What is the Metagame?
What is the Metagame?
There are games that we play beyond the game. A game that is really – about the game. That “game of the game” is what metagames and metagaming are about. But what are “metagames?” What defines them? What characterizes them? And how should we think about them when we use applied games?
This article will answer these questions and more. It’ll start out by outlining some of the most common characteristics of metagames; and explore the aspect of metagaming as the “game of the game.” Metagames will be situated as activities and options that players take “outside of play.” The results of both will be used to define the term “metagames” for the purposes of this article.
Metagames for different games are usually seen in a state of flux, so a comparison of metagame stability and evolution will be analyzed as they relate to the types of metagames that we have experienced and may encounter. These different types of metagames are wholly influenced by player behaviors and skill differences when experiencing metaplay – especially in the context of highly competitive games.
Though, the examination of metagames can be taken in stride with how players learn and adapt to play through metagaming. Such a comparison is most closely linked to the aspect of yomi where players must counterplay. Here, individuals are poised to interpret the “meta” of the game and play against their opponents perceived intentions.
This greatly influences the strategy behind metagames as many players experience them in competitive arenas. However, all metagames are not reduced to these fields as player behaviors interpret metagaming as exploitation of the game – sometimes for better – sometimes for worse.
These interactions are seen within the greater realm of metagames and how the collective behaviors of players influence and affect, the growth, change, and evolution of the “meta.” These changes determine how metagames can affect real world applications and how we might interpret and adapt them for applied gaming.
Characteristics of Metagames
Understanding some of the most common characteristics of metagames are important for creating a definition of them for this article. Let’s start with meta games as an examination of how games are played in practice; and not how they’re “supposed” to be played in accordance with their rules.
A focus on the actual rulesets for games, the core game, or orthogame is what players see as the main or intended gameplay experience. Metagames fly in the face of that, as they challenge what the “real game” is supposed be in context with the actual experience of playing the game. Therefore, metagames emerge from both the mechanics of the game and the player behavior that shapes it over time. This means that metagames complement the “ortho” nature of games and overall serves as a counterpart, rather than replaces, fundamental strategy.
This characteristic of metagames blends different aspects together. Depending on a player’s identity, metagaming could come from blending playing, making, and analyzing games into one activity. That means that the whole of the game, the experience, the play, and the community surrounding it are highly susceptible to changes due to social, historical, and cultural contexts.
Metagaming also relates to “paragames” which are the parallel activities that take place alongside the core “ortho” aspect of games that are often driven by player motivations due to social, cultural, and historical influences. More contemporary digital influences on metagames include added systems such as achievements which extend gameplay beyond core mechanics. These systems contain added incentives of driving progression, rewards, and in-game economies which are important for the business value of mobile games whose revenue is driven by daily and monthly regular users.
These external influences then affect internal changes that may go onto impact core gameplay such as new rules and new tools that then go onto influence the “game of the game.”
Game of the Game
The phrase “game of the game” has been used to describe metagames in the past. That’s because one of the more popular interpretations of it is to describe activities that are beyond the core game that still shape and influence the player experience. Most of the time for competitive environments, this means including the “analysis of the analysis” and reacting to what others conceive as optimal play. As such this, “higher” level of reasoning has also been interpreted as the “game beyond the game.”
This additional “level of play” is one that is layered on top of core mechanics. Players must make decisions within the game; but there are other decisions – meta decisions – that are made at a higher level of play. This “higher level,” is what is often referred to in competitive circles as actions beyond the core system. These are activities that occur outside of the immediate rules. These are actions that go onto to influence other players and their activities.
These higher-level actions and thinking are usually undertaken using external information that informs decisions. Much of this information is based on other players in competitive games and predicting what they will do and adapting accordingly. Therefore, much of metagames rely on what is occurring “outside” of the magic circle of gameplay and the connection that the game - and its players - have with real world contexts, behavior, and meaning making. These are the activities that take place “outside of play.”
Outside of Play
Actions and activities that take place outside of play have been attributed to metagames. This greater level (above core gameplay) involves strategy, adoption, and analysis. All these activities that are related to the game but extending beyond it are included in metagames and metagaming.
