We need to talk...

Baggly

Is metagaming not also frowned upon in d&d and codenames though? Posting actions when you know players aren't available, using player knowledge - these are meta things. Comms outside of the codenames thread is too. These are obviously widely different but covered under the broad definition of metagaming currently being used.

If so, I am of the opinion that the current charter entry covers the breadth of differences between those games and gives the person running the game the room to maneuver as they see fit?

Drumpot

Necrominus wrote: »

I agree it's difficult. Meta is impossible to govern given the frequency of games and the regularity of most that play them.

My solution would be to remove it entirely and let the game mods make the call on it as you say above, as per the charter it is currently 'frowned upon', which - from my reading means simply don't do it.

I would say from my own perspective I'd not be one to judge players based on prior games, they could just be hectic at work, or have RL stuff going on that keeps them from being active. I detest when people refer to it within a game as a reason to lynch someone.

It's like using the list of 'Who's Online' at the bottom of the forum, outside game information (which we are not supposed to use)
Use the game and it's environs to make a judgement, not the player's past games.

All games are randed so each person has as much a chance of being a baddie as they do of being a goodie (not actual maths :P)

If an experienced player is not posting much or has a real fluffy strategy to the game I always presume they are rolled or a wolf. By default it is harder to be an experienced player in non anon games IMO. Whether I bring it up in game or not I’m definitely thinking it. Anon accounts solve this issue to a large degree but I suppose they also take away from the community familiarity which can be an enjoyable part of the experience.

But then the nature of the game encourages people to try and use tactics for fun or force a reaction. I know I am relatively slow in soccer but I have a good head on me. As such, opponents try to close me down quickly so I compensate by amending how I play. I don’t stop playing cause some players know my weakness. So with regards to referring to previous games/knowledge to have fun or unsettle a player is it really that different?

Out of curiosity is the following meta:

Bj: I’ve got the almanac
Me: surely you wouldn’t have that along with Bullets, protection and the lotto numbers for tomorrow’s draw!
BJ : why would I lie and make up so many powers.
Me: Cause you have done that very thing before!!!!

Now are we saying that this last post by me is meta or wrong because I am referring to previous games? Are we saying that I need to keep it in game by responding with:

BJ: why would I lie and make up so many powers?
Me: Are you suggesting that a wolf wouldn’t lie as a strategy?

Another example:

Necro: lads the village has to get is sh*t together
Me: you have been suspiciously posting low. Less then 500 a day! , what’s with that?

Similar to a point regularly made that certain experienced players are judged just as much on what they aren’t posting as what they do.

I think I’ve prob said meta things before so I’m interested to know what’s fair game and what’s considered dickish. I don’t play any other games like this anywhere so I’m still learning !!

Banjo

Pter wrote: »

Is metagaming not also frowned upon in d&d and codenames though? Posting actions when you know players aren't available, using player knowledge - these are meta things. Comms outside of the codenames thread is too. These are obviously widely different but covered under the broad definition of metagaming currently being used.

If so, I am of the opinion that the current charter entry covers the breadth of differences between those games and gives the person running the game the room to maneuver as they see fit?

In D&D and the like the DM can referee immediately so it's not really a problem as long as they know what they're doing.

Codenames, well how do you police it? You'd have to be incredibly inept to purposefully metagame in-thread, your really only looking at misunderstanding and ignorance of the subtleties of the game. Same for 20Qs and I Spy.

Baggly

500 a day

Baggly

Banjo wrote: »

In D&D and the like the DM can referee immediately so it's not really a problem as long as they know what they're doing.

Codenames, well how do you police it? You'd have to be incredibly inept to purposefully metagame in-thread, your really only looking at misunderstanding and ignorance of the subtleties of the game. Same for 20Qs and I Spy.

So for three different games, we have 3 different levels of meta gaming that could happen. I think the rule as is suits, but I think we can take a look at the wording. I don't think the type of wording you suggested is a million miles from what we have already, so it should be grand if a transition is needed by people in the forum.

Necro

Drumpot wrote: »

Out of curiosity is the following meta:

Bj: I’ve got the almanac
Me: surely you wouldn’t have that along with Bullets, protection and the lotto numbers for tomorrow’s draw!
BJ : why would I lie and make up so many powers.
Me: Cause you have done that very thing before!!!!

Now are we saying that this last post by me is meta or wrong because I am referring to previous games? Are we saying that I need to keep it in game by responding with:

BJ: why would I lie and make up so many powers?
Me: Are you suggesting that a wolf wouldn’t lie as a strategy?

Another example:

Necro: lads the village has to get is sh*t together
Me: you have been suspiciously posting low. Less then 500 a day! , what’s with that?

