NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4547447" data-attributes="member: 42582">Simple example - in 3E or 4e character creation, I as a player make certain choices in accordance with the rules (what race to be, what sex to be, etc) which do not in any way correlate to actions by my PC in the gameworld (except in certain games of Lamaist reincarnation, people in the gameworld don't get to choose race or sex). This is a clear separation between game (the PC in the gameworld) and metagame (the player's choices according to the game rules, which are motivated by the player's desires and not the PC's desires) which is not controversial for most players. Note that a game like Runequest or Classic Traveller does not have such a distinction - character generation in those games (roughly) simulates certain sociological phenomena within the gameworld.Whereas most players are comfortable with game/metagame separation in character creation, many don't like it in character development (and so eg will object to multiclassing without a long ingame training period) and even more don't like it in action resolution - whereas 4e virtually requires it in action resolution (eg Come and Get It really only makes sense if my purposes and decision in using it as a player are explicitly understood as not representing purposes and decisions of my PC - they are purely metagame purposes).There are effets, like you say. And even when I don't do damage I don't have to narrate it as my character being ineffectual - for example, because of the greater flexibility in hit-point interpretation, I can say (for example) that my player hits and wounds the foe, but that this just makes the foe more angry (and thus no hit points are lost as no resolve is undermined).</blockquote>

Verification