Emerikol
Adventurer
So let me try to give a more precise definition....
When a player decides something for his character that his character could not know about because it is not an in world concept, it is a metagame mechanic. When the player does it during the play session while the character is in action, then it creates dissonance for some people.
In a D&D style sword and sorcery game, I expect the martial characters such as fighter and rogue to have no innate magical abilities. Beyond those two characters I really don't care because I probably wouldn't see the others get played anyway. So in D&D, I don't want fighters/rogues with powers they choose to use when they like that recharge. Without magic, those types of decisions have to be metagame decisions.
Abstractions that convey information rapidly from DM to player and back are not metagame if they have a real world analog. Hit points in D&D reflect your distance from death. In my campaigns, my PCs know that fact. It may be totally unrealistic but it is not metagame if the characters have that knowledge. The same for AC and Attributes. It's numerical quantization of data that is known by the characters.
I readily admit that other games with other flavors may take a looser stance on what is the reality of the world and who has magic. So what would be metagame in those styles of games would vary.
None of the above is what this thread is about. This thread is about coming up with ideas for dealing with the issue for people who care about the issue. If you don't care or can't wrap your head around the problem to even provide constructive feedback then why are you here? You just want to attack anyone who tries to understand their own preferences in gaming and try to claim that any "systemic" way of thinking they may profess is an illusion? I think at this trollishness needs to stop.
If you don't believe my preferences can be systematized then just leave. I am certain you can't contribute to the discussion productively.
When a player decides something for his character that his character could not know about because it is not an in world concept, it is a metagame mechanic. When the player does it during the play session while the character is in action, then it creates dissonance for some people.
In a D&D style sword and sorcery game, I expect the martial characters such as fighter and rogue to have no innate magical abilities. Beyond those two characters I really don't care because I probably wouldn't see the others get played anyway. So in D&D, I don't want fighters/rogues with powers they choose to use when they like that recharge. Without magic, those types of decisions have to be metagame decisions.
Abstractions that convey information rapidly from DM to player and back are not metagame if they have a real world analog. Hit points in D&D reflect your distance from death. In my campaigns, my PCs know that fact. It may be totally unrealistic but it is not metagame if the characters have that knowledge. The same for AC and Attributes. It's numerical quantization of data that is known by the characters.
I readily admit that other games with other flavors may take a looser stance on what is the reality of the world and who has magic. So what would be metagame in those styles of games would vary.
None of the above is what this thread is about. This thread is about coming up with ideas for dealing with the issue for people who care about the issue. If you don't care or can't wrap your head around the problem to even provide constructive feedback then why are you here? You just want to attack anyone who tries to understand their own preferences in gaming and try to claim that any "systemic" way of thinking they may profess is an illusion? I think at this trollishness needs to stop.
If you don't believe my preferences can be systematized then just leave. I am certain you can't contribute to the discussion productively.