A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

Lanefan said:

Where my definition of playing a role is that an actor on a stage plays a role - the lines he speaks, his facial expressions, the movements he makes (subject to the spatial restrictions of the stage) are those of the character he's portraying in the stage play. The actors on stage don't speak in the third person (unless it's a really unusual play; Im sure someone's tried it).

Playing the role of a PC at a game table is, IMO, the same thing; and it's where the "role-playing" side of the game comes from.

I agree that one can play the game perfectly well while referring to one's character in the third person but I don't see it as meeting the definition of role-playing.

Acting is role-playing, by its very definition: an actor plays a role.

Click to expand...

Personally I love me some third person Wrestler roleplaying.

Emerikol said:

Is insisting chess players at a tournament all play chess a form of "onetruefun"? Even if a checkers tournament is being put on by a different group just down the hall?

Click to expand...

This is just false equivalence.

No one on this thread as far as I know is saying EVERYONE has to play THEIR way. I posted the thread to begin with to seek advice on playing my way. Instead I am getting a running attack on my style of play and how I shouldn't embrace it. It's kind of obnoxious. I've probably been playing roleplaying games longer than a lot of you have been alive. I know what works for me and my groups. I could care less what other groups do. And yes if you play in my campaign you will play my way or you will be bounced out of the group and on your way.

Advocating for a style for one group is in no way imposing a playstyle on any other group. I am assuming there are all kinds of groups out there with a whole bunch of different playstyles. It doesn't bother me at all. In fact I'm happy our hobby can attract so many different and innovative ideas for having fun. But taste is hard to dispute as the philosophers say. My taste is actor stance (and a host of other things but for this thread that is the one we are discussing).

Click to expand...

It is fine and great to have a preferred taste for Actor stance. Where I take issue here is in the pragmatics of saying that you want 100 percent Actor stance to the exclusion of Author and Director. (Well that and the idea that in-character-speak roleplay should be preferred.) Though I disagree with Lanefan's position on in-character roleplay as the one-true-way, his position about attempting to maximize Actor stance did show practical awareness of the inherent impossibility of fully escaping other stances in play.

You asked for advice, and you have received advice; however, the thread topic you opened for public discussion moved on to a variety of other topics. So on that front, I am sympathetic to your frustration that you are getting the full feedback you were hoping for in this thread, but divergence is often the nature of public forums. And apart from voicing frustration about how the thread is not going to plan, I have not seen too much effort to return to form. Is there something more in particular you would like to get back out of this thread?

There is nothing snobbish about desiring a certain type of game. It's only snobbish to assert that we "should" not play the way we do. That is snobbish.

Click to expand...

Desiring one type of game for yourself and your group is again fine, but believing that it should be the goal of all roleplay for everyone does cross that line, no? Is that not OneTrueWay?

If there is any one true wayism going on in this thread it is those trying to say that some playstyles are bad and should be avoided or that they are invalid in some way.

Click to expand...

You mean like people who badmouth games with "metagame mechanics"?

Emerikol said:

And yes if you play in my campaign you will play my way or you will be bounced out of the group and on your way.

Click to expand...

And if you play in my campaign you can play your way, and I will not bounce you out of the group, unless you are an arse to others at the table about their preferred way of play as badwrongfun or inferiorfun.

Maxperson said:

So does a narrator. It's just a different role.

Click to expand...

Except I don't see a narrator as actually having a character role in the show itself, with the exception of when the narration is done in character by a character who legitimately-within-the-show's-fiction could do it - example: Galadhriel, in character, narrating over the beginning of the first LotR movie.

Heck, I've seen actors play roles where the character talks in third person. Are they not acting or playing a role?

Click to expand...

I mentioned this as an unusual possibility that somebody's likely tried. And there you've got an odd situation: yes they are acting, but they're playing the role of a speaker or narrator who is in turn telling the audience what a character does and-or says. They're not directly portraying the character itself. This three-tier process (actor-speaker-character) can't happen in a typical RPG because the actor and speaker are always the same person - the player at the table.

