A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

Emerikol · Jul 18, 2018

Most of the times in these discussions my use of the term magic comprises any special force that a skeptical rationalist in this world would not believe exists. So Psionics, Ki, Mutations, etc... are all forms of "magic" for the discussion. Magic is changes to the universes ruleset.

I think we are splitting on agency vs perception. Obviously unless you have VR glasses from 2150, you aren't seeing, smelling, and touching exactly what your character is. The Dungeon Master is describing what is happening. And whether that game is realistic or not is beside the point as far as this thread is concerned. We all know D&D is super heroic.

My issue is players making changes to the game state that their characters could not possibly make given the world they are playing in. So let's just say the implied D&D world prior to 4e. In that world, fighters are not innately magical. They use magic of all sorts and that is part of their power for sure. So such a fighter could not possibly have a once per day "power". So my choices in that situation were to either rewrite the world to make fighters magical or to leave behind actor stance and go into some kind of author stance. Neither appealed to me all that much.

Fate points, I assume are outside the purview of the PC. They are 100% player tokens and the player is authoring events around to character to create a story. It is a valid style and I hope no one doubts me when I say that. I hope you all enjoy it. I wish you well. I personally just don't prefer that style of game. That alone is not me casting aspersions. That is me stating a preference.

I think pure actor stance is an incredible rich and rewarding style of play. I wouldn't say it's the only form of roleplaying. I would say though that those moments in any game where you are "being" the character is WHEN you are roleplaying. So if you drop out occasionally to be the player that is fine. You aren't really playing your character at that point. You are modifying the game around your character so that when you return to character the game will be more interesting.

Emerikol · Jul 19, 2018

chaochou said:
The trouble with D&D hitpoints is that they're such nonsensical rubbish - far beyond 'abstraction' and into the realms of gibberish - that they're not fun.

When I play a over the board wargame, I move a counter into a hex and attack an enemy counter. When that battle is over one side retreats. Nothing else is measurable about the state of the counter. I can in special circumstances with enough counters destroy that counter that I attack. It's an abstraction. And it's not that bad of an abstraction.

In a super heroic fantasy game, (it sounds like you don't like the super heroic part), you have heroes who just keep on fighting while wounded. They are just that tough. Normal people are screaming when hit by a fireball but these guys are gritting their teeth and moving in for the kills. Now this is pretty cinematic. It's not real world. The game doesn't purport to be a simulation of real life.

But given, the abstraction, I've noticed my players tend to behave as if they are wounded. If they are down to 10% of their points they are often looking to be healed or to fall back behind someone less wounded. Hit points leads to realistic behavior without having to keep tracking of all the details. If you like the details then I suggest you play a grittier game. Nothing wrong with your preferences. We though are talking about a super heroic fantasy game where a person with a metal sword really could kill a dragon.

All of this lack of realism though has nothing to do with whether your character is played in actor stance or some other stance.

chaochou · Jul 19, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
None of this, however, addresses the meta vs abstraction discussion we were having. Are we done with that?

Not really. You said that hitpoints are abstract. Which is a pretty worthless statement. Stats, classes, armour class, spell slots, hit points, fate points, stress levels, moves, aspects - they're all abstract. RPG mechanics used for resolution purposes are always abstract.

Since all game mechanics used for resolution are abstract, it follows that your argument ('You're confusing abstract with meta') is worthless. It falls apart as a false dichotomy. Otherwise, describe a game mechanic used for in-game resolution which is not abstract.

So now we've got that error out the way, what's left that you actually said? An assertion that HP are not metagame. If that's true, then this test will be easy:

We've just sat down at the table and I've given you a character to play, but not handed over the character sheet - and I describe your situation like this:

You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand.

How many hit points do you have?

For that matter... what class are you?

Your in-character knowledge should be more than enough to realise those things instinctively and immediately... assuming, of course, that they're not metagame...

The Crimson Binome · Jul 19, 2018

chaochou said:
And how does being 'messed up' translate into D&Ds hit points?

