Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5956919" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That's not metagaming, that's called getting pulled out of immersion. Using a meta ability (like pemerton's take on encounter powers) is metagaming. Which is fine, if that's your group's thing. It really is (see my signature). But trying to label people who have their immersion broken by largely meta mechanics as "metagaming" is pretty off, from where I'm standing (especially since metagaming tends to mean letting out-of-game information affect in-game decisions, not thinking about mechanics during play, since mechanics can help you immerse). As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Albeit a condescending and misleading one, from my experience.When, years ago, the party Fighter (Blake) got blinded by losing both eyes (hit chart twice in a row... don't worry, my players love it), it made for a very interesting story. The character developed into something entirely different from what would have been, and his blindsense ability was extremely useful to the party.When the two-headed dragon that the party was fighting bit the hand off of a PC at the elbow (randomly on the hit chart), it made for good story, since the PC had gone out of his way to cover that specific hand in a poison that specifically hurt the dragon (essence from an avatar of death), with the reasoning of "just in case I can get it bite me there" since he knew his hand would regrow.When the party was facing a kraken, and they rolled well (hit chart again) and quickly turned a losing fight around (one effect per turn for three turns: dazed it, stunned it, paralyzed it), it made for good story, since they were able to then capture the warrior/mage it had dominated, who later became a close and trusted ally.When the party Barbarian killed a dangerous warrior (who had bested the Barbarian and the Fighter simultaneously earlier) in one strike (with a critical hit for X3 damage), it made for an interesting story, because the wife (now widow) of the warrior was so upset that the Barbarian realized that needless killing (it was a pride duel, to make up for losing) can have strong unintended consequences. The Barbarian, while still a killer, made sure to not let his pride get the better of him, and became a pacifist-oriented cleric later on to the god of healing (with an oath of mercy, no less).Even the combat mechanics are intended to be able to produce a variety of outcomes based on "a world in which such a story might possibly happen", which is why both hitting and missing are options, as well as making and failing saves, and so on. We can see how combat unfolds from mechanics meant to model "a world in which such a story might possibly happen", and we can sit back and smile at the stories that they produce in combat. In my RPG, I also have a Fame system that you can use to produce other effects (like being recognized, getting a favor, etc.), skills that can produce a variety of results (did you fail the Negotiation? By how much? Different results on failure will produce different results [counteroffer; not going for it, but open to further negotiations; no longer interested]. Did you succeed? He goes for the deal you're presenting him with, but we'll see what the long term consequences or effects turn out to be of that arrangement).The success or failure of these mechanics informs us to how the story is currently progressing, and with care, these mechanics help produce interesting stories that the PCs and players get to participate in. I don't find the events I listed (which unfolded from mechanics intended to produce results occasionally to model "a world in which such a story might possibly happen") boring or uninteresting, nor do I think they happen too infrequently. If any of these seem too story-oriented ("well, those events only happened because you worked out the events that led up to it, and made it interesting"), that's probably a fair claim. However, unless 4e has some sort of mechanic that literally writes the story for you, then the DM in 4e also needs to make it interesting, and set up events (or, as is my case, let my "interesting" setting evolve).Mechanics that model "a world in which such a story might possibly happen" are mechanics that "model what we find in fantasy stories." They just have a different implementation of "guaranteed story effects now!" But, with either method you use, you need a GM who sets up an interesting story (or lets an interesting setting evolve). You might have a preference towards one method (guaranteed fantasy story effect now!), while I prefer the other (what fantasy story effect am I going to see next?), but neither method is anything other than an attempt to "model what we find in fantasy stories."If you can't get a good fantasy story with the latter method, that's fine. If you don't like it, that's fine, too. But I do get interesting stories out of them, and being able to wait to see what story will be produced (not one "in which such a story might possibly happen, once in a very great while, but probably never to my character"). It just depends on the mechanics, I guess.In my experience, succeeding or failing at negotiations can lead to what we'd find in an interesting fantasy story (I'm sure you'd both agree to that), and tiers of failure on failed negotiations help even further. The same goes for winning or losing combat, being recognized or remaining anonymous, seeing through a disguise or being fooled, etc. All of these mechanics can be used with either design method ("guaranteed fantasy story effect now!" and "what fantasy story effect am I going to see next?"), and jumping on the preferences of others is only subtracting from this conversation, not adding to it.Again, I'm sorry if you don't like that style of game. You may not find it fulfilling, you may find the mechanics counterproductive, and worse than useless. You may never get a story that you think is interesting by using them. I, however, have gotten interesting stories by using mechanics that model a world in which such a story might possibly happen every great once in a while. I do find those mechanics useful, and productive. I've even seen those mechanics produce interesting stories consistently, every session, for years of play.I get that you don't like them, but is it really necessary to go on about it in this thread? How does that contribute to this discussion? I can understand saying "I prefer this method, as that method seems counterproductive to me. Here is why." Setting up the two methods (and then agreeing to that description) as "using rules to model what we find in fantasy stories, rather than to model a world in which such a story might, possibly happen, once in a very great while (but probably never to my character)" is just negative and unproductive to this conversation, in my mind. And I'm sorry to see that you've encouraged it, pemerton. As always, guys, play what you like.</blockquote>

Verification