Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7459056" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>It has nothing <em>out of necessity</em> to do with 80s games. It has everything observationally to do with 80s RPGs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not everyone is you. I'd probably be quite happy playing a wizard in your game who came from across the sea. I wouldn't be happy playing a fighter in your game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To me this makes as much sense as a blanket statement as "the food I find objectionable I find objectionable no matter whether it is on my plate or the plate of someone else at the restaurant".</p><p></p><p>If I am playing a fighter with an actual brain who paces himself between combats, who thinks, and works on outmaneuvering his opponents this interferes with your having fun because you, in your lack of understanding how real world athletes and warriors actually work think that my making in character decisions is somehow objectionable just because you don't think people ever pace themselves in athletic events.</p><p></p><p>To me it's no skin off my nose if you want to play a fighter like a complete dunce at the area they are supposed to be focussed on. What he does is believable and if we are going out for a group meal I don't care what is on your plate as long as it stays on your plate even if it is just tofu and ramen. <em>I</em> don't have to think about things that way. And what reaches the gaming table is workable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That depends. If the game is a Shadowrun game and someone decides to call themselves Bob that's fine if it fits with the character. But the reason I'm harping on about the fighter is that in Middle Earth terms you are reacting to someone who went out and bought a Tolkein dictionary and picked the third most common Elven name just because you have problems pronouncing it and don't like it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And many others didn't, and more still dropped after trying the fighter. Also there was a difference between those different fighters, in part due to the combat scheme.</p><p></p><p>You here are saying "Because some people liked the classic fighter no one is ever allowed to play any other interpretation of the fighter as an archetype." I'm saying "Some people like the simple fighter. Others find it cripplingly anti-immersive because the way you need to think for one is nothing like an actual fighter. And a third group of people like it because it's anti-immersive with no thought required and you can just smash things. That doesn't mean a 'simple mechanics fighter' should be banned. It means that other options should be available."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like quite a lot of styles of play from classic pawn play dungeon crawling to complete metagame heavy collaborative storytelling to immersed improv-with-dice. </p><p></p><p>What I am pointing out is that you personally can not stand someone having what you consider BadWrongFun by making decisions that real people in the situation would make - and indeed in your own words you find people having an understanding of the world different to yours to be "objectionable". This is where I have a serious disagreement with you. First that your understanding of the world is just plain wrong. Second that you find that other people having a different understanding from you to be "objectionable".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And one answer to this is to realise how arbitrary your preferences are and to not sweat the small stuff.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because the players making large chunks of the world up in Apocalypse World happens during character creation. After character creation is done the players see the world through their character's eyes, respond in character, and you trigger a dice roll when someone tries to do something in character that triggers a roll.</p><p></p><p>In character creation in D&D you put down on your character sheet your fighter's stats, feats, and equipment - and doing so is pure metagame. In character creation in Apocalypse World if you are playing a Chopper you put down details about your character's stats and equipment - and also details about your Chopper's biker gang including what its strengths and weaknesses and general aesthetic are, and the names of your chief lieutenants and what it's most likely to do if you can't keep it under control. In neither character creation are you in character - it's just that Apocalypse World's is a bit more expansive and fits the character into the setting.</p><p></p><p>After character creation your Chopper's biker gang is entirely made up of unruly NPCs who consider you their leader for as long as you can keep them in line. You aren't making the world up as you go - you just built a lot of aspects of the local environment when you all created characters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 7459056, member: 87792"] It has nothing [I]out of necessity[/I] to do with 80s games. It has everything observationally to do with 80s RPGs. Not everyone is you. I'd probably be quite happy playing a wizard in your game who came from across the sea. I wouldn't be happy playing a fighter in your game. To me this makes as much sense as a blanket statement as "the food I find objectionable I find objectionable no matter whether it is on my plate or the plate of someone else at the restaurant". If I am playing a fighter with an actual brain who paces himself between combats, who thinks, and works on outmaneuvering his opponents this interferes with your having fun because you, in your lack of understanding how real world athletes and warriors actually work think that my making in character decisions is somehow objectionable just because you don't think people ever pace themselves in athletic events. To me it's no skin off my nose if you want to play a fighter like a complete dunce at the area they are supposed to be focussed on. What he does is believable and if we are going out for a group meal I don't care what is on your plate as long as it stays on your plate even if it is just tofu and ramen. [I]I[/I] don't have to think about things that way. And what reaches the gaming table is workable. That depends. If the game is a Shadowrun game and someone decides to call themselves Bob that's fine if it fits with the character. But the reason I'm harping on about the fighter is that in Middle Earth terms you are reacting to someone who went out and bought a Tolkein dictionary and picked the third most common Elven name just because you have problems pronouncing it and don't like it. And many others didn't, and more still dropped after trying the fighter. Also there was a difference between those different fighters, in part due to the combat scheme. You here are saying "Because some people liked the classic fighter no one is ever allowed to play any other interpretation of the fighter as an archetype." I'm saying "Some people like the simple fighter. Others find it cripplingly anti-immersive because the way you need to think for one is nothing like an actual fighter. And a third group of people like it because it's anti-immersive with no thought required and you can just smash things. That doesn't mean a 'simple mechanics fighter' should be banned. It means that other options should be available." I like quite a lot of styles of play from classic pawn play dungeon crawling to complete metagame heavy collaborative storytelling to immersed improv-with-dice. What I am pointing out is that you personally can not stand someone having what you consider BadWrongFun by making decisions that real people in the situation would make - and indeed in your own words you find people having an understanding of the world different to yours to be "objectionable". This is where I have a serious disagreement with you. First that your understanding of the world is just plain wrong. Second that you find that other people having a different understanding from you to be "objectionable". And one answer to this is to realise how arbitrary your preferences are and to not sweat the small stuff. Because the players making large chunks of the world up in Apocalypse World happens during character creation. After character creation is done the players see the world through their character's eyes, respond in character, and you trigger a dice roll when someone tries to do something in character that triggers a roll. In character creation in D&D you put down on your character sheet your fighter's stats, feats, and equipment - and doing so is pure metagame. In character creation in Apocalypse World if you are playing a Chopper you put down details about your character's stats and equipment - and also details about your Chopper's biker gang including what its strengths and weaknesses and general aesthetic are, and the names of your chief lieutenants and what it's most likely to do if you can't keep it under control. In neither character creation are you in character - it's just that Apocalypse World's is a bit more expansive and fits the character into the setting. After character creation your Chopper's biker gang is entirely made up of unruly NPCs who consider you their leader for as long as you can keep them in line. You aren't making the world up as you go - you just built a lot of aspects of the local environment when you all created characters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
Top