A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

Elfcrusher said:

I have observed that when people just simply don't like certain aspects/rules/behaviors in an RPG they will concoct elaborate...and sometimes impressively sophisticated...theories to explain why this is not just their opinion, but that these things are objectively bad. In particular, people will latch onto arguments invoking "realism" and "metagaming" to prove why they are right.

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that it is not a preference. I'm not claiming it is objectively bad. Never have. Even on the old WOTC forums. I do claim that it is bad for me. I also claim that there is consistent way of viewing a set of rules that makes them bad for me. I have used numerous terms because I don't really care about the term.

What I reject and object to is people who tell me there is no consistent way of viewing a set of rules that makes them bad for me. I believe there are many people (perhaps a small percentage of the gamer population but still numerous) who would designate metagame rules in a consistent way. If not with absolute perfection at least with a high degree of correlation.

So this post was not intending to resurrect the debate about the various merits of play. The people who don't care about metagame mechanics won the day and 5e is rife with them. Not 4e levels of metagame but still a lot of metagame and it's baked in pretty hard core. The champion fighter existing as it does while still having Second Wind is clear evidence to me that WOTC never understood the concept to begin with or didn't care. If they had given one single iteration of the fighter that had no metagame mechanics as one single option I would have bought the game on day one. I still haven't bought the game. I did come on here and see if anyone had any ideas on how the game could be fixed for people like myself.

So forget about trying to convince us that our views are arbitrary. Please stop trying to convince us to just join the crowd and get over it. I won't. I'd rather quit roleplaying entirely than play a game with metagame mechanics. At that point watching another tv show is preferable. I will definitely NEVER try to convince you that you should play my way. I do consider overall that it is just a preference. I am not denying that. I am only denying that these mechanics are a random assortment of unrelated mechanics that have little in common besides being old. I will argue that that is not true.

The real question is -- why do so many on here fight so hard to try and prove there is not a mechanical pattern that undergirds metagame mechanics. It would not mean they can't play with those mechanics. It only means some people don't want to play with them. It's really like chocolate and vanilla. You don't have to deny the existence of vanilla to choose chocolate.


ELFCRUSHER: Don't take this as all directed at you. This is just where it all spewed out. It can be frustrating.

Maxperson said:

This sounds interesting, but I don't understand it completely. What are the advantages? How would you rate them?(i.e. if the max is 17, what does an 11 score get vs. a 15)

Click to expand...

Well suppose your score total is 60 which would be an average of 10. Suppose the guy who rolled the best had 84 which is an average of 14.

So the lower player would get 24 points. With these points he would then be able to purchase special advantages which have costs. Gurps has an advantage system but D&D does not so you'd have to invent one. In D&D it could be an extra feat for every two points. I'd prefer a better list than the feats though. I'd have a specific advantages list that you'd take as if you had these advantage since birth.

Here are some examples.

Eidactic Memory - you remember everything you see or hear.
Fast Healing - maybe you get an extra HD or two.
Hard to Kill - you get favorable rolls when checking for death, etc..
Psionic power - you get a standalone psionic power of some sort like telepathy.

Again, I having used this approach. I just thought it would be a neat idea. So if I were going to use it I'd need to develop a good advantages list. You'd assign a point value to each of the advantages and then the PC would "spend" their points.

This then makes rolling low kinda good in a way. It makes all sorts of characters possible.

Saelorn said:

Why does that cause dissonance for you? Why do you see the HP total as being at odds with the narrative description, rather than reinforcing it? They're supposed to be two different languages for conveying the exact same information.

Click to expand...

This is very hard to describe, because I feel like we've all been trained really well to ignore/accept it or we're just really accustomed to it. it (take your pick.) I remember introducing new players way back in the late 70's and 80's and HP were always one of those things that gave people trouble (not nearly so much as spell memorization, but I'll not digress). It took a lot of convincing, and then people would eventually let it ride. Let it ride long enough and you stop paying attention to how its not really working very well from a fiction/narrative perspective, because its working so well from a game perspective. Nowadays the resistance isn't there, I believe its because so many people have played computer rpgs and already "get it".

And, for a long time, I thought, there's just no other way that makes practical sense at the table. Then I played a few other games...precursors to Fate, later some Apocalypse world games. And I found out that, in fact, that isn't the case. There are relatively simple systems (sometimes even simpler than the accounting for HP) that make more narrative sense at the table. Since then, HP increasingly grate on me. Its difficult to go through D&D without seeing everyone with little color-changing bars over their heads.

Saelorn said:

If you have 40hp, and the giant drives its maul into your chest and you can hear ribs cracking, then why does it hurt for the DM to tell you that it was 36 damage?

Click to expand...

