I am on my way to the MetaGame session where we are to play a video game discussion game.
And I realize that I am in a position that I have written about theoretically: Since we haven’t played the game before, not with these people, and not in this context, I don’t know how much bragging is allowed. Can I sulk if we lose? Is it about discussion, or is about winning? What is the balance?
What is the lusory attitude of my own team? What is the attitude of the other team? What is the attitude of the audience?
Arguably, the Metagame was not about mechanical familiarity, but about familiarity with the games and the discussion involving them. As all the members of the teams seemed well-versed in arguing subjectively on the topic, it appeared to be a level playing-field.
The biggest influence in the game’s progression, however, was clearly the audience, and the team that took home bragging rights (as well as that weird book) was the team which most often accurately assessed the temper of the crowd and based their movements on that assessment. Then again, with such a heated topic of debate as video games, could anyone truly predict the passions of the audience?