These activities could refer to multiple player actions happening before, between, and after play. Preparation actions that players do before play; as well as strategic decision-making during play; and the reflection of the game after play all constitute actions of metagaming. These reflective activities are most popularly seen in the content creation of media about games and involve the activities of watching, discussing, and researching the content related to it.
The results of which, is when players use the reflective outcomes of these activities to inform their in-game choices. These reflective activities could take place in communities and platforms, but are usually centered around players’ desires to inform and augment their in-game play.
While it may be easy to consider what is “part” and “not-part” of the game, players engaged in metagaming don’t see the boundary so well defined. Instead, it is more variable and what knowledge is considered out of play and in-play is much more fluid. This “beyond the board” thinking is based on players’ desires to understand the broader system and environment in which the game is played and not just their opponents.
Therefore, the aspect of metagaming for players is greatly rooted in their perspective. Competitive games can have highly diverse and volatile metas, whereas cooperative games have few or none. All of which are informed but what we consider as “metagames.”
Definition of Metagames
Defining metagames are difficult because there is no single agreed upon definition. The use of the term varies across contexts and applications as we’ve covered already. Based on this, and for the purposes of this article, we’ll define metagames as the use of external information to influence game play.
Metagaming on the other hand is the active process of analyzing the dynamic between player decisions within the formal framework of the game and the external application of rules, preferences, and strategies. This aspect is most closely related to how Richard Garfield popularized the term as how the game “interfaces with life.”
Based on this and the following sections, we will review and discuss metagaming in four different contexts:
The first is the “game of the game” and the review, reflections, and decisions made my players outside of formal gameplay.
The second is the determination of the “dominant strategy,” of competitive games. This is perhaps the most popular definition of metagaming today.
The third is the development and use of “out-of-character” or external knowledge of players in role-playing games.
The fourth and last is the “second-order system” which is the informal but accepted structure of play.
All four areas can also refer to the system or activities that surround the core loop and formal structure of games; but are not an integrated element of them.
The “dominant strategy” interpretation of metagames can be observed in real-time strategy games in the form of builds, tactics, and counters. The “second order-system” can be seen in how players pursue and accomplish “achievements” as part of their game play.
However, another interpretation of metagames is that they are not formal elements of play; but are inseparable from it. As metagames represent how players play games in real world contexts. That’s because many games that have any sort of popular following include all sorts of ancillary activities related to them including strategy discussions, communities, histories, economies, and spectatorship.
Metagames could also be said to exist and emerge in the gap between formal game mechanics and the lived experiences of the players playing them. Adherence to the base game’s rules and play is necessary to enter the magic circle. Mastery of this is then used as a means of reflecting and evaluating the game at a “metagame” level.
So, in review, metagames are a way for players to engage and interact with each other in the context of the game, but outside of it. This view positions metagaming as a “layer” of interaction. Similar frames can be seen in teaching and learning with engagement in formal learning environments in schools, colleges and universities where there is a formal framework of experience; but players (i.e. learners) inside of them form communities and relationships about the formal structure of the learning environment. An aspect which will be discussed in-depth later.
Metagame Stability
Metagames may occur whenever engagement outside of the game occurs. But the stability of such metagames is something that is always in question. Perhaps one of the most cogent aspects of this is through simple games like rock-paper-scissors. This type of game is one of intransitive properties where rock beats scissors; scissors beats paper; but paper beats rock. It’s a circle of dominance and knowing which one to play illustrates basic meta-game thinking through shifting strategy patterns. Any single game of rock-paper-scissors stands alone; but when played against the same opponent in a series of games both Yomi and metagame thinking emerges.
While a simple game; rock-paper-scissors serves as a good example of how metagame strategy evolves and counter strategies to it. Given competitive landscapes a strategy develops; a counter for it grows; and then a new dominant strategy emerges. This represents a continuous and self-correcting process and operates much like an ecosystem.
However, the stability of the metagame exists based on what strategies can be exploited. When all have been discovered, implemented, optimized, and transformed, they eventually decline and a new one emerges. But given a game like rock-paper-scissors; only a few strategies can exist until the “metagame” shifts.