In specific, it doesn't. But both of them together make for trouble. If you tell me my ribs are cracked...or any other description of injury, then the injury should have an impact. Cracked ribs, broken arm, etc. all should have different impact on the fiction, or why bother describing them? The HP mechanic basically forces all injuries to be a collection of minor scrapes and bruises up until the point of the last HP. Which... is weird. It kinda makes the D&D world (well, and most of the rest of them, too) into a Disney version of fantasy.

Maybe it would help to ask it in reverse? You just lost 36/40 HP. What is okay for the DM to describe? Could you be knocked back against a wall? Could you lose a limb? (For a game with so much swordfighting, there is a remarkable lack of amputation.) Could your leg be crushed and useless? Could you have "rolled with it" and sustained a small injury but used up all your luck, skill (not sure how that gets used up), and Divine Favor for today? (And if so, how does the DM narrate that in a way that is character-facing?) Could you be temporarily blinded by dust, blood, etc.? By rule, you don't lose any movement, so your leg is probably okay. You don't lose your shield, or offhand weapon so, the arm is okay, too. Depending on the edition, getting knocked back might be okay as simple narrative flavor, or it might step on the toes of powers and feats, etc. So, basically, all injury except the last is cosmetic.

Now, somebody earlier said something like "Wounds don't disappear in my game without magic!" And that's a common sentiment from Old-schoolers. However, I deny it. You tell me on the one hand that I have just had my ribs broken, but I really don't have any reason to believe you or care. So what happened? Where is the injury?

Now, that doesn't mean that I want total simulationism. It means that I want narrative to matter. If I have shrugged it off, then let's know that I shrugged off the blow. If I haven't, then let's know that, too. And the problem gets worse when we consider things like Healing Magic (even old school), poison, spells, falling, etc. All of these things have ways of making narrative nonsense out of HP, or creating it in conjunction with them.

Saelorn said:

Or to the next point, if you know that you have 40hp, why can't you infer how badly you are hurt in the narrative, based on the damage number?

Click to expand...

Because HP don't tell you how badly you are hurt, they only tell you how close you are to dying. Which, sounds odd, I know. But remember all that Divine favor stuff? They are a clock or countdown timer, more than an indicator of condition.

I mean, maybe I got "broken" again by playing other systems, but that's the way I see it. I hope that helps clarify my experience and position.

Maxperson said:

You didn't. Not really. Those titles were for the player to have fun with. That's why, if you read the DMG, 9th level fighters are not really lords. They have no noble status unless born with it, in which case they were a lord from level 1, regardless of "class title." People didn't play the game and have their character walk up and say, "Hey, I'm Poopy Thunderpants the Superhero. Pleased to meet you."

Click to expand...

Well thats what the rules said but I am sure you did not have to follow every rule.

And I bet that I can find people with better titles that aren't as skilled or knowledgeable as others lower down the title totem pole.

And yet you will still find the above in the medical profession. Rank =/= equal skill.

Click to expand...

Yes and I bet that I can find a 5th level Wizard who can not cast Fireball. Same level titled people can have different skills.

Emerikol said:

If you don't care about metagaming though then that doesn't matter to you anyway right? I do think the mechanics of multiclassing planning can be metagaming. Even choosing a feat can be metagame in the fact it is happening in an instant when the reality is it would have been chosen as you lived out your life. All these things though do happen during down time or not at all. Not everyone plans out their character in advance. During game play, these issues don't come into play.

Click to expand...

I love the metagame and on the other hand in ADnD the rules for multiclassing just dont even make a lick of sense.

and dont even get me started about being locked into planning out every character in advance from level 1. :shake fist:

Emerikol said:

You are going hard core on this. First if Second Wind is anything remotely like real second winds, you don't activate them so they are metagame. If they are some power, that humans in the D&D world have but humans in the real world don't have then they should have mentioned that. I prefer to start with baseline humans.

No you just don't know what metagaming is and you are starting to embarass yourself by using examples that completely don't fit the concept. It's the people who don't undestand that keep claiming it's just a preference for old mechanics. If it was just a preference for old mechanics then I'd be happy with all of them and be playing 1e right now. I don't like THAC0. I like feats better than random class powers. I like lots of new mechanics some of which run counter to old school gaming. I don't like metagame mechanics though. So it's far more than just a preference for old mechanics.

You should really try harder to understand the concept. Let me help you again.

1. It is making decisions that cause things to happen in game that only the player knows about and the character could not know about.
2. It is not abstract concepts like HP/AC which are in game concepts. How close to death am I? How good an I at avoiding getting hit? They are abstractions. Abstractions may not be realistic (these aren't) but they are not metagame. The character knows about them.
3. It is the character who should be making decisions for that character as that character. When you as the player are truly being that character then make decisions. When you are not being that character do not.
4. Magical/Psionic constructs are, at least in D&D, a part of the game world. It's like you say warp drive is metagame because it doesn't exist in the real world. Wrong! It is not metagame. It is not realistic by what we know today. It is not metagame. The crew of the Starship Enterprise know all about warp drive. It's a real thing in their universe.

Click to expand...

