A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Shasarak]

But why do you need "patching up", if they're not being impeded in their performance?

In my experience, the actual play of hit points and healing is all about making sure no one drops below zero; but how do the PCs know that any given PC is close to dying, if all they can see as some random assortment of minor wounds?

To give a concrete example. A PC has 30 hp. Scenario 1: s/he takes four 7-hp wounds from orcs, and has 2 hp left. Scenario 2: s/he takes 28 hp from a fireball and has 2 hp left. The former has 4 minor, non-debilitating injuries. The latter has 1 of these. But both need the same amount of healing and are equally close to death. How do the PCs know all this?

That would be my question as well considering that both of the PCs are mechanically "fine" and able to do everything that they would have been able to do at 30hp?

 

[Lanefan]

But why do you need "patching up", if they're not being impeded in their performance?

Because while still functional they've clearly taken enough abuse that one more good wallop from anything is probably going to put them down.

In my experience, the actual play of hit points and healing is all about making sure no one drops below zero; but how do the PCs know that any given PC is close to dying, if all they can see as some random assortment of minor wounds?

If a healer-type is paying attention she also might have seen how said minor wounds were delivered and by what, and how many there's been; and realize there's only so much a person can endure and that it's time to pull that person out of combat and do some healing. (I'm intentionally ignoring in-combat remote healing e.g. from a 4e Warlord as that's a mechanic I despise).

To give a concrete example. A PC has 30 hp. Scenario 1: s/he takes four 7-hp wounds from orcs, and has 2 hp left. Scenario 2: s/he takes 28 hp from a fireball and has 2 hp left. The former has 4 minor, non-debilitating injuries. The latter has 1 of these. But both need the same amount of healing and are equally close to death. How do the PCs know all this?

The fireball one is easy: yes the victim is still standing and still fighting but she's obviously burnt and might be cursing the loss of some of her gear and equipment (if it can burn through leather what did it do to skin?).

The other example: after each blow the victim is just that little bit slower to respond and recover her stance etc. - not enough to affect any game mechanics but easily observable otherwise. And the foe might also notice this, and go for the killing blow; so better get in there quick!

In both cases there might also be (non-mechanics-reflected) observable changes to the fighting style and mannerisms - someone at her full h.p. of 30 might have been smiling and even mocking her foe during the battle thus far, for example, but after eating a 28-point fireball she's all business and maybe fighting a little more desperately.

 

[Aldarc]

All of the above is off topic. Anybody care about the thread anymore? LOL.

Haven't your issues been mostly addressed already by Bawylie? Haven't others and I not already provided you with other possible alternative systems to look into for your purposes? I'll admit that it is difficult for me to find much gusto for the original thread topic anymore when you speak rudely and insultingly to me for disagreeing with your definition of metagaming. It zaps a lot of good will out of any desire for continued discussion.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] (and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and perhaps [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] ), you (and Lanefan) answered my question with a response about the implications on the gameplay paradigm; eg “it would make it more lethal.”

This thread is about “metagame mechanics” and players making decisions based exclusively on (what you perceive as) observable phenomenon (biological, physical) from the character’s perspective.

I’m looking for your response in relation to that. So let me go a bit further and perhaps you can comment on this.

A 10th level Fighter is challenging a trio of Stone Giants on the edge of their plateau which sits 70 feet above the ground.

Situation 1:

a) He has 100 HPs and the only chance the fall has to kill him is if he’s been significantly worn down in combat by interaction with the Stone Giants and their clubs (that are as big and weighty as him) and thrown boulders.

b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Cheieftan; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size. However, because of his HP pool relative to their attacks, he knows (for sure) it will take a large number of interactions with these mighty creatures before he is then under immediate threat of death and he’ll never be under threat of a collapsed lung, a crushed pelvis, or even a concussion.

Situation 2:

a) A fall from that height is almost surely going to kill him (Harm 4) unless his God spares him (a difficult chance for a Saving Throw). Even then, he’s going to come away from the fall with something grave that will stick with him for a long while (at best a couple of broken ribs and a concussion; both Harm 2 boxes filled which will cause x and y mechanical interactions for z duration of care/recovery).

b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Cheieftan; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size. He’s certain that his heavy armor will deflect the worst of it for an impact or two (say Heavy Armor can reduce Harm from those blows by 2 until it becomes useless), but after that, he can rely solely on his training, footwork, guile, grit, and the favor of the gods so that he doesn’t become pasted (Saving Throw vs Harm 2 for every attack, success outright mitigating it and a few times per combat he can knock Harm down one step due to his prowess).

I’m looking for a response about the juxtaposition of the above two paradigms that engages with the thread topic.

The Harm model is obviously going to be much better at providing (mostly) clear information to the player through the in-character observable effects of being hit.

What this means is the player decisions will be based on simple observation...which could even be inaccurate at times: what if the chieftain goes to show off his strength but the rock formation makes its save?

In that regards I see it as providing more accurate (usually) information to the player, while at the same time being more immersive in that you're not in numbers mode as much. You're going to take far more notice of where the cliff is, for example, as getting punted off it is likely gonna kill you; where in the h.p. model it'll only kill you if you've already taken a pounding (ignoring massive-damage rules for the moment) and the player will meta-know that (even if the character doesn't) and likely use that info as part of her decision-making.

In short, with the exception of your idea of the PC being able to reduce Harm due to prowess/level/whatever, it's way less meta.

Is that more the sort of response you were after?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

And if you can control when you rage, why can't you control when you summon upon your reserves for a Second Wind? This mechanic reminds me of athletes who pace themselves and who know that they have reserves that they can draw upon for bursts of short-term energy.

Depends on whether one assumes a combatant is going all-out the whole time. I do assume this, and were someone to tell me their PC was intentionally not going all-out (pacing itself) I'd probably apply some sort of mechanical penalty e.g. -1 or -2 to hit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Haven't your issues been mostly addressed already by Bawylie? Haven't others and I not already provided you with other possible alternative systems to look into for your purposes? I'll admit that it is difficult for me to find much gusto for the original thread topic anymore when you speak rudely and insultingly to me for disagreeing with your definition of metagaming. It zaps a lot of good will out of any desire for continued discussion.

Just an aside, but you are aware you're often dismissive and curt, yeah?

 

[Emerikol]

Haven't your issues been mostly addressed already by Bawylie? Haven't others and I not already provided you with other possible alternative systems to look into for your purposes? I'll admit that it is difficult for me to find much gusto for the original thread topic anymore when you speak rudely and insultingly to me for disagreeing with your definition of metagaming. It zaps a lot of good will out of any desire for continued discussion.

I apologize for offending you. It perhaps is just my frustration seeping through when I feel someone is not listening to my points and just falling back to a standard response.

Yes Bawylie gave some good ideas. I was hoping we all could discuss and compare a variety of ideas thus a discussion thread. It was not my intent to hear one response and then say "I'm done see you all" and just leave. I wanted the discussion to be about SOLVING these problems instead of a debate about the existence of the problems or the nature of the problems.

I find certain people seem triggered whenever the subject comes up no matter how inoffensive the question. It's like they have to prove I'm just biased towards new games and that all of my concerns have no real merit for anyone. They are just old fashioned tropes I'm clinging too. Now, it would be easy to get angry at such attitudes. I am trying to have a discussion though so I bite my tongue and keep trying. With some it really does seem futile and I've even went so far as to suggest this thread may not be for them.

If you want to dispute about the very existence of these mechanics, then start a thread on that topic. But this thread is supposed to be about solving the problem for THOSE who view it as a problem. For those not viewing it as a problem, your genuine advice is welcome but constant nattering about how our views have no underlying systematic thought is not welcome. For those who can't seem to break from that train of thought I recommend other threads besides this one.

And for the record, I believe Bawylie does not find anything offensive about metagame mechanics (as I defined them above). He may of course not like player metagaming which is a different topic. I think a lot of us would agree that is bad. He was able though to propose a reasonable solution. So I know it's possible.

 

[Emerikol]

So I captured some text from a blog at
http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-stance-theory-part1.html

Actor Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.

Author Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character’s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

Director Stance: The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.


So I have gotten Director and Author mixed up at times. I want the Actor Stance and I do not ever want the Author or Director stance. Maybe another's words will help.

Edit: italicized the quote

 

[heretic888]

And it also appears that they don't do it on purpose. It just happens.

Depends on whether one assumes a combatant is going all-out the whole time. I do assume this, and were someone to tell me their PC was intentionally not going all-out (pacing itself) I'd probably apply some sort of mechanical penalty e.g. -1 or -2 to hit.

While I can't claim to be any kind of expert, I do have several years' experience training in wrestling, martial arts, and weightlifting. What I can claim, however, is that I categorically disagree with both of these statements and they do not mirror my real-life experiences in any way, shape, or form. I can also claim that other gamers I have spoken to who have similar background in martial arts or other athletic disciplines tend to share my perspective on the matter.

In weightlifting in particular, being able to fire yourself up and draw upon deep reserves of stamina and willpower is very, very, very important and pretty much critical to success. In martial arts, going all-out 100% of the time isn't going to do anything other than tiring yourself out.

Limited-use martial maneuvers or athletic exploits are an abstraction to be sure, but its abstraction that rings true to reality in my experience.

 

[Emerikol]

While I can't claim to be any kind of expert, I do have several years' experience training in wrestling, martial arts, and weightlifting. What I can claim, however, is that I categorically disagree with both of these statements and they do not mirror my real-life experiences in any way, shape, or form. I can also claim that other gamers I have spoken to who have similar background in martial arts or other athletic disciplines tend to share my perspective on the matter.

In weightlifting in particular, being able to fire yourself up and draw upon deep reserves of stamina and willpower is very, very, very important and pretty much critical to success. In martial arts, going all-out 100% of the time isn't going to do anything other than tiring yourself out.

Limited-use martial maneuvers or athletic exploits are an abstraction to be sure, but its abstraction that rings true to reality in my experience.

I think when it's said someone is going all out in this context they mean they are striving to kill the enemy in the optimal way. That doesn't mean you are physically exerting yourself to the max every second. It does mean you have an eye for potential exploits and when your enemy gives you that opening you take it. Realize also we are mostly talking about life and death blows. Driving a sword into an enemies chest. Not sparring.

So the idea that you can suddenly by choice have a greater chance of success than you normally do does not sit well with me. It seems you'd want to do whatever it is you did again if it was effective. Now if it does strain you, you might not do it again immediately but the arbitrary ten minutes or one day limitations do not reflect reality. If you are a well trained warrior and you can do your best move once per turn then you aren't a great warrior.

Now if instead you said that whenever an enemy's AC was exceeded by some large number, the fighter could perform a special manuever that would make sense. The enemy has done poorly defensively and left open just the sort of opening that the fighter can exploit.