Therefore, metagames occur most frequently in organized competitive environments and tournaments. And yes (before you check) there are competitive tournaments of rock-paper-scissors complete with their own metagames. However, as was discussed, simpler games tend to have more stable metas. This occurs when the strategy and actions taken in play reaches an equilibrium.
This can also be seen in games like chess where the meta is relatively stable due to its nature of fixed and unchanging rules. Conversely more complex games tend to have faster and more volatile metas that are tied to their growing and changing rules and features. This combined with competitive environments tends to produce faster meta shifts. However, this can sometimes compete against novice players’ basic mechanics of games as overthinking the meta can undermine basic understanding of the original formal game elements.
Metagame Evolution
Despite this, it’s important to note that not all metas are static. They can evolve and shift as players respond to dominant strategies. This re-shaping is best informed by player behaviors and what players do in response to other player behaviors.
Though the most competitive players follow and track the current metagame; other players may follow or promote strategies that become popular due to ease of use rather than optimal strength. Therefore, perception becomes just as an important element for metaplay as much as the strategies’ actual effectiveness.
The aspect of player perception is an interesting one, as it introduces psychological factors (such as bluffing in poker) that connect to other meta elements into what constitutes a viable metagame strategy. These other factors can include cost, time, and popularity trends which also affect metaplay adoption.
As such, these slew of other factors influence how and why strategies are adopted, used, and discarded over time. A healthy meta game includes a diversity and viability of counterplay; and is something to consider for game developers and curators of communities that want to promote the healthy evolution of such.
Metagame Analysis
So, this stability and the evolution of competitive metagames means that while games themselves may ask players to act rationally; they may not. That metagames themselves could endear players to act irrationally, deceptively, or even emotionally based on the state of the metagame. Therefore, it’s important to think about metagames as not about the games themselves; but rather about the experience of players playing games with each other.
An in-depth analysis of games shifts attention from the formal way that games are structured and moves it towards what decisions can be made and how those decisions interact with one another. This skews into the territory of game theory; but it is somewhat related to metagames as preferences between players’ objectives can change over the course of an interaction between and amongst one another.
This means that formal game elements often account for the interactions between players during play; it doesn’t include their interactions of players outside of play. And that the results of these engagements represent the actual interesting choices and constraints of the game. Specifically, a game without a metagame is just a theoretical abstraction. That games – by virtue of being a game – have a metagame associated with it.
Types of Metagames
As we discussed before there are different contexts to metagames. Within that context there are differ types of metagames. For instance, there are the social aspects of metagames. These involve the community interactions, norms, and player attitude of the game. This could include the “game of the game” as it relates to interacting with other players as well as the “out-of-character” or external knowledge that players gain when interacting outside of the game.
Another type is intertextual metagames. These are references about other games. this comes from the context of developing the “dominant” strategy of play or from the context of the second order system. Both relate to how strategy from one game can be applied to other games as well as how second order systems (such as progression systems) relate to specific game play.
Ludic metagames most closely relate to “second order systems” of games as they represent games that are played “on top” of another game with added goals. Perhaps the best-known version of these kinds of ludic games are those included in achievement systems in digital games. They provide recognition for players for accomplishing goals that align with the core loop of the game but are not the primary objective from play.
Strategic metagames are games related to the context of “dominant strategy” and involve higher-level decision-making using information beyond the dominant game. In this regard they also related to the “game of the game” as players develop, use, and apply knowledge gain from contexts outside of the game, within the game.
All of these types of metagames feed into two distinct classes. Those include “mechanical” or designed systems that are part of the formal game structure. The other type are emergent or player created strategies or additions. Both of which affect play. The former addresses the “game of the game” context of metagames whereas the latter addressees the application of external knowledge. Both address the context of dominant strategy and play.
To complicate matters even more, strategic metagames come in additional states. Those are defined, undefined, and somewhat defined. This is most closely related to the “dominant strategy” context of metagames as defined metas allow for precise counter-strategy planning. Undefined metas on the other hand require flexible general applicable strategies. Finally, somewhat defined metas require players to balance prediction with adaptability in their play.
