# A discussion of metagame concepts in game design



## Emerikol

While I have a strong opinion on metagame design elements, I by no means intend to imply that those who enjoy such concepts are doing it wrong or should convert to my way of thinking.  This is about a preference.  It would be just as silly to try to convert everyone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Vanilla is better in my opinion but philosophically "a matter of taste cannot be disputed"

So a short definition:  Metagaming.
Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.


Here are some examples of metagame rules in 5e.

1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?  

2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.

3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.

4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.


I realize I'm picking on the fighter but the fighter is pretty egregious in these areas.  I'm sure may of the other classes have at least some issues like this though perhaps not to the same degree.

So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?

I've been thinking about Pathfinder 2e as another possibility.  Do you think it will do better in that particular area?  Worse?  I'm going to check out the pdf.

What about you old schoolers?  There is a lot to like in some of the old school games but I find them not systematic enough for me.  Heck 5e probably isn't as much as I'd like.  Everything is a special class rule.  I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e.  But I am also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.  

Thoughts?


----------



## Morrus

Interesting choice of game to illustrate your point... D&D is pretty light on the metagamey elements.

Feng Shui is a game I’ve always felt used those concepts in a really effective and positive way. Modiphius’ 2d20 system which powers Conan and Star Trek has some heavy metagame elements (as a more modern example). 

Metagaming is a slightly outdated term for player narrative control, which is much more popular in modern games. There are entire games built around the concept these days. 

For me, it depends on the game. Are you asking about metagaming in D&D or metagaming in general? In some games it works really well (I go back to Feng Shui); in others it wouldn’t be a natural fit.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

I've never had an issue with either Action Surge or Second Wind. They don't seem like something that the character would be unable to understand. Action Surge, in particular, makes sense to me as a sort of short-term endurance type of phenomenon. Second Wind, while being harder to explain, still makes sense to me; catching your breath is something that can reasonably help with short-term fatigue, but which you can't benefit from repeatedly due to diminishing returns.

Inspiration, as written, can seem pretty metagame-y. When I ran my last game, I awarded Inspiration whenever the character was in a situation where I thought they would be inspired, based on (among other things) their background traits. But I also made them spend it immediately, on whatever action they were inspired to accomplish.

Hit Dice are harder to solve. I would recommend tossing them out entirely, and letting characters recover 10% of their maximum HP during an eight-hour short rest.


----------



## 5ekyu

Emerikol said:


> While I have a strong opinion on metagame design elements, I by no means intend to imply that those who enjoy such concepts are doing it wrong or should convert to my way of thinking.  This is about a preference.  It would be just as silly to try to convert everyone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Vanilla is better in my opinion but philosophically "a matter of taste cannot be disputed"
> 
> So a short definition:  Metagaming.
> Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of metagame rules in 5e.
> 
> 1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?
> 
> 2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.
> 
> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.
> 
> 4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.
> 
> 
> I realize I'm picking on the fighter but the fighter is pretty egregious in these areas.  I'm sure may of the other classes have at least some issues like this though perhaps not to the same degree.
> 
> So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?
> 
> I've been thinking about Pathfinder 2e as another possibility.  Do you think it will do better in that particular area?  Worse?  I'm going to check out the pdf.
> 
> What about you old schoolers?  There is a lot to like in some of the old school games but I find them not systematic enough for me.  Heck 5e probably isn't as much as I'd like.  Everything is a special class rule.  I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e.  But I am also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.
> 
> Thoughts?



As a dissenting voice to your perspective, let me stick you your guidelines.

If i wanted to replace the thinks you mentioned, i would put in place of short rest long rest delays a roll for exhaustion.

This would mean that the in character analog was over-doing it, pushing too hard at risk of hindrance to follow.

How big the chance was, if it got more difficult as they go along etc can dial up or whatever based on your preference.

But basically "extra effort" options can be defined for pretty much each class and even for some races if you want.

Apply this widely as a mechanic and design around it and you can get away from a lot of the meta-game choices you key on.


----------



## 5ekyu

Saelorn said:


> I've never had an issue with either Action Surge or Second Wind. They don't seem like something that the character would be unable to understand. Action Surge, in particular, makes sense to me as a sort of short-term endurance type of phenomenon. Second Wind, while being harder to explain, still makes sense to me; catching your breath is something that can reasonably help with short-term fatigue, but which you can't benefit from repeatedly due to diminishing returns.
> 
> Inspiration, as written, can seem pretty metagame-y. When I ran my last game, I awarded Inspiration whenever the character was in a situation where I thought they would be inspired, based on (among other things) their background traits. But I also made them spend it immediately, on whatever action they were inspired to accomplish.
> 
> Hit Dice are harder to solve. I would recommend tossing them out entirely, and letting characters recover 10% of their maximum HP during an eight-hour short rest.



Agree HD are muckier.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Turning a metagame thing into a non metagame require a good deal of effort.  Saying, "once an enounter" is easier then saying, "you can do x when a occurs. Would you accept a more complex but less metagamey mechanic?


----------



## Nytmare

Emerikol said:


> So a short definition:  Metagaming.
> 
> Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.




Are you at all able to divorce the idea of it being the character somehow making the decision instead of it just being fate, chance, or coincidence?

In your experience, what's the best system with the least metagaming you've played with?


----------



## pogre

Emerikol said:


> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.




These can be explained away, but I don't think that is really going to answer the question in a satisfactory way for you.

For example: second wind - When I played American football, or wrestled, or boxed - there is a moment in the contest, fairly early on where you have an adrenaline wash. The initial surge of adrenaline leaves your body, and for a moment, you feel like all of the energy has been sapped from your body. If you don't panic, and keep playing, you get your footing and you're energy levels come back. I even warn my football players (I coach now) about this phenomena and to just take some deep breaths and keep going.

So that explains second wind for me, and why you can only do it once. However, the idea that the player chooses when this is going to happen is part of the metagaming issue you are concerned with - so, merely explaining it is not really satisfactory.

Am I right? Because I think you can come up with in-game for most of these.


----------



## Umbran

My thoughts?

Life is too short to make perfect the enemy of good.


