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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6114103" data-attributes="member: 78752">I hope we're still on topic, here.  I think the split between metagame and tactics is still relevant to the thread.This is why I hate popular terminology.  I wouldn't call those things metagame elements -- they're abstractions, to be sure, but anyone wearing chainmail has an "armor class," even in the real world.  It is harder to injure them than it is someone in plain clothes, even if the calculations of how much harder it is don't fit a neat linear scale.  Similarly, class, level, experience points, and hit points are /terrible/ approximations of real-world concepts, but they are reasonable compromises when you consider the unwelcome complexity of actually tracking the aspects of character they represent.  To play D&D is to accept these half-truths -- the game embraces them with consistency as the core of the simulation.  Put another way: they are the game itself, not the metagame.Metagame kicks in, for me, when something happens because the rules say so, without the benefit of internal consistency.  Magic happens by fiat, but the fiction allows for it so it is okay.  By contrast, marking also happens by fiat, but if I were trying to goad a similarly focused (but non-violent) response to myself outside of combat, even in D&D4 that would require a skill check.  Why can I "mark" someone in combat without even the need to touch them with my weapon, but have to make a skill check to goad someone outside of combat?  More simply, why is there one set of rules for combat and another for peace?If there's one thing I definitely must see in a tactical rules module for D&D5, it's that it must be internally consistent with the non-combat rules (aha, on topic!).I guess 'internal consistency' might be what some people mean when they say 'verisimilitude?'  It's not really what it means.Man, now that is a blast from the past.  I'm not even sure where to go with that.  I will say that if you've already got something as abstract as experience points, what you hand them out for is pretty much up to you.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  However, I'd resist such a rule appearing in D&D5 for the simple reason that while no player ever complained about receiving /more/ XP, receiving /less/ XP is sure to create table strife.  Beyond the basics (killing monsters, solving puzzles), this is a decision best left to the DM (or the group, if you prefer).</blockquote>

Verification