A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

Aldarc said:

You are certainly getting into the miserable habit of insulting others.

Click to expand...

I am tiring of the constant string of insults from you. You are the worst except for the guy with the C in his name so my patience is straining. I cannot believe you really think the thoughts you think as opposed to just saying what you say to get a reaction.

Aldarc said:

Second Wind and Action Surge are not on daily mechanics, but on short (and/or long) rest mechanics, which are not - to me at least - per encounter mechanics. Short rest mechanics simulate regaining energy from short bursts of exertion that can be potentially regained throughout the day with a modicum of rest. I think that the idea of short rests - for all their flaws in how they interact with daily rest powers - probably do a better job than encounter powers for associative mechanics.

Click to expand...

Well per period then.

Aldarc said:

But just to throw out pretty big counter examples to the bold: setting up camp and how to do daylong marches.

Click to expand...

Again those are nothing like powers that warriors have. There is no march all day power. This is just another red herring so let's drop it.

Aldarc said:

You may be looking through rose-colored glasses at the past or misunderstanding what is involved in stance theory. As per pemerton's discussion on stance theory with Lanefan, many common modes of play involve players slipping instinctively into author stance: e.g., "I go to the city's local thieves' guild" (that has not been previously declared to exist). Players can even rationalize "authorship" from an in-character perspective, but be motivated by player-centric knowledge, such as needing to find a reason to be friends with this new character their friend just rolled up.

Click to expand...

It's totally rationalizable as actor stance. I showed you how above. In real life, where it is certain I am always in actor stance, I think stuff like this all the time. Not thiefs guild specifically but other well known and expected to exist institutions. Anyone in America could say "Let's stop at McDonalds to eat" without knowing a McDonalds exists. If you are traveling let me assure you one will appear in an exit or two.

Aldarc said:

If you object to Second Wind as a "per encounter" mechanic, but prefer actions that could be done "every round," then why not convert the mechanic to an every round thing?

So just spitballing here, Second Wind could be something akin to the Fighter having the option to use a bonus action each round to regain 1d4 temporary hitpoints, which may scale with level. So they would be trading off of gaining temporary hitpoints in a round with their bonus attacks. It's not so much that you are choosing to heal yourself every round, but that you are using those moments to regain composure, resolve, or taking a hit. So every round the fighter can potentially buffer themselves with temporary HP because they may be readying themselves to take a hit. This would still work with the Champion's 18th level ability to regain HP every round.

Click to expand...

This probably runs into my views on hit points which is NOT a part of this thread so I want to congratulate and thank you on at least attempting to meet the requests of the thread. I tend to be a slow natural healing guy. Something like level per day. So a 1st level character gets 1 back per day and a 20th level character gets 20 back per day. This fits my views on hit points which are NOT a subject I care to indulge in on this thread. If you really want to discuss that then start another thread. I will warn you though to expect a long heated discussion over many pages which solves nothing for anybody. We all have our views.

pemerton said:

Does the "innate magic" of a dragon mean it can be detected by means of Detect Magic? And does a flying dragon fall to the ground inside an anti-magic zone?

Click to expand...

In order, no - the dragon's magic blends into the background magic present everywhere which Detect Magic kind of ignores much like we ignore air most of the time even though it's all around us; and yes - a null-magic zone big enough to contain a dragon would impede its flight if aloft (and if the area was big enough that the dragon's momentum didn't carry it through, bring it down) and prevent it if on the ground (in fact, the dragon might not even be able to stand, and would soon become magic-sick in any case and then die).

Emirikol said:

CCS, they over think it to avoid the basic questions I've asked. All of this ridiculous navel gazing is all to avoid the questions I have asked. It's pathetic really.

Click to expand...

Actually I overthink it so I can answer these questions you've asked, among many others, before they even get asked by anyone other than me asking myself; and then take those answers and build them in to how my game and settings function.

And other than discussions like this I don't have to think about it now very much at all; I did most of this thinking 25-30 years ago and as it's the sort of thing that only needs to be done once, I haven't often had to worry about it since.

Lanefan

I have to defend Emerikol a little bit here. Maybe I just empathize because I get attacked...viciously...for my player agency objection to Warlords, but I do think his philosophy about at will powers and magic, etc., is logical and internally consistent.

I mean, I think he's a little bit off his rocker for being so dogmatic and unyielding about it. And I think limiting players to ONLY actor stance sucks much of the joy out of the game. And I think that despite his protestations to the contrary he thinks his version is "better" and he is trying to persuade others of that. And I think he's going to be a very lonely gamer if he continues to insist on his orthodoxy.

But it makes sense. I think it's silly to try to convince him that the flaw in his reasoning has something to do with the the meaning of "magic" or the physics of the game world or whatever. The flaw in his logic is just that almost nobody wants to play his way.

pemerton said:

But the game already does this! Gravity doesn't bring dragons crashing to the ground, nor crush the legs of giants; so it already works differently from what we're used to!

Click to expand...

Except that Gravity does not work that way! Otherwise how can Elephants walk around in Earth Gravity without having their legs crushed?