Finally, these different context types, and states of metagames can vary by geography. They are present at multiple levels including globally, locally, and individually. Different players playing the same game in one location may have a defined emergent meta occurring in their community that is wildly different from a community in a different location playing the same game.
Player Behavior and Experience in Metagames
One of the most critical aspects of metagames in these varying configurations is how much they are affected by player behavior and the overall experience of play. That’s because metagames operate in players’ minds rather than represent visible game elements. This is perhaps the origin of how different games develop “house rules” in different context with different people. As many different people experience the same game differently given other players, the stakes, and social contexts.
This reliance on the player’s behavior is where psychology and prediction play a key role in metagame strategy. This emerges from evolving sets of dominant strategies created and promoted by players’ interactions and system dynamics. As such, players are always creating metagames, often unconsciously, through their behaviors, interpretations, and ultimately actions in the game.
As was discussed before, metagames sit on top of the gameplay experience and players recognize patterns from others through this experience. Though this observation metagame dynamics evolve as player behavior and strategies adapt and change over time. Therefore, one of the best ways to observe metagames is to focus on players’ psychology and perception.
This can be seen through the “layering literacies” in games as players engage in a fluid process of learning across gameplay and other related activities. Those other activities could be playing other games, discussion of the game outside of the game, or the application of other knowledge to the game environment. This results in different play styles, social norms, stakes, and ultimately player motivations all within the same game.
Thus, there is a conundrum with player motivation as player behavior may not always align with optimal strategies due to knowledge on the game. As a result, many metagames reflect what players “believe” is optimal and not necessarily what is objectively best.
The argument for what is “objectively best” is often answered differently based on player skills for the game in question. As player skill levels can have completely different metagames compared to one another. This is most representative when different players examine and interpret data differently due to skill differences or bias through gameplay.
Player Learning and Adaptation in Metagames
It’s perhaps because the metagame forces players to review, examine, and reflect, that it has the greatest impact on learning and adaptation. That’s because as players review their play they begin to understand why certain actions and strategies dominate some competitive games. Then - through further reflection - how those strategies interact and evolve over time.
Therefore, when it comes to strategically planning moves and actions in games, metagaming is often indicated as an appropriate means of developing higher-level cognition, adaptation, and anticipation of opponents’ moves. This means that metagames share much in common between gameplay and learning environments.
The parallels can be seen in how both games and learning environments are structured. Games are an experiential form of learning. Learning environments can also be experiential. The application of games to these learning environments are applied games or serious games. And if metagames exist as the “game of the game” then educational, learning, serious, and applied games may also have metagames. Therefore, the metagames that exist in these contexts can be harnessed and focused on the learning process and not just on playable products.
This is because applied games force participants to understand systems, overcome challenges, and position themselves to achieve certain outcomes. This can be achieved through gameplay but can also occur when designing games are pursued with an educational focus and for the purpose of deepening learning.
This is observed in the experiential learning cycle, where players engage in iterative cycles of learning, where each action, move, or outcome leads to further exploration and improvement. The outcome of which is that metagames can function as problem-solving frameworks for learning in addition to gaining a competitive advantage.
Therefore, applied games practitioners are well served by integrating gaming and metagaming into learning environments to create more dynamic and student-centered environments. While games form an experiential learning process, educators can also rely on the cycle of play, observe, analyze, adjust, and repeat when examining and deconstructing iterative learning.
The result of which is the increase of game literacy; gameplay competency; and the application of lessons from one game to others. Often seen in how players anticipate and strategize against the perceived actions of other players.
Metagames and Yomi
Yomi is the ability to read, predict, and anticipate an opponent’s thoughts, moves, and strategies to respond effectively. It serves as the bedrock to applying dominant strategies to play. However, individuals can exploit reactions to dominant strategies through counter-play and counter-plays to those counter-plays.
Therefore, players’ success often depends on predicting dominant strategies of opponents and then learning how to counter them. This serves as a “give-and-take” as players engage and adapt to each other’s plays. This prediction takes into account many different player behaviors and variables. But for the most part it relies on their past behavior, anticipating expectations, and using formal and secondary systems such as tournament structures, to their advantage.
