Metagaming is the act of over-reaching the bounds of the character. Past the introduction, given that a player controls only their own character, any changes to environment or plot occur as perceptions of that character. Metagaming, then, is overstepping a character’s perceptions and tapping into the knowledge and power of the player (who knows more and can do more). This can either be used correctly, or incorrectly, with an incredibly fine line between the extremes.

Incorrect (read: wholly unacceptable) uses of metagaming are generally deemed Godmoding. Here the player assumes a level of control far above and beyond what the other players have agreed to use. Examples of godmoding include, but are not limited to, speaking/acting for others’ characters, directly describing the damage (physical or emotional) caused to others’ characters, giving one’s own character godlike/super powers without due explanation, acting (inexplicably) off of others’ characters’ thoughts, matching a character’s strengths to others’ characters’ weaknesses, etc. I am trying to cast metagaming in a neutral light, and am associating the things we generally hate about it with Godmoding instead. So, bear with me.

Proper (read: socially acceptable) metagaming requires a very tight hold on what not to do. For example, it is possible to act on another character’s thoughts, but to do so without godmoding. By giving due explanation of one’s own character’s perception of another character’s personality and body language in a situation, the metagamer’s character can discern the basic gist of the thoughts, if they are easily deducible. In this way, the player, who knows the other character’s thoughts, hones their character’s perception in the right direction, so that their character also gains that information. This is usually done to move along plot, but should not used to gain an unfair advantage in a confrontational situation without proper explanation. This is a very common and often overlooked form of metagaming, used to streamline a roleplay. The fact that this is often overlooked (as in, critically) should show that this really is an acceptable form of metagaming.

Now onto some techniques that employ/are-classed-as metagaming (but don’t ruin the game if used with care).

“Leading” is the process of moving the action of a scenario forward by some short interval without explicitly acting out all portions of the scene. It is called “leading” precisely because the “leader” makes some logical leap forward, thus prompting all other players to make the same leap to arrive at the new point in time. Leading is used to skip over elements like necessary but known dialogue, occurrences which are inexplicable now but can be explained later, etc. It is necessary that all skipped events be mentioned by the leader, and be easy for others to understand how the missed events could have happened. Leading hinges on cooperation from other players to accept the leap forward so as to avoid contradicting the leader.

If the player leading requires that others’ character perform in some way that is precedented and natural to their personality, then the leader may imply that those characters did indeed perform in just that, or a similar manner. Note that the leader may only imply that the events were accomplished, not how (in terms of specific dialogue and actions) the other characters accomplished them. The other players would then pick up on the missed events, and fill their own portions in to match the leader’s plot. Leading should only be used in the case that an RP is dying off, or moving in some nonsensical direction. Any use of leading should first be discussed with other players, and then be well thought out, as it is irreversible!

“Pushing” is akin to leaving breadcrumbs for other players to pick up. While leading is reliant on active metagaming, pushing makes use of passive metagaming. Often times the action of the roleplay might stagnate, or take a turn towards the degenerate. Times like those, but also when a player just wants to develop their character, or introduce the next “act” of the plot, pushing is a non-invasive control technique.

The actual work done to “push” something is akin to “hooking“: the player pushing writes a series of details that at the present moment are unused. It is different from hooking in that hooks are open ended details, added to give players a starting point. The details left as a result of pushing are quite the opposite: they are all tied together by a common goal or consequence, whichever goal or consequence the “pusher” intends.

The technique of pushing has some merits and pros over other control techniques. For one, it is non-invasive, meaning that it does not require any direct control of other characters. As well, it leaves the actual work up to other players, while giving them the illusion that they came up with the goal or consequence that results. This garners interests, and makes an RP longer lived.

Passive metagaming may come into play if the pusher describes a new element as “within reach” or “easily observable” by some specific character, prompting them to act on the element. This is passive because the other players do not have to respond. Contrarily, active metagaming, like that used in leading, requires that other players respond with complementary action to fill in the time skip.

Of course, pushing is difficult to pull off correctly. Since the trail of breadcrumb details is only clear in your mind, players might misinterpret the desired consequence, and go off in another direction altogether. Players might also not use all breadcrumb details present. The trail left might be too loose, and thus hard to follow, or it might be too tight and obvious, and consequently boring. However, aside from the last variant, all of the possible outcomes of pushing involve very dynamic play, making pushing worthwhile to try out!