Similar to a point regularly made that certain experienced players are judged just as much on what they aren’t posting as what they do.

I think I’ve prob said meta things before so I’m interested to know what’s fair game and what’s considered dickish. I don’t play any other games like this anywhere so I’m still learning !!

I like your choices.

Both are metagaming actually, whether they're wrong or not I suppose is the debate. Per the current charter and my interpretation I would say yes, but it's certainly open to debate.

Your amended Beaker response is the way I would handle the situation, but I totally agree with you, it's impossible to rid your mind of pre conceived notions of certain players in non anon games which in itself is the problem.

I think the anon games help, as it's a refreshing change to not be labelled the high poster (from my perspective), although I usually am anyways.

Probably the best way forward would be to allow meta to flow freely for non anon games and bar it completely for anon ones.

Some people like playing with meta, other sites are heavier than here by a long way on the topic in games, talking about how X plays as a wolf VS villager freely so it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

The choice of anon VS non anon and meta being disbarred in the latter probably solves the problem more than a total removal, as Pter said for D&D and Codenames it's probably necessary to include it which is something I didn't originally consider tbh.

So TLDR:

Metagaming is fine for non-anon games.
Disallowed for anon games.

If people don't like that at least it's clear for them which games they would be better suited to signing up for.

Necro

Perhaps a wording like: 'Metagaming is frowned upon, particularly in relation to Codenames and D&D games, but is ultimately at the discretion of the game mods' is an appropriate compromise?

I'm not trying to take anything away from forum mods here, but it's incredibly difficult to discipline a player in terms of Boards rules when it comes to meta. Hardline instances of metagaming can be dealt with seperately but a gentle word from a DM, or the WW game mods is generally enough.

I say this having been justly punished for breaking boards rules in the previous game

sKeith

Pter wrote: »

Everyone should relax on this point. As long as sully or I are playing, one of us will always be picked on n0 :pac:

Heh, and that is exactly what I'm on about.

You and sully are no more likely to be rolled as me or George would. Wolves should be role seeking and you or sully or me have no greater than random chance to be roled. Until our posts during the game are read that is, then the person who is most likely role should be munched.

Baggly

sKeith wrote:

You and sully are no more likely to be rolled as me or George would. Wolves should be role seeking and you or sully or me have no greater than random chance to be roled. Until our posts during the game are read that is, then the person who is most likely role should be munched.

If it happens it happens. It's a fun game. I won't be taking it personally if it keeps happening

Baggly

I think it would be good for game mods to have a dummy kill for n0 or a sub role for the dead player to take over (role = nrv or wolf or roled goodie) but that too is just my players opinion and is up to the game mods.

Necro

Pter wrote: »

I think it would be good for game mods to have a dummy kill for n0 or a sub role for the dead player to take over (role = nrv or wolf or roled goodie) but that too is just my players opinion and is up to the game mods.

I tend to agree with you tbh, but some people don't like it as it leaves nothing to go on for players for the first lynch.

It's not relevant, but interestingly where I'll be off to next month for the world championships (support appreciated btw :P ) they begin games on a lynch as opposed to a munch.
Gives a full day (or 36 hrs, or more :eek: ) for everyone to play.

And yeah, although I agree as above, definitely best left at game mod discretion imo.

Kolido

sKeith wrote: »

Heh, and that is exactly what I'm on about.

You and sully are no more likely to be rolled as me or George would. Wolves should be role seeking and you or sully or me have no greater than random chance to be roled. Until our posts during the game are read that is, then the person who is most likely role should be munched.

Thing is, a wolf team is more likely to munch an experienced player on N0, is that metagaming or a strategy?

One could take it as a compliment I suppose.

sKeith

Drumpot wrote: »

If an experienced player is not posting much or has a real fluffy strategy to the game I always presume they are rolled or a wolf. By default it is harder to be an experienced player in non anon games IMO. Whether I bring it up in game or not I’m definitely thinking it. Anon accounts solve this issue to a large degree but I suppose they also take away from the community familiarity which can be an enjoyable part of the experience.

But then the nature of the game encourages people to try and use tactics for fun or force a reaction. I know I am relatively slow in soccer but I have a good head on me. As such, opponents try to close me down quickly so I compensate by amending how I play. I don’t stop playing cause some players know my weakness. So with regards to referring to previous games/knowledge to have fun or unsettle a player is it really that different?

Out of curiosity is the following meta:

Bj: I’ve got the almanac
Me: surely you wouldn’t have that along with Bullets, protection and the lotto numbers for tomorrow’s draw!
BJ : why would I lie and make up so many powers.
Me: Cause you have done that very thing before!!!!

