Metagaming

[renketsu0]

In Magic: The Gathering, the metagame, or "meta" as we call it, is the overall trends in card and deck choices in a given area at a given time. For example, a recent metagame change occurred that will probably make the Illusions deck very popular soon. From now on when I see my opponent play a turn 1 Delver of Secrets, even though I haven't seen any other cards in the deck my knowledge of the metagame will cause me to play against it a certain way. I will want to get some early threats in and kill the delver quickly so this might change the order I play my lands and the spells in my hand. So even though I have only seen one card in his deck, the metagame changes how I will react to it. It's kind of like in war, when you discover the other side has "new tech" you have to come prepared for it regardless of whether or not you will actually see it. It will change the way you fight, period. If it doesn't change the way you fight you're doing it wrong.

 

In other words, some strategy is only metagame if no information taken from the game can counter it i.e. punishes on reaction in fighters.

 

A strategy is not metagame. Think of metagame as problem and strategy as solution. If you want to understand it, don't confuse cause and effect. Or just get better at expressing yourself. You may be on the right track but I have to make sure.

[Mom]

I have returned, and I officially declare this topic Tebow'd.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I heard your dad got Tebow'd by Steve Jobs back in 83.

[exogen]

Let's look at the definition I provided at the beginning of this thread which I took from Wiki.

 

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed rule set, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

 

Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.

 

Notice the underlined portions of the definition in regards to what you said.

 

 

A strategy is not metagame. Think of metagame as problem and strategy as solution. If you want to understand it, don't confuse cause and effect. Or just get better at expressing yourself. You may be on the right track but I have to make sure.

 

this is where I have to disagree; a strategy is or is not metagame depending...

 

According to the definition a strategy DOES count as being metagame, or not, depending on some condition. What is that condition? Obviously I am drawing attention to the first definition so the condition would be if the strategy that is going to be determined to be metagame or not, is if the strategy uses information beyond the game and at the same time transcends the games rule-set. Saying "any strategy" is therefore not to confuse anything like "cause with effect," but rather to keep the facts of the definition I provided initially.

 

moving on,

 

its the second definition that I take issue with, and where my argument can be seen to come into play. If a strategy can be countered using purely in-game information, then it is necessarily true that no information outside of the game needs to be used to counter said strategy. Therefore if you were talking about some allegedly "metagame" trends and I ask the question if if said trends can be countered using only in-game information, and the answer to that question is yes, it follows that said trends cannot be metagame because they have not transcended the games rule-set.

 

But what about the second definition? Doesn't that definition NOT rely on said strategies or trends transcending the rule-set and isn't it therefore the case that reaching the limits of the rule-set is not necessary to label a strategy as metagame?

 

The reason this objection/question fails is because of the word "affect."

 

"In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions."

 

It is factual that we can use outside information to affect in-game decisions, but that does not shut the door on the question of if that information is relevant on not according to the rules of the game does it? I might have some great psychological information on other players or statistical data on game trends even, but that does not mean that the rules of the game are such that any of that matters to this or that degree because it all depends on the particulars of the rules of that game. Game trends can shift like the tides in a very relative sort of way from time and place to community to community, but the rules of the game are rigid and locked in place.

 

It comes down at this point to what we mean by "affect." I'm pointing out that it is true you can use any information to base in-game decisions on, but that has nothing to do necessarily with the rules of the game and therefore doesn't tell us if your having a real affect on anything within the context of the game.

 

The reason I take this stance on the word "affect" and put the emphasis on the game context is because it is the context of the game that allows for the distinction of in-game vs. outside of the game in the first place.

 

Once you admit to that distinction the second definition gives way to the first because it implies the first.

 

Therefore,

 

if outside information to affect one's in-game decisions that result in certain actions (strategies) can be countered without need of "the universe outside the game," and using in-game information only, then we must conclude that such a strategy cannot be considered as being metagame.

[Mom]

http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/files/2011/10/tebow2.jpg

[renketsu0]

Well if you want to underline parts of the definition you are going by, I'd like to also underline

"Metagaming is a broad term..." Metagaming is a continuous form of a verb, whereas metagame the way I use it is a noun. My idea is closer to the second definition you pointed out. In my opinion metagame is out-of-game information and metagaming is choosing strategy based on that information. That's the main reason I wanted to point out that a strategy is not metagame. Until I understand what you mean by a strategy being or not being metagame I can't really make any points on what you're saying. To me it sounds like "this song is shoe because..." when I'm expecting some kind of descriptor where shoe is. Nothing after that makes any sense to me, especially since you are discussing the meaning of the word.

Edited November 19, 2011 by renketsu0

[exogen]

Ren,

 

Metagaming is an activity, and I am saying that activity exists at a certain level of play.

