51 réponses à ce sujet

[dunniteowl]

Eguintir Eligard got me thinking the other day with a quip in Lance Botelle's: "Do You Like Puzzles" Thread Topic when he asked: "To be honest I don't know why people have used the word meta gaming as if there is something wrong with that."

And the one response I found so far that matches my view of what, in it's core, Meta-Gaming is, was this response by Lance Botelle:  "I always thought the term meant to gain an advantage with the game through knowledge beyond that of the PC."

As this came up in the Modules Forum and the folks that I feel might most positively provide feedback on this, I thought I'd post this here.  If it looks like it might grow legs, I can easily move it over to the General Discussions Forum and give it a slightly wider audience. (or post a link to it from there...)

All that said:
To you, what is Meta-Gaming?  How evil is it in your view?  Is it a necessary evil?  Why has the meaning changed and in what ways, in your view, has the meaning changed to match the reality of gaming's external feedback versus what your character(s) should know or be able to do?

Now you all know what a talker/typer I am and so I am going to Not do my response to this in this post, in order to be fair to you all -- and hopefully manage to keep you awake longer this way.

So, give it your best shot.  Explain what you percieve as Meta-Gaming, how it applies in NWN2, and what it does in the process of being a builder or a player of modules.  Tell us your proposals for limiting it, where it is required, and how to "build" or "play" around it when possible.

dunniteowl

[Quixal]

"I always thought the term meant to gain an advantage with the game through knowledge beyond that of the PC." pretty much exactly matches my definition.

Personally, I don't like meta-gaming. I think putting myself in the head of my character and acting solely one their personality and the knowledge they have available allows me to enjoy gaming more. Certainly, it allows for a very different experience replaying the same game or mod. In pen and paper gaming I tend to reward roleplaying and staying away from meta-gaming.

That said, I can't honestly say there is anything wrong with it. My dislike is personal taste. Some folks approach a game like a puzzle to be solved and in that sense, using any available knowledge only makes sense. I am sure there are as many other ways people play games or reasons they enjoy them. If the experience is not damaged by meta-gaming for these people, more power to them.

So, of course, I am a bit of a hypocrite for avoiding meta-gaming in my pen and paper games...

Modifié par Quixal, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:12 .

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I remember the old-school arcade games I used to play, 8-bit side-scrollers where you had to practically memorize the whole level before you could get through it all, playing it over and over, and dying over and over, until you had the whole thing down to muscle memory and knew exactly where to throw each grenade, what item you needed to save for what boss. Those games were fun, but I don't think I'll ever play one again.

The problem with those games isn't that they're mindless or you don't to think and figure out problems, but rather that the problem-solving and thinking is done as the player repeats a level over and over again, trying slightly different tactics each time. You spend a lot of time going through the same motions over and over again, and frustration sets in with each iteration.

And that's the problem with metagaming, not the lack of 'realism', but how the game is ripped apart into multiple do-overs, walkthroughs, and easter-egg hunts. A 'pure', non-meta game would be completely self-contained, each movement within the game flowing seamless from start to finish, without repeating the hard part 33 times, without splitting up the experience into a multitude of different narratives, most of which ended badly for the PC. If you don't have to memorize the level before you can beat it, then you get to see and experience the level, the story, in much the same way as your PC would see and experience it, which generally makes for a better story.

As for the original thread, about puzzles, I don't see much problem with puzzles and other game elements that use the player's skill instead of the PC's skill, as long these puzzles encourage the player to think and act in a manner consistent with how the PC is thinking and acting. Flipping around pick heads may not be as complicated as picking a real lock, much less a fantasy lock, but it's similar enough that it helps the player feel like a lock-picker. It draws the player into the PC's worldview, rather than the player looking outside the immediate game, to a previous run-through or a game guide, to solve the problem.

Think about it this way, if you were a NPC, watching the PC go about her business, would she seem like a rational, reasonable actor, or is she doing things that make no sense in that particular moment, even though they might turn out to be fortuitous decisions later on, like Bill Murray running around in Groundhog Day. If the PC seems insane, then you got a meta-game in bad way. If the PC just seems to be unusually lucky with uncanny foresight, then you're ok.