Now are we saying that this last post by me is meta or wrong because I am referring to previous games? Are we saying that I need to keep it in game by responding with:

BJ: why would I lie and make up so many powers?
Me: Are you suggesting that a wolf wouldn’t lie as a strategy?

Another example:

Necro: lads the village has to get is sh*t together
Me: you have been suspiciously posting low. Less then 500 a day! , what’s with that?

Similar to a point regularly made that certain experienced players are judged just as much on what they aren’t posting as what they do.

I think I’ve prob said meta things before so I’m interested to know what’s fair game and what’s considered dickish. I don’t play any other games like this anywhere so I’m still learning !!

The first bj example and the necro one are both meta gaming, and currently frowned upon as per charter.
Anon does not need a no meta rule, so the no meta rule is for WW non anon.
D&d, codename and anon WW don't need the meta is frowned upon rule.
Non anon shouldn't have it, as nobody cares about that rule and bend it like a twisty straw anyhow.

sKeith

Kolido wrote: »

Thing is, a wolf team is more likely to munch an experienced player on N0, is that metagaming or a strategy?

One could take it as a compliment I suppose.

That's meta gaming, and is frowned upon by the current charter. You are supposed to read the thread and find In thread reasons.
In non anon, the wolves as you say, will just go for the experienced player, trigger the charter, and get a frown added to their name in the fg mod room.

Baggly

sKeith wrote:

The first bj example and the necro one are both meta gaming, and currently frowned upon as per charter. Anon does not need a no meta rule, so the no meta rule is for WW non anon. D&d, codename and anon WW don't need the meta is frowned upon rule. Non anon shouldn't have it, as nobody cares about that rule and bend it like a twisty straw anyhow.

I disagree I think a meta rule is needed in some form for all three games as previously outlined.

sKeith wrote:

That's meta gaming, and is frowned upon by the current charter. You are supposed to read the thread and find In thread reasons. In non anon, the wolves as you say, will just go for the experienced player, trigger the charter, and get a frown added to their name in the fg mod room.

I don't think that's actually what happens. The charter gives the game mods the ability to implement meta rules as they see fit. With a varied approach to implementation from game to game.

Kolido

sKeith wrote: »

That's meta gaming, and is frowned upon by the current charter. You are supposed to read the thread and find In thread reasons.
In non anon, the wolves as you say, will just go for the experienced player, trigger the charter, and get a frown added to their name in the fg mod room.

If thats the case, you would have to say the often used village tactic of accusing low posters is meta.

sKeith

Kolido wrote: »

If thats the case, you would have to say the often used village tactic of accusing low posters is meta.

Low posting, is in game, you are not hearing from a player, that raises suspicion, hints at evasion.

sKeith

Kolido wrote: »

If thats the case, you would have to say the often used village tactic of accusing low posters is meta.

Having the ability to know that it is in character for one player to low post and its not in character for another to low post, that is 100% meta!

sKeith

The whole, 'in a dream I had' crap, meta rule flaunting, how many times have you read that phrase, I've even read it on other sites by boardsies and that site didn't have a no meta rule.

quickbeam

For a different perspective ... I actually like metagaming. WW/Mafia started out as a parlour game, and you can't exactly go anon in that situation. Like at the last meetup, a dozen or so games were played in the evening, you're bound to know people's strategies after a while. But it has a community and friendship feel to it when we play non-anon and bring up other previous games.

In Drumpot's example above, I'd actually not have too much of a problem with the meta aspects of the BJ exchange. Neither would I have a problem with judging a player by how they're posting compared to how they usually post. However, killing somebody just because they're known to be a good player is meta and dickish. But the previous examples are just meta and banter. Being dickish isn't in the spirit of the game anyhow, and wouldn't be acceptable in an old fashioned parlour version of the game either.

sKeith

quickbeam wrote: »

For a different perspective ... I actually like metagaming. WW/Mafia started out as a parlour game, and you can't exactly go anon in that situation. Like at the last meetup, a dozen or so games were played in the evening, you're bound to know people's strategies after a while. But it has a community and friendship feel to it when we play non-anon and bring up other previous games.

In Drumpot's example above, I'd actually not have too much of a problem with the meta aspects of the BJ exchange. Neither would I have a problem with judging a player by how they're posting compared to how they usually post. However, killing somebody just because they're known to be a good player is meta and dickish. But the previous examples are just meta and banter. Being dickish isn't in the spirit of the game anyhow, and wouldn't be acceptable in an old fashioned parlour version of the game either.