If metagaming represents the highest level of community grown strategies and counterstrategies then Yomi represents its requisite components at the most basic level. Not all metagaming is about exploiting dominant strategies. But those games that are, focus on how to develop, execute, and counter those strategies in widely different situations.
Strategy and Metagames
One of the most widely interpreted definitions of metagames is the development and application of the dominant strategies in competitive games. Some of those strategies are objectively effective, whereas others may be used due to their perceived effectiveness.
However, the most competitive players playing at the highest levels expose how they execute dominant strategies effectively. But their strategy is not simply a protocol to follow. Instead, its treated as an evolving interaction. And this is where metagames grow and evolve in competitive fields, as their application is due to how they are optimized for expected win rates against all competition and not just single games.
This involves the most competitive players researching and reviewing plays of opponents and modelling their behaviors, learning, and adapting and countering different strategies. During gameplay, these players examine and execute their strategy and apply evolving decision making based on the game state and their opponents’ reactions.
Perhaps spectators or other players may see gameplay deviate from mathematically optimal play; if the goal is to gain future advantages in a metagame framework (such as a tournament) rather than see immediate gains. The results of these interactions usually evolve through chains of responses through other players strategies. Opponents observe, counter, or mimic the strategy and it continues to evolve throughout the community. This results in optimal strategies shifting over time based on player behavior, competition, and context.
Metagames as Exploitation
All good games have agency. Great games allow players to action that agency to surmount challenges and achieve. But since meta games exist as the “game of the game” or a layer above the game; some have interpreted it as a form of manipulation. One such interpretation is metagaming as exploiting loopholes in the game.
For live digital games with active communities and persistent developers; these loopholes can be closed. But some see the exploitation of these loopholes as a means of defining the rules. They are an opportunity to play a “level above” and determine how the rules can be best exploited to their advantage. Some may see this approach as cheating. In some cases (tournaments for example) colluding with other players and deal making could be seen as subverting the integrity of play.
Despite this, most players in competitive contexts accept the strategic aspect of metagaming as a necessary means of playing competitively. Whereas others see metagaming as a form of role-playing character bleed which has been interpreted as cheating for “breaking immersion.” Nevertheless, metagaming exists as a means of exploring and interacting with the players and content of the game world, outside of the game world. And sometimes those interactions form collective behaviors in gaming communities.
Collective Behaviors and Design in Metagames
Perhaps one of the most interesting and persistent aspects of metagaming is that they explore how games can connect to broader systems and contexts. That they become a study of the community of players, and the impact of their play has outside of the formal game itself.
Simultaneously, this becomes a study of the player experience at the community levels, and the discussion surrounding games becomes less about formal mechanics, and more about the meaning making and social constructs surrounding it.
This is even the case with competitive environments where the metagame is closely studied and observed. Even in these situations, no one person sets the meta. Rather it’s the collective action of many players that affect and change the metagame over time. High-level successful players often influence what becomes the “meta,” but they do not do so alone as the reactions and results of their opponents have a hand in this influence as well. Therefore, metagaming empowers individuals to influence larger systems.
These larger systems, as we’ve discussed, extend beyond the formal game and include the design and structuring of gaming experiences. The features that come from this can even enhance gameplay without dominating player time. Usually this is seen in player progression systems with out-of-game achievements that are directly tied to core gameplay.
These secondary systems become such a part of contemporary games as they often obscure the existence of the metagame itself by packing play as a product of extraordinary systems outside of the core game play loop. However, the positive result of this is that individual players then become designers, tastemakers, and influencers as they produce and publish modifications, strategies, and community practices that affect and influence other players’ experiences.
Real World Applications of Metagames
In the end, all games that have a “community of players” exist with some kind of metagame. Where this broader environment provides a venue for them to connect, discuss, debate, and make meaning with each other as a result of the game. The effects of this extend into other real-worlds systems like social, economic, and digital environments.