----------



## Emerikol

Morrus said:


> Interesting choice of game to illustrate your point... D&D is pretty light on the metagamey elements.
> 
> Feng Shui is a game I’ve always felt used those concepts in a really effective and positive way. Modiphius’ 2d20 system which powers Conan and Star Trek has some heavy metagame elements (as a more modern example).
> 
> Metagaming is a slightly outdated term for player narrative control, which is much more popular in modern games. There are entire games built around the concept these days.
> 
> For me, it depends on the game. Are you asking about metagaming in D&D or metagaming in general? In some games it works really well (I go back to Feng Shui); in others it wouldn’t be a natural fit.




Sorry.  My term already perhaps indicates my prejudice.  Player narrative control is fine as a term.  As long as we all know about it.  I suppose I was thinking of D&Desq style games though for me any RPG I was invested in at the campaign level would qualify.  I'm a lot more flexible when it's a game that I'm just doing a one off or one where it's obviously not about scratching the rpg itch for me.


----------



## Emerikol

Nytmare said:


> Are you at all able to divorce the idea of it being the character somehow making the decision instead of it just being fate, chance, or coincidence?
> 
> In your experience, what's the best system with the least metagaming you've played with?




Well, my problem is that it is the player making the decision.  I suppose some things could be fixed by making them random but then they'd be less valuable as character options.

Perhaps a good example would be a power that I could activate to automatically crit on a hit.  I can do it though only once per combat.  This would be problematic whereas a system where when I roll a 20 I crit would not.  Why?  Well, a character would like to crit every time.  So if it's up to the character he's use the "power" every time to crit.  He can't though for an arbitrary reason (very arbitrary in this example which I use just to make the point).   Whereas, if on a roll of 20, the character crits the assumption would be that the character is trying every time.  He rolls that d20 hoping it's a 20 every single time.  To me that is worth something.


----------



## Emerikol

pogre said:


> These can be explained away, but I don't think that is really going to answer the question in a satisfactory way for you.
> 
> For example: second wind - When I played American football, or wrestled, or boxed - there is a moment in the contest, fairly early on where you have an adrenaline wash. The initial surge of adrenaline leaves your body, and for a moment, you feel like all of the energy has been sapped from your body. If you don't panic, and keep playing, you get your footing and you're energy levels come back. I even warn my football players (I coach now) about this phenomena and to just take some deep breaths and keep going.
> 
> So that explains second wind for me, and why you can only do it once. However, the idea that the player chooses when this is going to happen is part of the metagaming issue you are concerned with - so, merely explaining it is not really satisfactory.
> 
> Am I right? Because I think you can come up with in-game for most of these.




I think a lot of powers are only questionable to me because of this player vs character agency.  I'm not questioning at all that people could have a second wind.


----------



## pogre

Emerikol said:


> I think a lot of powers are only questionable to me because of this player vs character agency.  I'm not questioning at all that people could have a second wind.




OK. That's what I thought.

It's an issue that used to bother me too.

These days if I can explain away the player's agency in the context of the character's actions - good enough for me.

I do hear where you are coming from though.

I wish I could suggest a game for you, but it seems like most modern games I know of do this more than D&D.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> My thoughts?
> 
> Life is too short to make perfect the enemy of good.




I'm probably applying the same logic but coming to potentially different answers.  

I think played exactly as is the game would no longer be fun for me so life is short and I should seek fun entertainment.  House ruling such a significant change may be too hard.  It's why I keep debating whether I should try or not and thus this thread.  Keep in mind too that I am not at all afraid of house ruling in general.  But I don't want to rewrite half the game.

I raised this issue on several occasions with Mike Mearls, but I have to think he didn't understand me.  He'd give an answer that sounded like he cared about the concern but then we got the game as written.  So I think maybe he thought I was asking about X when in fact it was about Y.  Otherwise I hope he would have not been so encouraging.

What about Pf2e?  Do you think it will do this particular issue better?  I've been following your posts about that game but not sure I can be sure.  Realize too that I only need a workable subset of a system.  If I had to ban a few classes I could easily live with that.  Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric are core and I wouldn't want to ban those.


----------



## Emerikol

pogre said:


> OK. That's what I thought.
> 
> It's an issue that used to bother me too.
> 
> These days if I can explain away the player's agency in the context of the character's actions - good enough for me.
> 
> I do hear where you are coming from though.
> 
> I wish I could suggest a game for you, but it seems like most modern games I know of do this more than D&D.





Yes. I hate to sound anti-modernist when it comes to gaming concepts but sometimes I do just because that does seem to be a trend.

I think for me when I am playing an rpg character it's very different than playing most other games.  I want to be my character and think/act as my character.   If I have to keep making decisions not in the mind of the character, that means my player is not being that character but is instead just moving that character like a piece in a more traditional game.  Again not condemning anyone who likes that sort of game.  It's obviously popular and its used in many other games successfully that I do play.  I just want that roleplaying magic I felt when I first started playing D&D.  I want to be my character almost.


----------



## ccs

Emerikol said:


> So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?




Q: How do I deal with this stuff?
A: I don't worry about the fact that this is a game & that there are some elements of it that are most easily dealt with solely as game elements.

Q: What house rules have I come up with concerning this?
A: None.  I don't need house rules for this.

Q: Is the game salvageable?
A: Easily.  Refer back to my answer to the 1st question.


----------



## pogre

ccs said:


> Q: How do I deal with this stuff?
> A: I don't worry about the fact that this is a game & that there are some elements of it that are most easily dealt with solely as game elements.
> 
> Q: What house rules have I come up with concerning this?
> A: None.  I don't need house rules for this.
> 
> Q: Is the game salvageable?
> A: Easily.  Refer back to my answer to the 1st question.




Clearly, you do not share his sentiments. The questions were not really intended for folks who do not perceive this as a problem.


----------



## Emerikol

ccs said:


> Q: How do I deal with this stuff?
> A: I don't worry about the fact that this is a game & that there are some elements of it that are most easily dealt with solely as game elements.
> 
> Q: What house rules have I come up with concerning this?
> A: None.  I don't need house rules for this.
> 
> Q: Is the game salvageable?
> A: Easily.  Refer back to my answer to the 1st question.




