A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

Ted Serious · Jul 4, 2018

Emerikol said:
The problem is that every time I bring up the subject the players who do like metagaming tell me that I'm metagaming too and I should just accept their interpretation. I've went to some lengths to clarify what is and is not metagaming for purposes of our discussion. To keep the peace, I'm willing to take as a given that it is my definition for me. I don't believe that but I can accept it because I don't want this thread to become world war 3.

And I get that you don't perceive the differences that I perceive. Of course you don't. If you did you'd likely object to them as I do. That is the crux of the issue here. So to the degree you can, just accept that there exists a class of mechanics I don't like. The reason is irrelevant. I've already said I'd give up roleplaying if my only choice was using those mechanics. I'm serious about that.

So attributes that describe something true about a character in game are not metagame. Actions or decisions decided on by the player for the character which would be unknown to that character or objectionable to the character are metagame. Just take that on faith for now. I've spent years in debate on this which by the way is why Bawylie could go right to the crux of my desires even though he doesn't agree with me.

You want a discussion of this class of mechanics.

We can't discuss something without knowing what it is.

You gave some examples. But nothing else we ask about qualifies. If it was the whole list. As DM just remove them.

Run shorter adventures or give clerics more slots to make up for the loss of HD.
Timmy can play a barbarian.

Emerikol · Jul 4, 2018

Jacob Lewis said:
You are posting on these boards and criticizing something about 5e. You, sir, are dancing in a minefield. The best possible outcome is to get through the song unscathed.

Well I asked questions I hope in a constructive way. I wish people would just accept my tastes as mine and go from there.

Jacob Lewis said:
If I'm understanding correctly (and my memory still serves me), hit dice are rolled during a short rest and the character recovers that many hit points? So, hit points regained are generated randomly, not fixed?? Now I understand. That IS a terrible mechanic. I don't even like the idea of rolling for hit points when you level up. You know they fixed that in 4e? And healing surges were fixed. You spend one, you gain X hps back. You knew exactly what you needed to spend to get where you wanted to be. Maybe that's the solution, or, as you suggested, a fixed pool of hit points to draw from. Seems easy enough to house rule.

The whole healing thing is another area of contention. My answer was in the context of the rules as written. Meaning to fix particular problem X here is what I would do. It's still problematic for me but not because of metagaming so I didn't want to get into that as well

.

Jacob Lewis said:
I haven't read through 10+ pages of posts so I'm not up to speed on the disagreement, but I know that telling people they are "wrong" because they believe something you don't usually doesn't win you the popular vote. And of course, if they say you're wrong for not seeing things their way... hey, Welcome to the Boards!!

Well that is my opinion. I didn't want anyone to think I didn't have a strong opinion. But that was a bit light hearted as I know everyone who disagrees would not accept my statement. So we can agree to disagree. There is a type of mechanic that can bet categorized that I don't like. Whatever name you want to put on it is okay with me. It is not though unique to me. I have reasons that others share to varying degrees. Two people like me could grade a hundred elements in a game and come to the same conclusion on all of them. So there is an underlying quality these mechanics have that sets them apart. I don't care at this point what the name is.

Jacob Lewis said:
I don't know if surges are good or bad. It's something they just put in the game. I don't roleplay every single little action and thought my characters do trying to immerse the narrative so that the game books and mechanics somehow disappear. And it's not wrong if someone else does. But there are other systems out there better at pushing the narrative to the fore front of the game than D&D. To me, D&D was at its best (and sometimes worst!) during 4th Edition because it was being more honest about the kind of game it really is: a tactical fantasy combat game. The rules don't create stories and plot lines and character motivations at my game table. I do that, and those playing with me do that. And we did that quite well, even with 4e. We still can.

I've been playing D&D since the red books. I haven't ever had any trouble having a game that wasn't devoted entirely to combat. In many cases, it was me as DM giving the PC a role if no rule covered it. It wasn't that hard. My groups are more sandbox than adventure path.