Look at Deadpool. When he breaks the fourth wall (which happens in about every other scene!) Ryan Reynolds is not in those moments playing the role of Deadpool the character. Instead, he's set himself apart from the character and has become either a narrator or a detached analyst, depending how you want to look at it. Instead of Ryan Reynolds playing Deadpool, in those moments you've got Ryan Reynolds playing the role of somebody who is talking about Deadpool and-or narrating stuff.

Aldarc said:

This is just false equivalence.
It is fine and great to have a preferred taste for Actor stance. Where I take issue here is in the pragmatics of saying that you want 100 percent Actor stance to the exclusion of Author and Director. (Well that and the idea that in-character-speak roleplay should be preferred.) Though I disagree with Lanefan's position on in-character roleplay as the one-true-way, his position about attempting to maximize Actor stance did show practical awareness of the inherent impossibility of fully escaping other stances in play.

Click to expand...

I prefer in character speaking but I don't enforce it in a draconian way but if I did because that was my preferred playstyle what would be wrong with that? You see setting up a game with a set of preconditions is not wrong.

Aldarc said:

You asked for advice, and you have received advice; however, the thread topic you opened for public discussion moved on to a variety of other topics. So on that front, I am sympathetic to your frustration that you are getting the full feedback you were hoping for in this thread, but divergence is often the nature of public forums. And apart from voicing frustration about how the thread is not going to plan, I have not seen too much effort to return to form. Is there something more in particular you would like to get back out of this thread?

Click to expand...

I got perhaps two people offering genuine advice. The rest are just bent out of shape that I dare play in a way that doesn't suit their model of good right fun.

Aldarc said:

Desiring one type of game for yourself and your group is again fine, but believing that it should be the goal of all roleplay for everyone does cross that line, no? Is that not OneTrueWay?

Click to expand...

Yes and no one has said that on this thread. No one is trying to force everyone else in every other group to play their way. They are talking about what they prefer in THEIR games only. That is not onetruewayism. Not sure how anyone could possibly enforce such an idea anyway.

Aldarc said:

You mean like people who badmouth games with "metagame mechanics"?

Click to expand...

No. I have not badmouthed metagame mechanics. I have said that I don't want them in my game. I am not trying to extinguish them from the universe. In fact they are useful because players who really love them are likely a poor fit in other more nebulous areas of my game so it makes a nice way to identify players for my group.

Aldarc said:

And if you play in my campaign you can play your way, and I will not bounce you out of the group, unless you are an arse to others at the table about their preferred way of play as badwrongfun or inferiorfun.

Click to expand...

So? That doesn't make you morally superior. If I was ruining everyone else at the tables fun I would want to be bounced out of the group.

Lanefan said:

Except I don't see a narrator as actually having a character role in the show itself, with the exception of when the narration is done in character by a character who legitimately-within-the-show's-fiction could do it - example: Galadhriel, in character, narrating over the beginning of the first LotR movie.

Click to expand...

In How I Met Your Mother, Ted often starts to narrate a bit. He's telling the stories to his kids. There are a few other shows and movies where the actors stop in the middle, turn to you and narrate a bit. It's not common, but it happens.

I mentioned this as an unusual possibility that somebody's likely tried. And there you've got an odd situation: yes they are acting, but they're playing the role of a speaker or narrator who is in turn telling the audience what a character does and-or says. They're not directly portraying the character itself. This three-tier process (actor-speaker-character) can't happen in a typical RPG because the actor and speaker are always the same person - the player at the table.

Click to expand...

Ted above does. He's himself in the show narrating what is happening in the stories he is telling. At all times he's still portraying the character Ted. He wasn't the first to do that, either.

Emerikol said:

Yes and no one has said that on this thread. No one is trying to force everyone else in every other group to play their way. They are talking about what they prefer in THEIR games only. That is not onetruewayism. Not sure how anyone could possibly enforce such an idea anyway.

Click to expand...

