A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Lanefan]

That entire world in D&D is presumed magical. You are trying to apply a modernist mindset that distinguishes between the mundane and the magical to a world that presumes a premodern worldview wherein the supernatural, magical, and irrational are infused into everything of the cosmos. Everything. In such a worldview, whether you are playing 0E-5E, there is no "just a mundane person" in this world. The supernatural infuses every fiber of the world, and this is abundantly evident in the Great Wheel and D&D's other various cosmologies.

As if this thread doesn't already have enough worms crawling around in it, you just had to go and open up another can of 'em.

What you say here is the spark for what could become another thread, regarding mundane v magic. Me, I do look at it from what you're calling a modernist viewpoint but I don't think doing so messes up my actor stance. Reason for this: I long ago came up with an underlying rationale* for how our own mundane real world - or something just like it - could exist in a D&D universe; and this rationale eventually leads to some people being able to access magic directly (i.e. casters), others indirectly (e.g. a non-caster using a device), and others pretty much not at all (i.e. people like us on a non-magic world).

* - in short: it involves some arbitrary alterations to universal physics and how those physics interact in the presence or absence of one or more particular atomic elements. I'd explain it more fully but it'd be long and probably quite boring...but it's all meta, all the time.

I suspect that you are thinking like a modernist playing this game. You believe there to be distinction between natural and supernatural as opposed to simply The World as Imagined.

For me, I see that distinction as just a natural part of The World as Imagined, and go from there.

That said, you're right in that an inhabitant of a magical world would see magic as a) much more of a common fact of life, and b) might see it even in places where it isn't.

Lanefan

 

[Emerikol]

Exactly. You can take literally any mechanic and make arguments about how it is or is not meta, as you like. That's all Emerikol is doing. He has preferences...logically consistent preferences, I will grant...for the kinds of mechanics he likes, which is cool (if a bit quixotic, given his specific flavor of zealotry). The rest is just an attempt to persuade others, despite protestations to the contrary, that he's "right". Whatever that means.

This discussion is an amusing diversion in between actual game sessions, but it's pointless. Like the vast, overwhelming majority of gamers, I'm perfectly happy to blend roleplaying, powergaming, and metagaming in equal measure. I just want to be immersed in a good story while killing monsters and taking their stuff. I don't need anybody at the table to be "in character" for that to happen.

Okay. I have to intervene here because you are making me angry. STOP INPUTING THOUGHTS YOU CAN'T PROVE.

When it comes to game mechanics, they are fun or not for whoever uses them. Is there an inherent superior? Maybe. On this thread though I have not ventured into saying anything about the inherent superiority of anything. I am consistently talked about what is fun and works for me. My preferences. I have said more than once that the precise term is likely ill served by the more general metagame. Other terms though in the past have offended people so I was trying to avoid those. Terms like dissociative mechanics or dissonant mechanics.

 

[Emerikol]

The D&D world is the DM's creation so you can do anything you want with it. But... The implied D&D setting is a medieval world where most people and most things are not magical. Magical beings and things are the exception not the rule.

So in my conception of my world and the real world for that matter, people don't have second wind powers that they can activate a limited number of times per day. If you want to play a magical character then play one but many people prefer to play a non-magical character. Someone who is cinematically heroic but is not actually working magic.

I'm getting really sick of the goal posts moving constantly, the terms getting redefined constantly. What are you guys afraid of? That someone like me will enjoy roleplaying games? That someone out there who would likely not play otherwise will join one of my games and have fun.

The only time I see this level of outright willful ignorance is during political debates and those people have an agenda. What is your agenda?

My ONLY agenda is to have a fun game. This thread was about picking up some tips on making the game fun for ME and MY GROUP.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Okay. I have to intervene here because you are making me angry.

It's not "intervening" it's participating. At least, I don't feel like the victim/target of an intervention. Should I?

STOP INPUTING THOUGHTS YOU CAN'T PROVE.

