Most of the times in these discussions my use of the term magic comprises any special force that a skeptical rationalist in this world would not believe exists. So Psionics, Ki, Mutations, etc... are all forms of "magic" for the discussion. Magic is changes to the universes ruleset.
That entire world in D&D is presumed magical. You are trying to apply a modernist mindset that distinguishes between the mundane and the magical to a world that presumes a premodern worldview wherein the supernatural, magical, and irrational are infused into everything of the cosmos. Everything. In such a worldview, whether you are playing 0E-5E, there is no "just a mundane person" in this world. The supernatural infuses every fiber of the world, and this is abundantly evident in the Great Wheel and D&D's other various cosmologies.
My issue is players making changes to the game state that their characters could not possibly make given the world they are playing in. So let's just say the implied D&D world prior to 4e. In that world, fighters are not innately magical. They use magic of all sorts and that is part of their power for sure. So such a fighter could not possibly have a once per day "power". So my choices in that situation were to either rewrite the world to make fighters magical or to leave behind actor stance and go into some kind of author stance. Neither appealed to me all that much.
And therein is my problem. Others and I have a different vision and conception of "the world they are playing in," wherein abilities like Second Wind and Action Surge are plausible from the perspective of in-character choice and their worldview. I suspect that you are thinking like a modernist playing this game. You believe there to be distinction between natural and supernatural as opposed to simply The World as Imagined. You are possibly failing to live up to your own self-professed Actor stance. You are not imagining
their world. A world with a different set of presumptions. A world that lacks any distinction between the natural and supernatural, between magical and mundane. You are not imagining what it would be like in the world that D&D presumes because you are too busy presuming that you are playing with this world in mind from a modernist perspective. This is something that I have even advised newplayers to fantasy roleplaying and modern Euro-American students when looking at the pre-modern world. There is no distinction between natural and supernatural. (Actually Runequest gets this pre-modern worldview remarkably well.)
Fate points, I assume are outside the purview of the PC. They are 100% player tokens and the player is authoring events around to character to create a story. It is a valid style and I hope no one doubts me when I say that. I hope you all enjoy it. I wish you well. I personally just don't prefer that style of game. That alone is not me casting aspersions. That is me stating a preference.
Of course.
Fate points are outside of the purview of the character, though one could rework them in-character, which could be potentially interesting as a reskin. Fate points are not primarily used for authoring though, but for acting. More often than not, Fate points are used when the Actor wants to embrace or lean into their role at important, key moments. And yes, Fate points may also be used in occurrences when the Actor may desire to provide more "authorship" over the setting in ways that are applicable to the setting. Because just like in the context of D&D: all actors are authors. They have created their characters and they have a sense of their character's identity and not everything of that sort needs to be done outside of gameplay. In Fate, this may entail points where the PC declares that "they know a guy who can help" or some other story detail (e.g., "I pull out anti-shark repellent out of my bat utility belt."). In this role, they are both Actor and Author; it is neither an either/or situation, as the Actor is developing their sense of character and roleplaying who that character is. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, inherently forces the Actor out of Actor stance when they spend a Fate point. I have watched entire games of Fate done entirely from 1st person, in-character speak and roleplaying as character. The decisions were made, rejected, and formulated from in-character perspectives.
Fate points are a metacurrency that exist as "a measure of how much influence you have to make the story go in your character’s favor," as per the Fate rules, but I have a slightly different additional take. Fate points also exist as a metacurrency possessed by the GM and Players that serves to reinforce and negotiate the Social Contract between all roleplay game participants through a means of checks and balances during, through, and within gameplay. Fate points give players more control over their sense of character. They give players opportunities to veto the narrative that the GM may impose on their characters. But they also give a way for the GM to tacitly check against the acting of players for points where there is a discrepancy of character and the acting (e.g., you are playing your LG character as CE, why isn't your hydrophobic character acting afraid of water, etc.).
I think pure actor stance is an incredible rich and rewarding style of play. I wouldn't say it's the only form of roleplaying. I would say though that those moments in any game where you are "being" the character is WHEN you are roleplaying. So if you drop out occasionally to be the player that is fine. You aren't really playing your character at that point. You are modifying the game around your character so that when you return to character the game will be more interesting.
Again, I contend that there is no "Pure Actor Stance," much as there is no Pure Scotsman. It is an inherent impossibility within the presumed framework of its very own theory and in praxis. You can say that you aspire to maximize the Actor's stance and minimize the Director and Author stances of players, but please stop talking about Pure Actor Stance as if it was something that you have achieved and was even plausible.
more and more i come to the conclusion that the meaning of metagame is "whatever i need it to be to fusss about something i dislike."
i am so very very glad that my experience at the table has so infinitely small if ever mentions of "metagame" compared to the frequency with which it blazes across forums.
I don't know. I think that there are a lot of metagame elements to D&D and other games that get overlooked or a free pass because of familiarity. It says nothing about whether or not I like those elements. But I also don't necessarily mind metagame mechanics, so it is not a case of making a "fuss about something I dislike," though that criticism would certainly apply to others.
As I said before, the metagame is often about the gameplay. Fouls are a part of basketball's meta in how the game is played even though by nature they represent inappropriate or "foul" gameplay. Likewise, we may hate excessive diving in Fußball, but it's undoubtedly part of the meta.
Why not in D&D? Simple. Because Hit Points are a meaningless, amorphous metagame ball of pacing mechanic and plot protection.
That is how Stress works in Fate too. Consequences can put more "meat" on the character, but Stress boxes are functionally as you describe here.
