Metagaming is a very strange and difficult topic. In theory, as soon as you discuss something in a game, then it’s not outside the game any more. But recently I’ve been thinking about it a bit more.

What is Metagaming

The literal definition of metagaming is “anything outside the game that affects the game.” The colloquial definition usually implies that you are doing it on purpose somehow. There’s also the definition as it applies to RPGs, which is basically just doing something based on information the players have, not the characters. It can be an engaging way to think outside the box to accomplish goals in creative ways, or it can feel like you’re not playing the game the way it’s supposed to be played/

Metagaming vs. Cheating

There is a very fine line between metagaming and cheating. Some people would say there isn’t any at all. Cheating is about breaking the rules, whereas metagaming is doing something outside the rules. Looking at another players cards is cheating because the game says that’s supposed to be hidden from other players. Knowing what a player has a good card in their hand because they’re smiling is metagaming. Purposefully sitting very close to another player to make them have a difficult time hiding their cards is somewhere inbetween. As game designers, we have to choose what we do and do not allow, and we can’t say everything. There’s also the basics of human decency that we have to hope people have. Does knocking out your opponent with a punch count as cheating? Probably not, but it’s a terrible thing to in a general sense. For this dicsussion, we’re goign to say that metagaming isn’t cheating, and it turns into cheating when you specifically go against the rules of the game.

Fun Metagaming

There are games that are essentially completely metagaming. A lot of people play social deduction games like this. They don’t rely on information or alibis, only on facial expressions and other observations. The game “The Mind” is arguably entirely about metagaming. You just have to guess at what other people are doing based entirely on vibes. Those vibes are outside the game, aren’t they?

There are also social games specifically about metagaming as an element of the game, somehow. Diplomacy lets player write out deals or make treaties or other sort of outside the game decisions. Blood on the Clocktower or Two Rooms and a Boom let players go into separate rooms or have private conversations about their roles. You could argue that conversations themselves are a form of metagaming, since phrasing and freeform discussion are unstructured and therefore cannot be regulated by the rules. These are all fun ways to play games.

Unfun Metagaming

However, this is not always the case. There is a lot of variance on what people find fun or even acceptable. Using facial expressions to gauge guilt can be fun except for people who feel like they always look guilty, or who just want to play the role of a deductive reasoner rather than be judged on how well they can navigate social interactions. Pulling people aside to talk can also be awkward, both as the person who is now one-on-one and may be uncomfortable, or as the person who is left behind as others have conversations without them, leaving them out of the fun.

Addressing Metagaming

Metagaming is very hard to deal with as a game designer. Partly because you never think of it until it happens. If you never see someone metagame in a certain way, then you might not know to address it. Some games also can set awkward expectations for metagaming. If you have a bluffing game that requires people to lie, then it may make them think there are other normally frowned upon things you are supposed to let slide. Directly addressing metagaming can also lead to even more of it. If you tell people not to do something, then they’re going to think about why even more, and maybe try and find other ways to do it. In hidden movement games, for example, some rules state that if you make a mistake about how you were moving, there’s a specific process to follow to “undo” that mistake. But that paradoxically means that it is now in the rules that you can mess up and get a specific result, which means you aren’t really messing up, which means you can now purposefully skirt the rules while following them. It’s a big mess that can’t quite be solved, at least not by me.

Conclusion

Turns out I had less to say on the topic than I thought. I really enjoy trying to win a game by implementing lateral thinking, but metagaming has so many risks in both the game design and the game playing. Try and think before you metagame, and try to address it within your games if you can.