Skip to Content
 

Into and Out of Metagaming

13 replies [Last post]
Sat, 01/18/2014 - 19:52
Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013

Hi. I have a very abstract idea, and I want to see if someone can help me better define it. Today my sister was telling me about a dream, which gave me some inspiration. She said about her dream, "I don't know if we where playing a game or not." I thought to myself, "What would a game be like where you swap constantly back and forth between metagaming and playing the game, and the other players don't know when your playing and when you're not?"

I don't have any idea how I would achieve this, but I wanted to see if any of you have any suggestions or ideas.

Top
Sat, 01/18/2014 - 20:05
#1
Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
As a tickler, I'd say deck

As a tickler, I'd say deck builders have some of this, particularly ones with a combat element. Whereas Dominion is almost all metagame in a particular way, and a draft Magic tournament is split between the two. I haven't played Risk Legacy, but with the transformative game environment it may formalize that.

As I wrote that, it dawned on me, a game I've played a lot with my family at Christmas that ends up being a slippery metagame duel between msyelf and my brother is Balderdash (with 6-8 family members playing, him or I tend to win.) He tries to avoid guessing my definitions by cuing on exessively nerdy or scientific stuff, and I try to write left field definitions with a toned down vocabulary. He tends to go for easy laughs, and I look for that.

Top
Sun, 01/19/2014 - 01:01
#2
chaching812
chaching812's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2013
You could include some

You could include some "secret mission" cards that cannot be revealed to other players. For example, a card that reads, "Convince the other players that you give up and concede defeat. If they all accept your concession, flip over this card and immediately gain two points. The game continues." You would have to find some way to keep the secret missions unpredictable, otherwise I imagine the game would have very little replayability.

Top
Sun, 01/19/2014 - 15:17
#3
Leeton
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2013
It's a bit unconventional,

It's a bit unconventional, but with the internet being such a commonplace thing these days, you could use this to create a set of rules that changes per game.

When people buy your game, they get a code which allows them to join a site, which updates on a daily/weekly basis or even just randomly. This could introduce an extra layer of rules that makes each and every game different.

It's quite different though and it would be hard to see if it'd succeed or not, as I don't know how many people would want to go online to play a board game. So you'd want to make sure the game is good on its own. Or, you could have a set of extra rules with the game, and then simply the offer to get more online.

Top
Sun, 01/19/2014 - 18:10
#4
Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Character and Player Cards

Chaching wrote:
You could include some "secret mission" cards that cannot be revealed to other players. For example, a card that reads, "Convince the other players that you give up and concede defeat. If they all accept your concession, flip over this card and immediately gain two points. The game continues." You would have to find some way to keep the secret missions unpredictable, otherwise I imagine the game would have very little replayability.

I like this idea. Further expanding upon it, I would create two separate categories of "player" cards and "character" cards (thinking in terms of a rpg). Player cards require you, the player, to achieve a mission. Character cards require your character to achieve certain missions. The game could also complicate matters and sometimes create contradictions between a player's goals and his/her character's goals.

Top
Sun, 01/19/2014 - 18:15
#5
jhrrsn
jhrrsn's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2014
Fluxx

The card game Fluxx explores themes similar to these in the minutiae, in that you have cards that permanently change the rules of the game. In a wider sense, many games that feature diplomacy or deception can have moments when you're away from the game but not really sure whether the game is still ongoing - the necessary (!) lunch break during the game Diplomacy, for example.

Top
Sun, 01/19/2014 - 19:46
#6
chaching812
chaching812's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2013
Toa Lewa wrote: I would

Toa Lewa wrote:

I would create two separate categories of "player" cards and "character" cards (thinking in terms of a rpg). Player cards require you, the player, to achieve a mission. Character cards require your character to achieve certain missions. The game could also complicate matters and sometimes create contradictions between a player's goals and his/her character's goals.