This means that as metagames exist as a product of the engagement of players outside of the game. And metagames are in turn influenced by outside forces; they require players to read and study trends and think about their role in games strategically. This is especially true in applied games as vehicles for teaching and learning. Commercial games often have very discrete win and loss states, whereas the real world is a little messier. There, the results of actions are more “probabilistic” rather than guaranteeing outcomes.
This means that games can serve as analogs for real world systems. Real world systems will always provide a means and structure that are not always completely replicated in game worlds.
Takeaways
This article covered the characteristics of metagames and what many players do (or don’t) recognize in them. Metagames were discussed as being the “game of the game” and a layer of engagement and agency outside of play. All of this informed the definition of metagames, which for this article, was the use of external information to influence game play.
Metagames were analyzed including how simpler and less competitive games seemed to lack competitive metas compared to more complex and competitive games which engender greater and more volatile meta strategies. The results of which informed the overall meta game analysis of information that exists outside of the game that reflects play within the game.
Different types of metagames were discussed as well as their influence and application to player behavior in metagames and how metagames could be used for teaching, learning, and adaptation. The latter is due to how metagames require reflective actions from players based on their strategic connection to yomi – and anticipation of opponents’ activities. Such an experiential reflective process closely impacts the determination and implementation of strategy in metagames.
Overall, outsized metagames and external nature have earned it connotations around exploitation and “cheating” as it uses external knowledge to affect formal game play. Such interpretations are warranted; but the overall aspect of this external knowledge often comes about through collective behaviors of gaming communities that exist only outside of play. The impact of these communities was discussed along with some overall real-world applications of metagames.
This article covered the metagame. To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.
Dave Eng, EdD
Principal
References
Algon. (2023, January 9). Idea: Learning how to move towards the metagame. LessWrong. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Mhyb4YkeHJkDy7J2e/idea-learning-how-to-move-towards-the-metagame
Bartolo, M. (n.d.). Mastering skills through an iterative learning approach. Illumination, Medium. https://medium.com/illumination/mastering-skills-through-an-iterative-learning-approach-a4bece26167b
Boluk, S., & LeMieux, P. (2017). Metagaming: Playing, competing, spectating, cheating, trading, making, and breaking videogames. University of Minnesota Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1n2ttjx
Carter, M., Gibbs, M., & Harrop, M. (2012). Metagames, paragames and orthogames: A new vocabulary. In Proceedings of the Foundations of Digital Games Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254005976_Metagames_paragames_and_orthogames_A_new_vocabulary
Cerrato, N. (2016, September 21). Esports: What is "the meta"? LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/esports-101-what-meta-nicolas-cerrato/
Chin, C. (2020, February 25). To get good, go after the metagame. Commoncog. https://commoncog.com/to-get-good-go-after-the-metagame/
Costiuc, S. (2019, February 12). What is a meta-game? Game Developer. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/what-is-a-meta-game-
Eng, D. (2016, March 4). Game systems. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2016/3/4/whats-your-system
Eng, D. (2019, December 10). Decision space. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/10/decision-space
Eng, D. (2019, December 3). Core loops. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops
Eng, D. (2019, June 4). Formal game structures. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/04/formal-game-structures
Eng, D. (2019, October 29). Gaming with motivation. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/29/gaming-with-motivation
Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The player experience. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience
Eng, D. (2019, September 17). Player interaction. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/17/player-interaction
Eng, D. (2020, August 20). What is player agency? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/8/20/what-is-player-agency
Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game mechanics for learning. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning
Eng, D. (2020, January 16). How do I win? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/16/how-do-i-win
Eng, D. (2020, January 9). Socializing games. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/9/socializing-games
Eng, D. (2020, July 30). What is the lusory attitude? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/7/30/what-is-the-lusory-attitude