Well, let's see now: No pain, no shock, no keeling over winded, no fractures or breaks or sprains, punctures, no internal bleeding, no external bleeding, no concussion, no muscles tears or ligament damage, no fatigue, or loss of strength or balance, no change in perception.

Most of my experience with combat comes from watching movies, so that's what seems realistic to me. If you hit someone with a bat, then they can keep fighting back until they're unconscious. Pain, shock, and fractures don't seem to matter much during the fight.

From what I've seen of professional boxing, they do become a bit less precise over the course of a match, but not necessarily to the degree that it would warrant representation in such a simplistic model.

chaochou said:
It's an utterly anodyne representation of combat as a mathematical exercise in reducing a the enemy to zero HP before yours reach zero. A total fail to describe any possible realities of combat attrition. D&D HP couldn't be less realistic.

They're realistic in every way that matters. They let you know what happens, as a result of getting hit; and they do so in an efficient way which doesn't bog down in gratuitous details. Knowing that you're 'messed up' because you've sustained 42 damage is sufficient information to paint a picture, so you don't have to describe the specific fractures and blood loss.

Ovinomancer · Jul 19, 2018

chaochou said:
Not really. You said that hitpoints are abstract. Which is a pretty worthless statement. Stats, classes, armour class, spell slots, hit points, fate points, stress levels, moves, aspects - they're all abstract. RPG mechanics used for resolution purposes are always abstract.

Since all game mechanics used for resolution are abstract, it follows that your argument ('You're confusing abstract with meta') is worthless. It falls apart as a false dichotomy. Otherwise, describe a game mechanic used for in-game resolution which is not abstract.

Huh. So worthless it's worth three posts from you? Interesting.

Your actual argument here is a strawman. The statement I was responding to about the difference between an abstraction and meta was listing problems with hitpoints that were all part and parcel of being an abstraction and not those associated with being meta. Hence my statement that there was confusion there between abstraction and meta. Never did I say that no game mechanics are abstractions -- that's a trivially true statement and not a surprise to me at all. Nor did I claim that some of those mechanical abstractions couldn't be meta. Again, not something I contest at all.

So now we've got that error out the way, what's left that you actually said? An assertion that HP are not metagame. If that's true, then this test will be easy:

We've just sat down at the table and I've given you a character to play, but not handed over the character sheet - and I describe your situation like this:

You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand.

How many hit points do you have?

For that matter... what class are you?

Your in-character knowledge should be more than enough to realise those things instinctively and immediately... assuming, of course, that they're not metagame...

Again, interesting. You seem to think that a short scene frame should provide the player with information not included in the scene frame or that, if they have that information from another source, then that information is metagame because you can't derive it from a single, short scene framing? And you tell me I'm being illogical.

Character sheets are (as you've noted, so helpfully) an abstraction not just of game mechanics, but also of pre-requisite fiction so that the scene framings have operational context in a fictional setting. You've confused that abstraction for the metagame. Ironic, I know.

chaochou · Jul 19, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
Now I, actually would love it if there was a system that made better sense than hit points, which is why I asked you what your solution might be.

Apologies, I misread your question, or its intent, or both.

There certainly isn't a system that I'm aware of that captures all the things I described. But there are certainly systems that have a more convincing model than attrite to zero.

Runequest and Rolemaster are good traditional examples of good sim systems. Runequest has hit locations with individual armour and hit points that can fail independently of each other. So you can lose the use of your shield arm, or be on the floor with a leg given way and greatly disadvantaged. It also has system shock, bleeding out, loss of limbs. Damage makes attacking harder. And HP are based almost entirely on your size and constitution. You might have 14 HP and stay there all game, while a sword might be doing 1D8+1+1D4 damage. It's a proper HP as meat model.

Rolemaster uses a wide range of critical tables to inflict descriptive and mechanical conditions on combatants. So while you might have 241 HP, you can be losing 11 a turn from a cut artery, take stuns, negatives to your next attack or attacks, defensive penalties, broken weapons, dislocations. I didn't play it that much, but it was also the basis of ICEs Middle Earth game in the 80s so I know it from there.