@Lanefan has said straight out that his way is the only way to roleplay, and he's said it more than once. That's One True Wayism. You're either playing it his way if you want to roleplay, or you aren't roleplaying.

Emerikol said:

I prefer in character speaking but I don't enforce it in a draconian way but if I did because that was my preferred playstyle what would be wrong with that? You see setting up a game with a set of preconditions is not wrong.

Click to expand...

Probably the adjective "draconian."

I got perhaps two people offering genuine advice. The rest are just bent out of shape that I dare play in a way that doesn't suit their model of good right fun.

Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that. At the outset, you asserted that certain mechanics of the fighter were metagame mechanics. Those were controversial claims. People naturally disputed that they were as they do rationalize these mechanics from in-character perspectives. It does not constitute metagame for them even from your provided definition. But you also phrased a lot of these claims a questions that people naturally used as opportunities to push back on these mechanics as metagame. And a lot of the subsequent discussion spurred from that disagreement pertained to what constitutes metagame mechanics and when they are acceptable or, as per [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s wording, "necessary evils."

Yes and no one has said that on this thread. No one is trying to force everyone else in every other group to play their way. They are talking about what they prefer in THEIR games only. That is not onetruewayism. Not sure how anyone could possibly enforce such an idea anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but when someone says that only one particular playstyle constitutes roleplay while excluding others, that constitutes onetruewayism in these forums regardless of their ability to enforce it at other tables.

No. I have not badmouthed metagame mechanics. I have said that I don't want them in my game. I am not trying to extinguish them from the universe. In fact they are useful because players who really love them are likely a poor fit in other more nebulous areas of my game so it makes a nice way to identify players for my group.

Click to expand...

If you say so...

So? That doesn't make you morally superior. If I was ruining everyone else at the tables fun I would want to be bounced out of the group.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that you would have a welcome spot at my table.

But let us take a step back from all of this for a second. Let's start over. How can I help you reach your goals in this thread? What more in particular would you like to accomplish in this thread?

It seems that if these mechanics are not to your liking, then the obvious solution would be to houserule them in ways that make sense from an in-character perspective or substitute them with other mechanics that are more suitable to your idiomatic sensibilities.

It seems that if you can rationalize the Vancian magical casting and spell tier system as existing in-character, then one could feasibly do this for fighter abilities as well. This becomes simply how fighters are, and fighters have learned to harness this power. It is a truth of the universe. Second Wind becomes something akin to a subtle ki power that monks use but much cruder. The fighter is essentially tapping into the same power as monks but without much awareness or finesse. The fighter only really knows how to harness this as a burst of stamina. And an action surge becomes something akin to a crude flurry of blows. Monks can use these abilities as long as they have ki, but that is because they understand the intricacies of ki and know how and when to manipulate it, so they have finer control over it. Fighters mostly have a notion that they can push themselves a bit harder and achieve a desired burst of stamina or extra effort. If this explanation works for you, you could even consider giving fighters a much more limited ki pool so they can exercise greater control over these abilities. So that would answer the question: why can't they do this more often and not again? Because they ran out of ki.

Aldarc said:

I'm sorry, but when someone says that only one particular playstyle constitutes roleplay while excluding others, that constitutes onetruewayism in these forums regardless of their ability to enforce it at other tables.

Click to expand...

He is playing semantic games anyway. What are you doing if not roleplaying? Whatever it is you are doing it is fun so keep doing it and who cares about a silly definition anyway. I sure don't.

Aldarc said:

I'm saying that you would have a welcome spot at my table.

Click to expand...

I think welcoming anyone with any ideas is a surefire way to get an antagonistic table that doesn't play well together. Of course, if the game did not allow for metagame mechanics then perhaps someone who enjoys those mechanics could play without them and still have fun. Who knows.

Aldarc said:

But let us take a step back from all of this for a second. Let's start over. How can I help you reach your goals in this thread? What more in particular would you like to accomplish in this thread?

It seems that if these mechanics are not to your liking, then the obvious solution would be to houserule them in ways that make sense from an in-character perspective or substitute them with other mechanics that are more suitable to your idiomatic sensibilities.