[Kaldor Silverwand]

I agree with Lance's definition. I also agree it is unavoidable to some degree if the game has any challenge at all. A good game will periodically throw surprises at you that lead to a reload. That is ok since the scope of the meta-gaming in such a case is normally limited to that battle or boss. In Baldur's Gate there was a password for entering the thieves guild. The password was an homage to a real world author, the one who came up with the idea of a Thieves Guild. So that both broke the fourth wall and was a bit of meta-gaming, but the scope was limited and it wasn't the only way to get into the building.



What bothers me is when the scope of meta-gaming influences the entire game. For example, the crafting system in the OC and MotB was dependent on secret knowledge in books that were themselves not required for crafting. Whoever thought that was a good idea was sadly mistaken because it just begs for meta-gaming. How many minutes was it before the first person posted all of the recipes culled from the toolset and then it was stickied in the forums? Good game design should prevent these obvious benefits of meta-gaming.



For puzzles I think that the characteristics of the PC should if possible be brought to bear. The player's skills with the mouse or the speed of their PC should not be critical factors in puzzle solving.



The use of character traits and skills in conversations and puzzles can go a long way to removing the benefits of meta-gaming. Unfortunately as a modder, all of that requires significantly more time to develop and test.



Regards

[Eguintir Eligard]

Haha that's funny that I sparked this discussion because I don't even know what meta-gaming is. I thought it meant mini games within a game, such as a puzzle, as was being discussed, or the thief quests in my game (which I take to be kind of an adventure intermission/mini game).

[M. Rieder]

Strictly speaking, Metagaming would be some sort of in-game reference regarding the game itsself. For example, I did this in The Wizard's Apprentice when the PC has a conversation with a villager and remarks how suspicious it is that monsters always seem to turn up as though someone were placing them there. That is metagaming by the book. Of course, this term appears to have taken on a different meaning which is a little more nebulous.



My definition of metagaming is in keeping with a more textbook definition and I think it can be used sparingly to add some humor or whimsy to a game. Too much will quickly get irritating, much like a joke too-oft repeated becomes irritating.



Regarding "breaking character" in an RPG, which is what this thread seems to be about, I think as a game designer, one should seek to be as immersive as possible. Appropriate game balance is necessary to prevent impossible situations or the need to break character to continue in the game.



I believe players should do what makes them happy. This is a game, after all, not work. If a player wants to open up a mod, look at the code, and cheat shamelessly, and this makes him or her happy, then great! If someone wants to never reload because they want to be as strictly realistic as possible, and that makes them happy, then great!

[MasterChanger]

I very much agree with what both LotRS and Kaldor said. I'll also point out that meta-gaming can mean something quite different when it comes to RP with other human beings, as opposed to just being consistent with the story, as in SP mode.

In PW-land, there tends to be at least some communication between the players, through forums or other means, rather than just between characters (Out-of-Character vs. In-Character communication). Most people interested in RP agree that the quality of character interactions is best preserved when players think as their characters and try to forget any OOC knowledge they may have. Using OOC knowledge in these situations is also generally called meta-gaming.

And M. Rieder, the meta-gaming you refer to in Wizard's Apprentice did break character, IMO. That was one of the elements that contributed to the adventure being whimsical rather than serious. Not every adventure is meant to make the player put themselves completely into the character's shoes, and that's ok.

Modifié par MasterChanger, 30 janvier 2011 - 06:57 .

[dunniteowl]

Wow, some very interesting responses there.  And more than I expected in such a short period of time.  I am not known for starting topics and so I don't consider myself someone to create those of great interest.  I digress...

Okay.

IN the strictest sense of the concept, to me, Meta-Gaming is having or using knowledge from outside the game environment that the character couldn't possibly have or know. 

I think, however, that Meta-game information, as mentioned above, gets a pretty bad rap.  Think about it for a moment.