The moral behind metagaming is to find a comfortable median. Active metagaming is more invasive, but more direct, thus more likely to accomplish what you might see necessary. Passive metagaming is not invasive, but is very indirect, so while other players will not be unhappy, the metagaming is less likely to accomplish the intended task. The level of appropriate metagaming should always be decided by any group of roleplayers collaborating on a roleplay, so that players who wish to make use of advanced control techniques know where their limits lie.

Having read this guide, you might wonder why “leading” is active, while “pushing” is passive, and why the terminologies aren’t switched around. This is due in part to the origination of the concepts (separately), and the terminology was applied to them without due consideration. However, another argument is that when given a push, players have a choice on whether to move or resist, while when being led, the choices are to follow or to hold a mutiny (mutinies are rather difficult in the sense of a roleplay). Regardless of terminology, the lessons lie in active and passive metagaming, so take that away with you if you take nothing else.

So try your hand (with others’ permission) at socially acceptable metagaming, and let me know how you fair via comments or emails!

This month’s words are: smoke and sky

Whether you create or you participate in an RP, there may be certain facts, concepts, plot points, etc, all of which you know and plan to employ, but no one else knows. These things known only to you I will describe as the Private Sector. On the other hand are details which are shared with the other players, whether through the OOC, IC dialogue or thought, or IC description, and are thus part of the Public Sector.

But the big question is, for each particular detail, Where should it go? Should it stay hidden for now (until it becomes necessary), and thus be private, or should it be divulged and thus made public? There is no overarching answer, as each detail is different, each RP is different, and every group of roleplayers is different. This discussion will focus on a process that can be helpful in deciding what to do with a particular detail. Or rather, what the act of revealing that detail will accomplish.

First, when revealing a detail, there must be a reason and thus something to be gained. Rather than just “going for it”, take a step back. What can be gained from revealing this little bit of information? It might be a bit of secret biography about your character, or a plot point you have in mind that you haven’t gotten to yet. By letting this bit be known, what benefits can you or your RP profit from? Will this detail guide fellow roleplayers in the direction you intend? Will the new revelation give players a burst of interest and get the RP back on its feet? There are many pointed questions; many well defined benefits for any particular detail which might cement your decision.

But, where something is gained, something else is lost. Every time you fill a hole with a detail, you prevent someone else from doing it. A roleplay is a joint story being told, and everyone wants to tell it. If you reveal this detail prematurely, you add constraints. Will players become frustrated? Will this detail counter any development they might have been trying to foster? Knowing what you lose is just as important as what you gain.

Most importantly, you must consider the risks of either revealing something or keeping it hidden. If you reveal the necessary details one by one, and not all together, than there is always the chance that someone else will contradict the next private detail of yours in line, with some detail of their own. Would you be able to work around it? Would it completely ruin your privately-defined character, or destroy your planned plot? If yes, would you be able to bounce back? How flexible are your ideas? If they are rigid and linear, then revealing the private sector is a security measure. Everyone knows what will happen, and they have to play out how happens. Or if your ideas are vague or so far removed that they would work in almost any situation, revealing them now might remove the excitement they incite later. Maybe saving that kind of details until the right moment will be your key to an amazing collaboration. Always guess at how much your ideas can suffer from the actions of someone else, and always judge your decision to divulge them on your own ability to adapt to changes.

Keep the idea of the public-and-private sectors in mind as you roleplay, and comment here (or email me) with insights you develop as a result!

Where this gets useful is that when you have a few of these things, you can start sticking them together like some sort of crazy tinkertoy. Now, the obvious way to do this is simple substitution. If Bob likes golf and Dave likes golf, you now have a connection between Bob and Dave. Easy peasy. The weakness of this approach is that there are only so many times I can pull on that particular thread before it becomes predictable - ‘let me guess, we’re golfing again!’. while it absolutely benefits from simplicity, it lacks nuance.

