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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9527263" data-attributes="member: 6801845">You may look at what Baker wrote as the final word on something, I don't.  Then again, I'm just expressing my own personal opinion on this, I'm not attempting to make this a master's degree in ludology.  IMHO a game does not have to have a specific goal in order to be successful or fun.  It can just provide a framework for a game with multiple implementation possibilities along with being open to custom house rules.  How that framework is utilized is largely up to the people playing, hence the topic of this thread.  My preferred style is heavy RP between combats.Nah.  Combat is almost a different game than the rest of our session because we need fairly detailed structure to have tactical combat.  While we can layer RP on top of combat (and often do) we also accept that we are layering RP on top of that combat resolution system.  It's kind of like eating a chocolate chip cookie. I accept that the chips are different from the dough, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the two together.That's different from relying heavily on rules for social interaction.  Or, rather, if we relied as heavily on rules for social interaction then it dramatically reduces RP and character immersion.  We do still have the option to fall back on rules in the form of skill checks for noncombat situations and it happens fairly often in my games with calls for everything from athletics to survival checks.  But that, to me is not metagame currency, it's a simplified way of representing the character's capabilities to overcome specific obstacles.  To me, something resource external to character abilities that I could use to force an outcome is a metagame currency.  For example if a character is dealing with a diplomat they may try to convince the diplomat to help them.  When I DM I will take into account the diplomat's disposition towards the group and decide on a charisma based check.  The DC of that check can depend on many factors including past relationship with the PCs, the diplomat's goals, what the diplomat's political backer's disposition is towards whatever faction the PCs are supporting, what the PCs say and so on.  At that point I adjust target DC based on all those factors and can result automatic success, failure, or an attempt at deception on the part of the diplomat.  Chance of success or failure is largely determined by in world considerations and PC capabilities to present a convincing argument.A metagame currency would be one that the players can spend to force or influence the decision point in their favor, or that the GM could spend to influence the outcome in a different direction.  To me, and again I don't know or particularly care about forge terminology, those are clearly two different approaches.  There's minor overlap of course, because in D&D we have simple codified capabilities of the character's reflected by ability scores and proficiencies but they are not at all the same thing.</blockquote>

Verification