Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5501638" data-attributes="member: 42582">A relevant <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5501578" target="_blank">quote from Ron Edwards</a>:Metagame mechanics, by definition, entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the system-operation. Now, it is foolish to speak of Simulationist play as lacking metagame; that would only apply if the people at the table were themselves rules-constructs as well as the rules, and that's silly. But compared to Gamist and Narrativist play, Simulationist play may be spoken of as lacking metagame interpersonal agenda, like "winning" or "doing well" in Gamism, or addressing a Premise in Narrativism. Its metagame, although fully social, is self-referential, to stay in-game. . . To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame at all, and #2 is wholly metagame. Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system - does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact, is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them - character or player.So for warriors there are at least two options: (i) give them points to spend which, while not abilities of the PC itself, still correlate to the PC's standing among the supernatural beings of the gameworld ("Atlas shrugs on my behalf"); or (ii) give them points to spend which purely express the agency of the player at the metagame leleve (Come and Get It).We know that (ii) causes a bit of controversy. I think even (i) might do so as well, even though it's not necessarily at odds with simulationism (for the sorts of reasons Edwards gives).</blockquote>

Verification