Oh, please. There's nothing to "prove", but it's obvious from the language you use: you clearly think your version is superior. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've got my own lines of death in the gaming sand as well, and I think think my version is superior, and when I argue about it on the forums one of my goals is to persuade others. That's why we're here; we all do it. Stop pretending to do otherwise.

When it comes to game mechanics, they are fun or not for whoever uses them. Is there an inherent superior? Maybe. On this thread though I have not ventured into saying anything about the inherent superiority of anything. I am consistently talked about what is fun and works for me. My preferences. I have said more than once that the precise term is likely ill served by the more general metagame. Other terms though in the past have offended people so I was trying to avoid those. Terms like dissociative mechanics or dissonant mechanics.

Oh, yeah, and effectively accusing everybody else of "metagaming"...a word that for many people is akin to cheating...isn't loaded at all.

This is entertaining.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, but it is true. The world of D&D presumes that said world is inherently magical. Some things may have more magic than others, but that does not mean that everything is mundane and devoid of magic by our sensibilities. It is a world influenced by other planes of existence and you can use portals in the world to traverse them. The stars may have a bearing on the fate of mortals. The world may follow a magical destiny foretold from before. Magic is an inherent part of the physics of the world. For us it is metaphyics, but for D&D characters, it is physics. Magical energy infuses the entirety of D&D's world. A treant is just as natural in D&D as a tree. Bat fur is not just mundane fur off a bat; it has magical properties that can be used for spells. A wizard may use and manipulate magic, but a mundane person is no more removed from the magical physics of the world than the wizard is. Just because you are not splitting the atom does not mean that you aren't composed of atoms, so to speak.

No, it's not. Yes, magic is a force that is all over. No, it doesn't permeate all matter. The completely mundane rock falls with D&D physics, and flies upward when D&D magic acts on it as an outside force, but is not itself magic. Most of the D&D universe isn't inherently magic.

 

[Shasarak]

My impression is that the worlds of DnD can not be completely mundane. There must be some kind of background magical potential.

Some people may call it the Weave, some the Force, some Magical Space-Time Continuum.

 

[Maxperson]

My impression is that the worlds of DnD can not be completely mundane. There must be some kind of background magical potential.

Some people may call it the Weave, some the Force, some Magical Space-Time Continuum.

Yeah. It's like gravity. It exists and exerts force on the mundane, but it doesn't turn the mundane into magic, at least not without a spell/ability specifically aimed at the piece of mundane to be enchanted.

 

[Shasarak]

Yeah. It's like gravity. It exists and exerts force on the mundane, but it doesn't turn the mundane into magic, at least not without a spell/ability specifically aimed at the piece of mundane to be enchanted.

Thats my point, if magic is like gravity then even the most "mundane" of items has it.

 

[Maxperson]

Thats my point, if magic is like gravity then even the most "mundane" of items has it.

It's more like gravity affecting OTHER things, not that each thing with mass has a minuscule amount of gravity in it. When the game rules talk about magic, they talk about spells, and magical creature, and magical items. They don't say anything at all about magic being in every single atom, or even every creature or object. The reason for that is that it isn't in all of that. That's how you can make low magic campaigns. If it was baked into everything, there would be no such thing as low magic.

 

[Shasarak]

It's more like gravity affecting OTHER things, not that each thing with mass has a minuscule amount of gravity in it. When the game rules talk about magic, they talk about spells, and magical creature, and magical items. They don't say anything at all about magic being in every single atom, or even every creature or object.

How would you go about explaining what an atom was to someone in a DnD world? Not sure that they would necessarily believe that to be true when everyone already knows that the world is made out of the four Elements.

Take Dark Sun as example of what happens when you use too much magic.

The reason for that is that it isn't in all of that. That's how you can make low magic campaigns. If it was baked into everything, there would be no such thing as low magic.

If you were in a low magic setting then how would you know that the background magic levels were lower then a normal DnD campaign world?