Isometric, semi-top down views, the ability to zoom back and zoom in and control the view in ways a character couldn't possibly have access to in the game and yet there we are, not only giving it a nod and a wink, it's absolutely vital to the player's ability to properly plan and move through the game's environment successfully.

Meta-gaming is, in many respects, exactly that: vital to the success of the outcome.  So why does it get such a bad rap all the time?

Here are some reasons I see meta-gaming, not as a necessary evil, or an unavoidable consequence of playing a game from outside the environment in the first place (and so far, that just cannot be helped)  :

1) First and foremost, there are things we still cannot divine from being the character that, were we actually in that game environment, we would have every right to know and glean as a character.  A short list:

• We have no sense of smell
  
• Hearing is limited to the sounds put in place
  
• Our vision and other four physical senses are much more canny than the game can allow for
  
• We have the ability to think ahead that the game cannot possibly account for in terms of giving us the benefit of the doubt or actions we cannot perform in game that we could in real life (*or should be able to in the game, but simply are not allowed to do.)

2) Mostly true, in this sense, in a party based game (whether that's an SP party or an MP party), we simply cannot communicate in the game as quickly as we can or as effectively as we can in a live and teamed environment.

Your party members, in the OC, in SP mods made by the Community, or in PWs, cannot possibly comprehend and learn from the mistakes (and also from their successes) in the environment in a sense that allows for character growth in a way the might mimic gaining knowledge over time.

3) Khelgar, Neeshka, Qara, Sand, Bishop, and all other NPCs, villain or valiant companion, do not gain experience as knowledge and tactics that can be employed automatically later on.

What this means is that all party tactical information, dissemination and execution falls to the player or players.  And in that moment, knowing you can't know all that you could, you absolutely have to have knowledge and ability that the game cannot provide in any other way than to allow some "freedom" of thought, knowledge and action that, were you actually in the environment, you wouldn't have, all other things being equal.


Now all that said, there are types of meta-gaming and then there is meta-gaming as exploiting.  As I contend, there is a basic level of meta-gaming that not only cannot be avoided, it is necessary for the player to progress and ultimately overcome the obstacles, advance the plot and succeed in their playing of the game.

Then there is the darker, uglier side of meta-gaming where we know that certain characters are subject to doing specific dumb things, or that certain obstacles have a super easy way to overcome them due to design flaws and we use those to our advantage, irrespective of it's breaking of immersion, or driving us way past that 'fourth wall' in that knowing they are design flaws instead of quirks of behavior, we barrel past them in short order and snicker as we collect loot, sort weaponry out and move along.

And this is the sort of meta-gaming that -- while it maybe doesn't deserve to be hated -- gives meta-game information a bad rap.  And then we have to ask, "Who's responsible?"  Is it the player?  They can't help having meta-game information, they don't exist in that world.  They require a certain level and amount of meta-game information in order to successfully navigate the game.  Is it their fault that, when they see something that is obviously a design limitation that they take advantage of it?

Is it the designer/developer's fault?  I mean, they should know, better than anyone, the limits of their game's abilities, right? So why create these moments where such flaws become so glaring, so commonplace, that a large chunk of the playing population inherently recognizes those flaws and their exploits to overcome them?  Is it lack of time?  Is it lack of creative solutioneering?  Is it a simple failure to insist on a higher level of quality in their interactions within the game?

It's nearly impossible to fathom, in my mind, that some of these glaring issues couldn't have been discovered and addressed at some point in time prior to a released product.  On the other hand, there are things that occur in the developer side that we are not privy to and may never be privy to, that affect whether or not these "flaws" are even noted down as requiriing correction.

And there are other Meta-Game issues that, had the designers not been focussed on doing some things a certain way, could have easily seen these potential bugaboos and taken care of, but, for whatever reason, they just didn't

In PnP, Meta-Gaming = bad, because you are actually involved in an interactive story driven environment where you can ask questions out of character, that are directly related to what your character has every right to know based on their senses and abilities that cannot be displayed on the table top and must be conveyed in other means.  That's meta-gaming, but only for the purpose of increasing the Players' abilities to play their characters to their fullest.

