A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

Nytmare said:

Are you at all able to divorce the idea of it being the character somehow making the decision instead of it just being fate, chance, or coincidence?

In your experience, what's the best system with the least metagaming you've played with?

Click to expand...

There has to be a line somewhere.

Obviously a player chooses a characters race, for instance. There's no way the character made that decision.

So it can't be absolute.

To me, the obvious line is something the character does. You do rest for an hour when you spend HD. It's not realistic, there's no reason resting 57 min should give you no benefit or 90 min not give you more. But the player and character both decide to rest. The character has no idea of HD but also no idea of hit points.

Second Wind makes even less sense in 5e. It's an instant not an action, the character is doing nothing. In 4e it was a standard action you didn't attack, you gathered your strength or wits for a moment, at least the character made a choice.

Inspiration is just weird.

Have you looked at GURPS??? Maybe that'll be more up your alley.

Emerikol said:

What about Pf2e? Do you think it will do this particular issue better?

Click to expand...

In an earlier thread, I got one of the developers to confirm that every hit on an attack roll corresponds definitionally to some sort of physical impact, so Hit Points should be less abstract in PF2 than they are in D&D 4E or 5E.

I know that it's tangential to the topic at hand, but it gives some indication as to their stance on overtly gamist mechanics.

Saelorn said:

Hit Dice are harder to solve. I would recommend tossing them out entirely, and letting characters recover 10% of their maximum HP during an eight-hour short rest.

Click to expand...

An eight-hour short rest?

I thought eight hours was a long rest...

In any case, that recover 10% of max (rounding any fractions up*) is more or less what I do in my 1e-variant game, and have for ages.

Lanefan

* - so if your max is 20 you'd get back 2 but if your max is 21 you'd get back 3.

About the only thing I can suggest to the OP is to not be shy about a) finding a system you like and that kind of works for you, and then b) kitbashing the hell out of it to build the system you really want, even if it means rewriting large chunks of it from the ground up.

Yeah it's a lot of work, but ideally it's work you only have to do once; after which you've got a system that can last you for as long as you keep gaming.

The one problem, to my mind, with kitbashing a system is: do the other players/GM/Whathaveyou want a kitbashed system or are they happy with what they have. Back about 30 years ago, I wrote a system that fit my gaming preferences completely. And I even got my group to try it. But... they didn't feel the same way about it that I did and asked if they could go back to AD&D.

This may be the problem that Emerikol runs into. He's got his perfect system (or perfect-ish) but nobody to play it with.

Since that time, I've only done light houseruling to whatever game I'm playing. If even that, as I play 5e as close to RAW as possible. Though luckily, the wording allows a lot of RAI.

Emerikol said:

I think a lot of powers are only questionable to me because of this player vs character agency. I'm not questioning at all that people could have a second wind.

Click to expand...

So it's when a player makes a decision for the character that is beyond the characters control.

For instance taking a level of sorcerer and choosing a bloodline. The character can't decide to acquire a supernatural ancestor. He can't decide that ancestor was a dragon. He can't decide it was a dragon that had fire as its breath weapon.

The player makes all those decisions.

That's not the usual definition of metagame. Sounds more like the “dissociated mechanics” that ruined 4e.

Just remove the offending fighter abilities and have the DM roll HD or use a formula to determine how many to roll.

Emerikol said:

While I have a strong opinion on metagame design elements, I by no means intend to imply that those who enjoy such concepts are doing it wrong or should convert to my way of thinking. This is about a preference. It would be just as silly to try to convert everyone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla. Vanilla is better in my opinion but philosophically "a matter of taste cannot be disputed"

So a short definition: Metagaming.
Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.


Here are some examples of metagame rules in 5e.

1. The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest. There seems to be no analog for the character. There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource? Potential healing?

2. Action surge. Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests? Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again? This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.

3. Second Wind. A player decides to give his character a surge of energy. The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly. It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.

4. Inspiration. Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.

Click to expand...

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.

Emerikol said:

Sorry. My term already perhaps indicates my prejudice. Player narrative control is fine as a term. As long as we all know about it. I suppose I was thinking of D&Desq style games though for me any RPG I was invested in at the campaign level would qualify. I'm a lot more flexible when it's a game that I'm just doing a one off or one where it's obviously not about scratching the rpg itch for me.

Click to expand...

I was puzzling over your use of metagame.
I should have just read more carefully. You can ignore my last few posts. Sorry.

I do still think that removing the offending fighter abilities and changing how HD are spent could remove any unwanted player narrative control.

Emerikol said:

Sorry. My term already perhaps indicates my prejudice. Player narrative control is fine as a term. As long as we all know about it. I suppose I was thinking of D&Desq style games though for me any RPG I was invested in at the campaign level would qualify. I'm a lot more flexible when it's a game that I'm just doing a one off or one where it's obviously not about scratching the rpg itch for me.

Click to expand...

I think it is a key spectrum of gaming preference and may vary much between players by generatiob or at least games they start with.

Lets put it for me this way.

I have little problem with what i see as character-based neta-gaming elements - as in the player invokes them even outside of the character perspective.

However, i find most any degree on non-character-based meta-points (plot points, hero points, story points momentum) to be disruptive to some degree. Its comes across as stepping out of character and too much becomes unsatisfactory.

Its like when i am in a theater and i am aware of sitying there watching the movie instead of into the movie.

One of the recent systems i wanted to like was mentioned earlier - Mophi's 2d20) but watching it play out for quite a number of sessions of Shield of Tomorrow their momentum system turned me away. It is baked into their basic resolution that it seemed like every task challenge was more about momentum both in resolution and in significance. Often they were more focused as players and as a group on the momentum tally, gains and cost than it seemed the actual success/failure (when failure could even occur) of the characters.

Similarly, while back, Serenity by Weiss?? had the plot points and basically advised "plot points should flow like rain" as for all the ways they could earn/spend impact.

So, to me, for me (and have had this discussion with my local group) we tend to shy away from any separated plot point meta mechanic, preferring to be more character focused in where these kind of things lie.

The exception we have considered was to implement a natural 1 rule, where for every natural 1 roll (auto fail) in a proficient check you got a 20 chip. You could spend the chip before any roll to make it a 20 (unnatural) but a natural 1 or rest would take away any of your existing tokens.

Idea was to kind of give tough luck guys on a night a sort of "doesnt suck as much" that also carried choice/risk as well as an impetus to not rest if the game was still afoot.

Did not try it yet. Likely next campaign.

But the more a system uses and integrates non-character specific plot points (meta-mechanics) the less enjoyable we have found them.