta-gaming can ruin a game... so I generally give a heads up that for a particular scene, a pkayer has to rely on his own knowledge to make character decisions.

[forgarn]

Meta-gaming happens at my table all the time. For the most part I allow it to happen as it encourages everyone to take part, even if their character isn't in the spot light at the time.

Also, its really hard to say just what random knowledge a character actually has, and often a player will spout some little known fact or bit of info that could entirely be character knowledge, just not player knowledge...

But there are times when Meta-gaming can ruin a game... so I generally give a heads up that for a particular scene, a pkayer has to rely on his own knowledge to make character decisions.

That is why I require character backgrounds.

I do agree with susan_brindle.  You really have to make sure that what they are doing is actually metagaming before you try and stop it.  I also go in for the knowledge rolls.  If it is something that the character might know but the player wouldn't, then go for the intelligence or knowledge roll to see.

[Reaver]

Meta-gaming happens at my table all the time. For the most part I allow it to happen as it encourages everyone to take part, even if their character isn't in the spot light at the time.

Also, its really hard to say just what random knowledge a character actually has, and often a player will spout some little known fact or bit of info that could entirely be character knowledge, just not player knowledge...

But there are times when Meta-gaming can ruin a game... so I generally give a heads up that for a particular scene, a pkayer has to rely on his own knowledge to make character decisions.

That is why I require character backgrounds.

I do agree with susan_brindle.  You really have to make sure that what they are doing is actually metagaming before you try and stop it.  I also go in for the knowledge rolls.  If it is something that the character might know but the player wouldn't, then go for the intelligence or knowledge roll to see.

While knowledge rolls are one way of dealing with things,  all the rolls can slow down game play.... hence why I allow meta-gaming (to a degree)

Character backgrounds are nice. But don't cover the breath of knowledge a character may have. Heck, write your own bio for yourself, then compare it to everything you know! There will be gaps in what you know compared to what your bio says you know :p

Also, while I have played SR since its original release, there is plenty I don't know.... and maybe an other player does.... which could extend to his character, as that character actually lives in the world.


Metagaming only becomes a problem when it ruins the table's enjoyment of the game. If everyone is having fun.. don't worry about it.