Less obviously, but perhaps more potently is when you establish connections between the outliers. Let’s say for example that Bob still likes golf, but Dave has a different connection: let’s say he’s married to Paula. If I connect Paula to golf (say, she owns the local country club) then I have just made Paula more interesting, and I’ve just made the path from Bob to Dave clear, but a little more nuanced, and practically speaking, easier for me to bring into play. How do I mean? Ok, instead of only having one thread to pull on to get Bob & Dave together, I can pull on either one of their strings and more organically pull in the other. Paula’s havign money problem and the club might be sold. The club is hosting an event and Paula’s running it. A new pro has opened up, and Bob wants his help - if only he had the ear of the club owner!

So, that’s all straightforward enough, but where this ties back into the current line of thinking is with NPCs. While PCs tend to have very organic starbursts, NPCs need to be a little bit simpler, if only for bookkeeping, so I use a simple template when I set one up - a starburst with 4 connections, one to a PC, and the other three to stuff. The link to the PC is usually the most straightforward to account for.

The other three will generally be a thing or an NPC - it doesn’t matter a lot what they are, but what’s important is what their roles are.
he first is something that puts him on the same page with at least one of the same PCs. He values something that the PC values, he’s got a positive connection with one of NPCs connected to a PC, whatever.

The second is a connection that creates tension between the NPC and a player. This doesn’t need to be such a profound difference that it would make them enemies. In fact, antipathy so strong as to make the NPC an enemy should be rare - it is far more useful to have a point of honest, civilized disagreement than a reason to go immediately to the knives.

The third is the one that I’m making sure to add after my recent consideration - something tangential to the PC’s interest, something that explicitly does not tie back into anything else - something that is that NPCs own interest. Practically speaking, this is the thing that the NPC is doing when no-one is watching, and the players may never get full visibility into this.

Now, obviously a more important NPC might have more nodes, while a less important one might have only one or two, but 4 nodes is a good place to start.

Anyway, it’s a simple trick, and one that is probably very familiar to folks who do a lot of relationship mapping, but I find it useful when I need to step back and look at a game and figure out where things happen, and where things need to happen.

Footnote: This is a republished article by Robert Donoghue, printed with his permission from his original post, Building NPCs.

This month’s words are: door and key

This is part two in the series “Make Your RP Successful!,” not because I am actually exerting the copious effort of composing a series of loosely-related articles on role-playing, but because I figure this opening sentence seems energetic and reminiscent of those inspirational guides on improving life, libido, and America. See? I also have an opening paragraph now, and I have not yet made a single point.

To get on topic, what is up with d’em d’er d’ern intimidated people? When do they come from? Where do they inject liquefied Doritos, if not beneath their eyelids to avoid staining their teeth with that orange, crunchy goodness? Why do they claim to read role-plays with religious zeal, but decline warm invitations to participate?

Originally, I thought this should be a long diatribe of seduction; a how-to of luring impressionable, if not a touch apprehensive, youngsters into a role-play. After all, these are role-plays they exiguously express interest in. However, I rapidly came to the harsh truth that the aforementioned either involves external change (others) or internal change (self). In short, fail!

Not in short, external change is improbable and internal change is unpalatable. To external change, while we may mutilate others, brainwash them, and leave them stranded on a freezing moonscape, that isn’t the change I am talking about. I am talking about change we can believe in. The kind that includes rainbows, fairies, and a big boost in confidence. Unfortunately, in lieu of the latter intangible, these intimidated folk have an over-exposure to the former two. To Internal change: it is possible, but revolting. You and I are no more interested in that brand of change than replacing our parent’s mildew-ridden Depends. That is what home hospice care is for, after all. More importantly, and perhaps the reason such change is so unsavory, is that it involves modifying our role-play modus operandi to suit the needs of other people, which we no doubt perceive as a decline of standards. It may or may not be rational or true, but it reflects our feelings, and such prevents that change from happening.

So, what is to be done? Uh……uuuuh… Damn.

That is a question I, too, wring my hands over. Now let me distract you from my lack of solutions with this sample conversation reflecting a similar situation to what I have experienced a few times in the past:

<N’Tim_Idated> Wow, cool RP!
<Circ> <3
<Circ> Why don’t you join?
<N’Tim_Idated> I wouldn’t want to screw up…
<Circ> RAWR! RUN IN FEAR MORTAL, FOR I SHALL DEVOUR YOUR - hey, don’t worry about screwing up. It’s about having fun, and we need people who are willing to jump in and participate.
<N’Tim_Idated> o.o
<Circ> Please?
*N’Tim_Idated signs off
<Circ> Was it something I said?
<Circ> I swear, I’m not a monster!
<April> Jerk.