Not sure you qualify as "someone sympathetic to my dilemna"    If it doesn't bother you then it's moot anyway.  And being able to tolerate it and still have fun is good enough to say it doesn't bother you.  For me it's a dealbreaker.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> While I have a strong opinion on metagame design elements, I by no means intend to imply that those who enjoy such concepts are doing it wrong or should convert to my way of thinking.  This is about a preference.  It would be just as silly to try to convert everyone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Vanilla is better in my opinion but philosophically "a matter of taste cannot be disputed"
> 
> So a short definition:  Metagaming.
> Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of metagame rules in 5e.
> 
> 1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?
> 
> 2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.
> 
> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.
> 
> 4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.
> 
> 
> I realize I'm picking on the fighter but the fighter is pretty egregious in these areas.  I'm sure may of the other classes have at least some issues like this though perhaps not to the same degree.
> 
> So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?
> 
> I've been thinking about Pathfinder 2e as another possibility.  Do you think it will do better in that particular area?  Worse?  I'm going to check out the pdf.
> 
> What about you old schoolers?  There is a lot to like in some of the old school games but I find them not systematic enough for me.  Heck 5e probably isn't as much as I'd like.  Everything is a special class rule.  I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e.  But I am also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.
> 
> Thoughts?



You should definitely look at Pathfinder if you're not already playing it.

Pathfinder 2 has a lot of promise, but I'm not sure exactly what is triggering you from your examples.

For instance you might not like legendary skill feats.


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> I'm probably applying the same logic but coming to potentially different answers.




I think about half your answers are the same as mine.  



> Keep in mind too that I am not at all afraid of house ruling in general.  But I don't want to rewrite half the game.




This is the half we agree upon.  If a given game really doesn't do it for you, on more than just on a few fiddly points here and there, find a different core ruleset that is closer to what you want, and houserule that.  Don't bother rewriting half the game.

But the other half of my answer is... well, make sure that you're focused on the right thing at the table.  You may be fundamentally different from me, but I find the *people* make it worth sitting down and playing.  My interactions with people are far more rich, interesting, and entertaining than my interaction with a ruleset.  It then follows that the ruleset really isn't something I should worry about so much.  I need to know how to make them do what they are good at doing, but the bits I don't like will fade into the background when I am in a game with good people.  The system has to be nigh-FATAL levels of bad for it to ruin my day.



> What about Pf2e?  Do you think it will do this particular issue better?  I've been following your posts about that game but not sure I can be sure.




You must be thinking of someone else.  I have never posted about Pf2e.


----------



## Ted Serious

Nytmare said:


> Are you at all able to divorce the idea of it being the character somehow making the decision instead of it just being fate, chance, or coincidence?
> 
> In your experience, what's the best system with the least metagaming you've played with?



There has to be a line somewhere.

Obviously a player chooses a characters race, for instance.  There's no way the character made that decision.

So it can't be absolute.

To me, the obvious line is something the character does.  You do rest for an hour when you spend HD.  It's not realistic, there's no reason resting 57 min should give you no benefit or 90 min not give you more.  But the player and character both decide to rest.  The character has no idea of HD but also no idea of hit points.

Second  Wind makes even less sense in 5e.  It's an instant not an action, the character is doing nothing.  In 4e it was a standard action you didn't attack, you gathered your strength or wits for a moment, at least the character made a choice.

Inspiration is just weird.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Have you looked at GURPS???  Maybe that'll be more up your alley.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Emerikol said:


> What about Pf2e?  Do you think it will do this particular issue better?



In an earlier thread, I got one of the developers to confirm that every hit on an attack roll corresponds definitionally to some sort of physical impact, so Hit Points should be less abstract in PF2 than they are in D&D 4E or 5E. 

I know that it's tangential to the topic at hand, but it gives some indication as to their stance on overtly gamist mechanics.


----------



## Lanefan

Saelorn said:


> Hit Dice are harder to solve. I would recommend tossing them out entirely, and letting characters recover 10% of their maximum HP during an eight-hour short rest.



An eight-hour short rest?

I thought eight hours was a long rest... 

In any case, that recover 10% of max (rounding any fractions up*) is more or less what I do in my 1e-variant game, and have for ages.

Lanefan

* - so if your max is 20 you'd get back 2 but if your max is 21 you'd get back 3.


----------



## Lanefan

About the only thing I can suggest to the OP is to not be shy about a) finding a system you like and that kind of works for you, and then b) kitbashing the hell out of it to build the system you really want, even if it means rewriting large chunks of it from the ground up.

Yeah it's a lot of work, but ideally it's work you only have to do once; after which you've got a system that can last you for as long as you keep gaming.


----------



## Doc_Klueless

The one problem, to my mind, with kitbashing a system is: do the other players/GM/Whathaveyou want a kitbashed system or are they happy with what they have. Back about 30 years ago, I wrote a system that fit my gaming preferences completely. And I even got my group to try it. But... they didn't feel the same way about it that I did and asked if they could go back to AD&D.

This may be the problem that Emerikol runs into. He's got his perfect system (or perfect-ish) but nobody to play it with.

Since that time, I've only done light houseruling to whatever game I'm playing. If even that, as I play 5e as close to RAW as possible. Though luckily, the wording allows a lot of RAI.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> I think a lot of powers are only questionable to me because of this player vs character agency.  I'm not questioning at all that people could have a second wind.



So it's when a player makes a decision for the character that is beyond the characters control.

For instance taking a level of sorcerer and choosing a bloodline.   The character can't decide to acquire a supernatural ancestor.  He can't decide that ancestor was a dragon.  He can't decide it was a dragon that had fire as its breath weapon.

The player makes all those decisions.

That's not the usual definition of metagame.  Sounds more like the “dissociated mechanics” that ruined 4e. 

Just remove the offending fighter abilities and have the DM roll HD or use a formula to determine how many to roll.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> While I have a strong opinion on metagame design elements, I by no means intend to imply that those who enjoy such concepts are doing it wrong or should convert to my way of thinking.  This is about a preference.  It would be just as silly to try to convert everyone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Vanilla is better in my opinion but philosophically "a matter of taste cannot be disputed"
> 
> So a short definition:  Metagaming.
> Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of metagame rules in 5e.
> 
> 1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?
> 
> 2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.
> 
> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.
> 
> 4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.




