D&D General 5e D&D to OSR pipeline or circle?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Pulling this quote out because it keeps coming up in OSR discussions and is a consistent point of frustration for me looking in from the outside; this sounds great, I want play to revolve around getting information, building out a strategy and trying to advance it to most effectively overcome problems and all that.

The problem is that this is always paired with rules light systems, and usually comes with the standard "stop looking at your character sheet" and "we're so tired of looking up rules" points, and no game seems to be interested in doing this alongside a detailed "rules for everything" approach. I consistently feel like I'm missing some link in the chain of logic that where those things are in conflict.

A rules for everything approach combined with asking questions about actionable elements of the environment would lead to enormous rulebooks. From a practical standpoint, it probably has to be paired with light rules.

But you're not missing anything. This part is essentially like playing make-believe without rules or dice or character sheets at all.

"You wake up in what appears to be the attic of a strange house you don't know, with no memories of how you got here."

"Do I see anything in the room? Is there a window?"

"There's a tiny window, smaller than your head, at one end of the attic. There are also lots of boxes and what appear to be furniture and other objects draped under sheets."

"OK, I look out the window and see if I can tell where I am, then after that, I start examining things in the room."

"As you head toward the window, the floorboards creak ominously under your weight. It's too dark to be sure, but it feels like the boards may be in bad shape and might not support your weight everywhere in the room."

"Hmmm, can I see well enough to look for larger, sturdier boards? Or are there overhead ceiling beams I can hold onto to help take some of my weight off the floor?"

Like that. Only with mimics and basilisks.

 

[billd91]

Which begs the question on when Metagaming became a naughty word. I recall as early as 2e the notion that a player should not be using knowledge his character would not have. A player may know trolls = fire, but does Gustav, his fighter know that? Because growing up in the 90's and aughts for playing, that was intentionally discouraged. It was one step below players opening the monster manual during play or reading ahead in the module. Your going have to to forgive my disbelief that "metagaming is good actually" is anything but revisionist...

I think a crucial difference here is the skilled play style challenged the player, not the PC. The PC was largely the avatar of the player more than a personality in their own right. The role playing was focused on playing out the functional role their PC’s class played in the party, not whether they really got into another headspace with backstory-driven goals and values.
So if they used metagame knowledge to defeat a monster or trap, that was fine. It wasn’t really metagame then, it was part and parcel of THE game.

 

[Aldarc]

Twenty years ago, if you were on Eric Noah's board and expressed that sentiment, you'd have been flayed and fed to displacer beasts. It was absolutely dogma that "avoid metagaming" was part of the advice given to player and DMs alike. Somewhere, the view changed, and I can't help but feel it has to do a lot with the notion of "smart play" and the idea that D&D is a dual of whits between players and DM.

For me, it was (1) exhaustion from debating about metagaming, (2) reflecting on whether metagaming in TTRPGs actually is a problem, and (3) an awareness for how the "metagame" is an important part of play for all other games and sports out there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For me, it was (1) exhaustion from debating about metagaming, (2) reflecting on whether metagaming in TTRPGs actually is a problem, and (3) an awareness for how the "metagame" is an important part of play for all other games and sports out there.

It’s pretty much the least interesting thing about RPG play.

 

[Aldarc]

It’s pretty much the least interesting thing about RPG play.

I could imagine one of my memorable past professors writing in red ink on the side of an argument against metagaming: "So what?" And that's where I am in the debate at the moment.

 

[TiQuinn]

For me, it was (1) exhaustion from debating about metagaming, (2) reflecting on whether metagaming in TTRPGs actually is a problem, and (3) an awareness for how the "metagame" is an important part of play for all other games and sports out there.

It’s kind of ridiculous. Imagine you are playing your umpteenth PC and the DM says no metagaming when you say you’re gonna throw a flask of oil. In essence, they’re saying “Make sure your first attack and maybe even second attack doesn’t meaningfully harm the troll because you wouldn’t know about the fire.”

 

[hawkeyefan]

I could imagine one of my memorable past professors writing in red ink on the side of an argument against metagaming: "So what?" And that's where I am in the debate at the moment.

Occasionally, a player will say “I don’t want to metagame, but…” and I simply point out there’s no such thing and not to worry about it.

It’s never been a problem.

 

[overgeeked]

I could imagine one of my memorable past professors writing in red ink on the side of an argument against metagaming: "So what?" And that's where I am in the debate at the moment.

The metagaming that’s always bugged me was players buying the monster book and studying the stats or buying the module and learning all the tricks, secrets, etc before actually playing.

The monsters thing doesn’t bug me anymore. Only because I use my own homebrew monster stats for everything. A fresh-faced 1st-level PC is not going to be an encyclopedia of monster knowledge. At least not in the kinds of games I want to run.

The module thing really bugs me when I try to run modules. I mostly run homebrew, but when trying a new game it’s easier to run an official module. That’s always going to be a problem and cheating as far as I’m concerned.

 

[pemerton]

Which begs the question on when Metagaming became a naughty word. I recall as early as 2e the notion that a player should not be using knowledge his character would not have. A player may know trolls = fire, but does Gustav, his fighter know that? Because growing up in the 90's and aughts for playing, that was intentionally discouraged. It was one step below players opening the monster manual during play or reading ahead in the module. Your going have to to forgive my disbelief that "metagaming is good actually" is anything but revisionist...

The Moldvay rulebook tells all players to read chapter 6, the monster chapter. The AD&D Monster Manual discourages players from referring to it during play.

The hostility to "trolls are vulnerable to fire" type stuff that you're talking about all comes out of "storytelling" norms, not "skilled play" norms. Players using their hard-earned knowledge to become better at beating the dungeon is precisely what "skilled play" is about. (The solo version of this, for me at least, is Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks.)

EDIT:

I think it only becomes highlighted when it’s “oh I read the module we’re playing so I know we need to go into the postman’s back office to grab the key to the Cave of Orbaz” or “I have no way to know that the rest of the group is in danger, but I’m going to drop what I’m doing and run in that direction.”

The first is just plain cheating.

The second seems like a matter of table conventions/expectations.

 

[Remathilis]

I think a crucial difference here is the skilled play style challenged the player, not the PC. The PC was largely the avatar of the player more than a personality in their own right. The role playing was focused on playing out the functional role their PC’s class played in the party, not whether they really got into another headspace with backstory-driven goals and values.
So if they used metagame knowledge to defeat a monster or trap, that was fine. It wasn’t really metagame then, it was part and parcel of THE game.

Yeah, that right there is the fundamental, inoperable division I can never reconcile. If the PC is just my avatar in the game, he's a toon (in the MMO sense) and will be treated as such. His name will be Tanks For The Memories and his personality is "ROFL". I can't get past the idea that playing a character isn't actually playing a character. I don't give names and backstories to the chess pieces when I play because the epic battle between two armies of knights, queens and kings aren't the important part, the ability to outthink and outmanoeuvre my opponents using my pieces is.

Maybe that's why I can't understand it: I can't accept that Remathilis is just my pawn piece in the game rather than an actual fictional character with his own life and story.