Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bastoche" data-source="post: 4032948" data-attributes="member: 306">I believe you cannot entirely eliminate metagaming in any form of play. Just having the players calling each other, decide on a meeting place and a time frame for the game to happen is metagaming in itself. Just like ordering pizza or whatever lol. However I think that simulationism have as a design goal the minimization of metagaming.For example, in a computer game, you may only select character options from the menus. You couldn't, for example, play an elephant in NWN. I believe that in sim play, the players expect the other players to "just get it" although it is safer to talk about it first to make sure which is a form of metagaming IMO that is unavoidable in coherent play.For example, in sim play, you'll see players "hiding" their character sheets from other players as "in-game" they wouldn't have any way to get such information. The numbers on the paper serves as an abstraction of the imagined universe. In gamist play, it's a measure of character power. In nar play, it's a medium to tell the other players "I want this game to be EXACTLY about *that*". And at this point, it must be part of the rule that each players know what the other players want to extract from the game.I'll try to rephrase it another way:In all types of gaming, the players must agree on their definition of "fun" and we assume a given group of players are after the same source of "fun". What happens at the metagaming level is having the players agree on their source of fun. For gamists, the source of fun is "gambling". For sim players, the source of fun is the "exploration of character/system/game world". For nar players, it's a specific "theme" or "premise".Now, the "gambling" in gamist play may sit at the "in-game level": Steve playing bob the fighter: Gursk, let's get to the sea of spikes dungeons. I heard there's a dragon laying there with a legendary treasureJohn playing Gursk the barbarian: Sure Bob! I'm sure we can survive this dungeon!Or at the metagame level:Steve: Hey John, think our 13th level warriors can tackle the red dragon?John: Dunno but I'd like to see it's treasure. Let's find out if we can down that beast!The exploration in sim play can sit at the in-game level too:Steve playing Bob the fighter: Gursk, I gotta get revenge from the dragon that hails in the sea of spikes dungeons. It killed my mommy when I was 6. Will you help me?John playing Gursk: My Lord Bob, I'm bound to you by honor and will follow you anywhere.Or at the metagame level:Steve: My character needs to get revenge on the red dragon. It has acquire the dragon slaying blade and is now ready to tackle the dragon.John: Since my barb failed his slave roll, I'm enslaved to your character and my guy will follow your guy until the end of the duration of the curse.And finally the "premise" thing in nar play at the in-game level can certainly sound like the in-game level of a sim game. However, the metagame level is quite different:Steve: I got a rank 2 destiny score: Slaying dragons Wouldn't it be fun to kill the red dragon?John: I spent my fate point on being enslaved to your character. It should give me bonus when helping your guy. Let's go!My example might not be perfect, but I'm trying to illustrate that the PLAYER priorities toward to game to get fun doesn't sit at the same level despite the in-game event being the same or almost.</blockquote>

Verification