There have been many times in my life when I'm in the middle of playing sports, or wrestling or arm wresting, when I've been very tired and running out of energy.  During those times, while actively participating, I can focus myself and over a bit of time, gather some energy together for a burst of strength and speed.  Then it fades and sometimes I can't do it a second time(and sometimes I can).  That burst can be #'s 2-4.  #1 is the only one you mentioned that I would view as metagaming.  The rest just quantify what I've done and make mechanics out of it.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> Sorry.  My term already perhaps indicates my prejudice.  Player narrative control is fine as a term.  As long as we all know about it.  I suppose I was thinking of D&Desq style games though for me any RPG I was invested in at the campaign level would qualify.  I'm a lot more flexible when it's a game that I'm just doing a one off or one where it's obviously not about scratching the rpg itch for me.



I was puzzling over your use of metagame.  
I should have just read more carefully.  You can ignore my last few posts.  Sorry.

I do still think that removing the offending fighter abilities and changing how HD are spent could remove any unwanted player narrative control.


----------



## 5ekyu

Emerikol said:


> Sorry.  My term already perhaps indicates my prejudice.  Player narrative control is fine as a term.  As long as we all know about it.  I suppose I was thinking of D&Desq style games though for me any RPG I was invested in at the campaign level would qualify.  I'm a lot more flexible when it's a game that I'm just doing a one off or one where it's obviously not about scratching the rpg itch for me.



I think it is a key spectrum of gaming preference and may vary much between players by generatiob or at least games they start with.

Lets put it for me this way. 

I have little problem with what i see as character-based neta-gaming elements - as in the player invokes them even outside of the character perspective. 

However, i find most any degree on non-character-based meta-points (plot points, hero points, story points momentum) to be disruptive to some degree. Its comes across as stepping out of character and too much becomes unsatisfactory.

Its like when i am in a theater and i am aware of sitying there watching the movie instead of into the movie.

One of the recent systems i wanted to like was mentioned earlier - Mophi's 2d20) but watching it play out for quite a number of sessions of Shield of Tomorrow their momentum system turned me away. It is baked into their basic resolution that it seemed like every task challenge was more about momentum both in resolution and in significance. Often they were more focused as players and as a group on the momentum tally, gains and cost than it seemed the actual success/failure (when failure could even occur) of the characters.

Similarly, while back, Serenity by Weiss?? had the plot points and basically advised "plot points should flow like rain" as for all the ways they could earn/spend impact.

So, to me, for me (and have had this discussion with my local group) we tend to shy away from any separated plot point meta mechanic, preferring to be more character focused in where these kind of things lie. 

The exception we have considered was to implement a natural 1 rule, where for every natural 1 roll (auto fail) in a proficient check you got a 20 chip. You could spend the chip before any roll to make it a 20 (unnatural) but a natural 1 or rest would take away any of your existing tokens.

Idea was to kind of give tough luck guys on a night a sort of "doesnt suck as much" that also carried choice/risk as well as an impetus to not rest if the game was still afoot.

Did not try it yet. Likely next campaign.

But the more a system uses and integrates non-character specific plot points (meta-mechanics) the less enjoyable we have found them.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lanefan said:


> An eight-hour short rest?
> 
> I thought eight hours was a long rest...



I was referring to the optional rules, by which the duration of rests could be altered.

In a case of the designers going out of their way to miss the point, they explicitly acknowledged that different DMs like to describe HP loss in different ways, and then produced a number of optional rules for slowing down the natural recovery rate... where the absolute slowest possible combination of options will still allow a character to recover from zero to full overnight. (The only catch is that you need to spend two weeks resting before you can go from zero to full overnight _twice_.)


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] - I agree with you that HD and Inspiration are metagame mechanics. (I think hp are also, but maybe you don't agree with that.)

But I don't think I agree about action surge and second wind. These are correlates of the character, in the ficiton, _trying harder_ and pushing him-/herself to his/her limits.


----------



## Emerikol

Ted Serious said:


> You should definitely look at Pathfinder if you're not already playing it.
> 
> Pathfinder 2 has a lot of promise, but I'm not sure exactly what is triggering you from your examples.
> 
> For instance you might not like legendary skill feats.




Yeah, I was pretty intrigued by the possibilities of Pathfinder 2.  And you are right, the legendary skill feats might be too far for me but then those may be easier to houserule away.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> I think about half your answers are the same as mine.
> 
> This is the half we agree upon.  If a given game really doesn't do it for you, on more than just on a few fiddly points here and there, find a different core ruleset that is closer to what you want, and houserule that.  Don't bother rewriting half the game.




Well you may be right.  I was opening it up to various options from D&D, Pathfinder, or Retro.  There are things I do like about modern game design.  



Umbran said:


> But the other half of my answer is... well, make sure that you're focused on the right thing at the table.  You may be fundamentally different from me, but I find the *people* make it worth sitting down and playing.  My interactions with people are far more rich, interesting, and entertaining than my interaction with a ruleset.  It then follows that the ruleset really isn't something I should worry about so much.  I need to know how to make them do what they are good at doing, but the bits I don't like will fade into the background when I am in a game with good people.  The system has to be nigh-FATAL levels of bad for it to ruin my day.




I get that.  That kind of goes back to it maybe doesn't bother you really that much.  I can get a good group pretty easily.  Sadly, GM's are still in scarcer than players.  And I think I offer a particular style of play that is popular with my crew.  I came here mainly to throw out ideas and get feedback and experiences from other players.  Hopefully without any animus.  I recognize that D&D 5e is very popular and they'd be fools to change to suit me.  I'm actually happy that the game is doing well.  That doesn't change my own desire to find something that fits me well.





Umbran said:


> You must be thinking of someone else.  I have never posted about Pf2e.




Sorry it was a general comment that carried over to your specific post.


----------



## Emerikol

MichaelSomething said:


> Have you looked at GURPS???  Maybe that'll be more up your alley.




I own a lot of GURPS stuff but for high fantasy it's not high fantasy enough.  I might use the system for sci-fi or something like that.  I admit to being a game junky so I buy a ton more games than I play.  I didn't buy 5e out of protest but assuredly that won't be heard as well as they are doing.  .


