Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7768999" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yes, I think advocacy comes into character creation. Not in every decision, but overall. If I want my character to be good at a specific thing, then all my choices will be made with that in mind....class, abilities, perks, feats, etc. There may also be other obligations at stake, like to the other players or to the GM....but there's no reason these need to be at odds in any way. The way I look at it is this: there is no way to eliminate meta-knowledge. You know when your character's turn will be based on initiative, you know how close you are to dying based on HP, and so on. Many of these things are simply accepted as part of the necessity of playing the game, or they are "allowed" because they represent some kind of thing the character would know (they really don't, but many insist that they do). So for me, other meta aspects can also be reconciled in the game world by representing something that can't be replicated. So when other players make a suggestion for what I should do, I don't view that as meta-gaming, but rather it's my character having knowing all the options available to him. It's simply his inner thoughts analyzing the situation. No matter how well the GM narrates the situation, and no matter how well immersed a player may be, there is always going to be some amount of "loss" of information from character to player. So meta-knowledge can often be a good substitute for that, I find. None of that ruins immersion for me since I feel it actually helps me feel more connected to the game world and the possibilities open to the character. As someone who is unfamiliar with FATE, I'd have to say that I would decide how I felt about that mechanic if and when I read the rules myself, and even then would likely want to see the mechanic in play before I truly decided how I felt. However, going off of the posts in this thread on the topic, I feel that those that have defended the mechanic have made a stronger case for it than the detractors have had. Most who have criticized the mechanic seem to have done so from a place of bias; they don't think that the mechanic will do what it says, or they don't like those sorts of rules, and so on, rather than from a position of actual experience.</blockquote>

Verification