(Note: This is first in a series of posts, in which I shall examine the concepts of Games, the Metagame, Game Theory without resorting to complex equations, various facets of economics, Social Interaction Games, and most importantly, why its useless to fill your head with all this nonsense)

Heath Ledger’s Joker isn’t my favourite version of the character. Its got a lot to do with how they took Joker and dumbed him down to a badass psychopath who was adept at mind-games (another example of how movies more often than not don’t capture the nuances of the comics, and I might do a post on that later), but one of the things I disliked the most was how The Joker, after claiming to be a creature of Chaos and Anarchy, let the control of the game pass from his hands to that of the Batman after being captured in the building.

My views might not make sense right now, considering the context of the article. However, through this series, you might come to understand my views on the dis-connect between The Joker’s claims and his actions at the end of the movie. You may or may not agree with my views, but you will understand why I said what I said.

Before going down to the brass tacks, I’d like to clarify certain terms related to Games and Game Theory. My take on these terms might not correspond exactly with what you might find on Google, but for our intents and purposes, the meanings serve the purpose. Don’t worry, the meanings of these terms will be illustrated with a set of examples.

Game: An collection of a set of values and attributes that form the basis for an interaction between a set of players between themselves and/or the game environment.

These values and attributes may take any form and differ from game to game. For the time being, lets just say that the most important types of these are Rules, the Characters and The Game Environment.

While the rules and the game environment are easier to understand, Characters are a bit complicated. They are part of the game environment, but can be manipulated externally (by Players or external conditions), albeit only in scripted ways (exceptions may exist). The Characters cannot have an impact on the Game.

Players: Those who interact with the game environment and/or with each other in non-scripted ways. Players usually play the game until some pre-defined goal is met. Players may also have the ability to impact the game itself (lots of examples from the great game called Real Life)

Metagame: Wikipedia defines it as “using out of game information to affect the outcome”, which in my opinion is too simplistic and does not convey the full meaning. For the purpose of this series, let us define the metagame as “The way the game is actually played, keeping in mind the rules and regulations and the game environment”. A sound knowledge of the Metagame is usually necessary to be good at any game. Metagames also consist of Force Multipliers, which are attributes of the player/character/game environment that present an advantage. A detailed description will follow in the example.

Also, a metagame is totally dependent on the game. It is possible to change the game without changing the metagame, but it is impossible to affect changes in the metagame without having changes in the game. Later articles in this series will deal with real life games and how to analyze their metagame, so that you can stay one step ahead.

Goal/End-state: A state in the game that players strive for. A game may have several end-states, or none. Even in the cases where you have end-states, reaching an end-state is not always guaranteed, and is not always a sign of victory.

In simpler terms, Players employ their knowledge of the Metagame, use the resources and rules and characters and the game environment of the Game to achieve a desirable End State.

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

However, since most of you have had their faculties for accepting new, groundbreaking thought atrophied by the rigours of an outmoded education system (which is also a surprisingly efficient game, just not a very enjoyable one), I shall illustrate all the rubbish that I just spouted with the help of diagrams and examples.

Over the course of this series, we shall be visiting many examples of simple and complex games, including (but not limited to) ancient Japanese courtship rituals, politics and law making, battles, and playing music in a band. However, by way of an introduction, we shall start with a game that is a timeless classic, chess.

A Game of Chess

1) The Game

Game Environment: An 8×8 checkerboard, with alternating black and white squares.

Game Rules:
1) A two player (white and black) turn based game, with white moving first according to convention.
2) The rows and columns are referred to by numbers (1-8) and letters (a-h), and so, individual squares can be uniquely identified.
3) The square a8 (lowest right) is always white

(and so on and so forth… I am not going into all the chess rules, you know most of them as it is, and besides, this is just an example)

Characters:

Pawns: Each side has 8 pawns, and they fill the 2nd row (white), and 7th row (black), can move only in single steps (except on their first step), and can capture a unit only if it is on a forward diagonal square (with the exception being en passent)
etc

2) The End-States:

Victory through Checkmate (includes smothered mates and resignations)
Stalemate
Draw by mutual consent
Draw due to external factors (eg: a meteor strike)

All these are pretty much self obvious. Now, we come to the fun part:

3) The Metagame:

What can be the metagame of Chess? The objective is to capture the opponents king, (or to prevent the capture of your own, as the case may be). We have a set of cannon-fodder (Pawns), which are used for the initial build up, a line of protection, cheap support, and more powerful units in the end game.
We then have the minor pieces, the light artillery (Bishops) and cavalry (Knights). Used mainly for feints and incursions in the early-mid game, mainly against pawns and other minor pieces. Can also be used to support major pieces in late game, as well as a more aggressive role in the mid-late game.
Finally, we move to the major pieces, the long range shock troops (Rooks), and the elite guard (Queen). These pieces are used to beat down the resistance in the mid-end game, and provide long range support and cover.

Of course, the beauty of chess is such that each of these pieces can very easily fit into the role of another, and its not surprising to have games where the Queens and Rooks come out to play in the early mid-game itself, or where the Knights and Bishops deliver the killing blow. It may even happen that a single lowly pawn can affect the outcome of a game.