But we don't except the principles of gravity and/or fluid mechanics to work as they do in our world - because if they did, dragons couldn't fly. And nor do we expect the biochemistry and/or physics of respiration to work as they do in our world - because if they did, giant arthropods would be impossible.

Click to expand...

I could give you two possible reasons why Giant Arthropods would be possible in normal Earth conditions.

Infact if you look at the fossil records then you can see that Giant Arthropods actually did exist and, if you look at Australia, continue to exist.

Emerikol said:

I am tiring of the constant string of insults from you. You are the worst except for the guy with the C in his name so my patience is straining. I cannot believe you really think the thoughts you think as opposed to just saying what you say to get a reaction.

Click to expand...

What constant string? You are welcome to count up any ad hominems I may have said about you and then I would invite you to do the same regarding ad hominems you have said about me, include calling me "the worst" just now, and you may find yourself at the nasty end of a surprise that should spur some self-reflection. I'm not saying what I'm saying to get a reaction. The sooner you can get over that and stop assigning malign intent to me or resorting to calling me a fool, the better. You need to understand that I and others genuinely have different opinions and viewpoints than you, and I don't form them out of any desire to troll you.

It's totally rationalizable as actor stance. I showed you how above. In real life, where it is certain I am always in actor stance, I think stuff like this all the time. Not thiefs guild specifically but other well known and expected to exist institutions. Anyone in America could say "Let's stop at McDonalds to eat" without knowing a McDonalds exists. If you are traveling let me assure you one will appear in an exit or two.

Click to expand...

Sure, but (1) you are conflating terminology, as in your above example you mention, you talk of character stance rather than actor stance, which gets into the issue pemerton raised on the distinction of Actor Stance and being in-character. And (2) gameplay happens in a nebulous imagined space and not a cross-country drive of the American Midwest accessible with Google Maps. It is not an objective reality, but instead it is an imagined space that essentially being constantly negotiated between the GM and the players. Within this negotiation of the game world, stances naturally and instinctively change.

This example also does not touch upon the other common author stance example I mentioned, namely the whole "I need to find a reason for my character to get along with this new player character." That desire and drive comes author stance, even if one rationalizes it and subsequently performs it in-character. There are a lot of gameplay concerns that will drive the actions of players in ways that aren't from the position of an in-character actor: e.g., I want to get the game going, I want to finish this portion soon, I'm growing impatient with my fellow players, I'm in the mood for a fight scene, etc.

This probably runs into my views on hit points... I tend to be a slow natural healing guy. Something like level per day. So a 1st level character gets 1 back per day and a 20th level character gets 20 back per day. This fits my views on hit points...

Click to expand...

Sure, but I am not proposing that you change that. The proposal I made was for turning Second Wind into an ability that confers temporary hit points, which are classified and operate differently than "real" HP. If you have problems with temporary HP, you are going to have a lot more problems in 5e than simply the fighter and rogue.

I know that you are looking to find a way to make 5e work for you, but I'm sincerely having a hard time imagining that it would be worth the effort. Most of us are not game designers. It may be easier to find another system or hack a new system from 5e's skeleton framework. Because a lot of your views, aesthetics, and preferences are fundamentally unknown or undecipherable to many of us, even with your guidelines. So trying to provide you with any helpful feedback or suggestions often feels like trying to perform acupuncture on a wild bear in the pitch dark.

Aldarc said:

Sure, but (1) you are conflating terminology, as in your above example you mention, you talk of character stance rather than actor stance, which gets into the issue pemerton raised on the distinction of Actor Stance and being in-character. And (2) gameplay happens in a nebulous imagined space and not a cross-country drive of the American Midwest accessible with Google Maps. It is not an objective reality, but instead it is an imagined space that essentially being constantly negotiated between the GM and the players. Within this negotiation of the game world, stances naturally and instinctively change.

Click to expand...

Okay in my campaign world, I detail things out a LOT. So I will know if a tavern exists. I don't make stuff up on the fly all that much. I might make up a minor detail but not the existence of a business. So the confusion may be on that point.

Aldarc said:

This example also does not touch upon the other common author stance example I mentioned, namely the whole "I need to find a reason for my character to get along with this new player character." That desire and drive comes author stance, even if one rationalizes it and subsequently performs it in-character. There are a lot of gameplay concerns that will drive the actions of players in ways that aren't from the position of an in-character actor: e.g., I want to get the game going, I want to finish this portion soon, I'm growing impatient with my fellow players, I'm in the mood for a fight scene, etc.

Click to expand...

I think many of those thoughts and feelings are actually entirely reasonable as character motivations. I had a PC once who was bothering another PC because he was too slow a methodical. To me that is as reasonable as a character motivation as it is a player motivation.

