Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6053386" data-attributes="member: 6696971">In the vein of proper advice and meta-game table clarity, I think the 4e designers could have done an immense service to the system and to their clientele if their advice would have consisted of:- Clarity regarding 4e's intrinsic meta-game agenda.- How to manage that meta-game agenda with a table that has a discordant or adversarial (to meta-game tools/interests) agenda.- How to hone the skill of leveraging that meta-game agenda for new players or players who would like to learn but are unfamiliar with the implications and advantages of proper and overt meta-gaming.This is most important given (from 2e onward) the embedded D&amp;D cultural memes that are antagonistic toward a meta-game agenda (from both DM and player).&nbsp; Many say that they don't think the designers knew what they had with 4e.&nbsp; I'm not sure that is true (it may be, but I find it less likely).&nbsp; I think its entirely likely that either:1 - they were aware of these antagonistic D&amp;D cultural memes and they wanted to be less overt about the meta-game constructs and expectations that were woven into the 4e system because of it.&nbsp; They were probably hoping for an organic process of growing with this ruleset leading to unconscious acceptance (despite past prejudice against meta-game agenda) of its implicit (and explicit as well) meta-game by the D&amp;D crowd.2 - the editing process was a shabby, rushed, incoherent thing.&nbsp; Editing subbed out to interns who weren't aware of the design framework, agenda and implications and then the primary editorial staff (who may have had slightly more awareness of the design framework, agenda and implications) having 2nd and 3rd order impact on the final product.&nbsp; I often wonder just what died on the cutting floor (perhaps due to page-count but also perhaps due to outright nubbery) and how deleterious that was to the overtness, clarity and breadth of the &quot;advice&quot; portion of the books.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6053386, member: 6696971"] In the vein of proper advice and meta-game table clarity, I think the 4e designers could have done an immense service to the system and to their clientele if their advice would have consisted of: - Clarity regarding 4e's intrinsic meta-game agenda. - How to manage that meta-game agenda with a table that has a discordant or adversarial (to meta-game tools/interests) agenda. - How to hone the skill of leveraging that meta-game agenda for new players or players who would like to learn but are unfamiliar with the implications and advantages of proper and overt meta-gaming. This is most important given (from 2e onward) the embedded D&D cultural memes that are antagonistic toward a meta-game agenda (from both DM and player). Many say that they don't think the designers knew what they had with 4e. I'm not sure that is true (it may be, but I find it less likely). I think its entirely likely that either: 1 - they were aware of these antagonistic D&D cultural memes and they wanted to be less overt about the meta-game constructs and expectations that were woven into the 4e system because of it. They were probably hoping for an organic process of growing with this ruleset leading to unconscious acceptance (despite past prejudice against meta-game agenda) of its implicit (and explicit as well) meta-game by the D&D crowd. 2 - the editing process was a shabby, rushed, incoherent thing. Editing subbed out to interns who weren't aware of the design framework, agenda and implications and then the primary editorial staff (who may have had slightly more awareness of the design framework, agenda and implications) having 2nd and 3rd order impact on the final product. I often wonder just what died on the cutting floor (perhaps due to page-count but also perhaps due to outright nubbery) and how deleterious that was to the overtness, clarity and breadth of the "advice" portion of the books. [/QUOTE]

Verification