Eng, D. (2020, July 9). What is the "magic circle?" University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/7/9/what-is-the-magic-circle
Eng, D. (2020, June 18). What is player behavior? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/6/18/what-is-player-behavior
Eng, D. (2020, May 28). What are interactive experiences? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/28/what-are-interactive-experiences
Eng, D. (2020, October 1). What makes a good rule book? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/10/1/what-makes-a-good-rule-book
Eng, D. (2021, November 23). How do players create meaning in games? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/11/23/how-do-players-create-meaning-in-games
Eng, D. (2021, October 26). Applied games-based learning. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/10/26/applied-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2021, September 28). Playing serious games. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/9/28/playing-serious-games
Eng, D. (2022, August 30). What is Yomi? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/8/30/what-is-yomi
Eng, D. (2022, December 6). What are game goals and objectives? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/12/6/what-are-game-goals-and-objectives
Eng, D. (2022, March 1). What is player reflection? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/3/1/what-is-player-reflection
Eng, D. (2022, September 27). What is strategy in gameplay? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/9/27/what-is-strategy-in-gameplay
Eng, D. (2023, August 8). What is game literacy? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/8/8/what-is-game-literacy
Eng, D. (2023, October 17). What is player engagement? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/10/17/what-is-player-engagement
Eng, D. (2024, January 16). What are progression systems in games? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/1/16/what-are-progression-systems-in-games
Eng, D. (2024, May 28). What are educational games? University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/5/28/what-are-educational-games
Eng, D. (2025, January 14). Designing the core dynamics. University XP. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2025/1/14/designing-the-core-dynamics
Greenfeld, J. (n.d.). How to win the metagame (in real life). https://jakobgreenfeld.com/metagame
Hemmingsen, M. (2024). What is a metagame? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 18(5), 452–467. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17511321.2023.2250922
Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of rationality: Theory of metagames and political behavior. MIT Press. https://archive.org/details/paradoxesofratio0000howa
Kiourti, E. (2022). Layering literacies and metagaming in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 22, 1–27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361985801_Layering_literacies_and_metagaming_in_Counter_Strike_Global_Offensive
Kokkinakis, A., York, P., Patra, M. S., Robertson, J., Kirman, B., Coates, A., Chitayat, A. P., Demediuk, S., Drachen, A., Hook, J., Nolle, I., Olarewaju, O., Slawson, D., Ursu, M., & Block, F. O. (2021). Metagaming and metagames in esports. International Journal of Esports, 1(1). https://www.ijesports.org/article/51/html
Lovell, N. (2019, June 25). What is the metagame? Gamesbrief. https://www.gamesbrief.com/2019/06/what-is-the-metagame/
Metagame. (n.d.). Tropedia. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://tropedia.fandom.com/wiki/Metagame
Nance, E. (2013, January 31). All you need to know about metagaming. SixPrizes. https://sixprizes.com/2013/01/31/all-you-need-to/
Pell, B. (1992). METAGAME: A new challenge for games and learning. https://svn.sable.mcgill.ca/sable/courses/COMP763/oldpapers/TR276-bdp-metagame.pdf
Powell, R. (2025, December 12). What is a 'meta-game'. Medium. https://medium.com/@powellrowan/what-is-a-meta-game-c4fc5b5b7e97
Rock paper scissors tournaments. (n.d.). World Rock Paper Scissors Association. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://wrpsa.com/rock-paper-scissors-tournaments/
Ruocco, J. (2025, November 27). What is the metagame: From the game board to real life. 421. https://www.421.news/en/what-is-the-metagame/
Thaicharoen, S. (2021, December 1). What are metagames? - And why quantifying them matter. Medium. https://medium.com/@thaicharoens/what-are-metagames-and-why-quantifying-them-matter-36399b0e5d85
Thaicharoen, S. (2023). An ecosystem framework for the meta in esport games [Doctoral dissertation, Queen Mary University of London]. QMRO. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/93056/Thaicharoen%20An%20Ecosystem%20Framework%202023%20Published.pdf
Walker, G. (n.d.). Poker metagame. ThePokerBank. https://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/psychology/metagame/
What is a metagame and why use it. (n.d.). Adjust. https://www.adjust.com/glossary/metagaming/
What is the metagame? Metamodernism & the game-beyond-the-game. (2023, January 25). Emerge. https://www.whatisemerging.com/opinions/what-is-the-metagame
Yang, J. (2021, December 25). Learning the metagame. https://projectyang.com/posts/learning-the-metagame/
Cite this Article
Eng, D. (2026, May 19). What is the Metagame?. Retrieved MONTH DATE, YEAR, from XXXXX