Aldarc said:

Sure, but I am not proposing that you change that. The proposal I made was for turning Second Wind into an ability that confers temporary hit points, which are classified and operate differently than "real" HP. If you have problems with temporary HP, you are going to have a lot more problems in 5e than simply the fighter and rogue.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I don't own the game so I was hoping to ascertain whether it was worth getting or not. Bawylie's DR idea works better than temporary hit points. I just wanted to hear all ideas though because I believe I can pick from a list and pick well but I won't always think of all the possibilities so I didn't want to miss anything.

Aldarc said:

I know that you are looking to find a way to make 5e work for you, but I'm sincerely having a hard time imagining that it would be worth the effort. Most of us are not game designers. It may be easier to find another system or hack a new system from 5e's skeleton framework. Because a lot of your views, aesthetics, and preferences are fundamentally unknown or undecipherable to many of us, even with your guidelines. So trying to provide you with any helpful feedback or suggestions often feels like trying to perform acupuncture on a wild bear in the pitch dark.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at a lot of options and not just one. I will look at pf2e. It is probably closer to what I want at this point. They aren't going to build in things that are openly metagame (as I define it). Of course they may have feats or extension which very much are.

It's funny because in the old days of D&D most DM's viewed themselves as armchair game designers. Gygax once said the real secret is the DM's don't need us. I believe that now. I could write my own D&D game if I wanted. It would likely look more like a retroclone with some 3e conceits. Obviously, I am standing on the shoulders of giants and not inventing whole cloth which is a lot easier. I also don't have to write it up to nearly the quality level of a finished product.

Emerikol said:

I think many of those thoughts and feelings are actually entirely reasonable as character motivations. I had a PC once who was bothering another PC because he was too slow a methodical. To me that is as reasonable as a character motivation as it is a player motivation.

Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing.

I'm looking at a lot of options and not just one. I will look at pf2e. It is probably closer to what I want at this point. They aren't going to build in things that are openly metagame (as I define it). Of course they may have feats or extension which very much are.

Click to expand...

If PF2 doesn't have feats as a baked-in (i.e. non-optional) part of the game I'll be very surprised, as that would be a major course change from its 3e-3.5e-PF1 lineage.

It's funny because in the old days of D&D most DM's viewed themselves as armchair game designers. Gygax once said the real secret is the DM's don't need us. I believe that now. I could write my own D&D game if I wanted. It would likely look more like a retroclone with some 3e conceits. Obviously, I am standing on the shoulders of giants and not inventing whole cloth which is a lot easier. I also don't have to write it up to nearly the quality level of a finished product.

Click to expand...

Sometimes that's what it comes to - find a system* that kinda vaguely leans toward what you're after and just mash the hell out of it until you end up with something more or less resembling what you want.

* - given your tastes, as far as I can interpret them, you're probably looking at something like 1e D&D (or maybe early-era 2e) or an OSR retroclone as a jumping-off point.

And yes, the advantage of designing and writing for an audience of one table makes it way easier!

Lanefan

Lanefan said:

And yes, the advantage of designing and writing for an audience of one table makes it way easier!

Lanefan

Click to expand...

A Fantasy Heartbreaker, eh. Seems like there must be hundreds of designers with a big pile o'books in their garage.

Elfcrusher said:

I have to defend Emerikol a little bit here. Maybe I just empathize because I get attacked...viciously...for my player agency objection to Warlords, but I do think his philosophy about at will powers and magic, etc., is logical and internally consistent.

I mean, I think he's a little bit off his rocker for being so dogmatic and unyielding about it. And I think limiting players to ONLY actor stance sucks much of the joy out of the game. And I think that despite his protestations to the contrary he thinks his version is "better" and he is trying to persuade others of that. And I think he's going to be a very lonely gamer if he continues to insist on his orthodoxy.

But it makes sense. I think it's silly to try to convince him that the flaw in his reasoning has something to do with the the meaning of "magic" or the physics of the game world or whatever. The flaw in his logic is just that almost nobody wants to play his way.

Click to expand...

First, I am not trying to convince anyone. I was seeking advice. And I could run as many games as I can handle at this point. So getting players is not an issue. This way of playing has been pretty much the way I've played for thirty-five years.

If motives can be interpreted as true character motives I don't try to differentiate. I just take them as character motives. So if a player in his own head decides to do something that perhaps someone out there might find out of character, it's unknown to me and the rest of the group. That is just what is character did. Mechanical choices though cannot be so easily hand waved.

Aldarc said:

You are certainly getting into the miserable habit of insulting others.

Click to expand...

Have you considered disengaging from the conversation? Really, if he's insulting, stop talking to him!

Emerikol said:

I am tiring of the constant string of insults from you.

Click to expand...

And, if you hadn't been engaging in insulting others, your complaint might hold some merit. But, since you're taking the position that in order to disagree with you, people must be "befuddled" have "delusions" or just generally not be capable of comprehension, I'd say your are standing on some pretty thin ice. Have you forgotten the "Keep it civil," rule, perchance? I am here to remind you of it.

Since neither one of you seems willing to walk away, I'll force the issue - Both of you are hereby instructed to stop responding to each other. And if we see any sly attempts at passive-aggressive indirect commentary on each other, expect no warning before you are given a vacation.