What does this conversation prove? Not much. However, it does demonstrate that even though we behave courteously, openly, and express a desire for others to participate, it sometimes doesn’t pay off. As much as I want to imply otherwise, we can not make people do something they are unwilling to do. We simply create a welcoming, unthreatening environment, that still meets our personal standards, and hope they join in.

To those intimidated people out there, I have this to say: we really aren’t sour, soul-devouring anathemas. We are full of love and goodness! Do not fear us! Do not fear criticism! And hey, even if we are, the worst thing that can happen is … well, don’t worry about that. It won’t.

This month’s words are: roof and house

There are many different styles of internet dueling, many of which revolve around hit points or speed. On forums, however, the most applicable style of roleplay dueling is called Turn-Based Textual Combat, developed by Vøices øf Xenøn. A re-conceptualization of forum-based play-by-post dueling is discussed below.

• Open Ended Prompting:
  The real content of the turn-based duel post is an open ended prompt, what most refer to as just an “action”. It is called a prompt because it requires for the next player to answer: swinging one’s sword at another’s torso requires for the opponent to react to the sword swing. It is termed open-ended because, as in this example, it is a swing, and not a connecting hit. The opponent, responding to the prompt, determines if the hit connects, is blocked, is dodged, or any of the in-between possibilities.

• Advancing Action:
  A duel post in which a prompt is not answered and a new prompt is not produced will break the flow of the roleplay. Every attack must be accounted for (answering the previous prompt), and then followed (in the “turn”-based theme) with an open-ended action as well. The consequences of not answering a prompt are dire: an attack is effectively ignored, and no one knows what its’ effects were. Similarly, by not producing an action, there is no prompt that needs to be answered, and the duel can easily stagnate because neither player knows what to do. It is imperative that the cycle of prompting is maintained until the end of the duel.

• Careful Reading and Consistency:
  When responding to the previous post, a duelist MUST read and understand every detail before forming their reaction and action. Every bodily movement, strike, type of magic used, environmental aspect, etc, requires some sort of response, whether explicit or implicit. It is necessary that the setting and character of the duel are consistent with the initial state and all subsequent changes. Directions and orientations are incredibly important, especially because duelers often face each other and have converse orientations. If a branch falls on the ground, it cannot magically reappear back on the tree. If a quiver is ripped off of a character’s back, they cannot nock an arrow until it is retrieved. Players must pay close attention to what facts have changed since their previous post before they attempt to reference them in their new post. Poor reading leads to contradictions, and when a character opens a gate despite the fact that the gate was destroyed three posts ago, neither player is ultimately satisfied.

• Courtesy and Metagaming:
  As all actions are open-ended, the receiving play determines their effectiveness. As such, in the spirit of dueling, the goal is to write beautiful combat, not to have one character necessarily win. So all attacks neither can nor should be blocked or dodged. In avoidance of Godmoding, no character should be impervious to damage or immensely powerful. Not only is this not fair, but it is not interesting to read or duel against. Most importantly, Metagaming should be avoided in duels. Such actions as matching a character’s strengths against another character’s weaknesses, or inexplicably having a character discern another character’s plan of attack are considered poor etiquette on the part of the player.

• Dueling is Roleplaying:
  While dueling seems like it own separate concept, it should be treated as no more than roleplaying with the aforementioned guidelines imposed upon it. There is still a plot, a setting, characters. There are still personalities, motives, weaknesses. As such, dueling does not have to be its own separate venture, and can easily be tossed into a regular roleplay, so long as the flow is not interrupted.

• Adaptation:
  Adaptation is the act of accepting what another player has written, and working from the state of things that includes the other player’s changes. Truly, roleplaying (and by extension, dueling) already involves adaptation. However, adaptation can be a conscious effort, especially in light of a contradiction. If the sky is described as sunny by one player, and cloudy immediately afterward by the other player, the first player can adapt to this error, and explain by what circumstance the clouds so quickly appeared. Even discrepancies with the time of day can be explained through eclipse. The ability to adapt to contradictions often makes a duel only more interesting, and reduces the possibility of frustration that can arise due to contradiction. Players should still inform each other in the case of contradictions, and whether they are adapting to them or they want the errors fixed.

