Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6684212" data-attributes="member: 996">I don't think 'metagame' implies /no/ representation of anything in the fiction, just enough abstraction to give the player a game (system mastery?) advantage in framing decisions in rules terms rather than IC terms.&nbsp; Hps, being readily quantifiable to the player but not the PC, are certainly an example.&nbsp; Really, even the oddest mechanics still represent something in the fiction.&nbsp; If you use some sort of narrative control mechanic to retcon a backstory relationship with an NPC, that relationship /is/ something in the fiction.&nbsp; If you want the 'decision' to be something in fiction, it's 'Fate' taking a direct hand, Kismet.&nbsp; If you're playing with the conceit that the rules of the game are the laws of physics of the in-game reality, then the PC is even aware that he has twisted the Mage-the-Ascension-like reality of the world he inhabits.&nbsp; You could go down right fourth-wall-breaking with that, if you really wanted to.&nbsp; It's really a matter of style and aesthetics how you conceptualize the relationship between game mechanics and the imagined narrative.&nbsp; Not worrying about it overmuch, for instance, is a perfectly legitimate style. ;P&nbsp;The same way an actor might in an improv scene, perhaps.&nbsp; Even so, actors are very much aware that they are not their character, and that they are there to tell a story, for an audience.&nbsp; Even 'method acting' isn't about immersing in the role to become the character, but calling upon analogous personal experience and emotion to portray it.&nbsp;You seem to persist in this conviction that you speak for a majority.&nbsp; Clearly, it must be a 'silent majority,' since you always find yourself going back and forth, on your own, with several folks when this particular pet peeve of yours comes up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6684212, member: 996"] I don't think 'metagame' implies /no/ representation of anything in the fiction, just enough abstraction to give the player a game (system mastery?) advantage in framing decisions in rules terms rather than IC terms. Hps, being readily quantifiable to the player but not the PC, are certainly an example. Really, even the oddest mechanics still represent something in the fiction. If you use some sort of narrative control mechanic to retcon a backstory relationship with an NPC, that relationship /is/ something in the fiction. If you want the 'decision' to be something in fiction, it's 'Fate' taking a direct hand, Kismet. If you're playing with the conceit that the rules of the game are the laws of physics of the in-game reality, then the PC is even aware that he has twisted the Mage-the-Ascension-like reality of the world he inhabits. You could go down right fourth-wall-breaking with that, if you really wanted to. It's really a matter of style and aesthetics how you conceptualize the relationship between game mechanics and the imagined narrative. Not worrying about it overmuch, for instance, is a perfectly legitimate style. ;P The same way an actor might in an improv scene, perhaps. Even so, actors are very much aware that they are not their character, and that they are there to tell a story, for an audience. Even 'method acting' isn't about immersing in the role to become the character, but calling upon analogous personal experience and emotion to portray it. You seem to persist in this conviction that you speak for a majority. Clearly, it must be a 'silent majority,' since you always find yourself going back and forth, on your own, with several folks when this particular pet peeve of yours comes up. [/QUOTE]

Verification