A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Arilyn]

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.

Although, I am in agreement with many of your points, your delivery has been so rude, that I am cringing, and feeling that I don't really want to be on your side of this debate.
Maybe, cool down a bit. Not an earth shaking argument, surely....

 

[Aldarc]

Are you genuinely arguing in any good faith or from any desire for nuance when you write this stuff, Ovinomancer? Or are you being argumentative just for the sake of it?

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.

No, it is not an error. It is true that "human beings have water in them" and that "human beings are composed of water," though not in our entirety as the human person consists of a variety of elements and compounds. There is no need for you to be obtuse in misconstruing basic parlance of the latter though.

However, what you are saying is that everything is magical because there's a background pervasive field of magic.

It would be inaccurate to characterize magic as a background field in D&D 5e; it suffuses, infuses, permeates, pervades all matter and energy of existence. We are told that on a fundamental level, everything has a magical or supernatural character, albeit to differing degrees and expressions.

To touch above, humans having wayer in them doesn't mean diamonds do, too. Magic can be pervasive yet the mundane can also exist.

My example about humans and water presented a closed system: the composition of the human person. I am not arguing that because humans are composed of water, therefore diamonds have water in them. The matter of "water" pertained to humans alone. I thought that point was obvious.

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.

Sure, in the same way that you are intentionally misconstruing my argument. But I suspect that I have found what may be the root of the problem in our disagreement here: you. I have not said or made the argument "everything is magic." I said that "everything is magical." But your misconstrual of my argument does appear eerily similar to my earlier analogy, where you equate my statement "humans are composed of water" to the ridiculous reading of my argument to mean that "humans are water."

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.

Could you please stop repeating this mantra as a condescending means to dismiss me and the argument? There is no good faith to be found with that.

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.

But it is a part of things, and we are told at repeated points that it is. To be a part of something does not mean composed entirely of the thing, but it is a fundamental building block of all matter and energy in D&D's cosmos.

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.

You know what you are doing here? This:

I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme.

You are misreading me, and you seem hellbent for some undetermined to be doing it on purpose, especially since you came into this thread guns blazing, not about any real thread topic but about my person. So please go with what my words say rather than what you want them to say for your agenda.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

You have failed to demonstrate such a thing, and your argument demonstrates a severe misunderstanding about the nature of rules and the role of the DM.

Hit Points can seem like a meta-game construct, when handled by a DM as incompetent as the one in your example.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Although, I am in agreement with many of your points, your delivery has been so rude, that I am cringing, and feeling that I don't really want to be on your side of this debate.
Maybe, cool down a bit. Not an earth shaking argument, surely....

I agree with this. There's a certain line beyond which people stop reading points and start responding to tone. At that point, the conversation suffers; if not everyone in it.

 

[Maxperson]

Basically, I have trouble reconciling the idea that things like atoms and electromagnetic forces exist in the same universe where the building blocks of the universe are air, earth, fire, and water. Either a universe is mechanistic or it's supernatural, it can't be both.

We just use Newtonian mechanics to understand basic interactions in a fantasy universe because it's easier for us to imagine.

There is nothing prohibiting from being both. I can very easily see that the universe is made of from the basic building blocks of air, earth, fire and water, which are in turn made up of atoms held together by physics. It can in fact be both, even if you don't like.

 

[Maxperson]

As I said, what the hell is "life force", and how is it not magical? It's certainly not a real or mundane thing!

Not everything that is supernatural has to be magic

Multiple posterson this thread (you as one) have argued that action surge and/or second wind are metagame, because they are decisions taken by a player that do not correlate to decisions taken by that player's character.

From my first post on the topic. #28 by my reckoning.

"There have been many times in my life when I'm in the middle of playing sports, or wrestling or arm wresting, when I've been very tired and running out of energy. During those times, while actively participating, I can focus myself and over a bit of time, gather some energy together for a burst of strength and speed. Then it fades and sometimes I can't do it a second time(and sometimes I can). That burst can be #'s 2-4. #1 is the only one you mentioned that I would view as metagaming. The rest just quantify what I've done and make mechanics out of it."

I include Second Wind as not being metagame, because it's not the PC deciding to engage it, so the PC is not acting on anything it has no way of acting on, but rather it's 100% the player.

 

[Lanefan]

Basically, I have trouble reconciling the idea that things like atoms and electromagnetic forces exist in the same universe where the building blocks of the universe are air, earth, fire, and water. Either a universe is mechanistic or it's supernatural, it can't be both.

Sure it can!

Just make "magic" a fifth universal force (to go with gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong) that some lifeforms in some places can access and shape and you're good to rock!

My entire D&D physics concept is based on this simple premise.

Lanefan

 

[Maxperson]

The D&D rules certainly don't answer this question. I don't know of any FRPG that does.

Because they don't have to answer that question. It's self-evident. It would be ludicrous for a game like D&D to have objects fall unless acted on in a different way, require cutting objects to be sharp, require creatures to eat and sleep, have thrown objects go a much shorter distance than ones projected by a mechanical instrument, have blunt objects smash, and so on without it being Newtonian physics. If it were anything else that was simulating our physics, they would have explained it to us in the rule books like they do with everything else that is different.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Your interpretation is A way it can be explained, but there's nothing saying that the latent energy in the rock isn't from the outside magical force that flows through it, or even sits inside of it, yet is still a separate thing. The PHB doesn't say that Ki energy exists within all people. What it says is that it FLOWS THROUGH all people. That could easily translate into Monks being Jedi and using the force. It could as easily be an outside energy that flows through the body as one that is generated by it. Monks just learn how to magically harness the energy. And it does say that they magically harness the energy, not that they harness the magical energy. Below is from the paragraph immediately above the section on Ki.

"Whatever their discipline, monks are united in their ability to magically harness the energy that flows in their bodies."

This would categorically include fighters, as fighters are people.

You should try talking to a few wizards.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

The issue is that in game terms, saying something is magical has specific meaning, and it doesn't mean a rock, though it might mean a Roc. Some of us like to not have terms muddled into uselessness, and a claim that the entire D&D universe is magical does just that.