D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

There was no sarcasm in my previous post!

Funny.

 

[prabe]

I think it's because the word "game" is particularly fuzzy in English. Looking up the word in multiple dictionaries gives a huge range of definitions.

When it comes to views of TTRPGs, I think some posters are viewing the "game" being played analagously to Collins definition 1:

...an activity or sport usually involving skill, knowledge, or chance, in which you follow fixed rules and try to win against an opponent or to solve a puzzle.

Under this view, the "game" being played in a TTRPG is the chosen set of rules, and so awareness of and considerations of those rules can definitionally never be "metagame" in the sense of being "outside the game".

By contrast, I think other posters are viewing the "game" being played analagously to Mirriam Webster's 2a1:

an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.

Under this view, the "game" being played in a TTRPG is the activity of fantasy roleplaying, independent of the chosen ruleset. Under this view, it's entirely reasonable for awareness of and considerations of the rules that are perceived as coming at the expense of the primary activity to be seen as "metagame" in the same sense of being "outside the game". Under this viewpoint what is and is not metagaming is going to be somewhat idiosyncratic, as perceptions of where the rules enhance or detract from the game being played will necessarily vary from person to person.

I guess to me their concerns are about metafiction, not about metagame. Knowing (and using) the rules of the game when you're playing a game seems entirely unobjectionable to me, and my experience is that doing so makes for better stories on the output side as well as more-enjoyable play (in the sense of your second definition of "game") at the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess to me their concerns are about metafiction, not about metagame. Knowing (and using) the rules of the game when you're playing a game seems entirely unobjectionable to me, and my experience is that doing so makes for better stories on the output side as well as more-enjoyable play (in the sense of your second definition of "game") at the table.

I feel very strongly that the rules of the game as a player should be expressed in play as much as possible through the lense of what the PC in the setting is capable of.

 

[Xetheral]

I guess to me their concerns are about metafiction, not about metagame. Knowing (and using) the rules of the game when you're playing a game seems entirely unobjectionable to me, and my experience is that doing so makes for better stories on the output side as well as more-enjoyable play (in the sense of your second definition of "game") at the table.

You seeing a contrast between "metagame" and "metafiction" makes perfect sense, given your usage of "game". I just think that the other usage, where the fiction is the game, also makes perfect sense.

 

[mamba]

Yup. I suppose that’s an example of playstyle over mechanics.

“These background features require me to release some amount of control over the setting and the events of play! Rules be damned, that can’t be allowed!”

no it’s more a matter of ‘it makes no sense for you to know some contact in this far away land / plane you happen to find yourself in, no matter what your background says’

 

[hawkeyefan]

no it’s more a matter of ‘it makes no sense for you to know some contact in this far away land / plane you happen to find yourself in, no matter what your background says’

I would, as a GM, take the explanation for such to be a creative challenge.

 

[prabe]

I feel very strongly that the rules of the game as a player should be expressed in play as much as possible through the lense of what the PC in the setting is capable of.

I don't particularly disagree. Knowing and using the rules of the game doesn't seem to conflict with that preference. (Knowing monster stats, or the expectations a given adventure has, isn't in my books "knowing the rules," though at least the former doesn't have to be bad.)

 

[Oofta]

Can we not relitigate 2014 background features yet again? Is that horse not dead enough?

To me the rule (if taken to the extremes some people preferred) ran counter to the spirit of the rest of the game.

 

[soviet]

Can we not relitigate 2014 background features yet again? Is that horse not dead enough?

Oofta good sir I have never agreed with you more

 

[mamba]

I would, as a GM, take the explanation for such to be a creative challenge.

it isn’t though, you can always come up with some highly improbable nonsense, it remains just that