D&D 5E Metagame Module

[Jeff Carlsen]

Fourth Edition introduced or expanded upon several resources and options that gave the player limited metagame control. Examples include action points, second wind, and daily martial powers.

Unfortunately, these elements were mixed into the same subsystems as less-metagame options, which I believe weakened both and forced a different style of play.

D&D Next is backing away from that approach, which provides us the opportunity to redesign metagame abilities as a dedicated module. What follows is an example of how such a module could work.

Advantage Points: Each player begins a game session with three advantage points. At any time, a player may spend an advantage point to gain advantage on an attack, check or save. At the end of the session, any unspent advantage points are lost.

​

The DM should reward players with additional advantage points for behavior supporting a particular style of play. This might be for good roleplaying, clever planning, brave actions, or taking unnecessary risks for the sake of fun. It is recommended that the DM use some sort of physical token to represent these points and give them weight.

Advantage points are session based to reinforce their metagame nature. They are a resource and reward for the player, not the character, and they operate within real-world timeframes, not in-game time.

Boons (optional): Boons are player-chosen abilities that provide alternative uses for advantage points. At first level, each player may choose a boon for their character. They may choose an additional boon at fourth and eighth level.
​

Boons are meant to expand the options for advantage points while requiring players to craft a personal style of play. One player might choose abilities that let him spend advantage points to remove status effects, while another chooses boons that let her force opponents into particular actions. Some might allow the something akin to martial powers or second wind, and others might allow the player to introduce plot elements or summon aid in a time of need.

By making them broad and flexible, they become a tool for each player to play the kind of game they like, and if someone in the group doesn't like them they can always use the points to gain advantage.

This isn't the only way to approach the concept, nor is it anything more the the skeleton of a module. I'm looking to start a conversation on the subject of a metagame module. What would you like to see?

 

[Rhenny]

This is a really interesting idea. I'd love to see a list of boons that players could choose from.

I'm not overjoyed with Action Points in 4e (gaining one every milestone), but I think having some per adventure as you suggest would be interesting. It reminds me of when I used to play West End Games Star Wars RPG. In that game, you could use character points to change die rolls, etc. or Force Points to make even bigger changes. It was exciting.

 

[GreyICE]

Someone posted a while back little cards he handed out at the start of each session that let players chance the plot. Things like:

Love at first sight: Two characters who have just met each other fall in love. If this is a PC, then it must be with their consent (the player playing the card may choose themselves).

Hidden Sympathies: An NPC is a member of a faction, or sympathizes with the faction. The reasons for their membership or sympathy are left up to the DM.


I would LOVE players to have that sort of control over the plot.

 

[Animal]

Reminds me of Destiny Points from Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire game. Worked neat there and will be a fine addition to a more storytelling-heavy D&DN game.

 

[GameDoc]

[MENTION=61749]Jeff Carlsen[/MENTION]

Props for articulating something I've never liked about action points but at times struggled to put into words. They blurred the line between metagame and in-game resource. I can envision what an abstract resource like hit points or spell slots represent in the game world, but action points seemed like a character being able to put the world on pause, take an omnipotent view of it, make a godlike tweak in their own favor, and then resume.

Acknowledging that such a resource is purely metagame and should be given and managed as a reward for good playing really makes it more palatable to me.

 

[The Shadow]

Can't XP you, but this is a VERY cool idea! The Boons are a great addition.

Those plot cards sound interesting too, but there'd need to be enough of them that they didn't repeat very often. Or at least, that things like 'Love at First Sight' don't repeat often.

 

[GreyICE]

Can't XP you, but this is a VERY cool idea! The Boons are a great addition.

Those plot cards sound interesting too, but there'd need to be enough of them that they didn't repeat very often. Or at least, that things like 'Love at First Sight' don't repeat often.

Well the system I saw had a bunch of ones for each skill that let you do something cool with the skill automatically (either in or out of combat) so there was like 50-60 cards overall. And players could trade them in once per session if they didn't like them (they got 1 per session) so overall the guy said you saw any given card roughly once very 3-6 months.

 

[hartlage]

I personally find action points and other metagame mechanics a bit distasteful, because they interfere with your ability to immerse yourself in your character and the game world. (I wrote about this at length in Immersive vs. Gamey in D&D Next, the score is 1-1.)

I know I stand with a minority here. Most players seem to love action points. I would love to see metagame mechanics placed in a module. This would enable the many players who appreciate story-based mechanics to add them to their games. Also, it would show that the designers actually realize that such mechanics lead to a different play style, which not everyone wants in their game.

 

[GreyICE]

I personally find action points and other metagame mechanics a bit distasteful, because they interfere with your ability to immerse yourself in your character and the game world. (I wrote about this at length in Immersive vs. Gamey in D&D Next, the score is 1-1.)

I know I stand with a minority here. Most players seem to love action points. I would love to see metagame mechanics placed in a module. This would enable the many players who appreciate story-based mechanics to add them to their games. Also, it would show that the designers actually realize that such mechanics lead to a different play style, which not everyone wants in their game.

I admit that this attitude has always confused me. The ability to alter and design parts of the game world has always helped players get immersed in the game world in my experience. It's actually usually the "gamey" players who dislike them because they're so very hard to use 'optimally.' But when you feel invested in the game world, when you know your character can be awesome at the right time, when you swing the fight in your direction, it's cool and it pulls people in. FATE has always worked great for that (the hunt for +2 bonuses believe it or not can be massively immersing).

Still, I agree that there's players who dislike them so they should go in a module. It seems like an actual good use of modules (as opposed to most of what they're doing right now which is 'we can't design this? MODULE!')

 

[S'mon]

I admit that this attitude has always confused me. The ability to alter and design parts of the game world has always helped players get immersed in the game world in my experience. It's actually usually the "gamey" players who dislike them because they're so very hard to use 'optimally.' But when you feel invested in the game world, when you know your character can be awesome at the right time, when you swing the fight in your direction, it's cool and it pulls people in. FATE has always worked great for that (the hunt for +2 bonuses believe it or not can be massively immersing).

You seem to be talking about 'immersed in the story' or 'engaged with the drama of the narrative'. This is different from Immersion in the sense of "the feeling of being this character". That's what he's talking about.

FWIW I value both. 4e is great for dramatic narrative emergent out of combat, it's not always so good for character's-eye view of events. Although sometimes IME the two can work together - personally I have no problem with the idea that my character is calling on inner reserves in-world when he spends an AP.