We now have a set of possible roles for the Characters in the game. Since the rules and the game environment cannot be affected, the only interaction the players can have is through the pieces. Its easy to see that the Metagame for chess would revolve around getting to a position of advantage where your units can do maximum possible damage, while protecting your own king. A player’s position may be termed “strong” or “weak”, depending on the position of the pieces on the board. However, actually translating that position into a desirable end-state is a matter of skill.

For the purpose of the metagame, the player’s position may be viewed through the following prism (which, as far as I know, is my own creation)

The three facets of this prism are the force multipliers Mobility, Mass and Momentum. Each of them is represents a unique facet of the metagame, and is defined by the current board position, as well as the game history.

Mobility: It is defined as the capacity of your pieces to move freely into desirable positions.
Mass: It is defined as the weight of your pieces. Having a set of stronger pieces is more desirable than having a set of weaker pieces.
Momentum: It is a rather tricky concept. For the moment, treat this as defining which player has the initiative at the moment and is driving the game.

Broadly speaking, in the metagame of chess, you have an advantageous position if your pieces are free to move as they wish, are stronger than your opponent’s pieces, and you are on the attack. While it is advisable to have all three force multipliers, sometimes two are enough. It is also possible that a player may have an unsurmountable advantage through a single force multiplier, the best example of which is the following classic smothered mate:

As you can see, Black has the stronger pieces (in the actual game, Black had a queen as well), but a single White knight was able to defeat the king on an empty board, where Black had two very big advantages according to the metagame, better pieces (queen, rook and pawns against knight and pawns), and better mobility. Of course, analysis of the game will show that White had superior momentum in the preceding moves, and sacrificed his own queen (and his mass), in order to force a mate by sheer momentum (Black could not respond with a counter-attack, and could only react to what White was doing).

Of course, the personalities of the players and their state of mind also plays an important role in determining the outcome of a game along with these three force multipliers. Chess is a very difficult game to win, but an easy game to lose. Sometimes, games can be won by simply breaking the opponent’s confidence (a favourite tactic of mine involved rapid exchanges of minor pieces, which left the opponent completely unsettled). This becomes very important when you play with the same set of people regularly, or are a part of a competitive chess scene, where you can follow your would be opponent’s progress. Hence, while this psychological warfare is an external factor, it is an integral part of the chess metagame.

In essence, the metagame in chess revolves around gaining positional and psychological advantage through the three force multipliers: Mobility, Mass and Momentum. The utility of these force multipliers varies according to the position of the board and the players involved. For instance, usually, mobility and mass are preferred in the early game, and momentum and mass in the end game, but it is also common to sacrifice mass for momentum in the early game. Also, a player can change his gameplay across different games, favouring momentum over mass in one game (Queen’s Gambit), and mass and psychological advantage over momentum in the next (Anderssen’s opening). The beautiful thing about chess is that there is no “perfect” metagame. The rules and characters are elegant and open-ended enough to allow many different combinations, with the only limiting factor being the game environment. There is a rock-paper-scissor dynamic that exists in all chess strategies, which means that every single advantage based on the metagame has a counter (the interesting is that not all games are this well balanced). A dragon attack will have its yugoslav defence, Bishops can be boxed in easily by pawns, while Knights can make life hell for Queens and Rooks. There is no inherent advantage in choosing white over black, for momentum in the early game is in a state of flux and can easily pass between the players before settling down. A skilled player can easily achieve a position of advantage (where he has the three positional force multipliers working for him) over a non-skilled player. The rules and characters of the game do not give any inherent advantage to a player, and so, the positional force multipliers are worthless without the most important force multiplier: skill.

This is exactly why Chess is a beautiful, robust game, where skill plays the most important role in determining the outcome of the game. I chose the example of chess because it occupies one end of the spectrum as far as games are concerned. It is based on an ideal set of rules in an unchanging game environment, and uses skill as the deciding factor. The metagame revolves around being more skilled than the opposing player and achieving positional advantage, which is a very idealistic situation. However, in the next few posts, we shall be looking at games where the metagame revolves around a lot more than the skill of the players.

However, all of this would drastically change if the rules of the games were changed in certain ways. For instance, if we changed the rules so that a coin toss determined which player got what colour, and allowed the White king to move two squares in any direction as well as like a knight, or allowed the Black queen to move only three squares but gave the rooks the ability to move one square diagonal, the metagame would change from one that is based on skill to one that is based a lot on the luck of the draw. Aggressive players would prefer White over Black, and would be cramped by the limitations on the Black queen. Again, if we allowed the Black pawns to capture pieces directly in front as well, defensive players would start preferring Black over White.

This post was just an illustration of the phenomena of Metagames. There are many games (including situations in real life) that give unique advantages and disadvantages to the players, and I will be covering some of the more interesting ones in later posts, including games with evolving metagames and actual battles.

(Disclaimer: Most of the theories and definitions used in the post are a product of my bored, anarchist mind. Therefore, don’t use them as set-in-stone-divine-wisdom. If you so choose to use them as set-in-stone-divine-wisdom, then credit me as the creator, and send a huge cash donation to me )

If you like your posts, do become our facebook fan. Thanks for visiting!

Related posts:

1. Game and Metagame: Part 3… Force Multipliers, schoolyard fights, The Afghan war and the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae
2. Game and Metagame: Part 2… Grinding, The Indian Education System, Quake III and World of Warcraft
3. Game Development Outsourcing in India
4. Cricket: T-20, ODIs and Game theory
5. Hollywood – One Industry to rule them all