Out of character conversations have to be limited in some fashion (*usually by conventional house rules of someone indicating they are not in character and are not talking about game relevant things) and the amount of that non-character and non-game related discussion is usually limited in time as well.

In cRPGs, the level of character interaction is, by it's very nature of pre-scripted events and conversations, very limited and so meta-gaming those characters in some fashion again becomes necessary -- possibly vital -- to the continuation of the game.

The difficulty that I see (and the flaws that accompany them) is that there are times when someone relies too heavily on the game mechanics to be the end-all be-all of what a character can, should or would do and this is simply wearing a set of large blinders by your horse to keep from getting distracted along the way.

Module building is a chore.  Sometimes burdensome, sometimes onerous, often times time consuming, always a challenge, it is truly a labor of intense devotion and attention.  And in all that, it is easy to overlook a few small things that, for others might not seem so small.  So that is understandable and possibly unavoidable to some degree.

I think, though, that simply being aware of the potential for misuse of information of the way some things work (or fail to work) and the application of exploitative actions in the game by players based on non-environment information or meta-data (information conveyed to them about the inner workings of the game environment that have little to nothing to do with a character's ability to be immersed in the game, but are, instead, things like design mechanics, rules flaws or exploits or even console commands and scripting cheats by going into the game through the toolset) can ruin a game for some, while for others, it is the bread and butter of digging deeper.

I think puzzles do not usually fit into the category of meta-gaming, though I still have to thank Eguintir for his improper understanding of the term as there were moments of information and solution to these and many other puzzles in the history of video gaming that did, indeed, rely on the meta-data of outside information that couldn't possibly be expected to be known by the character.

Also, I would like to close my "cyclopean" view on this matter that forewarned is forearmed.  No matter what you do, there is going to be Meta-Game information that is absolutely vital to the game's success on the part of the player.  You can use that to enhance or detract from the overall immersion effect simply by being aware of it's potential for misuse and abuse and taking appropriate steps to distract the players from doing so -- or providing an incentive not to do so by keeping them happily involved in the game's principle story elements.

dunniteowl

[Arkalezth]

dunniteowl wrote...

We have no sense of smell

Hey, gray orcs have!

I agree with Chaos Wielder, some things are impossible to avoid, specially in this game. Sometimes modules' description contribute to it, informing of things like which skills are useful, common enemies,resting system, high/low magic, etc. That's not bad IMO. I wouldn't like having to drop a skill to increase another and then find out that it has no use in the module.

Also, there are classes best suited for different kind of modules (a Rogue won't be good in a hack n slash module full of undead and no skill usage). Of course that depends on the player, some players care more than others about these things, but you may be playing a gimped character and know about it.

This knowledge can even come from experience in other modules. Or even other games: someone with experience in shooters will probably be good at playing any similar game. Maybe it's a bad example, but it can mean more knowledge or ability, it's not bad, and it's unavoidable. Is this meta-gaming? I'd say no, but it shares some similarities.

The 'bad' comes with exploits, bugs and the like. But each player is free to do what s/he wants if no one else is affected by it.

And no, we don't see a lot of threads like this from dunniteowl.

Modifié par Arkalezth, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:51 .

[NWN DM]

Arkalezth wrote...
... gay orcs...

Pass the mind bleach please.

[Eguintir Eligard]

Lets leave the orc's preferences out of the dicussion Ark.



From what I now see, meta gaming is automatic. Because you can save, and reload a game. Therefore you need a tougher game in PC from then table top D&D because in table top you can only die once and don't get to learn from it, and even if you did, the battle would unfold differently.

[Arkalezth]

Oops, I meant gRay orcs. Edited.

This feat, specifically:

Scent

Modifié par Arkalezth, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:52 .

[kamal_]

Some thing that someone may decry as metagaming actually can make sense ingame. For instance let's look at how skeletons have piercing DR (or whatever they have). Now a low level pc may have never faced undead before. Does this mean the pc should not know that a spear's not going to be a good weapon against them?