I've played games over on MU, where meta is fair game, it is not some dirty secret were people dream things to flaunt charter rules. It encourages you to get to know the people you are playing with, and gauge their play on how they play as a villager or how they play as wolf in the past.

Necro

quickbeam wrote: »

For a different perspective ... I actually like metagaming. WW/Mafia started out as a parlour game, and you can't exactly go anon in that situation. Like at the last meetup, a dozen or so games were played in the evening, you're bound to know people's strategies after a while. But it has a community and friendship feel to it when we play non-anon and bring up other previous games.

In Drumpot's example above, I'd actually not have too much of a problem with the meta aspects of the BJ exchange. Neither would I have a problem with judging a player by how they're posting compared to how they usually post. However, killing somebody just because they're known to be a good player is meta and dickish. But the previous examples are just meta and banter. Being dickish isn't in the spirit of the game anyhow, and wouldn't be acceptable in an old fashioned parlour version of the game either.

Yeah, look, I wasn't saying Drumpot was wrong with his examples, but it is metagaming and by current charter it's viewed in my interpretation as wrong (hence I was suggesting editing or removing the rule).

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with anyone saying what Drumpot has used in game either, but the more extreme examples of meta like killing off a player on the basis that they'd be viewed as a good player, or, to switch it off the kills telling players not to follow another's advice based off previous games is the type of metagaming that I abhor. It's insulting (the latter example) and unfair and downright bolloxology (the former).

And it is creeping into games which is sad to see.

quickbeam

So ... remove the meta gaming rule, and replace with the don't be a dick rule. I know it's already there, but if it's there twice it might be adhered to!

Mollyb60

quickbeam wrote: »

For a different perspective ... I actually like metagaming. WW/Mafia started out as a parlour game, and you can't exactly go anon in that situation. Like at the last meetup, a dozen or so games were played in the evening, you're bound to know people's strategies after a while. But it has a community and friendship feel to it when we play non-anon and bring up other previous games.

Until your game mod calls you a wolf when you're not!

quickbeam wrote: »

In Drumpot's example above, I'd actually not have too much of a problem with the meta aspects of the BJ exchange. Neither would I have a problem with judging a player by how they're posting compared to how they usually post. However, killing somebody just because they're known to be a good player is meta and dickish. But the previous examples are just meta and banter. Being dickish isn't in the spirit of the game anyhow, and wouldn't be acceptable in an old fashioned parlour version of the game either.

I think the amount of meta gaming we currently have is fine and I don't see any issue with the charter as it is. My problem is if we push out the meta thing to include in depth analysis of how a player plays like they did on MU. That is too far IMO (and also way too much work).

quickbeam

Mollyb60 wrote: »

Until your game mod calls you a wolf when you're not!

Hee, hee!! That still makes me laugh!

Necro

Mollyb60 wrote: »

I think the amount of meta gaming we currently have is fine and I don't see any issue with the charter as it is. My problem is if we push out the meta thing to include in depth analysis of how a player plays like they did on MU. That is too far IMO (and also way too much work).

I think it's fine when it's limited to Drumpots examples as above, and even the 'in a dream' thing (which I actually don't have a problem with).

The other side of it is (and not naming names here) but the last games backrooms and game thread had examples of the ugly side of meta imo and that's the part we need to stamp out.

And again, it's not a tirade against the last game, there are other examples too in previous versions or... dreams :P

sKeith

Mollyb60 wrote: »

Until your game mod calls you a wolf when you're not!



I think the amount of meta gaming we currently have is fine and I don't see any issue with the charter as it is. My problem is if we push out the meta thing to include in depth analysis of how a player plays like they did on MU. That is too far IMO (and also way too much work).

1) rule is metagming is frowned upon.
2) you says the amount of metagaming we do is right.

metagaming is against the rules. (or frowned upon)

fix the rules so that one behaviour is acceptable, but another is not.
be specific. either metagaming is allowed or its not.
if you want certain level of metagaming allowed, then metagaming is frowned upon is incorrect.

Mollyb60

sKeith wrote: »

1) rule is metagming is frowned upon.
2) you says the amount of metagaming we do is right.

metagaming is against the rules. (or frowned upon)

fix the rules so that one behaviour is acceptable, but another is not.
be specific. either metagaming is allowed or its not.
if you want certain level of metagaming allowed, then metagaming is frowned upon is incorrect.

Have you an example of how you would like the rule to look?

sKeith

Mollyb60 wrote: »

Have you an example of how you would like the rule to look?

oh, good idea.

sKeith

what metagaming we dislike,
1) using the who's online, to keep tabs of a players comings and goings, stalking their posts outside of ww forum, and introducing that into game decisions.

I think, but am uncertain, that this is what is bad and dont want done.