Metagaming and Tabletalk
Differences in traditional versus OSR metagame
Welcome to the Glyph and Grok - A weekly blog-letter exploring design, execution, and culture relating to anything played on a tabletop. See the other pieces on Game Mastery from the Glyph and Grok here.
Introduction
One of the topics I see that comes up in tabletop roleplay discussion is "metagaming" at the table. Where should the lines be drawn between the player and their player character? How much talking above the table is too much talking above the table? I find it interesting that this topic seems to be far more dominant in discussions around "traditional" style games like D&D and Pathfinder. OSR style games seem, at least to me, to have something about them that make this conversation less of an issue. So why do we think that is?
The Thing
Metagaming is broadly defined as "the act of a player using real-world or out-of-game knowledge to influence decisions or actions within the game that their character would not possess."
The act of a player using real-world or out-of-game knowledge to influence decisions or actions within the game that their character would not possess.
This seems most commonly to present at tables where a player may have intimate knowledge of a monster stat block or a player makes a decision for their PC in a context they only seem to be choosing because the player, not the player character, knows it is the best option. This can drain the vibe at the table for the whole group, and I believe is more easily avoided in old school revival/renaissance style gameplay for a number of reasons and thus is a good source of thought for anyone running the traditional style game to consider in how they can reduce the negative effect of metagaming at their table.
In OSR games, the rules are for the GM, not the players:
In traditional games, the players know and in many cases are asked to keep the game master honest in their piloting of the enemies at the table. With so much work involved in keeping the circus moving, it is only a matter of time before the players have info just from normal play that may inform on what their best move will be on a turn.
Outside of combat, try your hand at borrowing mechanics and tests from other games. My current favorite of these is “diminishing pools” from Grimwild - I actually don’t even do it correctly, I just take a dice pool and have someone roll the whole thing and 4’s and 5’s fall out of the pool and when it is empty, the thing happens. Try it!
OSR games tend to provide "looser" stat blocks, meaning there is usually interpretation expected and baked in to the design not handcuffing the GM
Break this dynamic by spicing up the monsters. Change them before they hit the table so it is not just a GM fiat thing (though nobody can stop you, try that sometime too but it will feel better as a design choice)
Look through OSR monsters and books for ideas. OSR style games use a statblock that could be wiggled AND typically a creature is given their defining characteristics as a simple description of a special ability. Try this in your traditional game, and when the players ask how the monster did that, tell them you’d be happy to review it later when its not in the thick of battle.
OSR Games WANT and value the player thinking through the problems and situations the PC is in. The player is encouraged to pretend the situation is real and they are in it themselves, yes they have the abilities and physical stats of the PC, but there is an expectation of player skill to develop in this play style - Think outside the character sheet.
Checks can be very lackluster, especially if they have a very low threshhold and lose their weight. Keep attribute and skill checks meaty by looking at how OSR games describe their use: Only roll when there’s consequences on the line and make the outcome mean something. I’ve seen plenty of times where a GM calls for a roll, the roll is bad, and the GM gives the equivalent of a success anyways - I’ve done it myself.
Keep the focus on interesting decisions for the players. This took me a long time to learn myself and is one of the single greatest gains my game mastering skill has achieved in the last couple years - Always be looking to create interesting decisions for the players, give them as much information as you can, make the context real for the players, and then make their decisions matter by including their decisions into the context moving forward.
Reiterating the previous point because it’s so worth it - Define the stakes, spell out the situational modifiers, roll the dice and make that decision sacred. (Rolling out in the open is a great way to keep yourself honest)
Finally
The concept of discussing meta-gaming and table talk has not really come up at my tables when running OSR games. My belief is this is just because there’s no incentive for the GM or the players to hide anything from each other, there’s nothing to gain. The players might be “hiding” things from monsters or NPCs, the villain might have a trick up their sleeve - but the best outcomes don’t come from pulling one over on the players - The best outcomes seem to come from giving the players all the rope then can manage to give themselves and then let the dice hang them out to dry.
What do you think? Comment below!
Thank you, dear reader!
Please like, share, and comment your thoughts.
Till next time!
Sometimes the line gets blurry around teamwork in combat. As a player, you naturally have access to table info like initiative order, and you might make choices for your character because you understand those mechanics. That’s metagaming in a sense, but it’s the mild, mostly harmless kind.
The real problem is when a player uses deep rules or bestiary knowledge to steer other people’s turns. Example: “That’s an owlbear, dude. It's only AC 13, just should go hit it!” Now you’re influencing another player’s decisions with out-of-character knowledge. Also, it's rude.
OSR-style games push back on this behavior in a couple of useful ways. First, they emphasize exploration and world-discovery over optimal combat simulation. Players and characters can pursue curiosities independently. Second, monsters are simpler and combat tends to be deadlier (especially at low levels), which makes out-of-turn coaching less effective. It really just comes down to the will of the dice at times.
I think one solid way of dealing with monsters is to consider them from the characters perspective. Describe rather than tell them what they're up against.
Reimagining or reskinning/altering basic monsters adds some doubt. Unless the characters (not the players) have fought or seen a particular kind of creature before then don't give them it's name. That way they don't automatically know it's stats.
Ive done this with goblins, orcs, gnolls, trolls, etc.