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="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 5626457" data-attributes="member: 12037">Didn't read the thread over the weekend. I missed so much!I feel largely the same way. I've been using the term in the thread for clarity, but I would rather use the "usual" term narrativist. One of the thing that really strikes me in this thread is that people of all spectrums, from simulationist to narrativist to everything in between (where most people probably are) see what they are doing through a different lens, but see very similar outcomes.Think about it. The simulationists see the game as defined through the simulation, a perfect cogwheel that can run on its own and that they can throw themselves into, where they can think about their character to the exclusion of all else while the world ticks away around them, giving them the freedom to live within it. This is what makes a living breathing world. This is roleplaying.The narrativists see the game as defined through the narrative, a cohesive environment with a depth created through play by all participants toward the end goal of a better game, a better world, and a better story. This is what makes a living breathing world. This is roleplaying.It isn't the same for everyone, there are all sorts of spectrums and individual ideas of what constitutes a good roleplaying game, but I find the above humorous.Metagaming is a fearsome beast.The metagame is a huge landscape, populated by all sorts of inhabitants. One thing you can do with metagaming is read a module beforehand and use that information to influence how you interact with the situations before you. Another way is to use knowledge of your DM to help determine what to do next. Another way is to take consideration of another player's feelings at the table and let that influence how you react to their PC. Some of these creatures are gentle gameplay helpers, while others can wreck a game, a group, and sometimes friendships.So, you can't say "that's metagaming, I thought it was supposed to be bad, why are we encouraging it?" It's not always bad. And, there are many ways to use it for good or ill, to make the game better or to use it for your own desires. Having your character step back in a negotiation because one of the quiet players at the table is starting to come out of their shell is a great use of metagaming. Trying to concoct some gunpowder in a medieval game "by accident" is a despicable use of metagaming. In the case of narrative mechanics, the metagame is built into the actual rules of play. In this way, they are a structured aspect of the game itself, just as much as a wizard's fireball spell or a rogue's sneak attack. It takes an aspect of play that has always been there and using it to enhance the play experience in a controlled even manner.I wouldn't say that is correct. With narrativist rules, I don't imagine any kind of retroactive change and/or motivation, unless that is the purpose of the rule. The narrative rule either works in tandem with the character's action or it occurs completely autonomously.Take a rule that allows a player to roll Search and if the roll is high enough, treasure is there. If it is too low, no treasure is present. The sequence of events is: 1) PC decides to look for treasure, 2) Player rolls Search skill, 3) Depending on roll, PC either finds or does not find treasure.There's no retroactive motivation going on. There's no paradox shifting timetable. The player is simply using the rules of the game to determine success/failure, while at the same time a traditional responsibility that you would ascribe to the DM is reassigned to dice rolled by the player. When you look at it on a metagame level, it really isn't all that different. And, to the PC, nothing is different.You used Come and Get It. Lets take the unerrated version. A bunch of enemies rush the fighter and he attacks them. Sure, its the player saying the enemies rush the player, but there is no re-ascription of motivation going on. It's simply the player, again, taking on a role that the DM is usually in charage of: that of deciding the actions of the NPCs. As a narrative mechanic, the player is coming in and using the power "Come and Get It" to affect the flow of combat directly through narrative control instead of indirectly through PC action.But, here's the thing. You don't have to step out of Actor stance for any of this. You use your power, you describe the action from your character's point of view, and all those secondary events, whether the treasure exists or what the actions of the enemies are, are secondary to your own PC's actions. Just like you can have a novel written in the first person point of view describing other actions than those of the main protagonist, you can have a PC in the Actor Stance describe the actions of non-player characters who are around their protagonist, the player character.</blockquote>

Verification