Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6153633" data-attributes="member: 17106">In my view, a good rpg won't need to do that, because its basic mechanics don't create that pressure in the first place.A conceit indeed. Problem is, it's much harder to get away with that stuff in an interactive game than in a movie. In an rpg, if the enemies never seemed to kill you, players would continue to push the threshold of risks, up to the point of standing in front of enemies daring them to hit (or jumping off cliffs or whatever). Simulationist mechanics like hp don't serve that style well; I think you'd agree that a very abstract system that doesn't even allow the character to be shot and die in the first place would work better.If the rules are such that they only work when encounters are designed to place specific pressures on characters, they don't really work.So, instead of reading the rules literally, we should just do whatever we can mutually agree makes sense. Hooray! All our rpg problems are solved! All rulesets now work perfectly!Some people would call that "DM fiat" or complain about having to ask "Mother may I [jump off that cliff and use my hp reserves to survive]?".Again, there's a spectrum. Up until 4e, it seems that D&D was gradually moving along in the direction away from metagame elements. And while it was never 100% "in-character", it was never 100% metagame either. It's floating around on that spectrum somewhere.It isn't fundamentally about any one thing. It's a diverse hobby.So here's my point. Start with a hypothetical system where absolutely every mechanic is in-character, nothing metagame (yes, I'm aware D&D is not that far down the continuum). Every metagame element you add brings something new, but it also takes something away. If you give him a rage ability once per day, he's gained a bit of mechanical nova power, but also lost the ability to naturally play the emotional state of his character. If you give him the ability to insert an object into the narrative, the player has gained power, but has lost the sense of urgency in looking for said object and the need to improvise if it isn't there. Every metagame addition gives the player more ability to impact the narrative, but takes him one step away from playing his character.So I ask, why go the metagame route, when there's clearly a number of 100% non-metagame ways of revising rules elements to accomplish the same goal (i.e. giving a nonmagical character opportunities to do something that changes the flow of the game)?</blockquote>

Verification