Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N01H3r3" data-source="post: 6683237" data-attributes="member: 6799909">So up until now, you've been basing your loathing of this mechanic upon flawed information?Hardly a good-faith argument, then. If you're unwilling to try and understand the rules before you criticise them, why should anyone actually debate anything with you. You've clearly already made up your mind that this is bad, regardless of any of the facts or details."By definition"? By your definition, perhaps, but I refute and decry your assertion that metagaming is always bad, particularly given that the concept of "character knowledge" doesn't originate with original D&D (player knowledge is an assumed and expected element).Board games are more popular than ever before. Computer games, many of which draw elements from RPG design, are a multi-billion-dollar industry. RPGs already derive heavily from their wargaming roots, to which most people seem blithely unaware. Gaming is bigger than ever. It would be utterly foolish not to take inspiration from other sources, just out of a sense of snobbery as to the definition of so ill-defined and fluid a medium as role-playing games.We get it: you don't like the rules. But you not liking them does not make them bad, just as me not liking GURPS does not mean that system is bad.Your arguments come across more as fervent one-true-wayism than as anything else. You've already formed your opinion, and now you're going to proselytise to anyone in your path.These are true. Or the GM could just use them to mirror PC activities - make that warrior dodge, buy extra dice for that attack, etc.If the player characters choose not to generate Threat, then the GM has less to use. The GM has the option to use - or not - the scene editing elements that you demonstrably loathe as he sees fit. The mechanic scales to suit the group in play.With reinforcements, the GM could easily silo them behind some choice, action, or declaration - one of the enemies flees to get help, and returns a round or two later with help, or a foe sounds an alarm to call in more warriors, or even a simple word to the players "the sound of fighting here could draw more enemies". At that point, Threat is being used to model an existing peril, with the total size of the Threat pool representing problems and challenges that haven't yet manifested.I do not believe, nor have I believed for many years, that an absolute ban on metagame concepts is conducive to all games, and the rise of systems like Fate, and the various Cortex Plus games, seems to support my belief. Not everyone will enjoy every game, but that applies just as much in the 'Traditional gaming' style you're arguing for as it does to games that embrace narrative elements.Not quite. NPCs have their own individual abilities, but some abilities require some expenditure to use. This is little different to the idea of having 1/encounter or 1/day abilities, only more fluid.To make things utterly clear: actually, no it didn't. The Ennie was for Mutant: Year Zero, an distinct game (related only in publication history, rather than mechanics or setting).We all know you don't like it.Thing is, I don't actually care "who is correct", because I'm not in this to be right. I'm in this to make games and take satisfaction in people enjoying them. Proving someone wrong on the internet ranks much lower on my list of priorities.I'm trying to set the record straight, to cut through your loud assertions and provide information that they wouldn't get if you were the only voice here. If people are interested, that's their business, and they're entitled to get clear information, rather than your bombastic opinions.Given that we've established that you've been ranting against a system you don't have an accurate understanding of, I can't imagine that your explanation was particularly illuminating.Because this GM is clearly out to prove the system is wrong?It takes almost no effort to frame the growth of Threat. The deeper into Doom's mountain Conan goes, the more formidable and numerous his foes become. As Conan cuts down guards, the ones who remain fight all the harder to stop the onrushing Barbarian. Either or both of those sentences serves as ample justification for things getting tougher as the adventure progresses.Beyond all that, your example assumes that the GM isn't spending Threat during those previous scenes, which is a flawed assumption.There's an alternative approach here. Conan, seeing the mountain is guarded, sneaks around, using stealth and guile to bypass the guards. His entrance draws less attention, and so the Threat pool doesn't grow as swiftly... and thus Doom's forces aren't as ready to fight back.Of course there isn't, in your example that assumes an all-or-nothing use. Actual play results may vary from your assertions.So you keep saying. But when your examples consist of theorycrafting, without the theory, your arguments are less than persuasive.If your players can't take their characters not being perfect paragons of pulchritude who never suffer from any hardship, then that's their problem.RPG systems shouldn't be required to 'solve' the behaviours of players, and it almost never works out well if they try.Nobody ever claimed it was a requirement. You're the one claiming that metagaming is anathema to gaming.Using a deliberately poor example to support your position? Bad form.In Fate - by way of example - the GM would be perfectly within his rights to compel the aspect "Shiny, Shiny Gold", offering the player a Fate Point to convince him to accept the poisoned gold in spite of his knowledge. The player would still have the option of refusing that compel, typically with a justification for why his character is suspicious.The kind of blanket ban on metagaming you describe tends to - in my experience - just lead to players coming up with creative ways around that, using whatever justifications they can stretch to fit the circumstances.Me, I'm more likely to err on the side of awesome, and see what kind of drama we can milk out of a character being suspicious of the offered gold.</blockquote>

Verification