D&D 4E What Aspects of 4E Made It into 5E?

[TheCosmicKid]

Here is the final point I will make on this issue, as I doubt anything else productive will come from this conversation.

Just criticize David Eddings and he'll block you on the spot. Problem solved.

 

[TwoSix]

Just criticize David Eddings and he'll block you on the spot. Problem solved.

But I can't do that! My childhood!

 

[cmad1977]

It is objectively true that meta-gaming is mutually exclusive with role-playing, by definition. If you can't understand that, then you're either too dumb to play, or you're trolling. In either case, your opinion is invalid.

Classless. Typical. And wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Was this argument in progress during 4E, and has it carried over into 5E?

Saelorn's join date is only 2014, so not really, but the kind of evangelical-OneTrueWayism argument is perennial.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You keep saying this like the players have a textbook that they can compare against and cry foul when the DM invents a small feature during play.

No, of course not. That's why it's important that the DM is trustworthy.

For the record, there are games which codify this sort of thing, but they rely on the GM taking thorough notes beforehand. There's at least one game where the players have the option of calling the GM out if they suspect that something was changed, and if they're right - if they can prove that the situation in the game is different from how it was presented in the notes - then the entire adventure gets thrown out and the characters are reset back to before it began. (Which is wildly impractical, for numerous reasons, but it just goes to show how bad things can get when you can't trust the GM.)

I honestly don't know how you can possibly run a game session without inventing material on the spot. My players are far too inventive for me to have prepared for every option.

It's not that the DM should never invent things on the spot. It's that, when doing so, they aren't allowed to take into consideration things like player preference. Meta-gaming is against the rules of role-playing, and the rules of role-playing apply equally to everyone at the table.

Edit: Unless your game is different, which is fine, but you shouldn't go around trying to push your personal preferences onto other people. For anyone who doesn't buy into your weird way of playing, meta-gaming is still bad, and bad for the community, etc.

 

[TwoSix]

Was this argument in progress during 4E, and has it carried over into 5E?

When did it start? Saelorn, did you argue with Dave Arneson after the first session of Blackmoor, because he had the blob monster's initial ambush kill an NPC, rather than give it an equal chance of one-shotting a PC?

4e certainly opened up the discussion here on ENWorld about different modes of roleplaying, and the idea that the game could be focused on the characters and their needs, rather than the focus being on exploring a wide setting.

Saelorn simply has sharpened the edge of the "roleplaying as world simulation" viewpoint into a semantic fight about the nature of role-playing. You get used to it, much like you get used to people handing you religious tracts on city corners.

 

[Gradine]

Hasn't it already been well established by this point that Saelorn keeps to very specific meanings of the terms "role-playing" and "meta-gaming" that are far, far outside the norms? Such as they exist, anyway; ask ten DMs for definitions of those two terms and you'll probably get, at minimum, 6 very different answers. In fact, arguments about what actually is "role-playing" and "meta-gaming" within the context of tabletop games (and, as a corollary, arguments about whether meta-gaming is even always bad for the game) have existed basically as long as arguments about tabletop games existed, and anyone who tries to tell you we've come any closer to a definitive answer since is, for lack of a better term, being exceptionally disingenuous.

I think about the only thing most people agree with is that "OneTrueWayism" and assailing others for "BadWrongFun" is a bad thing, but there are always exceptions. Case in point...

Oh, and this...

Edit: Unless your game is different, which is fine, but you shouldn't go around trying to push your personal preferences onto other people. For anyone who doesn't buy into your weird way of playing, meta-gaming is still bad, and bad for the community, etc.

...is the most hilarious thing I've read in quite some time, so if nothing else I'm grateful for this.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hasn't it already been well established by this point that Saelorn keeps to very specific meanings of the terms "role-playing" and "meta-gaming" that are far, far outside the norms?

No, that has not been established. What has been definitively established is that role-playing is making decisions as your character would make them, from their perspective; and meta-gaming is (colloquially speaking) making decisions based on information that your character doesn't have, such as specific player knowledge, or the fact that this is a game. If alternative definitions exist, then detractors are extremely reluctant to bring those forward.