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] - I agree with you that HD and Inspiration are metagame mechanics. (I think hp are also, but maybe you don't agree with that.)
> 
> But I don't think I agree about action surge and second wind. These are correlates of the character, in the ficiton, _trying harder_ and pushing him-/herself to his/her limits.




Thats okay.  Everyone sees things differently.  They bother me.  Of course I'm in a particular camp on healing as well.  Just call me the old grognard.   

I do think the 5e design team didn't ever get people with my viewpoint.  Saelorn has made an observation to that effect.  To me it would have been so easy to have an option for the core 4 classes that lacked these objectionable things and I think most people like me would have just ignored the rest of the classes with it.  I only really need Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue.  Paladin would be my fifth but I could give it up.  

Apparently though, enough people don't have issue with their approach so I'm not blaming them for accurately finding a market segment.  I think a lot of people like me have just went to the retroclones but I admit SOME of the modern design is a good thing so I haven't given up hope.


----------



## Emerikol

Ted Serious said:


> There has to be a line somewhere.
> 
> Obviously a player chooses a characters race, for instance.  There's no way the character made that decision.
> 
> So it can't be absolute.
> 
> To me, the obvious line is something the character does.  You do rest for an hour when you spend HD.  It's not realistic, there's no reason resting 57 min should give you no benefit or 90 min not give you more.  But the player and character both decide to rest.  The character has no idea of HD but also no idea of hit points.
> 
> Second  Wind makes even less sense in 5e.  It's an instant not an action, the character is doing nothing.  In 4e it was a standard action you didn't attack, you gathered your strength or wits for a moment, at least the character made a choice.
> 
> Inspiration is just weird.




I don't consider character creation to be "in game" time.  Once I start playing the character in the world only then do I want to have this in world view.


----------



## Emerikol

Saelorn said:


> In an earlier thread, I got one of the developers to confirm that every hit on an attack roll corresponds definitionally to some sort of physical impact, so Hit Points should be less abstract in PF2 than they are in D&D 4E or 5E.
> 
> I know that it's tangential to the topic at hand, but it gives some indication as to their stance on overtly gamist mechanics.




A positive sign.  Everything I've read so far seems okay.  Only the legendary feats, might prove troublesome but really how many campaigns get that far anyway.  I'm fine with a campaign that ends at 15 or 16th level.  

I'm not really an adventure path kind of guy but I do believe PF's adventure paths have been good for the hobby especially for new DMs.  I'm more of a sandbox kind of guy.  And yes I know some of there paths have went that way.

The three modes of play also sound interesting.  I end up writing the downtime rules for my campaign no matter the system I'm using.  That is another old school thing.  In 1e, the downtime game was big.


----------



## Emerikol

Doc_Klueless said:


> The one problem, to my mind, with kitbashing a system is: do the other players/GM/Whathaveyou want a kitbashed system or are they happy with what they have. Back about 30 years ago, I wrote a system that fit my gaming preferences completely. And I even got my group to try it. But... they didn't feel the same way about it that I did and asked if they could go back to AD&D.
> 
> This may be the problem that Emerikol runs into. He's got his perfect system (or perfect-ish) but nobody to play it with.
> 
> Since that time, I've only done light houseruling to whatever game I'm playing. If even that, as I play 5e as close to RAW as possible. Though luckily, the wording allows a lot of RAI.




I believe I can always find groups.  I offer a very particular sort of game but if you are looking for that type of game it's A+.   If you aren't then it's not.


----------



## Emerikol

Ted Serious said:


> I was puzzling over your use of metagame.
> I should have just read more carefully.  You can ignore my last few posts.  Sorry.
> 
> I do still think that removing the offending fighter abilities and changing how HD are spent could remove any unwanted player narrative control.




I'm trying to get suggestions and not start a flame war.  So I chose my term carefully.  There are other terms I might have used but I didn't because I don't want to descend into warfare again.  I'd like positive suggestions and not to be told to just change my brain.  Because honestly my brain isn't changing on this point.  I'm not telling anyone they should change their brain either.  It's preferences.  Like me preferring vanilla more than chocolate when I eat ice cream.  If you are having fun then you are doing it right.  I figured though there were at least a few people out there with ideas about one game or another that would interest me.  So it's wide open.  D&D, Pathfinder, or something else.  And sure, no matter what I'm sure I'll tinker with any rules system I ever use a little bit.  I do love to tinker.


----------



## Emerikol

5ekyu said:


> I think it is a key spectrum of gaming preference and may vary much between players by generatiob or at least games they start with.
> 
> Lets put it for me this way.
> 
> I have little problem with what i see as character-based neta-gaming elements - as in the player invokes them even outside of the character perspective.




You may be right.  It's like a sliding scale and you tolerate depending on where you are on the scale.  Numenera was ruined for me by the massive metagame elements there.  I love Monte Cook's work too but I didn't like the new system.  Still like Monte.  

It's kind of funny but I have an "affection" even for my old rivals during the "edition wars".  We are kind of like old civil war veterans at that 1920's reunion dinner.  I'm past caring at this point about the premise of the wars.  It's a mixed bag rule by rule but ultimately I believe the war is lost.  I guess that makes me an old confederate ;-).   Of course I have the same feeling for my "brothers" in arms.  

I enjoy seeing opposing takes on things.  And often I can chew up the meat and spit out the bones and still find something useful.  I was reading a post by Iserith (who rules wise is close to my opposite) recently that had some good ideas I'll use one day.


----------



## Arilyn

High Fantasy usually comes with those elements of game design you are not fond of. What about Green Ronin' s AGE system?


----------



## Emerikol

Arilyn said:


> High Fantasy usually comes with those elements of game design you are not fond of. What about Green Ronin' s AGE system?




While dated now, I enjoyed 1e, 2e, 3e which were all high fantasy.  I haven't seen the AGE system.  Let me go look...

Okay I'm back... I read a review...

It has some concepts I like.  If I'm going to have martial maneuvers I want them activated by random chance with an appropriate number of occurrences based on class and level.  Choosing when to make a really big critical strike seems unbelievable.  If I can choose when, then why not all the time.  That sort of thing.  I know others love it.  This is my fear with Pathfinder at the higher levels.