• Perception:
  There is a strong distinction between the facts of the setting and situation and the perceptions of characters of the setting and situation. Most duel posts are written from a limited third person point of view, following only on character, and thus only accounting for that one character’s perceptions. So, empirical (and infallible) facts are often mentioned only through characters’ perceptions, and perceptions can be wrong. In the case of some contradictions, a player can adapt by referencing the other character’s perceptions as skewed, causing them to see and believe what the other player had erred. If a character determines that there are birds in the air, the very next post may refer to a volley of ribbed and winged projectiles that the first character perceived as birds, with neither player guilty of a contradiction.

If you are interested in seeing others’ thoughts on this article (in its seminar format) and completing optional assignments that help cement the concepts divulged here, see it in Duels, Fights, Battles in the Roleplaying Academy on RPGFO.

Those concepts, in unison, make for well rounded, exciting, and fun to read and participate in duels. If you already employ these concepts, then reading this should have made you more aware of them. If you are new to roleplay combat, then keeping these in mind will help take your duels up to high quality. Please comment here (or email me) with your thoughts, insights, successes, and additions.

Joe Davis presents “Telescopic Text” - an interactive demonstration of expanding upon content, word by word.

You finally find a role-play forum gurgling up the Siren’s song of promise. There are tons of threads, and on every breed of subject matter your eager little soul can conjure. More surprising, many of them have quality writing! Yes, even the occasional furry threads exude greatness. Navigating through it all is daunting, but hey, that’s a sign of healthy, growing community. Most importantly, a sign of activity. Too much activity to be spelunking through and finding a role-play that suits suit you, of course. So, instead, eager to prove yourself, you dive right in, and start your own role-play. 

An hour goes by, and nobody joins. A day passes, and still no response. After a week, you give up hope. Your role-play concept was genius, but those arrogant losers - those self-ingratiating trollops - obviously have no taste for superb talent such as what you graciously (and, lest we forget, humbly) offered. In disgust and dismay, you wander off to find a community where people will accept your natural brilliance.

I am here to offer hope! The first step is realizing just how socially inept you are. Hey, stop looking at me contemptuously. It is true. Moreover, we are all just as gimpy as you, because - and lets belly-up and face facts - we have all done it. 

You know that kid in the playground, by the swings, all by him or herself while the rest of the young’ns frolicked in ignorant bliss as he or she pined for a friend to rescue them from their oppressive ostracism? Three years later, someone finally did. With a rock to the face. They had to have twelve stitches. It got so bad, the kid’s parents were forced to move to a different school district, but the process inevitably repeated itself. By fourteen, he or she ended up in a dark alley snorting Doritos and injecting Novocain into their … but I digress. This isn’t about me. That could have all been avoided if the whippersnapper simply participated in that communal ritual called play.

While it is definitely encouraged that people start role-plays (this is RolePlayGateway.com, after all), doing so takes a wee bit more planning than just coming up with a good story and posting it on a forum. You need people! That’s right, I said it. People. Without people, you will be lacking that little thing called participation. They are not going to just flock to your pure grandeur, like some European supermodel to a poorly-dressed college dropout who happened to overdose on Axe one day; especially if you are new to the forum. So here are some tips regarding people you may need to consider:

• People have their own gig - likely in their own, or their friends’, role-plays;
• People are very unlikely to see your thread in the sea of content;
• People may not realize they’re welcome to join your role-play (even if you make it painfully obvious);
• People generally like to meet new people, so joining their role-play won’t bring the apocalypse.

Solution? Join an already active role-play, or several role-plays. Make friends, because friends are what will invariably keep you attached to the community long after the wow-factor fades away. When you are ready to start your own, you will have a core group to help you get it moving. A group of people you like and are comfortable with, which will make the experience all the better.

So, you have two options. You can start play with the other kids, or sit by the swings and hope somebody nice comes over and plays with you. Because if you leave, on account of nobody joining your role-play, and go off looking for another community where you’ll be appreciated, those are precisely the odds you’re up against.