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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6094986" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I attempted to go through the various Legends and Lore and Q&A/Rules of Three articles archives to get specific quotes but someone at WotC had the truly brilliant idea to put floating "ghost beholders" all over the screen...because everyone loves popups!  So lets make some that you actually can't remove!  That will get more people to peruse our website!Anyway, count me in as someone who senses this aversion to the metagame is obvious.  Not outright hostility as was the case during the 2e era.  But the aversion is pretty clear.  The only true metagame mechanics that I've seen in the playtest are the author stance aspect of Backgrounds (my favorite part of the playtest) and a few martial dailies; 2 of which have been removed after they were lambasted.  The only one remaining is Ace in the Hole but we shall see if that stays; basically a minor entrance into author stance to turn a roll into a 20.  Its a good ability but its relatively tame with regards to its metagame implications.  Its much more tame than something like CaGI or martial forced movement.  - We don't have encounter-based resources and the game has overtly moved from being encounter-based to adventure-based specifically to appeal to metagame neutrality.  - We don't have overt PC roles.  - We don't have overt monster roles.  - We don't have an out of combat conflict resolution mechanic.  - We don't have subjective DCs whose context for difficulty is abstractly (metagamed) framed within the scope of said conflict resolution.  - We don't have any director stance powers for martial classes.  - We have one author stance power (Ace in the Hole) for martial classes.  - We don't have action/hero/fate/plot points.- We have removal of unified mechanics for the explicit purpose of making each class feel more organically their own rather than artificially gamey (fighters casting spells).- Every time some aspect of the playtest/character resources lacks perfectly clear causal logic, it is ruminated upon on these boards and they address it verbally and either change it, clarify it, or remove it; this is mostly Fighter and Rogue abilities it seems (those classes whom the player-base is disinclined to allow to have metagame mechanics).- We have them working from the fluff toward the mechanics rather than the outcome based design of mechanical (fun)ctionality and then skinning the fluff to the mechanics.There is more than that but that is just off the top of my head.  I'm a bit baffled how it could be conceived that this community specifically is not metagame averse - a large percentage of the userbase will overtly tell you that they are or they will imply it with every keystroke dedicated to outcry against martial forced movement and CaGI.  I'm then baffled how it is not clear that this tone is not specifically the line that they are towing in their "design speak", and all of the iterations we have seen so far in the playtest.Does any of this mean that 5e will be a poor game?  No.  Does any of this mean that 5e will not have metagame modules in the future (folks who are non-metagame/4e advocates have ruminated upon this, so clearly it isn't just us who see it) that support the above missing features?  No.  Does it mean that metagame mechanics are being avoided at the core of the game (and whatever modules we've seen introduced to the playtest thus far) and they are making a concerted effort to associate causal logic to all mundane features of the game?  Absolutely.  Clear and present.</blockquote>

Verification