----------



## Arilyn

Emerikol said:


> While dated now, I enjoyed 1e, 2e, 3e which were all high fantasy.  I haven't seen the AGE system.  Let me go look...
> 
> Okay I'm back... I read a review...
> 
> It has some concepts I like.  If I'm going to have martial maneuvers I want them activated by random chance with an appropriate number of occurrences based on class and level.  Choosing when to make a really big critical strike seems unbelievable.  If I can choose when, then why not all the time.  That sort of thing.  I know others love it.  This is my fear with Pathfinder at the higher levels.




Yes, should have said recent high fantasy games, as they have a lot of cool abilities which are activated X number of times per day, or as player choice, regulated by points, etc.  

AGE is a fun system, but I do like Dragon Age and Blue Rose better than the generic fantasy core, although, if you like tinkering, the generic one certainly has lots of room to make it your own.


----------



## Emerikol

Arilyn said:


> Yes, should have said recent high fantasy games, as they have a lot of cool abilities which are activated X number of times per day, or as player choice, regulated by points, etc.
> 
> AGE is a fun system, but I do like Dragon Age and Blue Rose better than the generic fantasy core, although, if you like tinkering, the generic one certainly has lots of room to make it your own.




Agree.  Limitations like points or uses per day in the martial arena are too metagamey for me.  It's the player doing everything apart from the character.  The reason I don't like games like FATE are also for this same reason.  FATE points are pure metagame.  I love FATE/FUDGE dice though.  I am always wondering if there is a way to use those dice somehow.


----------



## Arilyn

Emerikol said:


> Agree.  Limitations like points or uses per day in the martial arena are too metagamey for me.  It's the player doing everything apart from the character.  The reason I don't like games like FATE are also for this same reason.  FATE points are pure metagame.  I love FATE/FUDGE dice though.  I am always wondering if there is a way to use those dice somehow.




FATE is one of my favourite systems, but like you said, this is a discussion, not a fight over whether chocolate is better than vanilla.


----------



## Emerikol

Arilyn said:


> FATE is one of my favourite systems, but like you said, this is a discussion, not a fight over whether chocolate is better than vanilla.




Well my feelings about Fate are definitely love/hate.  I love a lot about it.  People keep telling me though the game is unplayable without Fate points.  I own a several Fate books.   Like I said I'm a game junky.  Love to analyze games.


----------



## 5ekyu

Emerikol said:


> While dated now, I enjoyed 1e, 2e, 3e which were all high fantasy.  I haven't seen the AGE system.  Let me go look...
> 
> Okay I'm back... I read a review...
> 
> It has some concepts I like.  If I'm going to have martial maneuvers I want them activated by random chance with an appropriate number of occurrences based on class and level.  Choosing when to make a really big critical strike seems unbelievable.  If I can choose when, then why not all the time.  That sort of thing.  I know others love it.  This is my fear with Pathfinder at the higher levels.




my preference for martial maneuvers is not random and not l.imited counters but are limited by circumstance or by off-sets.

Examples would include a trip attack you can try but which has penalties to hit or to your defense or allow counter strikes if you miss, etc. others could include a gradual accumulation of "advantage points" during a combat which can be spent to add additional effects with a "regroup" style maneuver being possible to reduce advantage at the cost of losing attacks. (this would assume and only work for a combat system where it was expected for the fight to last multiple rounds - be a game of creating openings and then exploiting - not say a 2-3 rounds burn down.) Obvious circumstances, scenery and situation could apply "advatage points themselves or have them tappable".

But, i think the simple fact is - one of the reason meta-gamey things like limitations arte easy to do is that they are easy to implement and learn and apply to most any level of combat to provide choices with meaning but without a lot of complexity. They can fit into a "we wil have five encounters but those encounters if fights wont last that long" model or most any type of model with rather predictable outcomes.

The "build-an-edge" system wont work for mowing thru three or four over two-three rounds. Nor is random necessarily reliable enough to make for a predictable series of outcomes - necessarily.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> I don't consider character creation to be "in game" time.  Once I start playing the character in the world only then do I want to have this in world view.



 So playing a sorcerer from level one is fine. But multiclassing to sorcerer later would be an issue.

You could just add a requirement that any bloodline be declared at character generation to deal with that.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> While dated now, I enjoyed 1e, 2e, 3e which were all high fantasy.  I haven't seen the AGE system.  Let me go look...
> 
> Okay I'm back... I read a review...
> 
> It has some concepts I like.  If I'm going to have martial maneuvers I want them activated by random chance with an appropriate number of occurrences based on class and level.  Choosing when to make a really big critical strike seems unbelievable.  If I can choose when, then why not all the time.  That sort of thing.  I know others love it.  This is my fear with Pathfinder at the higher levels.



Pelgraines  Archmage Engine srd has  a fighter that uses maneuvers randomly.  

Pathfinder CMB is an improvement over skill checks.  Fighters are actually good at maneuvers.  And you don't need to expend a meta resource or wait for the GM or dice to just hand it to you.

Pathfinder 2 changed the action economy so you have  more flexibility in combat.

The legendary mundane feats I've heard of so far don't use spell mechanics but don't stay mundane either.   We could always just not use them.  Mundane just doesn't get to be legendary would be a reasonable house rule.


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> Well my feelings about Fate are definitely love/hate.  I love a lot about it.  People keep telling me though the game is unplayable without Fate points.  I own a several Fate books.   Like I said I'm a game junky.  Love to analyze games.




Yes - Fate points are pretty integral to the system.  And yes, they are often used for things that are player-decision rather than character-decision, and the points do not typically appear as an in-game item or resource.  You probably could produce a FATE variant where the points represent an in-game mana resource, if you really wanted to.

I note, though, that FATE will tend to defy analysis if you don't play it, because much of the realization of the mechanic is tied to the narrative.  People say that the story is something that you tell after play is resolved, and that's not really true with FATE games.


----------



## Imaculata

I've never been bothered with meta-game concepts in the game design of any game, or with meta gaming in general. I guess it is a sliding scale, but most of the time I don't mind my players thinking as gamers. There's nothing wrong with approaching the game like a game. Whether that means using game rules that have no real in-game explanation, or thinking about the game strategically (instead of what your character would do), it's fine.

