Metagaming: Public, Private, or not at all?

[3V4JKZ2]

What are people's opinions on Metagaming here? One player just sent me a message that warned me that the general etiquette was to only provide meta-gamey information via private message, not the discussion thread for the game. Other forums I've been following with Dom3 have had public metagaming, which sometimes inconsistently bugs players in those games.

Is this something that should be clarified by game rules by game creator? Is it more permissible to do the metagaming in private messages, where the person it is directed against doesn't have a chance to respond, than in public, where that person can reply with some of their own material?

For clarification, by metagaming, I mean comments like "Pay attention to military charts at this point", or open diplomacy negotiations, or open calling of NAP-3's, or open "hahaha, I won that fight, maybe you should leave me alone" stuff, or "Hey, playerX has all his armies near me, anyone that wants to snipe at his borders might find this a good time to do it" (especially if you haven't scouted the other side of your neighbours in the early game).

Anything in the OOC thread that would reveal information, basically.

Also, this obviously doesn't apply in any anonymous or no-diplomacy game.

So yeah, what's the communities opinion on this sort of thing?

[parone]

i would be inclined to avoid playing with players who employed those tactics. dom3 is very thematic if you use just a little imagination. and that stuff really, really detracts from that quality of the game.

that stuff stems from the "don't lose at all costs" attitude. personally i don't mind losing. i fully expect to lose. their are often 10+ other players in the game, and i am, quite frankly, not all that good a player.

but i still enjoy trying to play, and being part of a game with a group of players who participate the "right" way.

[Nightfall]

I have 2 main problems with it...

Done publicly, it breaks the fourth wall, I expect a certain amount to happen anyway and don't mind as long as it's kept minimal and vague.

Done privately, my issue is that metagaming too much can look very similiar to more serious cheating, such as illegal teaming in a non team game.

[Hrum]

I don't think there's any one answer that applies to all games here. I think it depends on the group you're playing with. No two are the same.

The impression I get from many of the MP threads that I've looked at is that some good natured OOC / metagaming / banter is not considered a sin by many players. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with a little trash talk. That said, I'm certain there are players who prefer to RP their nation to the hilt, and it definitely adds something to the game when people put that much effort into their game. But many of us have busy lives, so not everyone may be able to keep that up while handling mid or late game micromanagement in an MP game (one reason why some of the vets love Anonymous No Diplo games).

Aside from the tone of someone's forum posts whether they be in character or not, from a thematic perspective I think messages on the forums can be justified as "in-character" information about major events in the world percolating out to the various nations. Each turn represents a month of in-game time which sounds like enough time for word to get around about major battles. Or perhaps each pretender has a special magic conch shell* that connects him directly to each other pretender.

I think if you have a strong preference about something like this you'll probably want to start up / admin a game where you can set the expectations about it up front.

Here's a question for you: How does someone setting their nation AI fall on the metagaming front? There are people here who have railed against people going AI, and there are other people that see nothing wrong with cutting their losses when they're losing by going AI. How do you justify it thematically? Is it going to bother you when it happens?

--
*"Oh-ho, that's much better... yeah... huh... yes... Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri... Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine..." -President Merkin Muffley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T2uBeiNXAo

[Bwaha]

Banter is fun...

It spices up the game...

[3V4JKZ2]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware people cared about the Roleplaying stuff; I figured they'd do DND or RPG's for something like that. I've always viewed this as pure strategy game, like chess or risk. I definitely remember in Free for all's in Risk there being a sense of "Soandso is winning! Gang up on him!"

Though I guess that's real life friends, as opposed to a gaming community.

Done privately, my issue is that metagaming too much can look very similiar to more serious cheating, such as illegal teaming in a non team game.

I feel like that's a different issue; in a non-team game, illegal information sharing is a big deal, which is why I discluded it. In a teams-are-fine game, information sharing privately is no big deal; I'm looking for the salient difference between public/private. I guess it could be the Roleplaying stuff, in which case I might start tagging the games I run as [insincere]


Regarding AI's: Generally I think in terms of the strategy game it's better to have physical players, since they're more challenging and saavy opponents (with relatively few exceptions). But if someone felt compelled to go AI while losing, I wouldn't be that upset, and certainly wouldn't seek some sort of roleplayed reason...I've got lots of good options for my roleplaying games, and sadly few options for my in depth complex strategy games.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally Posted by 3V4JKZ2

What are people's opinions on Metagaming here?

I am fine with any and all metagaming so long as not explicitly forbidden by house rules for a specific game.

Lacking agreements to the contrary, any player can divulge any information or misinformation to any other player using whatever means he has available and he can do it in private or in public as best suits his own plans.

The information war and the war for the public opinion is a large part of the game as far as I am concerned.

[Soyweiser]

Also, never forget what people say doesn't have to be true. It is actually more fun if you use a lot of half truths and spread lies about the others.

(Like the time somebody put up a nasty global, I complained to the guy, he said: "wtf, the others said you agreed with it." Interesting

[3V4JKZ2]

That's the sort of game I like, too, but one person was warning me in PM's that I'd get blacklisted by the community for playing it like that; so I figured I'd check to see how widely his opinions held.

I should probably just try to play with you guys next time

[Korwin]

Sounds like he wanted to intimidate you to keep his edge in the game.
Sound's way more blacklist* worthy than public information sharing.

Hell, public information sharing is more honest too, than doing it in secret.


* If that was even possible... If there where even a blacklist...
(Edit maybe his own private blacklist?)