A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Ovinomancer · Mar 20, 2019

dragoner said:
The point is that you don't understand what metagaming is. Geezer's statement about hit points is that there are a thousand mechanics that you interact with that are metagame, even dice rolls could be called "meta". In fact the whole game starts metagame and then proceeds IC, for trad games at least, maybe you only play modern narrative storygames only? That's cool if you do, and then I do understand why you would not get old geezer's point. I don't have a lot of experience in that arena myself with those sorts of pure narrative games.

Hitpoints aren't metagame at all, they are abstract. abstractions are required for the game to function, or you'd spend vastly more time simulating a single sword swing than most sessions last. Further, actually playing the game can't be metagaming so thinking about or using hitpoints is just playing the game.

RPGs have developed this weird idea that metagaming is anything outside the fictional mental state of the character. This is useless as a concept because it presupposes a one-true-way of playing and also moves actually playing the game into the metagame. Metagaming, by definition, is thinking outside the game, not playing it or using abstract mechanics. Metagaming is making sure the party covers all roles, or that someone plays a cleric, or how modern chemistry works. Not hitpoints.

I disagreed when [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said something similar upthread, but things had moved past that by the time I could respond.

Aldarc · Mar 20, 2019

Lanefan said:
But why is the form of the game so different today, is the question; and my own take on answering that won't please many here I'm sure:

Player entitlement.

Hey, look what we have here. It's an old man yelling at the sky while complaining about young kids these days.

Bedrockgames · Mar 20, 2019

dragoner said:
The point is that you don't understand what metagaming is. Geezer's statement about hit points is that there are a thousand mechanics that you interact with that are metagame, even dice rolls could be called "meta". In fact the whole game starts metagame and then proceeds IC, for trad games at least, maybe you only play modern narrative storygames only? That's cool if you do, and then I do understand why you would not get old geezer's point. I don't have a lot of experience in that arena myself with those sorts of pure narrative games.

First off, quit it with the snipes. It was bad enough you were trying to tie me to views I don't hold in the orc thread in a very deceptive way. But this kind of posting tactic is getting particularly frustrating in this thread. If you have a personal problem with me, please take it to PM.

If we are including HP and dice rolls as metagaming, I would say that is an overly strict definition of the term. Usually when people invoke meta gaming they are talking about players applying knowledge outside the game events to their actions. And that is the kind of meta gaming Maxperson is discussing.

Bedrockgames · Mar 20, 2019

pemerton said:
I don't care whether you think he's an expert or an amateur. The point is that he shows how a game can proceed with metagaming about "the party", "team cooperation" etc - which helps us identify the presence of such metagaming advice in the RQ rules.

Well, you were contrasting them. And I just found him to be an odd person to use to provide an example of this sort of play (since he is pretty antagonistic towards it). But I don't think people consider that meta gaming generally. Not in the sense that it is a problem for play the way a player using his or her knowledge of Trolls would be if the assumption is that line ought to be in play. I've only heard complaints about the conceit fo the party being together being a problem from players who are particularly focused on seeing and experiencing everything as their character without any outside forces shaping them. But that is an unusually strict view of meta gaming and kind of sketches the meaning of what Max Person is even talking about. And it is equally obvious the RQ rules are advising against the use of player knowledge that Max Person has in mind.

Aldarc · Mar 20, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
And it is equally obvious the RQ rules are advising against the use of player knowledge that Max Person has in mind.

Because a player can use their college-learned knowledge of real life trolls in this game?

Bedrockgames · Mar 20, 2019

Aldarc said:
Because a player can use their college-learned knowledge of real life trolls in this game?

Then you are not being genuine. Obviously we are talking about the player’s knowledge of the MM or their knowledge gained from previous D&D experiences.

Numidius · Mar 20, 2019

AbdulAlhazred said:
Eh, it is a perfectly solid 'quest'. This would be a fine and perfectly acceptable 4e kind of scenario, played in the sort of way that we play. I mean, there are stakes, the lives of children, which the players have themselves expressed an interest in. They set out in pursuit. The initial framing, with the orcs taking some children COULD be a consequence of a failed SC, or even just simply the framing of a scene where the players get a choice. Assuming they were already invested in the well-being of this town that option hangs together pretty well too.

Obviously if the players were pretty much railroaded into chasing the orcs, then it would be different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Possibly you could feel that the setup with the town is kind of that sort of thing, but I think this stuff is really all in the presentation. Its THEIR TOWN, then orcs raided it is just a fact. This would simply be a 'hard move' in DW for instance.

Right, I see. The example was provided as an ...example.. of drama in Gm-driven play. I can't see any drama.
It's a quest, like many others.

Aldarc · Mar 20, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Then you are not being genuine. Obviously we are talking about the player’s knowledge of the MM or their knowledge gained from previous D&D experiences.

...as previously rebutted by others.

Numidius · Mar 20, 2019

Maxperson said:
It was absolutely not a railroad. A railroad is robbing the player of choice and forcing him down a narrow track. I had plenty of choices. I could save my family. I could save the people. I could have said screw it and gone to Waterdeep to become a sailor. I could have enlisted my companions to try and free my family, despite being told that would kill them. I could have retired and become a farmer. There was no railroad that I was forced down.

Robbing the player of choice, or feeding him with an illusory one.
That's why they call it illusionism, because you can't see the trick.

So me, the Gm, decide that you, the Pc, will have to choose between your family and the land by the end of the next adventure, making sure you will find the McGuffin lil witch.

Dear old rail road

Yeah, your Pc could just put down the guns and retire on a small island living out of fishing and letting the years go by drinking rhum to drown the remorse for his lost family, but odds are you, the Player, are gonna fight to save them.

Maxperson · Mar 20, 2019

pemerton said:
There's no reason in the fiction why a 20-something year old, inexperienced wizard could not have inherited a fortune of many thousands of gold pieces. But the standard D&D rules for starting money make this impossible, purely for balance reasons.

The players can write up a background, or they have the option of rolling in Central Casting. The old Central Casting book has many possible things that can be rolled. Some of those provide bonuses. Some penalties. Some are neutral. One of the bonuses you can roll is an inheritance, and another is nobility. My players are big on rolling things, so they almost always choose to roll in the book.