A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Neonchameleon]

I can't win for losing. In another discussion, I try to convince someone that death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, and they were having none of it. Here, I can't get someone to accept death as the clearest consequence for screwing up in D&D.

Make up your minds, people!

Different post for a different tangent. Of course death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, but one of the things I have noticed is that (unless you are dealing with rust monsters) D&D both encourages characters who do not have connections to the game world, and in which there are few long term mechanical consequences for anything short of death (and even then there's always resurrection). On the other hand put even a minor mechanical metagame resource on the player's sheet and threaten to take it off and there will be a lot of player reaction!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Again I disagree. I think a lot of "modern" roleplaying concepts would be foreign to him yes. But if you read the DMG 1e, you will see advice on handling player knowledge vs character knowledge. That tells me he is aware of the issue. I still consider the 1e DMG to be a great book on how to run a campaign successfully (at least in my preferred style).

I'll take your word for it, but it's at odds with everything I've read from him prior to that, so maybe he just changed his mind at some point. That does make it hard to use him as a reference for anything, though, since he's said enough conflicting things that he can support any position.

 

[Emerikol]

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]
Let's just agree to disagree. This thread was not intended to reopen a new front on an old war long lost from my viewpoint.

If I am constantly defending my view of the game then this thread ultimately is going nowhere. I'm seeking options that fit me and my groups needs. I've explained what I like and what I believe metagaming is for me and my group. Let's leave it at that.

I used to enjoy debating this stuff but in the end it never goes anywhere. It just ends up being your perception of reality vs my own. I think I'm right and you think you are right. So it just goes no where. You can prove to me your right and I can't prove to you I'm right.

One thing is for sure. I'm not playing with stuff I don't like. At my age, I'm not likely to start liking it. I'm just looking at games and trying to figure out what is the best solution for me and my players.

1. Try to hack 5e. It's looking like that will be too hard.
2. Hack Pf2e. Maybe. I'll know more in August. I'm hopeful mainly because everything is tied up in feats which I can remove or add easily.
3. Go back to 3e and hack it. Maybe but unlikely.
4. Hack a retroclone. They offer so little that option 5 is likely my take before this one.
5. Write my own game. A distinct possibility. This is also an outcome if 1 through 3 got out of hand. .

I'm at a stage where every game offers something. And sure I'd rather play a poorly designed game than one that is metagame so, gun to the head, I'd pick 1e over 5e. Surely though, no gun is at my head, so I don't have to make that choice.

 

[Emerikol]

I'll take your word for it, but it's at odds with everything I've read from him prior to that, so maybe he just changed his mind at some point. That does make it hard to use him as a reference for anything, though, since he's said enough conflicting things that he can support any position.

That was my whole point. I believe he did exactly what you say he did. He went into it as a wargamer and for some time played it that way. Roleplaying just grew on him. By the time 1e rolled around a lot had changed. Realize he went through several pre-1e editions.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hit point loss on the other hand represents absolutely nothing at all. Someone is as physically capable of everything except taking damage at 1hp as they are at full hp. If it were anything to do with injury of any sort this would not be the case. So unless hit points are magical force fields then hit point mechanics are pure, raw metagame.

Alternatively, hit point damage measures the degree to which you are beaten up, and the mechanical ramifications of such are not worth applying to such a simplistic model within the expected context.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Alternatively, hit point damage measures the degree to which you are beaten up, and the mechanical ramifications of such are not worth applying to such a simplistic model within the expected context.

On the other hand the impacts are huge. I don't think that death spirals would be good for the game (and neither, from memory, did Gygax) - but far from being not worth applying this is a deliberate design decision to make hit points not represent anything much (Gygax claims it's absurd to think of them as physical damage) other than a mix of luck, fate, and stamina, to get a better game. And if they are luck and fate they are getting pretty meta.

 

[Lanefan]

Gygax was a war-gamer, and he never pretended otherwise. Actual role-playing - making decisions as though the character was a real person in a living world, rather than a game piece or a narrative construct - didn't come to the fore-front of the hobby until 2E. That shift in tone is a much greater difference between 1E and 2E than the minor changes in the rules.

Keep in mind that said shift in tone was largely driven by the sheer volume of players and DMs who had already shifted 1e in that direction much earlier, at their own tables.

Some players, even early-era ones, played it that way right from the start.

Where it met - and, sadly, still meets - opposition was from those who would prefer players to make decisions based on metagame considerations (e.g. keep the party together, always do the heroic thing, etc.) rather than what the character, given its personality and established patterns, would in fact most likely do.

 

[Lanefan]

Different post for a different tangent. Of course death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, but one of the things I have noticed is that (unless you are dealing with rust monsters) D&D both encourages characters who do not have connections to the game world, and in which there are few long term mechanical consequences for anything short of death (and even then there's always resurrection). On the other hand put even a minor mechanical metagame resource on the player's sheet and threaten to take it off and there will be a lot of player reaction!

Poster child for this: level draining.

Where has that gone?

A large part of the reason death is the primary source of suspense is that many of the other sources - level draining, permanent stat damage or reduction, significant loss or permanent disenchantment of magic items, etc. - have either largely or completely been taken out of the game as written.

Never mind that even death has been made both easier to recover from (less costly, lower-level spell, etc.) and less penalizing (no permanent con loss, no level loss) once you do.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

1. Try to hack 5e. It's looking like that will be too hard.
2. Hack Pf2e. Maybe. I'll know more in August. I'm hopeful mainly because everything is tied up in feats which I can remove or add easily.
3. Go back to 3e and hack it. Maybe but unlikely.
4. Hack a retroclone. They offer so little that option 5 is likely my take before this one.
5. Write my own game. A distinct possibility. This is also an outcome if 1 through 3 got out of hand. .

I'm at a stage where every game offers something. And sure I'd rather play a poorly designed game than one that is metagame so, gun to the head, I'd pick 1e over 5e.

So...why not just hack 1e, or Basic?

 

[Emerikol]

So...why not just hack 1e, or Basic?

Well, the hacking required to bring in a lot of modern game design I like would be a substantial effort. It basically just becomes #5. If the work exceeds cutting out what doesn't work and maybe adding a tiny bit, then it ends up at #5.

And really, many retroclones have done some of that hacking already so I'd assuredly start there rather than reclimb that mountain. If that is my take.