I am getting tired of using the word "gamey". It doesnt convey the meaning that a lot of people want the word to convey. I think this was the problem that Archduke encountered when trying to inform people what Machiavelli was all about. Bib's long post about what Spain will do also encapsulates this view. But people have had trouble distilling the concept into a word that we can use to describe things accurately. Therefore, I draw upon my personal experience in pen-and-paper RPG games to solve this problem.
Meta-game thinking is a term from pen-and-paper RPG games. I do not know the extent of the word's usage across the vast array of gaming systems out there. However, I do know for certain that the term is specifically used by the Dungeons and Dragons development team. The following passage is taken from the Dungeon Master's Guide for Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.
"I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap," a player says to the others, "because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn't deactivate somehow". That is an example of meta-game thinking. Any time the players base their character's actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game, they're using meta-game thinking. This should always be discouraged, because it detracts from the real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief.
Surprise your players by foiling meta-game thinking. Suppose there is a lever on the other side of the pit, for example, but it is rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and dont let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. Figure out the reasons for what they have done, and the PCs will need to do the same.
In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is "I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it." In fact, this is wonderful -- it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.
Meta-game thinking is thinking from the perspective of a human playing a game and not the subject of the game. All to often, we slip into meta-game thinking and it messes up our games. EU2 is not just a wargame, or an empire-building game, but also a historical game. And with that historical essence comes role-playing.
As humans in the year 2003, we have access to broad historical knowledge. Also, the game engine is transparent. We can read event files, monarch files, etc. We can save, hit F12, type columbus, look around, and reload. We have these tools at our disposal.
The countries we are playing did not. Spain did not hand over Rousillon to France peacefully in 1492 because it gave France permanent CB and Spain wanted peace so they could get over to the Aztecs by 1495. England did not sell Calais for a paltry sum to prevent costly war with France while she planned total annihilation of the Scottish and saved up money for John Cabot whom she knows spawns in Anglia in 1497.
I think this is the very heart of the Machiavelli concept. The idea is to crush this kind of thinking. Because it turns the game into Civilization. It turns the game into Age of Empires. It defeats the whole purpose of the game; to stand in the shoes of those who once were.
We tell ourselves we are just making better decisions than them, but we arent. We are making decisions they could NEVER have made. And that is the problem; information. We have it and they didnt. France didnt stay aristocratic for the cheap cavalry and better diplo rating. Spain didnt stay narrow-minded for the extra colonists and merchants. They made their decisions for different reasons.
I think that the term "meta-game thinking" is a good term and one that we should start using. Gamey is overused and no longer accurate. Lets use a term that actually describes what we are talking about.
Meta-game thinking is a term from pen-and-paper RPG games. I do not know the extent of the word's usage across the vast array of gaming systems out there. However, I do know for certain that the term is specifically used by the Dungeons and Dragons development team. The following passage is taken from the Dungeon Master's Guide for Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.
"I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap," a player says to the others, "because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn't deactivate somehow". That is an example of meta-game thinking. Any time the players base their character's actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game, they're using meta-game thinking. This should always be discouraged, because it detracts from the real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief.
Surprise your players by foiling meta-game thinking. Suppose there is a lever on the other side of the pit, for example, but it is rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and dont let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM. In the game world, someone made the trap in the dungeon for a purpose. Figure out the reasons for what they have done, and the PCs will need to do the same.
In short, when possible you should encourage the players to employ in-game logic. Confronted with the situation given above, an appropriate response from a clever character is "I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap, because the gnomes who constructed the trap must have a means to deactivate it." In fact, this is wonderful -- it shows smart thinking as well as respect for the verisimilitude of the game world.
Meta-game thinking is thinking from the perspective of a human playing a game and not the subject of the game. All to often, we slip into meta-game thinking and it messes up our games. EU2 is not just a wargame, or an empire-building game, but also a historical game. And with that historical essence comes role-playing.
As humans in the year 2003, we have access to broad historical knowledge. Also, the game engine is transparent. We can read event files, monarch files, etc. We can save, hit F12, type columbus, look around, and reload. We have these tools at our disposal.
The countries we are playing did not. Spain did not hand over Rousillon to France peacefully in 1492 because it gave France permanent CB and Spain wanted peace so they could get over to the Aztecs by 1495. England did not sell Calais for a paltry sum to prevent costly war with France while she planned total annihilation of the Scottish and saved up money for John Cabot whom she knows spawns in Anglia in 1497.
I think this is the very heart of the Machiavelli concept. The idea is to crush this kind of thinking. Because it turns the game into Civilization. It turns the game into Age of Empires. It defeats the whole purpose of the game; to stand in the shoes of those who once were.
We tell ourselves we are just making better decisions than them, but we arent. We are making decisions they could NEVER have made. And that is the problem; information. We have it and they didnt. France didnt stay aristocratic for the cheap cavalry and better diplo rating. Spain didnt stay narrow-minded for the extra colonists and merchants. They made their decisions for different reasons.
I think that the term "meta-game thinking" is a good term and one that we should start using. Gamey is overused and no longer accurate. Lets use a term that actually describes what we are talking about.
Now we just need a short term for "Meta-game Thinking".