And on the latter: I've had situations in my campaign where a player wanted to prepare spells, but as a player he expected undead, while his character did not have any in-game reason to expect those. So I just said to him: Bring what ever spells you as a player want to bring. It's only a game, and it is okay to approach it as a game every now and then. I think this relaxed attitude of mine towards meta-gaming in general, explains why I feel equally relaxed about meta-game mechanics.



> What about you old schoolers?  There is a lot to like in some of the old  school games but I find them not systematic enough for me.  Heck 5e  probably isn't as much as I'd like.  Everything is a special class rule.   I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e.  But I am  also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.




Does it really matter in regards to the metagame side of the discussion, what we call these game mechanics? Whether they be special class rules or feats, they are still special abilities that a character can unlock by leveling.

As it just so happens, I'm currently working on a semi-realistic board game, in which the game mechanics all need to be justified by realism in regards to its subject matter, while still trying to keep the game light on rules and easy to understand (and remember). So, although there is some clear balancing being done in the rules, I try to have a logical explanation for everything, that is also internally consistent. And I find that is quite a challenge.  I have done away with hit points entirely, and with armor values, or tracking ammunition. This abstraction seems to work in this game's favor, because it means there is less to keep track of, and it simulates a certain degree of deadliness in combat that is in line with the realism goal. I've basically replaced hit points, with either being wounded, not wounded, or dead.


----------



## Emerikol

Ted Serious said:


> So playing a sorcerer from level one is fine. But multiclassing to sorcerer later would be an issue.
> 
> You could just add a requirement that any bloodline be declared at character generation to deal with that.




Well, regardless of when this happened it would not be while actually playing the character.  If one of my players called me and said "I think I may want to multiclass into Sorcerer" then that would definitely be the player and not the character making that call.  Right?  So how do I deal with that?  Well I could have the dragon blood manifest itself unexpectedly to the character and then play it from there.  I admit that my groups don't do a lot of multiclassing especially the caster classes and sorcerer is not popular.   My groups tend to be the big 4 and paladins.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> Yes - Fate points are pretty integral to the system.  And yes, they are often used for things that are player-decision rather than character-decision, and the points do not typically appear as an in-game item or resource.  You probably could produce a FATE variant where the points represent an in-game mana resource, if you really wanted to.
> 
> I note, though, that FATE will tend to defy analysis if you don't play it, because much of the realization of the mechanic is tied to the narrative.  People say that the story is something that you tell after play is resolved, and that's not really true with FATE games.




I think I like the superficial mechanics of FATE.  I like the skill tree.  I like the named levels of success.  I love the four fudge dice.  But the core of the FATE concept which is aspects, fate points, etc... I'm not as favorable towards.  

To me there is a style of play, let me call it story creation, that I'm not a fan of personally.  Where the players, thinking as players, are moving their characters around with the intent of making a cool story.  So they might make suboptimal choices intentionally for the good of the story.  

In my style of play, the players do things that their characters would do to win.  I admit I can't enforce this absolutely but it definitely trends that way.  In the undead example above, if my players knew undead were coming, my characters would too.  As DM, I'd guard such information very carefully from my players if I didn't want them knowing something.  I once changed every name in the original Ravenloft module so that they wouldn't realize it was a store bought module.  I make a lot of my own too so they have no reason to suspect.

The variety of ways of playing shows the flexibility of roleplaying games.  I appreciate that people like a variety of ways.  I do resent being told (and no one here in this thread has done this) that my way is inferior rather than just different.


----------



## Emerikol

Imaculata said:


> I've never been bothered with meta-game concepts in the game design of any game, or with meta gaming in general. I guess it is a sliding scale, but most of the time I don't mind my players thinking as gamers. There's nothing wrong with approaching the game like a game. Whether that means using game rules that have no real in-game explanation, or thinking about the game strategically (instead of what your character would do), it's fine.
> 
> And on the latter: I've had situations in my campaign where a player wanted to prepare spells, but as a player he expected undead, while his character did not have any in-game reason to expect those. So I just said to him: Bring what ever spells you as a player want to bring. It's only a game, and it is okay to approach it as a game every now and then. I think this relaxed attitude of mine towards meta-gaming in general, explains why I feel equally relaxed about meta-game mechanics.




It's understandable coming from your view of the game that these things don't bother you.  I don't expect my players to be perfect angels.  I as DM (see above) consider it my job to control the information my players have so that it equates to the information the characters have.  It's why I like mechanics as physics and I do expect my characters to know that spells exist in the world.  If there is a feat that provides a fighting maneuver I expect at least the concept to relate to in game knowledge.  Power Attack for example might not be a name that is know but the fighter player knows he can take chances on defense to increase his offense.  Something I think is relatable to the real world.




Imaculata said:


> Does it really matter in regards to the metagame side of the discussion, what we call these game mechanics? Whether they be special class rules or feats, they are still special abilities that a character can unlock by leveling.




For this discussion it doesn't matter.  I like flexibility though and not just for the PCs.  If something is a feat, and feats are equivalent, then it's a lot easier to house rule out a feat and just ask the PC to take something different.  If it's a class ability then I have to do that work myself.  Not impossible but harder.  Second Wind and Action Surge from above for example.  How valuable are they?  Are they equivalent to a feat?  Better?  Worse?  

And sure, I know in the history of D&D where feats are used that they've never been perfectly balanced.  It still puts you in the ballpark.

Edit: Just fixed some bad grammer that bugged me.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> I think I like the superficial mechanics of FATE.  I like the skill tree.  I like the named levels of success.  I love the four fudge dice.  But the core of the FATE concept which is aspects, fate points, etc... I'm not as favorable towards.



I am a big fan of Fate, including aspects and fate points, but I recognize that it is not for everyone. So if you just like fudge dice and skill trees, then perhaps you should look into Fudge. There is a reason those dice you love are called "fudge dice" after all. 

Buf if you enjoy game design analysis as a "gamer junky" then I would recommend reading The Book of Hanz, which is a series of fan posts on the design philosophy of Fate. I am not trying to sell you on Fate here but you may find it intriguing from a game analysis perspective. 



