Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6812849" data-attributes="member: 6775031">Did you not read the part at the beginning of every book, where it explains what an RPG is? You take on the role of a character, and it might take half a page to explain how you don't need to do voices and you can totally talk in the third person if you want to, but there was never anything that suggested you should do anything other than make decisions as your character would make them. It's right next to the part that says there's no winning or losing. Early games didn't have that section, because they were wargames that hadn't really moved onto role-playing yet, but it was in pretty much every game from the late eighties up through the early aughts.And the reason why they rarely bothered to even mention the concept of meta-gaming is because it was so obviously anathema to everything about role-playing that there's no reason to even consider it as a possibility. There's role-playing, which is what that section tells you is how you play the game; and then there's not role-playing, of which meta-gaming is a significant subset.On a basic level, that term seems redundant; there is no way to role-play without making decisions from the perspective of the character, because if you're making it from any other perspective then you are meta-gaming rather than role-playing.Furthermore, that term already sees some use, to distinguish people who use voices and/or costumes and/or sound effects to go beyond just a basic investment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6812849, member: 6775031"] Did you not read the part at the beginning of every book, where it explains what an RPG is? You take on the role of a character, and it might take half a page to explain how you don't need to do voices and you can totally talk in the third person if you want to, but there was never anything that suggested you should do anything other than make decisions as your character would make them. It's right next to the part that says there's no winning or losing. Early games didn't have that section, because they were wargames that hadn't really moved onto role-playing yet, but it was in pretty much every game from the late eighties up through the early aughts. And the reason why they rarely bothered to even [I]mention[/I] the concept of meta-gaming is because it was so [I]obviously[/I] anathema to everything about role-playing that there's no reason to even consider it as a possibility. There's role-playing, which is what that section tells you is how you play the game; and then there's [I]not[/I] role-playing, of which meta-gaming is a significant subset. On a basic level, that term seems redundant; there is no way to role-play without making decisions from the perspective of the character, because if you're making it from any other perspective then you are meta-gaming rather than role-playing. Furthermore, that term already sees some use, to distinguish people who use voices and/or costumes and/or sound effects to go beyond just a basic investment. [/QUOTE]

Verification