Jacob Lewis said:
I don't really care for it, myself. It's basically a game cheat that is not actually part of the game. You can award it for something you do as a player, not your character. And, if awarded for something your character did as actual "inspiration", there is nothing that suggests it's use must be relative to whatever inspired him/her in the first place! The player can hold on to it for the rest of the session and use it for pretty much any dice check he makes. But as you say, easy to ignore and often just forgotten anyway.

Then you like me have some mechanics that don't fit what you like. Your sensitivity perhaps is not as strong as mine but you do draw the line and not surprisingly for the same reasons.

Jacob Lewis said:
I don't know what your goal is, whether you're looking for a new system that better suits your style of play, looking to hack current rules to better suit your ideas, or just making conversation. So I don't know if anything I say is helpful, annoying, or offensive. I'll settle for entertaining any day, and thought-provoking on a few others. Hope things work out for you!

It's open ended but I hoped for constructive comments. Like Jer's and Bawylies. Suggestions on how to make 5e or some other game work given my constraints. I even listed off some choices in an earlier post.

Jacob Lewis said:
P.S. You listed Edge of the Empire in your collection of games. THAT is the system I found was a great fit for me when I want more roleplaying and storytelling. But I still love tinkering with 4e. I kept all of those, and even collected more that I found in used book stores!

I don't like the way advancement works in those games but especially for non-combat situations I like the dice giving you more nuance as to the result. So that is a good feature. For sci-fi, I'm also looking at WOIN. For this thread though I was mainly looking for a D&D style fix which covers 5e, Pf2e, or some retroclone. Those are all D&D flavor to me.

Lanefan · Jul 4, 2018

Aldarc said:
Indeed. If HP truly represented flesh, meat, or bodily wounds, then we can only conclude that as player characters level-up they gain more mass in flesh.

Well that would certainly explain why characters tend to retire once they reach name level - they're too fat to do anything else except sit around and hire people to build a stronghold or temple or lab for them.

Manbearcat · Jul 5, 2018

Neonchameleon said:
Indeed. It just convinces me that we have an extremely different understanding of the world - and I think yours appears to derive more from historic Dungeons & Dragons rules rather than from the real world.

<snip>

But if you watch any combat sport from boxing to MMA to professional wrestling (and yes I know wrestling is fake) you'll find that the pace of the fight varies. You'll find that there are times when the fighters are probing each other. You'll find there are times when they are times when they are taking advantage of mistakes. And you'll find there are times when they either pick up the pace, pull tricks, or go in with extra force to try to force an opening.

By not having some sort of mechanics this way you're denying me the opportunities to do any of these except go in in neutral, and wait to find a mistake to take advantage of.

<snip>

Yes of course I can raise the tempo or force of a fight, trying to force openings rather than exchanging blows and probing. And it absolutely feels right when I want to do this that it should have no mechanical impact at all.

Without the ability to try to control the pace of a fight and mechanics that back me up on this as mechanics are a big part of my standard interface with the game world I find it literally impossible to immerse in the role of fighter who is anything other than the sort of fighter that is less intelligent than his warhorse (and played more normally like a stereotypical barbarian). Fighting is what fighters are meant to be good at - and that goes beyond just swinging a sword with precision and accuracy.

Very good post here.

I think each discrete part is very salient. I think the first part happens to be a big component of these conversations because a great many D&D players seem to have internalized an AD&D rules paradigm as representing something like the actual mental overhead that is going on in physical, hand-to-hand combat...when they, in all likelihood, have never engaged in actual hand-to-hand combat.

Most D&D combats entail something like the equivalent of an low proficiency blue belt in Brazilian Jiujitsu tangling with an extremely proficient purple or brown belt (that being the Fighter). Trust me when I say that, while belt is an indicator of knowledge, it certainly isn't that great of an indicator of how potent a single BJJ player is. Average black belts can get utterly_wrecked by extremely proficient purple belts who are long-limbed, have extremely loose hips, a nasty/active guard, great transitions/control, maybe just an average Arm Bar/Choke game, but a brutal Arm Triangle and Gogoplata from guard.