But this is off topic. Meta-gaming did not originate with 4E, nor is it an aspect of 4E which was carried into 5E. If you want to drag out that debate, I suggest making a new thread for it.

 

[Riley37]

Saelorn's join date is only 2014, so not really, but the kind of evangelical-OneTrueWayism argument is perennial.

I'm not asking whether Saelorn debated Arneson *on EnWorld* in 1971. That would be silly. I'm asking whether Saelorn argued with Arneson, face to face, in the laundry room of Arneson's basement, in Lake Geneva, during or shortly after the game session in question. That was the first time, so far as I know, that anyone faced the choice between acting on our character's individual goals, versus the action which would be most fun for the group as a whole. The reasonable option for any of the Baron's soldiers was to desert (individually or en masse), leave the dungeon, and emigrate from Blackmoor; perhaps not at first, but certainly after half the team had died. Alas, that choice translated to "Sorry, Dave, I refuse to play this game which you prepared for us".

Wait - Saelorn, were you that guy? The one who left Dave's house in the first hour, arguing that his flunky soldier lacked sufficient motivation to pick up the magic sword, and die in the Baron's service? I respect your decision, but you missed a great gaming session, which was the starting point for so many others.

 

[Gradine]

No, that has not been established. What has been definitively established is that role-playing is making decisions as your character would make them, from their perspective; and meta-gaming is (colloquially speaking) making decisions based on information that your character doesn't have, such as specific player knowledge, or the fact that this is a game. If alternative definitions exist, then detractors are extremely reluctant to bring those forward.

But this is off topic. Meta-gaming did not originate with 4E, nor is it an aspect of 4E which was carried into 5E. If you want to drag out that debate, I suggest making a new thread for it.

Sorry, I had meant to say that it had been well established by everybody else.

The definition of meta-gaming you provide, by the way, curiously does not include aspects of world-building and scene-setting on behalf of the DM, which is where this whole side avenue started to split off in the first place (not deciding on exactly where the pot and the chicken are relative to anything else in the room, for example, is not an example of "making decisions based on information that your character doesn't have").

We also come to the second piece "the fact that this is a game", which brings us to the other part of your thesis, which is "meta-gaming is always bad for the game/community/etc". For one thing, the concept of "Schrodinger's Dungeon" (i.e; nothing exists in the game world until the PCs interact with it, therefore there's nothing wrong with making behind-the-scenes changes in reaction to player actions) is a long-standing piece of DMing advice from forever ago for a reason. It makes perfect sense that this concept doesn't jive well with certain types of players, depending on which Aesthetics of Play they tend to be attracted to the most (Discovery-seeking players want to know there are things hidden for them to find, and more importantly that they could have missed; Challenge-seekers might scoff at changes made to lighten or strengthen encounters mid-stream; it may or may not impact the immersion that Fantasy-seekers are looking for) but for other players it either won't be a problem or might even enhance their play (looking at you, Expression-seekers; probably also most Narrative-seekers too; and even some Challenge-seekers might actually appreciate some improvisation that turns a cake-walk encounter into something that actually challenges them).

The thing about "acknowledge that this is a game" is that it places the focus and emphasis on the evening on fun. Which is why there are many conversations on "is meta-gaming always a bad thing?" or "can meta-gaming be a good thing?" I mean, even that other constant nugget of DM-advice, found in at least the 5e DMG, "Try to err on the side of 'yes'? is definitely meta-gaming by your definition and I'm sure many others besides.

Now what that "fun" actually looks like will be different to different players, and certain things that would be loved at some tables would be a complete non-starter at others. And that's a great thing. But the game and the community? Those are only strengthened by accepting and embracing a diversity of playstyles; rather than gatekeeping based on anybody's own personal OneTrueWay.

I don't think anybody's trying to crap on the way you prefer to play the game. I think everybody's trying to get you to stop crapping on the way they prefer to play.