Ooh, I think that would be interesting...have you played Shadows over Camelot? If you haven't, one player secretly is seeking to sabotage the missions of the other players - metagame-wise, sometimes you are not sure if a player doesn't know what they're supposed to be doing or if they are just playing dumb in order to sabotage the mission.

Top
Mon, 01/20/2014 - 14:44
#7
Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Lunch Break

jhrrsn wrote:
The card game Fluxx explores themes similar to these in the minutiae, in that you have cards that permanently change the rules of the game. In a wider sense, many games that feature diplomacy or deception can have moments when you're away from the game but not really sure whether the game is still ongoing - the necessary (!) lunch break during the game Diplomacy, for example.

What if the game actually had rules that forced you to take a lunch break every once in awhile? That would be strange. In addition, what if certain cards had missions that you had to complete during one of these breaks? That would lead to interesting gameplay and metagaming. It could also create suspense during breaks. You don't know if anyone has any "break" missions or not. In essence, you don't know if the game is still going.

Top
Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:03
#8
jhrrsn
jhrrsn's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2014
Slacker

This reminds me of an entertaining monster in Munchkin, The Slacker, who forces players to stop playing and watch TV.

Top
Tue, 01/21/2014 - 19:26
#9
Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Shadows over Camelot

Chaching wrote:
Ooh, I think that would be interesting...have you played Shadows over Camelot? If you haven't, one player secretly is seeking to sabotage the missions of the other players - metagame-wise, sometimes you are not sure if a player doesn't know what they're supposed to be doing or if they are just playing dumb in order to sabotage the mission.

Sounds interesting. I'll look into it. I could see this game having players who are trying to sabotage the game.

Top
Wed, 01/22/2014 - 00:05
#10
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
*Weird* game

Toa Lewa wrote:
...I thought to myself, "What would a game be like where you swap constantly back and forth between metagaming and playing the game, and the other players don't know when your playing and when you're not?"

Going back to your OP, my understanding of the metagame (in a game) is the strategy used to figure out what your opponent will be doing next. Kind of like *foreshadowing*... For example in "Tradewars - Homeworld", figuring out when a player want to deploy a starship can be *important*. Why? Well you can stop that from happening by using the Soldier role...

So it's like trying to determine your opponent's move and then using the best move you can do. Obviously your opponent will be doing the same...

You can take a simpler game like "Poker" and see that the metagame is predicting when you can lure a player to put more money on the table.

Okay back to the OP, I guess you would want your game to be partly about *bluffing*. There has to be some form of *dialogue* between players. You want players to *chat* about the game. Then you could have both positive and false information... Each player need to figure out the truth from the lies.

It kind of reminds me about a *weird* game I played. I wish I remembered the name of the game and how it plays. But for the purpose of this post, I'll just explain it as best as I can remember:

1. Players have cards with *weird* pictures/illustrations
2. One player (the "Caller") states what the description of the card is.
3. Every one chooses a card from his hand to play and plays it face down (to the center).
4. Cards are revealed and players vote on the card that is most like the description.
5. The next player becomes the "Caller"... And so on...

And there are other rules, like you earn points for each vote. Or you get 0 points if everyone chooses your card (the callers card), etc.

I can picture this type a game with *weird* art and player descriptions could have an interesting metagame. And you could probably say things that can be lies that other players cue in on.

So in this type of game, it's easy to blur reality (what you have as a card) and what kind of lies you are telling (to lead players down the wrong path)... Players could then use what you said to try to win points.

It also reminds me about the movie "The Usual Suspects" (1995) where Kevin Spacey tells the story about the mob boss Keyser Söze. I won't say too much because it is a good movie and has a great climax at the very end of the movie... But you might want to see that movie - because there is some good storytelling.

So these are some concepts that *exist*... I'll think some more about it, but I think I have put some good ideas to explore further...

