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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgoroth" data-source="post: 6114194" data-attributes="member: 6674889">I've been scratching my head too at some of the metagame discussion. To me, the D&D core game is those things you roll and do. Metagame is stuff that affects those elements, in a way that has no easy mapping to what's actually happening in the game world, whether it's about modelling hit points, combat maneuvers, or knowing the stats of monsters. For us, the classic metagame "faux pas" is knowing the monsters' stats, or saying stuff out loud like "we know the DM won't put this in the game, or will do this if we do that, so we'll act accordingly, even though the characters would have no justifiable reason to act that way". That to me, is what metagame means. Disassociation of game rules or knowledge of the players that impact the world in a "glitch in the matrix" sort of way. Since AC is just an abstraction, and we're talking about marking mechanics, can we say that marking is an abstraction in the same way? Or is it pure metagame, or is it somewhere in between. I'd be fine with the equivalent of "marking" where a sentient opponent would see your stance that you're poised to whack him if he turns to swing at your ally, but ideally they shouldn't even know. It should be an ability of the fighter to do that, regardless of the state of mind of his opponent (otherwise how can you mark a non-rational or stupid creature that doesn't think in terms of tactics the same way your PC does). When you see in 4e char op boards about defenders talk about Catch-22 builds, how exactly can that work, against creatures that have no penchant or interest in tactics? You're anthropomorphising every single creature you go up against, as if it must have the same mind for tactics and tradeoffs and can contemplate the pros and cons between them in real time, in the midst of a battle. Against a smart opponent, sure, they might see your telegraph about what you "might" do if they do this or that, but in real fighting, "telegraphing" your intent is only a good move when you are trying to confuse your enemy, and not generally a good idea to warn them that you're gonna whack them. Classic silliness is that the DM must adjucate the lesser of two evils, regardless of the state of mind of the enemy, about whether to violate your mark or not. I know my 4e DM hated marks, and it was the one mechanic that was really annoying to me as a defender, taking feats to influence the tactics of the DM over all monsters, feats that shouldn't even be used. E.g. I could boost my Divine Challenge damage...but how on earth would the enemy know how much damage it'd take? It forces the DM to metagame waaaaaay too much. It turns the game into a board game and reduces the monsters to just tokens on a grid, their type is now just fluff and barely relevant.This is a case of...why shoehorn D&D Next to what 4e does, when you can achieve the equivalent net effect of marking mechanics but without resorting to metagame "spooky action at a distance", or prescience, or telepathy. Marking the way it is in 4e worked well, but you have to admit, if you're not telegraphing what you're about to do as a reaction to its next action, how could it possibly be aware that it's "marked"? It simply can't. Unless all monsters and pcs are telepathic, which they're not. Interposing Shield is the right template for a "marking" mechanic, IMO. I personally don't want stuff like 4e marking in Next, even in a tactical module optional book. Tactics should still make sense in the game world, and not kill your suspension of disbelief. Especially for at-will, every round mechanics. No way.</blockquote>

Verification