Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VHawkwinter" data-source="post: 9884812" data-attributes="member: 7040136">Just when it applies.It's about the distance between the decision making that is made by the player and the decision making that is made by the character; and being able to make your decisions in-character, with your out of character knowledge matching up with the in-character knowledge, vs out of character, or needing to try to separate your out of character knowledge from in character knowledge more to compensate for a large disconnect between the two. The more "Meta" gameplay, I don't particularly enjoy as a player. Never have.That doesn't make sense. If the entire game is making decisions out of character, that makes ALL of it meta. One example of a game like that would be Chess. No part of Chess' game mechanics are in-character. FATE came a little too close to that for me, same with Savage Worlds, and 4e. In those, too much of the game was out of character decision making, which to me, just misses what I am playing a TTRPG for. If I'm a player, I'm looking to stay in character as much as possible. As such, I don't enjoy games built around meta currency exchanges, stepping into the GM chair for scene editing, 'compelling' other characters 'for drama'; and my interest in miniature-skirmish combat in a TTRPG is also kind-of low. Those make for a very different feeling game.I suppose I will have to see how other people feel about that in my game when I get to playtesting. Much of my attempts at reduction of meta elements is because I found them actively unfun in other games over the past 25 years. If they were not things that made games actively less fun* in other games, I wouldn't be seeking to avoid things in my own game. * Less fun for me, yes I know, sample size of 1, I have had people review them and give me their thoughts, but haven't had much chance to playtest the thing at a table yet.DefinitelyAbstractions can be more abstracted or less abstracted. More abstracted is more likely to be over the threshold of aggravatingly meta. I have yet to see a TTRPG with realtime combat. If one comes along though, I'd give it a try to see how it plays. I assume that would require videogame combat (first-person ARPG combat maybe, or over the shoulder if the combat is more martial-arts-y), and the players would have gamepads or mouse and keyboard to control their characters, or something, and then afterward it drops out of combat back to your typical GM Narration-based gameplay? No idea how good that would be, but that doesn't sound inherently any worse to me than using minis. I'd give it a try if someone made that.Well, the number of encounters per 2h interval could be none, or several, really. But sure, I could improve that by varying up the number of rolls per day. I will grant you that I am only addressing the day in 15 minute blocks, rather than down to the subsecond of granularity. It's a TTRPG afterall, not a videogame. It would be wildly impractical to try to handle subsecond time tracking.True. Sure. I can agree with that.- "What is gained"The 5 minutes is gained (which might be important). Possibly also character differentiation. If you're in a hurry, you can take lower odds to try to rush and finish faster. And If your character's skill level is high enough, you may still have a good chance of success, moving from 95% success odds (clipped) (or just autosuccess) to say, 80% success odds at half the time. Meanwhile, your character, less specialised on detecting magic hidden doors, may only have that 1/6 odds per 10 minutes, and if you want decent odds, getting it to 2/3 odds, you might need 30 minutes (assuming your failure rate halves every doubling of time and vice-versa, as your example seems to); which (in the 10 minute random encounter roll environment people were describing) could mean three monster attacks before you get it figured out. If your party expert is incapacitated, or if you simply have a different party composition and lack the magic-door-finding-expert, the threat analysis leads to different choices being the high or low risk options, with different character designs influencing the type of gameplay which occurs and the choices players make. That answer of what is gained certainly may not matter to your gameplay tastes - but it kind-of sounds like the difference between 5e skill mechanics (there's not a ton of difference between characters, skill specialisation effects on gameplay are small) vs 3e or GURPS, where the difference between characters can be quite large, to the point of being in some instances more like the "you have this particular spell or class feature that does a thing, or not".</blockquote>

Verification