It seems that if you can rationalize the Vancian magical casting and spell tier system as existing in-character, then one could feasibly do this for fighter abilities as well. This becomes simply how fighters are, and fighters have learned to harness this power. It is a truth of the universe. Second Wind becomes something akin to a subtle ki power that monks use but much cruder. The fighter is essentially tapping into the same power as monks but without much awareness or finesse. The fighter only really knows how to harness this as a burst of stamina. And an action surge becomes something akin to a crude flurry of blows. Monks can use these abilities as long as they have ki, but that is because they understand the intricacies of ki and know how and when to manipulate it, so they have finer control over it. Fighters mostly have a notion that they can push themselves a bit harder and achieve a desired burst of stamina or extra effort. If this explanation works for you, you could even consider giving fighters a much more limited ki pool so they can exercise greater control over these abilities. So that would answer the question: why can't they do this more often and not again? Because they ran out of ki.

Click to expand...

What I expected this thread to produce, is a series of suggestions on how to fix the problem. Just saying houserule it, isn't really all that useful. I would be more forgiving if people were making suggestions that didn't work for me. I'd just say that what they did doesn't get rid of the problem for me. At least they'd be trying. I got one suggestion from a couple people. I was hoping I'd get a variety of different suggestions. Then I could think about those suggestions and perhaps use them.

I could brainstorm myself. But I've found that getting other input and then making a decision can actually lead to a better result sometimes.

Aldarc said:

It seems that if you can rationalize the Vancian magical casting and spell tier system as existing in-character, then one could feasibly do this for fighter abilities as well. This becomes simply how fighters are, and fighters have learned to harness this power. It is a truth of the universe. Second Wind becomes something akin to a subtle ki power that monks use but much cruder. The fighter is essentially tapping into the same power as monks but without much awareness or finesse. The fighter only really knows how to harness this as a burst of stamina. And an action surge becomes something akin to a crude flurry of blows. Monks can use these abilities as long as they have ki, but that is because they understand the intricacies of ki and know how and when to manipulate it, so they have finer control over it. Fighters mostly have a notion that they can push themselves a bit harder and achieve a desired burst of stamina or extra effort.

Click to expand...

While those suggestions do solve the metagame problem, I am attached to the idea of the non-magical fighter. That is I admit just a preference. For the monk though I could definitely go with many of these kinds of ideas.

Saelorn said:

The strawman exaggeration is that you could be impaled with a spear going through your head, and it wouldn't affect your performance enough to model. Nobody who actually uses the physical model for HP is going to describe damage in such a way - it's all just mild scratches and bruises, or maybe deeper cuts and broken bones - but either way it's physical (and thus observable to the characters).

Click to expand...

Which is precisely what I pointed out several posts back*, its all "Disney damage" to coin a phrase. Even worse, no critical wounds, no dramatically interesting injuries whatsoever (even Disney occasionally has the occasional limping character in need of help)....no damage, just cosmetics....oh and that pesky totally metagame doom clock. Certainly nothing about "how bad a shape you're in", but maybe a "how bad does your makeup look".

The characters might be observing it, but they must also be observing that (unlike IRL) these injuries have no impact on their performance. So...if you want to call cosmetics "physical" then I guess go nuts, but then there's this big "no-go" zone of injury in between "Just another scratch" and "Whoops, I'm dying!" In D&D land, no one ever needs an eyepatch**, or crutches, or loses a limb, or limps. Even if you're Dying***, none of those things can have happened, 'cause you might recover a few HP and then "Presto", you'll need all your capabilities back. (Makes me wonder what purpose regeneration serves.) I mean, "an arrow to the knee" might put some people out of the adventurer game, but not in D&D!

*although broken bones stretches it. What bones are you breaking that don't affect your performance? I've broken some pretty "minor" bones in my life and been amazed at how much it degrades performance/capacity.

**possible exception for Pirates, if your DM has watched Mythbusters.

***results may vary by edition.