Riddle of Steel is a hard to find Indie game now out of print. It was a poster child for sword combat, authored by a practiced HEMA swordfighter. Characters have fighting styles based on their weapons, and those in turn give them sets of moves. They also have a dice pool which you split between attack and defense and then each side chooses their attacks and defenses and dice off. If you get hit it ranges from the nasty to incapacitated to fatal. No cheap magic healing, neither. The combat system was good for duels, but not polished, difficult, downright impenetrable in places. But still an eye opener for just what a totally different game you get when combat is to be avoided except in the absolute last resort.

Others in the thread have talked about Fate. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] alluded to Blades in the Dark, which gives a small harm clock, plus the opportunity for flexible conditions / descriptors for wounds, impairments or conditions.

The original Hero Wars gave you a pool of 'Hit Points' in any contest based on your skill score. So if you were trying to kill someone and they were trying to scare you away and you had a skill of 28 in Vicious Swordplay and they had 24 in Get Back You Cur, you'd start with 'pools' of 28 and 24 respectively. Like D&D what mattered was getting someone to zero. But the stakes shifted depending on what intents and action declarations were made. You can use free descriptors as appropriate to add conditions, wounds, injuries, ailments to characters (they essentially become skills that then act as hindrances when appropriate) as the action unfolds.

These are just a handful. I liked the first edition of WHFRP as well, but I've run out of mojo for typing.

Emerikol · Jul 19, 2018

chaochou said:
Not really. You said that hitpoints are abstract. Which is a pretty worthless statement. Stats, classes, armour class, spell slots, hit points, fate points, stress levels, moves, aspects - they're all abstract. RPG mechanics used for resolution purposes are always abstract.

Your entire line of argument is pretty worthless. These things are different and they matter. So if all you want to do is act obnoxious and claim everything is the same then move along.

chaochou said:
Since all game mechanics used for resolution are abstract, it follows that your argument ('You're confusing abstract with meta') is worthless. It falls apart as a false dichotomy. Otherwise, describe a game mechanic used for in-game resolution which is not abstract.

ditto to my above comment.

chaochou said:
So now we've got that error out the way, what's left that you actually said? An assertion that HP are not metagame. If that's true, then this test will be easy:

No. Mr. Pronouncement from on high. It's not out of the way and you've proven nothing. You spouting something isn't proof. You've not offered arguments. You offered pontification.

chaochou said:
We've just sat down at the table and I've given you a character to play, but not handed over the character sheet - and I describe your situation like this:

You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand.

Hit points are an abstract way of the DM conveying a boatload of information in a short statement. This is a complete strawman.

chaochou said:
How many hit points do you have?

For that matter... what class are you?

Your in-character knowledge should be more than enough to realise those things instinctively and immediately... assuming, of course, that they're not metagame...

You can't differentiate between abstractions used to convey information rapidly and as a player leaving actor stance to manipulate the game as the player and not as the character. That is what this thread is about. So maybe you should read the posts first before you spout off.

We are trying to have a civil discussion. About mechanical differences that matter to us. You coming in and telling us they are all the same makes you look foolish and obnoxious.

Lanefan · Jul 19, 2018

Manbearcat said:
Death Spiral is certainly a concern (because it’s not fun and not genre coherent). However, I think a Harm model could pretty deftly hook into D&D’s mechanics, allowing for these looming threats, but also allowing for interesting decision-points and archetypal realization.

Spitballin' here, but could some of the death-spiral concerns (not all, as death spirals can be very suspenseful and tension-filled when they work right) be mitigated by having Harm work like this:

1. Someone gets hit by something hard enough to potentially inflict Harm (of whatever level except the death level)
2. The victim gets a save - success means no Harm done, stop here; failure means Harm is taken (and failing at the death level means you die, stop here)
3. If Harm is taken, a second save is given to determine if this Harm is short-term (on success) or long-term (on failure)
4a. If the Harm turns out to be short-term, the effects are temporary (1-4 rounds? 2-5 rounds? a little longer?) after which you shrug them off and move up a Harm level. Cures always remove at least one level of temporary Harm
4b. If the Harm turns out to be long-term, a minor cure (e.g. CLW, Potion of Healing) will make it short-term and a major cure (e.g. CSW, Potion of Extra Healing) will remove one or more Harm levels entirely.
5. On moving up a Harm level, go to step 3 and repeat, unless of course you are moving up from Harm 1 to unharmed.