Your odd numbered points seem like conventional explanations of metagaming.

You say you don't like metagaming and want to discuss eliminating it from 5e.

The even numbered points sound like special pleading to exempt any metagaming you do like.

That makes it very hard to discuss solutions, since we have no way of knowing what might or might not be acceptable.

Now your old friend Elfcrusher has let us know this is a crusade you have been on for years. Older than 5e.
Older than Pathfinder.
Older than 4e that set so many people off.

You had a problem with whirlwind attack?
In 3.0?

I do not understand. It's like you've defined and analyzed yourself down a rabbit hole. Do you even remember why started you digging it?

Whatever it is, it sounds like you've been doing fine with it for longer than I've been gaming. Or without it. I can't tell for sure.
I can't help you.

And, I see nothing to be gained by chasing down the same or similar rabbitholes opening up in this thread.

You all have fun exploring them, though. Say hi to Bugs or the White Rabbit for me if you bump into them down there.

I just can't take this seriously anymore.

Emerikol said:

But they are not. If a world existed with magic. The second you could cast a second level spell you would know you'd reach a new level of experience. You can do things you couldn't do before. Getting that second second level spell might be viewed as a more gradual advance but all these things are really happening in game. For a wizard it's likely something they would all know very well. In my one campaign, I'd say things like "such and such wizard is known to have cast a spell that is on the seventh scroll". My characters then could surmise he can cast seventh level spells. Wizards would know these spells are harder than these other ones.

Click to expand...

But what makes that more likely than there being 3 levels? Low level, which begins with level 1 spells, hits level 2 spells midway, and ends with level 3 spells. Mid level, which is levels 4-6, and high level, which would be 7-9. Or some other method of tracking than 1 new level every time you get more spells?

That's my point. Level as listed in the PHB is for the players only. Characters are not privy to that information, so if they refer to it, metagaming is happening.

For the fighter it is a bit harder conceptually but you really could measure it in world if you really wanted to do that. For example as a fighter you can now hit 5% better than you did. So while sparring you suddenly are able to land blows on enemies a little better.

Click to expand...

That would be hard to track, though. You are only landing an additional one hit for every 20 swings on average, but since probability isn't nice and neat, you really can't know if you are doing better because of random luck, or because you got better. You might even do worse when testing to see if you got better.

Emerikol said:

Well suppose your score total is 60 which would be an average of 10. Suppose the guy who rolled the best had 84 which is an average of 14.

So the lower player would get 24 points. With these points he would then be able to purchase special advantages which have costs. Gurps has an advantage system but D&D does not so you'd have to invent one. In D&D it could be an extra feat for every two points. I'd prefer a better list than the feats though. I'd have a specific advantages list that you'd take as if you had these advantage since birth.

Here are some examples.

Eidactic Memory - you remember everything you see or hear.
Fast Healing - maybe you get an extra HD or two.
Hard to Kill - you get favorable rolls when checking for death, etc..
Psionic power - you get a standalone psionic power of some sort like telepathy.

Again, I having used this approach. I just thought it would be a neat idea. So if I were going to use it I'd need to develop a good advantages list. You'd assign a point value to each of the advantages and then the PC would "spend" their points.

This then makes rolling low kinda good in a way. It makes all sorts of characters possible.

Click to expand...

Huh! See, I totally got that wrong. I didn't realize you were talking about total score and thought it was in reference to the individual stat rolls.

You'd have to be careful with those advantages, though. I could see the potential for players to be shouting, "C'mon 8! Gimme an 8!", rather than 18 like I usually hear.

Shasarak said:

Well thats what the rules said but I am sure you did not have to follow every rule.

Click to expand...

The rules didn't say anything about them. They only listed them after levels, and mentioned them a few times with regard to the "name levels." Nothing was said that I ever saw about how to use them.

Yes and I bet that I can find a 5th level Wizard who can not cast Fireball. Same level titled people can have different skills.

Click to expand...

False Equivalence. You know very well I'm talking about people who are not only not as good, but are significantly worse. How many sons of owners got positions as CEO or some other chief and wasn't half as good as some managers or directors? The answer is lots. Titles are almost meaningless to tell just how skilled someone is at a job.

Maxperson said:

That's my point. Level as listed in the PHB is for the players only. Characters are not privy to that information, so if they refer to it, metagaming is happening.

Click to expand...

It is not an absolute. Obviously if level is completely unknown in your world as a concept then it is metagame. In my games it is known. I may use different terms but that knowledge is in game knowledge. So characters know level. So in my games thinking about levels isn't metagame. You find that unrealistic and I don't. Since I could absolutely determine level from knowledge that I absolutely have in game, I don't find it incredible that it hasn't been figured out.

I readily admit that any metagame mechanic can be made whole by turning them into magic. My willingness to turn something into magic varies. I generally want my martials to be non-magical innately though they can use magic items all they want. On that point YMMV.