Note: about the *weird* game, if you manage to get 3 votes out of 4, that's the callers best score (3 points). The other players can obviously score up to four (4) points. The DANGER is if all player choose the callers card, then the caller gets 0 points. So it's a little bit trickey... The caller wants players to choose his card - but not all of them! That's pretty good metagame...

Top
Wed, 01/22/2014 - 00:34
#11
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
It's something I am thinking about...

I have a WIP (Work-In-Progress) called tentatively "MIA". Every good name I could think up was taken (things like POW). Anyway "MIA" is just an early concept, and it will probably require MORE brain power than I have! :P

The game would be defined as being part "Clue" and part "Mastermind". An interesting combination for sure!

The idea is that three (3) players play allied soldiers that have been captured during the 2nd World War (WWII). The fourth (4th) player is a Nazi Interrogator.

The goal of the game is such that the three (3) players are on a secret mission (for example: to uncover the location of the ultra secret Nazi V-Bomb factory in Cologne...) Meanwhile the interrogator is trying to determine the base of any one of the POWs. So it's like an interrogation where players try to convey information to each other while trying to keep the interrogator from guessing where the allies bases are.

Like Clue, the Nazis have an envelope with the location of the secret Nazi target (three (3) cards). Each player has a hand of five (5) cards used to help him from divulging the allies base.

So for this game, I wanted a very deep *metagame* where players can lie and get tortured into telling part truths and at other times *get away* with lies... I'm not certain how the game *comes together* yet... But you can kind of understand the tension in the game...

Not sure about victory goals, obviously if the allies discover the nature and location of the Nazi target, the allies win the game. BUT (here is where I'm not sure), if the Nazi interrogator learns the source of any of the three (3) allies, the Nazis win...

When I say *source* I mean the location of that soldiers allied base. The goal is for the allies to beat the Nazis and when one loses, they all lose... Something along those lines...

The real interesting part should be the mechanics behind the interrogation (how truths and lies play out). And how figurative *torture* can occur to reveal secrets. Each player is trying to *outsmart* the interrogator while they try to solve the secret location and target of the Nazis.

I'm not into *war games* but I think this game could have some serious merit (in terms of mechanics and tension). Again I'm not sure about the details and how the game actually plays. For now all I have are rough ideas...

Top
Wed, 01/22/2014 - 09:41
#12
Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Clarification

Quest wrote:
Going back to your OP, my understanding of the metagame (in a game) is the strategy used to figure out what your opponent will be doing next. Kind of like *foreshadowing*... For example in "Tradewars - Homeworld", figuring out when a player want to deploy a starship can be *important*. Why? Well you can stop that from happening by using the Soldier role...

So it's like trying to determine your opponent's move and then using the best move you can do. Obviously your opponent will be doing the same...

You're right Quest. The way I was using the term metagaming isn't exactly the correct definition. Let me clarify. I was thinking of metagaming more in terms of preparing your deck in a TCG. In a TCG, you build your deck, make choices on how it is structured, and strategize before the game actually begins. Some may say that deck building is part of playing the game, but I would argue that deck building is a separate thing (a player does not have to build a deck and can purchase a starter deck and still play ... although this isn't the best way). So deck building is an important part of the game, but a player is not playing the game when they are deck building.

Basically, I'm wanting a similar separation between playing and not playing in a game. Sometimes a player is strategizing, but not participating in the game. Other times, the game may stop, but some of the players continue playing. It's still kind of fuzzy, since I'm trying to blur the lines between playing and not playing.

Top
Thu, 01/23/2014 - 13:04
#13
Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Bluffing

Quest wrote:
Okay back to the OP, I guess you would want your game to be partly about *bluffing*. There has to be some form of *dialogue* between players. You want players to *chat* about the game. Then you could have both positive and false information... Each player need to figure out the truth from the lies.

I think bluffing would be important in the game, but I don't think it would be the main element of the game. I think the game needs to be characterized by the uncertainty of whether the game is still going or not.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut