A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[TwoSix]

No, the PHB hints that magic is pervasive, not that everything is magical. That's a neat setting idea though, sounds like something I did in a 4e campaign -- people used minor rituals for mundane tasks, eg swweping the floor.

But that isn't the point. The point is that if someone became capable of casting even the simplest cantrip in the real world, it means that our materialistic, mechanistic view of the universe is wrong, and our entire universe is actually something different than we think it is. That's the point [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is making.

 

[Arilyn]

This is a really geeky argument
The default worlds of DnD make no sense physically, magically, economically, socially...

 

[Kobold Boots]

This is a really geeky argument
The default worlds of DnD make no sense physically, magically, economically, socially...

1. Geeky - agreed. The conversation has legs though because if you go back through the list of threads that end up with hundreds of posts before they die, it's always the meta conversations and by the end, it's always the same people continuing and posting in it. Self included, though I tend to be on the "seriously?" bench.

2. How "metaphysics" work in a game world is left open and allows every DM to come up with their own solution that works for them. Some groups don't care about it at all. Some groups have a player or DM that are into figuring it out and it sort of flavors the campaign.

I have one player who loves magical research and creating new spells (items when possible). For RP reasons it pretty much forced me to create internally consistent "rules" of metaphysics for the game we were playing. Longer the game runs, the more it mushrooms because I happen to be a DM that believes in predictable reality. Next thing you know I've got players suddenly interested in alchemy and siege warfare and over time the world's version of physics shapes up. (and I cry myself to sleep sometimes.. not all the time.. just sometimes.)

It's not for everyone, but it's why these conversations have legs. Everyone who has done it has different opinions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But that isn't the point. The point is that if someone became capable of casting even the simplest cantrip in the real world, it means that our materialistic, mechanistic view of the universe is wrong, and our entire universe is actually something different than we think it is. That's the point [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is making.

That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts. It seems that he's still saying what he started with: everything is magical in D&D land; there is no mundane. He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as "it's magic."

This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play. [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is on record as saying that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] stating Emerikol's preferences in play is really an attempt to say the those preferences are better than others in general and must therefore be countered. So, we end up with "everthing is magic because there's a weave or a statement about magic permearing things."

I really have no problem with a looser statement that magic is, by default, common in D&D, or even a argument that mechanics can be explained as magic. It's the "everything is magic" bit that's silly, esoecially when then used as a rhetorical club against other arguments to say that those arguments are invalid "because magic." But, then, I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme.

 

[TwoSix]

That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts. It seems that he's still saying what he started with: everything is magical in D&D land; there is no mundane. He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as "it's magic."

It's pretty much the same idea, phrased differently. If magic is possible, it's a magical universe. There's no way for magic to exist as some sort of "plug-and-play" extension that attaches to an otherwise mundane universe in a way that makes sense, despite genre conceits. (I'd allow that exceptions exist if the magic is actually some sort of highly advanced science, like in Mark Lawrence's Broken Empire trilogy.)

This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play. [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is on record as saying that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] stating Emerikol's preferences in play is really an attempt to say the those preferences are better than others in general and must therefore be countered. So, we end up with "everthing is magic because there's a weave or a statement about magic permearing things."

I would agree with your interpretation of [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s intent, and also state that my own opinions are a close mirror to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s.

I really have no problem with a looser statement that magic is, by default, common in D&D, or even a argument that mechanics can be explained as magic. It's the "everything is magic" bit that's silly, esoecially when then used as a rhetorical club against other arguments to say that those arguments are invalid "because magic." But, then, I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme.

If someone wants to argue that there's a specific kind of "magic" that's used by wizards, clerics, etc., powered by words, symbols, materials, and interdimensional connections, and that it has a fundamental distinction from the background magic that sustains a D&D-style universe, I have no problem with that. That's a super-common genre conceit! I mean, it's the reason that spells like dispel magic work the way they do. It's the idea that non-spellcasters don't exhibit preternatural powers because of the background magic that suffuses a D&D setting that I find to be a bit of a stretch. (Although again, I fully support houseruling if mundane medieval Europe + casting is the genre concept you want to emulate.)

 

[Aldarc]

Okay so a humanoid soul, essence of life, is a source of power which is valuable in the Nine Hells and elsewhere. A rock less so, because it doesn't have a soul, and therefore no source of power. But going back to the humanoid soul example, this reverts to whatever God creates (including life) is Godly (magical), hence the value in a humanoid soul.

Therefore this position is creation is an exercise in magic and therefore whatever springs forth from this creation would carry a semblance of magic. That seems like a reasonable position to have.

The rock does not necessarily have "no source of power," as the PHB does say that every rock has the untapped potential energy of magic. We could speculate why souls are more valuable to devils than the magic potential of rocks - maybe in that new Mordenkainen book - but this seems beside the point.

I don't know if the in-game NPC farmer in the medieval fantasy world would believe himself to be magical or have an essence of magic about him. My impression is that generally magic would be something feared and something alien to him. So to call our view on the D&D world as being modernistic is not essentially true, since your typical medieval farmer would have a similar view as ours.

Probably not. Most people would not consider themselves being "electric" or producers of electricity. But our body generates and conducts electric currents constantly. Likewise, most people would not consider themselves radioactive, because we colloquially reserve its use in common parlance to a degree of radioactivity that breaks our sense of norms. Likewise the world of D&D presumes a different normative baseline.

So they made it like the force, where magic flows through everything. They did not make everything into magic. You pick up that rock and throw it at a creature weak to magic and it's not going to have any increased effect. That rock is mundane. The force flowing through it is not. You can draw magic from the rock, but the rock is not magical. Suffused with magical energy is not the same as being magical.

Of course not, because you did not tap into the rock's latent magical power appropriately to achieve the desired effect. We may as well say that a magical sword is not actually magical, because it also is made of iron, carbon, leather, and wood. It is infused with enough magic that it constitutes a significant enough deviation from the norm and can be used as a countermeasure against other magically significant things.

But your point speaks to what I have been saying. Ki energy exists within all people. We are told as much by the monk flavor text in the PHB. This would categorically include fighters, as fighters are people. As such, fighters can hypothetically draw on this energy. We are only told that monks have named this energy and that they learn to manipulate it in ways particular to them. That does not somehow erase the existence of said energy within fighters or other creatures. And the point being is that this life energy that exists within fighters is likely the "reserve power" that they use for their action surges and second winds. They are not performing magical healing or haste in the same manner as clerics or wizards, but they are still likely drawing upon the magical energy that flows through their own being.

 

[Aldarc]

No, the PHB hints that magic is pervasive, not that everything is magical.

Now I get it. You are misunderstanding me. Or perhaps arguing with me out of force of habit, but I will assume that you are arguing in good faith. Let's work with another example: water.

Me: Human beings are composed of water.

You and Max: Humans are not water, nor would we count as water.

OR

Me: Human bodies are naturally radioactive.

You and Max: Humans are not radiation.

Your counterpoint strikes me as an absolutely absurd argument to make that would be beside the point that seems to make a semantic leap from what is meant by "are magical."

Sorry, you've begged the question. Where does it say the humanoid soul is magical?

At the point where Emerikol defined 'magic' as "changes to the universes ruleset." From the perspective of our modernist scientific materialism, the humanoid soul would be and is classified as a supernatural or magical conception that lies outside of any non-magical physics.

That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts. It seems that he's still saying what he started with: everything is magical in D&D land; there is no mundane. He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as "it's magic."

There is no "mundane" in the sense that objects in D&D are devoid of magic. You and Max appear to be using "magical" in a mechanical game sense, as in being counted as "magical" for the purposes of overcoming magical resistance or equating to "spell-caster." My sense is aesthetic, as my initial conversation with Emerikol was about ways to rationalize the in-universe aesthetics of fighters using Heroic Surge and Second Wind via the Ki energy that D&D presumes exists within living creatures.

In the worldview of D&D 5e, there is an inherent magic to everything. Both you and Max seemingly agree with me on this point, as you both admit that magic is pervasive through every and all matter, energy, and existence in world that D&D 5e presumes as its baseline. And this would include the Fighter who happens to have the life energy known as "ki." The universe that D&D presumes is not a Euro-American Modernist one; it is a decidedly Pre-Modern one that sees magic and supernatural forces as pervasive realities in the cosmos. And they are. You can't say that the Fighter is on the one hand "just mundane" (with the sense of a strictly materialist person in our world) while also saying,

All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.

[Ki energy] is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies.

A strictly "mundane fighter" and the "pervasiveness of magic in all creation" are fundamentally contradictory positions. There be magic in that fighter. And if Emerikol goes to Pathfinder 2, I suspect that he will be faced with a similar set of assumptions about the Fighter when it comes to Magical Resonance.

This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play.

Not quite. I have said nothing about whether his preferences are valid or not in regards to the fighter. His play preference desire to have a fighter devoid of any and all magic is of course valid. I will repeat myself for you and Emerikol just in case: I think that Emerikol's desire to have a completely mundane, non-magical fighter is valid.

My argument was originally made, however, to help provide Emerikol assistance with a rationale for using these fighter abilities in a manner that makes sense in-universe from what D&D 5e, in particular, presumes about its universe, much in a similar manner as he does with rationalizing the mechanics of Vancian casting from an in-universe perspective. In other words, if the mechanics seem disassociated from the fiction, how can we associate these mechanics with the fiction?

But I also believe that the universe that D&D 5e presupposes as its baseline has already invalidated Emerikol's play preferences, not in terms of their validity, but in terms of what is presumed as the norm of the fiction. I hope that Emerikol does indeed find a way to play the fighter with his given play preferences. But I think that we have to recognize that this will require an aesthetic or mechanical departure from D&D 5e's baseline set of presumptions on some level or another. And though Emerikol may not be satisfied with 5e because of what he regards as disassociative mechanics - that naturally stem from his valid play and aesthetic preferences about the presumed norms - in his opening post, he signaled awareness that he likely would need to make changes at some point: whether through mechanical house rules or aesthetic work-around explanations. I attempted the latter with my whole fighters draw bluntly and crudely on their "ki" proposal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Now I get it. You are misunderstanding me. Or perhaps arguing with me out of force of habit, but I will assume that you are arguing in good . Let's work with another example: water.

Me: Human beings are composed of water.

You and Max: Humans are not water, nor would we count as water.

OR

Me: Human bodies are naturally radioactive.

You and Max: Humans are not radiation.

Hm. If you're intent is to say that humans have water in them, then you're making an error by saying humans are composed of water. If this is the case, the issue is on your conveyance, not our taking you at your word.

However, what you are saying is that everything is magical because there's a background pervasive field of magic. This could be true but it also can not be true. To touch above, humans having wayer in them doesn't mean diamonds do, too. Magic can be pervasive yet the mundane can also exist.

Your counterpoint strikes me as an absolutely absurd argument to make that would be beside the point that seems to make a semantic leap from what is meant by "are magical."

At the point where Emerikol defined 'magic' as "changes to the universes ruleset." From the perspective of our modernist scientific materialism, the humanoid soul would be and is classified as a supernatural or magical conception that lies outside of any non-magical physics.

Yes, from a specific philosophical viewpoint, souls are akin to magic. Note I say philosophy, because actual science is mum on the issue.

There is no "mundane" in the sense that objects in D&D are devoid of magic. You and Max appear to be using "magical" in a mechanical game sense, as in being counted as "magical" for the purposes of overcoming magical resistance or equating to "spell-caster." My sense is aesthetic, as my initial conversation with Emerikol was about ways to rationalize the in-universe aesthetics of fighters using Heroic Surge and Second Wind via the Ki energy that D&D presumes exists within living creatures.

You're begging the question on everything being magical, again. Further, this whole thing started by you introducing the "everything is magic" argument to refute a statement about mechanics. You're switching back and forth depending on the adgument and haven't yet firmly established that tge mundane doesn't exist either aesthetically or mechanically.

Again, because it seems to be being ignored, everything is magic is a fine interpretation, a fine setting (I've done it), and a reasonable suggestion to Emerikol (although he doesn't have to accept it). I object to the absolute statement and to the rheyorical use of that absolute.

In the worldview of D&D 5e, there is an inherent magic to everything. Both you and Max seemingly agree with me on this point, as you both admit that magic is pervasive through every and all matter, energy, and existence in world that D&D 5e presumes as its baseline. And this would include the Fighter who happens to have the life energy known as "ki." The universe that D&D presumes is not a Euro-American Modernist one; it is a decidedly Pre-Modern one that sees magic and supernatural forces as pervasive realities in the cosmos. And they are. You can't say that the Fighter is on the one hand "just mundane" (with the sense of a strictly materialist person in our world) while also saying,

I don't agree, though. I interpret those selections as saying magic is nearly always reachable, but isn't part of things. There's a number of fictional settings that fit that bill, so it's not uncommon. It means I'm not struggling to explain dead magic zones and/or other planes where pervasive magic function differently, or in a limited manner, or not at all.

A strictly "mundane fighter" and the "pervasiveness of magic in all creation" are fundamentally contradictory positions. There be magic in that fighter. And if Emerikol goes to Pathfinder 2, I suspect that he will be faced with a similar set of assumptions about the Fighter when it comes to Magical Resonance.

They are not contradictory. Pervasive means often present. The presence of a thing does not give it causal power.

Not quite. I have said nothing about whether his preferences are valid or not in regards to the fighter. His play preference desire to have a fighter devoid of any and all magic is of course valid. I will repeat myself for you and Emerikol just in case: I think that Emerikol's desire to have a completely mundane, non-magical fighter is valid.

My argument was originally made, however, to help provide Emerikol assistance with a rationale for using these fighter abilities in a manner that makes sense in-universe from what D&D 5e, in particular, presumes about its universe, much in a similar manner as he does with rationalizing the mechanics of Vancian casting from an in-universe perspective. In other words, if the mechanics seem disassociated the fiction, how can we associate these mechanics with the fiction?

But I also believe that the universe that D&D 5e presupposes as its baseline has already invalidated Emerikol's play preferences, not in terms of their validity, but in terms of what is presumed as the norm of the fiction. I hope that Emerikol does indeed find a way to play the fighter with his given play preferences. But I think that we have to recognize that this will require an aesthetic or mechanical departure from D&D 5e's baseline set of presumptions on some level or another. And though Emerikol may not be satisfied with 5e because of what he regards as disassociative mechanics - that naturally stem from his valid play and aesthetic preferences about the presumed norms - in his opening post, he signaled awareness that he likely would need to make changes at some point: whether through mechanical house rules or aesthetic work-around explanations. I attempted the latter with my whole fighters draw bluntly and crudely on their "ki" proposal.

Right, doing well there until the last para. "I was just trying to provide a possible justification to help the poster, but also that possibility is unavoidable and true and also shows the poster is wrong." Nope.

 

[chaochou]

Ah, you've confused abstract for meta

Yet again you trot out this laughable lie.

I've already established that HP are abstract and meta. So I haven't confused anything.

You, on the other hand, don't have a single argument. You've established, quite literally, nothing which demonstrates that D&D HP are not a metagame device. You simply assert it, completely without justification, over and over again.

Here it is again, so even you can follow along:

HP cannot be determined from the 'in-character' perspective. I've demonstrated this is true. It follows that HP cannot be used to make decisions from an 'in-character' perspective. This follows as true. Therefore they are metagame.

There is no confusion. You've contested literally nothing in this argument.

You've been challenged to show otherwise and couldn't run away fast enough, blubbing and crying about how it isn't fair to compare D&D to systems which don't use a metagame currency to describe the health of characters.

I've named a dozen systems which allow you to make decisions about your character's health from an in-character description of their health. The ability to make decisions from within character means you don't have to metagame.

You want to claim it's the granularity of the abstraction, but that's an empty and failed rhetorical device. All that means is that the granularity of the abstraction can determine whether something is metagame or not, based on whether such granularity allows in-character decision-making, which is the litmus test in the thread.

So very clearly, I haven't confused anything.

You're reduced to cowering behind the word 'abstraction' to try and deny D&D HPs metagame property, when in fact they are both abstract and metagame. I explained it in my first post to you.

Go on, blert out 'You've confused abstract for meta' again. It's making me laugh.

 

[Arilyn]

1. Geeky - agreed. The conversation has legs though because if you go back through the list of threads that end up with hundreds of posts before they die, it's always the meta conversations and by the end, it's always the same people continuing and posting in it. Self included, though I tend to be on the "seriously?" bench.

2. How "metaphysics" work in a game world is left open and allows every DM to come up with their own solution that works for them. Some groups don't care about it at all. Some groups have a player or DM that are into figuring it out and it sort of flavors the campaign.

I have one player who loves magical research and creating new spells (items when possible). For RP reasons it pretty much forced me to create internally consistent "rules" of metaphysics for the game we were playing. Longer the game runs, the more it mushrooms because I happen to be a DM that believes in predictable reality. Next thing you know I've got players suddenly interested in alchemy and siege warfare and over time the world's version of physics shapes up. (and I cry myself to sleep sometimes.. not all the time.. just sometimes.)

It's not for everyone, but it's why these conversations have legs. Everyone who has done it has different opinions.

Oh, I love conversations like these too. It's just most DnD worlds are mooshy, contradictory places, with realities that make little sense, even from a fantasy point of view. DnD is too weirdly surreal to have arguments about the nature of reality, even magical ones.