Guys that are that good (as D&D Fighters would be) would be playing a constant game of linear catch-22 chess with combatants, just as it happens when a great BJJ player is rolling with someone significantly inferior. The mental overhead is all about pacing > managing positioning/transitions, pushing when you're ready and putting your opponent in a bad catch-22 where you're dictating the positioning, rinse/repeat until finish. You're moving down a linear track of A > B > C > D > E > FINISHED (if you get that far). That is what it means to be immersed as an extremely proficient combatant. TTRPG PC build tools (that some mistakenly consider metagame constructs) that let the warrior ration their ability, inflict catch-22s, dictate position, and push the pace at their discretion are EXACTLY what its like to be inhabiting the mental framework of an extremely proficient and practiced warrior in dangerous combat. Without PC build or action resolution mechanics that even shallowly representing that paradigm you have absolutely_zero ability to inhabit that mental framework.

Bawylie · Jul 5, 2018

Emerikol said:
The problem is that every time I bring up the subject the players who do like metagaming tell me that I'm metagaming too and I should just accept their interpretation. I've went to some lengths to clarify what is and is not metagaming for purposes of our discussion. To keep the peace, I'm willing to take as a given that it is my definition for me. I don't believe that but I can accept it because I don't want this thread to become world war 3.

And I get that you don't perceive the differences that I perceive. Of course you don't. If you did you'd likely object to them as I do. That is the crux of the issue here. So to the degree you can, just accept that there exists a class of mechanics I don't like. The reason is irrelevant. I've already said I'd give up roleplaying if my only choice was using those mechanics. I'm serious about that.

So attributes that describe something true about a character in game are not metagame. Actions or decisions decided on by the player for the character which would be unknown to that character or objectionable to the character are metagame. Just take that on faith for now. I've spent years in debate on this which by the way is why Bawylie could go right to the crux of my desires even though he doesn't agree with me.

Actually yeah and that’s pretty funny. If I hadn’t fought with you for a year and half over this stuff, I wouldn’t have understood what specifically bugged you.

Maxperson · Jul 5, 2018

Lanefan said:
Well that would certainly explain why characters tend to retire once they reach name level - they're too fat to do anything else except sit around and hire people to build a stronghold or temple or lab for them.

My PC is just big boned.

Emerikol · Jul 5, 2018

Bawylie said:
Actually yeah and that’s pretty funny. If I hadn’t fought with you for a year and half over this stuff, I wouldn’t have understood what specifically bugged you.

Well something good came out of all of that

.

I think a person's preferences are also a lot like an rpg character. They are composed of all sorts of different views on different things all fused together. So while I have my views on metagame elements, I also have my views on healing, and a variety of other parts of the game. Sometimes those things overlap or criss cross the discussion as well.

I also believe you probably are more moderate on all of these things. My debates usually raged the loudest with my polar opposites. Those who not only believed the mechanics were okay but that they were beneficial. It probably comes down to overall game goals in the quest for fun. Hopefully we can all agree the ultimate goal is fun.

Umbran · Jul 5, 2018

Emerikol said:
I also believe you probably are more moderate on all of these things. My debates usually raged the loudest with my polar opposites.

That is a bit of the nature of internet discussions. There is a tendency for discussion to drift to poles, even when the people in the discussion originally didn't start at poles.

Another was, as I had noted - exactly what you counted as "metagaming" wasn't clear. When we both use the same term, but have different meanings, that leads to confusion - specifically, it made you look inconsistent in your position, which may in part drive what you see. Others think X and Y are both metagaming. You don't. So, they see accepting X and Y together as natural, and find it very weird that you cannot.

If it took someone a year and a half to understand where you were coming from, some difficulties should have been expected.

Lanefan · Jul 5, 2018

Maxperson said:
My PC is just big boned.

Which tells me that where damage to other players' PCs just affects their flesh, with yours it goes straight to the bone.

Got it.

MichaelSomething · Jul 6, 2018

It could be said that 4E was a very extreme edition; in that in order to make the game balanced/newbie friendly/tactical/whatever it had to sacrifice many, many, MANY sacred cows.

So [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] , how far are you willing to go to eliminate metagaming? What is the price you'll pay? Are you willing to as far as 4E did in order to remake the game into what you want???

From what I read so far, it sounds like you'll willing to go quite far.