I'd also have these saves not necessarily improve with level, but be based on the (highest? lowest? average?) of your Constitution (hardiness) and Charisma (willpower). I suggest this because using Con by itself will make the stat overpowered. Hell, the "saves" could even be roll-under, for all that; with the level of Harm you're trying to shrug off applied against your roll:

Con 13 trying to shrug off Harm 3 needs to roll 10 or less.

This also allows for easy application of a grittiness dial by simply putting a blanket bonus (more Harm becomes temporary) or penalty (more likely to be permanent) on these rolls. It's also a bit more system-neutral, provided the system has an equivalent to a Con and-or Cha score.

Thoughts?

Lanefan

Kobold Boots · Jul 19, 2018

chaochou said:
Apologies, I misread your question, or its intent, or both.
... abbreviating for length... KB

These are just a handful. I liked the first edition of WHFRP as well, but I've run out of mojo for typing.

Thanks for your consideration and no worries.

I'm familiar with all of those systems. Most that have detailed combat get bastardized by the table due to the default results not being the exact level of detail that satisfies those who aren't happy with D&D abstraction level.

For me, I've always seen fighting as the constant balance between fatigue, position and actual physical injury. The implements used to cause injury to an opponent always require effective positioning and cause fatigue to the attacker. Therefore there's a constant amount of "damage" being applied to both parties in a conflict and not all damage by the example above caused to a combatant is caused by his or her opponent. (as an example, if I put my foot down in the wrong place and I twist an ankle or have to exert on an awkward swing - I just messed myself up)

As a result to me, this is where D&D both succeeds and fails. The abstraction allows you to say that damage can come from anywhere, but also fails to adequately apply damage to both opponents beyond a simple hit and damage roll. Honestly most of these systems we're talking about fail to take into account proper fighting holistic beyond taking the western medical approach of treating a symptom (a critical obviously only happens on a hit.. so roll on a chart. a fumble is obviously only because you rolled badly on a hit, so roll on a chart.) so when you scale to include flavor, you make the combat process unwieldy.

I'm still plotting my own system that only requires two contested rolls to figure all of this out in combat, but the wall I'm running in to is that the more you layer into a scripted combat system with few variables, the less likely that folks are going to see a fast resolution to a round of combat. Still figuring out the sweet spot.

chaochou · Jul 19, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
Your actual argument here is a strawman.

No it's not. You accused someone of confusing meta with abstract. If all things are abstract then this is a worthless observation.

The correct observation would be 'All things are abstract. There are subsets of abstract which are meta and not meta.'

But you didn't. You drew a distinction between meta and abstract and then proceeded from that distinction to make your wholly unsupported assertion that in fact D&D HP are abstract but not metagame, as if the abstraction removes the possibility of both abstract and metagame being present.

You now concede that this is not the case.

Ovinomancer said:
Gibbering attempt to avoid the question.

Given the same description, I could get very close to estimating that character's HP in Runequest 2.

So why are you struggling so hard to avoid the question when it's D&D HP?

You claim D&D HP are not metagame, but in-character knowledge. So use your in-character knowledge to tell me. I can do it for RQ2. Why can't you for D&D?

I'll tell you why, of course. It's because D&D HP are pure metagame. Some people then choose to pretend they aren't. But that doesn't make it not metagame in any analytical sense, it means they gain their enjoyment from a self-deception regarding the design of the game.

Which is fine, but it doesn't mean I've confused anything. I've simply revealed the emptiness at the centre of your misleading and completely false assertion that D&D HP are not metagame. They are.