You could make a very good argument that a pc that's never faced skeletons would actually know about the skeleton's ability. Why? Skeletons are common. The pc, most likely being an adventurous sort before even properly being an "adventurer" could easily have heard a bard singing songs, or an adventurer telling tales in a tavern, or come across this tidbit in a book in their wizard apprenticeship.



Even many less common enemies might still be known about in this manner. Dragons, drow, ghosts? Not many of them, but probably many stories.

[manageri]

I think combat should be a meta-game free for all (barring ridicilous extreme examples). You could design combat around not expecting the party to know those succubi should be poked with cold iron but why would you when combat is supposed to be the part of the game that tests the player anyway, not the character. For me the fun in combat is all about figuring out how to beat it with everything I've got, not figuring out how I can gimp myself to have a challenge.

[MasterChanger]

manageri wrote...

I think combat should be a meta-game free for all (barring ridicilous extreme examples). You could design combat around not expecting the party to know those succubi should be poked with cold iron but why would you when combat is supposed to be the part of the game that tests the player anyway, not the character. For me the fun in combat is all about figuring out how to beat it with everything I've got, not figuring out how I can gimp myself to have a challenge.

I totally disagree. I think it's vastly preferrable if the adventure is self-contained in terms of knowledge about the forces arrayed against the PC. Is this a campaign where you're going to be fighting hordes of the underdark demvils? And there's not one person your PC can talk to about those devmons' strengths and weaknesses? Then I think either the module author or the player is suffering from a failure of imagination.

Also, as both a player and a builder, I think there's nothing more boring than using totally stock creatures with abilities exactly as they're written down in some book. I want surprises! This might mean that I have to retry something if I fail the first time around, and I might not be surprised the second time, but at least something new was offered. This could be something as simple as a particular necromancer figuring out how to coat their zombies in flame retardant or something far more elaborate.

In a (roleplay-focused) multi-player environment, I certainly prefer any knowledge about the dangers of the surrounding lands to be communicated as in-character lore. Some players might prefer to see a list of stats, but I'd argue that's out-of-character meta-gaming. Which isn't wrong per-se, it's just not playing the role of your character.

[M. Rieder]

MasterChanger wrote...


And M. Rieder, the meta-gaming you refer to in Wizard's Apprentice did break character, IMO. That was one of the elements that contributed to the adventure being whimsical rather than serious. Not every adventure is meant to make the player put themselves completely into the character's shoes, and that's ok.

Agreed, it was a break in character.  I did not mean to suggest that the textbook definition of metagaming and breaking character were necessarily mutually exclusive, just that they are not necessarily synonymous.

[manageri]

MasterChanger wrote...
I want surprises! This might mean that I have to retry something if I fail the first time around, and I might not be surprised the second time, but at least something new was offered. This could be something as simple as a particular necromancer figuring out how to coat their zombies in flame retardant or something far more elaborate.

Then you're metagaming when you load the game and decide not to memorize 15 fire spells this time.

[Eguintir Eligard]

I dont see how you can ignore common creature attributes without making an entirely new non FR setting. You can't just yank out trolls fire weakness or any creatures attributes for half the game's encounters. People are familiar with the setting, its a testimony to their fondness for it.

Besides I fall on the side of enjoying the tactics. I know what creatures are weak against what. But how do I use the right items/spells and figure out the combo is much more difficult and strategic then simply dying 5 times, figuring out they are weak against acid only, and then owning them from then on. If you can expect the character to know the weakness,  you can use it as a "Mandatory" way to win the fight against a still overpowering creature, rather than the magic key that makes them a joke (which is necessary if the player doesnt know anything about them and has to sample multiple tactics to find out. )

I used that concept at the final boss of Islander. The monster has an obvious weakness... but its not very weak. It also has 2 not at all obvious weaknesses, of which probably at least one must be found out to realistically survive the fight.

Modifié par Eguintir Eligard, 31 janvier 2011 - 01:49 .