 

It sounds like your arguing over the use of the phraze "a strategy is (not) metagame," or am I wrong?

 

The more technical way to say what my argument yields is the following distinction.

 

There are metagame level strategies vs. non-metagame level strategies. I'm talking about levels of classification of strategy.

 

In other words, I am saying that there is a level at which the player needs to go beyond the rules of the game because no information from the game can help any longer, at which point, the strategies that are being used can correctly be classified as being above the game, or "metagame."

 

The reason the strategy itself is classified or not as being located at the metagame level is dependant on that strategy being employed via information that goes beyond or above the game. And the reason for that is because no information within the game can be used to understand the intent of the other player. That brings me back to the argument that the second definition gives way to the first, as explained above.

 

 

To be fair this does not adress fully what I think your getting at about a strategy.

 

strat·e·gy/ˈstratəjē/

 

 

Noun:

• A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
  
• The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle.
  

 

 

Notice how the action is combined or inseprable from the intention/plan.

 

That means it is not wrong, especially in light of the above distinction (levels that use information beyond the game vs. those that don't) to talk of a strategy as being a metagame one. The strategy is based on information that is not found anywhere in the game.

 

My argument then is that if information within the game can be used to counter a strategy, then that strategy cannot count as being at the metagame level because to say otherwise would be to deny the context of the game itself. If you say that the second definition does not imply or presuppose the first, then it becomes ultimately meaningless because you have denyed the existence of the games rule-set.

 

Edit: I suspect you might say that you could just be thinking about things outside of the game as you act even if you don't fully understand the rules of the game and therefore what you are doing would count as metagaming (the second definition). I would retort though and say that while you could be doing that, it is not anything that strategicly counts as being beyond the game. That is from a strategic perspective the activity you are engaging in is not in reality beyond, above or outside of the rule-set because the rule-set by itself can be used to counter that strategy that is being acted out.

Edited November 20, 2011 by exogen

[renketsu0]

I'm not actually arguing "strategy is (not) metagame," I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that. Before now using metagame as an adjective was completely foreign to me. I'll admit I skimmed this topic the first time around. I have read it entirely now but I almost wish I hadn't. A bunch of details I was looking for have been filled in but I also saw almost twice as many blanks. If you just want to assert something I really don't care enough to contradict you. If you actually want some input from me though, it's going to have to be in chat at this point. The reason is every time I get to a part of your post I don't understand I am going to ask you what you to elaborate further. Normally this would go smoothly but there is so much in your posts I don't understand (such as why a strategy doesn't exist if it can be countered by the rule set of the game) that if I were to ask these questions in the forum it would drag out several days longer than my attention span for trivial topics can hold.

[Genocide]

When I used to do text-based wargame roleplaying, we called metagaming using information OOC (out-of-character) to affect IC (in character) events. So for me, and ultimately, I believe that when you take information from a different context and apply it to the contextual event/s, that is metagame/ing.

 

I.e. If you know Johnny doesn't like being a lamer and doesn't enjoy getting lamed, so he plays 'fairly' in his opinion, you bring a lamer, then you win.

 

Of course, this doesn't take into account experience in predicting your oppoent's hands/moves.

 

Edit

Here's an even better example; Let's say Timmy and Max are playing a game of poker. Max has a good poker face, but is kind of a shitty player. Let's also say Timmy is a better player, but can't read people (I didn't say he didn't have a good poker face though[either way, doesn't matter much]).

 

During the course of the game, let's say Timmy bets aggressively and has the best hand on the table, Max, thinking Timmy will whip his ass, folds out. Timmy wins the pot and gets a little giddy. Now lets say that this continues sort of the same way for a few hands and Max figures out that Timmy likes to bet when he thinks he can easily win, and force people out of the pot. So Max, with his elegant poker face, actually gets the better hand, but now that he knows when Timmy bets (generally) plays better on him, checks passively and throws Timmy off. Now when Timmy steps up to claim the pot, Max calls and wins because this time around, he actually had the better hand.

 

Again, neither player knew what they had until the cards were down at the end of the game.

 

That's metagame, Max took info from outside the rules of the game, poker, to win against his opponent.

 

BUT, like Exogen said, Strategy (the "I'm going for a flush instead of a straight, because a flush beats a straight") is different from, yet also inseparable from the metagame. However, you have to come to know your opponent to get a good metagame assumption going (I say assumption because you can never really know what kinds of things are there before they actually are witnessed, as far as cards go. And counting cards in poker is GHEY[yet still a statistically viable tool; yet not a strategy in and of itself]).

Edited November 24, 2011 by Genocide