[MasterChanger]

Chaos Wielder wrote...
I have noticed some somewhat negative comments towards self-referential gaming types. Do people want full immersion with no commentary? Azenn's mods, if anything were whole meta-gaming exercises in taking previously existing tropes and attacking them. I like this and plan on doing the same(perhaps not so overtly). Fundamentally, I'm making my game for another human being and not Calad Whitecinder.

If I'm playing a story- and RP-heavy adventure? Yes, I want full immersion. This doesn't mean that fourth-wall breaking modules can't be fun or interesting. They can be. But in the interest of campaigns being clearly defined for what they are, I wouldn't mix meta-gaming and RP/immersion. You end up weakening both elements.

If you mixed an adventure with the immersion of The Maimed God's Saga, for example, with the light-hearted meta elements of Wizard's Apprentice, you'd end up with an adventure with an identity crisis. It would be weaker for that mixture.

[dunniteowl]

And we also enter the strange territory of a game, which, by it's very nature, allows for a wide array of styles of play, genre adhering and genre bashing elements, and the creativity of the designer of the modules.

Pretty much anything goes.  Again, in PnP, meta-gaming is generally kept to a minimum by consensus between the DM and the rest of the group.  Unlike the ignorance displayed by the Circuit Court of Appeals re: D&D promotes gang-like behavior, a gaming group is something more of a democratic affair where even the boss must be able to persuade as well as listen to his counter parts in the group.  This is simply not available in an SP experience, because, effectively, there is no group and whatever has been scripted in, designed in, or conversationalised is all pre-scripted in the sense that it cannot adjust to different player styles, leaps of intuition, crazy ideas, or even of adventuring experience.  And this is the divide where meta-game information takes up the slack in lieu of a live cadre of other players or DM to help shape and guide events, change them as necessary due to circumstances, or to provide clues as to how to continue without completely destroying the story.

I offer that this is the reason that the OC feels (felt) like it was sliding on rails, stifling player choice in many places.  And it is why, also, that meta-gaming can have such a ruinous effect if not paid it's due.  When a player feels cheated of the experience they expect, they can oftentimes reach out to more than the usual helping of meta-game data available, even going so far as to hack the game (by changing things in the toolset, etc. or using DM Console cheats, or the debug console commands) to give them supreme advantages to compensate for the sense of the game cheating them. 

Others, who do this as a matter of course, simply value a different playing style and this is completely within the purview and realm of the gamer.  In my view, this doesn't constitute a "failure" of imagination on the part of the builder/designer, because no matter how good the story or play is, some folks are going to go that far anyway, no matter what.  This means, in my perception, that they don't count as a part of those folks who might resort to the "cheats" as a means to compensate.

It's when the meta-data becomes the end in and of itself that we see the abuse of the ability to meta-game.  If the player is going to do that, no matter what, then their point of view doesn't matter for the builder/designer, because they're going to do that irrespective of the game's play, mechanics, etc. and so the builder shouldn't shoulder that on their backs during design.  It's the other players who feel cheated (or who have been trained over time to automoatically seek out the meta-data) or who exploit as a means to successfully overcome the limitations placed in front of them by the designer.

Telling players what to expect in terms of which classes are better suited, which kind of rest, death and other systems is also meta-gaming in the pre-game phase, but these are parts of the meta-game information that determine, in large part, which kind of playing experience to expect, not how you can defeat them.  The meta-game information there allows players to determine whether or not they'd be interested in that module's design parameters.

How often did we see threads extolling the virtues of a better rest/death/respawning system?  How often did we hear the cries and lamentations of being stuck with companions or not being able to make our own party?  How many times were there threads after threads of, "Why can't we have..." types of questions regarding different classes, PrCs and Skills/Feats/Spells available?

These sorts of meta-game pointers in module descriptions are right up there with other factors that indicate a requirement for meta-game information to successfully complete an adventure -- only in this case, they are listed there in the hopes that the players who play the module will have a sense of heightened entertainment out of playing something more along the lines of what they seek in a game.

Again, the real issue isn't how to get rid of meta-game information, but how to use it wisely and to best advantage in the module at the design phase.  Oddly, a lot of this is sort of inherent.  Meaning that a lot of the data we deal with is pretty much already incorporated into our design and playing simply because it's already so pervasive.

Yeah, the grey orcs have a "scent" feat, but, honestly, is it even remotely well implemented?  Or does it amount to one more reason to use the "radar" as mini-map in an unfair and highly abstracted way?  This, once again, uses even more meta-data than would normally be available in-game, doesn't it?

Yet, rejoice!  These are the kinds of things that, once implemented, can be tweaked and re-worked.  The devs at least listened in this respect and all the goodies implemented in SoZ (including the grey orc scent feat) are wholly scripted and can be changed or modified by determined and creative scripters (of which we do not truly lack in this Community.)

Lastly, I reiterate:  It's not that we must get rid of meta-game information, that's impossible.  We just have to be aware of how much there is, what it's chief uses and effects are, and how to use it wisely to the best advantage of the module(s) being designed.  If there are flaws in the system, we do our best to mitigate them and keep them from completely destroying the module's premise or point in play and to provide our players with a more realized experienced when possible.

In PnP, we had to abstract a lot in order to keep the game moving.  In cRPGs a lot is abstracted to keep the story moving along at a faster clip.   There's a lot of meta-game information that is incorporated into the interface for this purpose alone.  We have a completely un-removable mini-map and a north south orientation (and just remember, the reason we Orient a map is because, prior to magnetic poles being used, the map was always turned to face East towards the Orient) so we never get lost -- ever.  And we have map pins and notes (which should be more, not less robust than it's predecessor, I mean, if we're going to have it, then we should have it better than before, not worse) on our maps, but it is used for more than simple orienting ourselves or to gain information that we should already have access to in game.

To me, these are designed in flaws when they cannot be modified, removed or changed completely to detail the things we wish to show the players during the course of the game.  And these are the sorts of design choices where I point a damning finger and say, "This was a bad idea."  Not in and of itself, but in it's implementation or execution.  Like the mini-map showing large chunks of an interior because you have walls that are contiguous, and even though there are doors closed and not explored yet, the map shows you the rooms and dimensions depending on whether or not you separate the spaces between walls and such.  Not cool.

That's a really good example of a bad meta-game bit of data that serves to remove that surprise and thrill of exploration.  The tracking and survival feats?  They show creatures up on the mini-map (as does the scent feat) as if you had a series of Low-Jack tracking devices on all the creatures in the map's range.  This is another example of potentially ruinous meta-game information.

These are in-game examples of meta-game information that cannot be dealt with easily.  They are part and parcel of the interface and are not easily changed or modified to suit the needs of the designer to create the illusion of ignorance and exploration.  Part of D&D in general is not knowing what's on the other side of the door, or down inside that pit, or where the traps are located, precisely (and that's another meta-game flaw -- traps in general all the way around...) and, even with the limitations of the game's design, there were many things that could have been done to prevent them during design.  Except I honestly don't think the developers saw them as problems or issues, because in their view, they were making things easier for players and thus, were solving issues, not creating them.

All I really wish to point out is that being aware of these potential pitfalls can allow us, as module designers and scripters, builders, to find ways to mitigate or occasionally make creative use of, the flaws of the meta-game information already there.  You have to be aware of them to make them your tools and friends, instead of your mortal enemy to design.

dunniteowl

Modifié par dunniteowl, 31 janvier 2011 - 03:07 .

[Arkalezth]

Just a note: you can remove the mini-map. Type "n".

[Shallina]

Meta-gaming is good for all the part of a game I don't like. Mainly some puzzle that can take hours to be resolved without meta gaming.

[MasterChanger]

Arkalezth wrote...

Just a note: you can remove the mini-map. Type "n".

This is on the user's end, rather than the module creator's. But, I was going to say that if you're interested, there are scripting ways to obscure both the minimap and main map by modifying the XML file to add a texture to cover. You can do this dynamically if you want, so that some areas have an obscured map and some don't. Though this kind of stuff will probably be done even more easily with Project N, which is probably the Wave of the Future .