> To me there is a style of play, let me call it story creation, that I'm not a fan of personally.  Where the players, thinking as players, are moving their characters around with the intent of making a cool story.  So they might make suboptimal choices intentionally for the good of the story.
> 
> In my style of play, the players do things that their characters would do to win.  I admit I can't enforce this absolutely but it definitely trends that way.  In the undead example above, if my players knew undead were coming, my characters would too.  As DM, I'd guard such information very carefully from my players if I didn't want them knowing something.  I once changed every name in the original Ravenloft module so that they wouldn't realize it was a store bought module.  I make a lot of my own too so they have no reason to suspect.



I will just bounce off my own experiences. IME, the mentality of players "playing to win" is just another form of the conceit of metagaming. I have often observed that players are more inclined to act out-of-character and metagame when the circumstances creates dissonance between their in-game character and choices dicated by the player's "play to win" mentality. In those moments, the character becomes less of a character, and more of the player's chess piece. The player mutes, sidelines, or recalibrates the prior established character for the sake of the player's desire to win. For me one of the biggest perks of the former approach is one of immersion and verisimilitude. The characters become more real and lifelike because they have more foibles and flaws that guide their actions. This is really just to say that we have our respective different preferences. 

You may also want to consider Dungeon World (and the Powered by the Apocalypse system). It is narrative focused, as per Fate, but it has less of the metagame elements that you dislike. Rolling the dice is dictated by the GM when the player-described fiction conforms to "moves."


----------



## ccs

Emerikol said:


> Not sure you qualify as "someone sympathetic to my dilemna"    If it doesn't bother you then it's moot anyway.  And being able to tolerate it and still have fun is good enough to say it doesn't bother you.  For me it's a dealbreaker.




Well, I am sympathetic to your dilemma.  And you ask me for my thoughts.  I'm telling you how I dealt with it.
See, back in the early '90s, I was you.  I tried all kinds of useless contortions to explain everything "in-story" in the various systems we were playing at the time.
It was a fools errand.  Everyone else I played with didn't get it/didn't care.  (more the latter, & they still don't)  And however I justified stuff, no matter what side of the screen I was on?  It just didn't make any difference as we still had these various player-side only game elements, still had to use them, tell the DM when they were being applied, etc.
And I couldn't make the other players care/imagine/phrase this type of stuff the same way I was....     
But guess what?  The fun somehow continued without, probably despite, my efforts.  
So after a few years or so I changed my approach to it.  Went back to how I'd been doing it before I'd had the epiphany that _everything_ should be explainable from an In-World PoV.  It doesn't.   Sometimes it works out that you can fit this stuff in narratively.  Other times you just need to shug it off.

As for PF2?  No, I do not think it will solve anything for you concerning this.  Might still be a fun game though.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> I will just bounce off my own experiences. IME, the mentality of players "playing to win" is just another form of the conceit of metagaming. I have often observed that players are more inclined to act out-of-character and metagame when the circumstances creates dissonance between their in-game character and choices dicated by the player's "play to win" mentality. In those moments, the character becomes less of a character, and more of the player's chess piece. The player mutes, sidelines, or recalibrates the prior established character for the sake of the player's desire to win. For me one of the biggest perks of the former approach is one of immersion and verisimilitude. The characters become more real and lifelike because they have more foibles and flaws that guide their actions. This is really just to say that we have our respective different preferences.
> 
> You may also want to consider Dungeon World (and the Powered by the Apocalypse system). It is narrative focused, as per Fate, but it has less of the metagame elements that you dislike. Rolling the dice is dictated by the GM when the player-described fiction conforms to "moves."




It's probably why my PCs tend to play to type a lot.  But what character doesn't want to "win"?  My players play their characters with passion so there are times they take actions out of "anger" towards an enemy that are not the best.  They are not Mr. Spock.  They are their characters though.  For me that is verisimilitude and immersion.  I know you obviously feel differently.  My PCs often have non-adventuring goals like creating a temple or building a fortress.  Winning comes down to achieving goals.


----------



## Emerikol

ccs said:


> Well, I am sympathetic to your dilemma.  And you ask me for my thoughts.  I'm telling you how I dealt with it.
> See, back in the early '90s, I was you.  I tried all kinds of useless contortions to explain everything "in-story" in the various systems we were playing at the time.
> It was a fools errand.  Everyone else I played with didn't get it/didn't care.  (more the latter, & they still don't)  And however I justified stuff, no matter what side of the screen I was on?  It just didn't make any difference as we still had these various player-side only game elements, still had to use them, tell the DM when they were being applied, etc.
> And I couldn't make the other players care/imagine/phrase this type of stuff the same way I was....
> But guess what?  The fun somehow continued without, probably despite, my efforts.
> So after a few years or so I changed my approach to it.  Went back to how I'd been doing it before I'd had the epiphany that _everything_ should be explainable from an In-World PoV.  It doesn't.   Sometimes it works out that you can fit this stuff in narratively.  Other times you just need to shug it off.
> 
> As for PF2?  No, I do not think it will solve anything for you concerning this.  Might still be a fun game though.




Realize though that 1e, 2e, and 3e I played exactly this way that I want *at the time*.  I didn't have to house rule anything in any major way.  I tended to ban some classes and races but more often for the flavor of my campaign than for this reason.  I guess I could just go back and play one of those editions or a retroclone of some sort.  I'm sure Castles and Crusades would work.  I would just like some modern elements of game design while still keeping the essential playstyle.  I'm a Gygaxian playstyle guy at heart.

Also, don't interpret every change of mind as "progress".  For you looking back it was progress.  That is great.  I think I feel a bit stronger than you do about certain things.  About others I am more tolerant.  But if I was told I had one game to play and it was 5e (or 4e for that matter) as written or quit roleplaying all together, I think I'd quit.  I have a lot of entertainment options.  Now of course no one is giving me that dire choice.  In the end, as Gygax said, the big secret is you can write your own game.  So that will be where it ultimately ends if I don't find something sooner.  

I'm not as sure about Pathfinder 2e as you are.  Even PF1 is a game I could play by cutting away all the objectionable elements.  For one just start with the core book only.  Ban a few classes that maybe did some weird things.  As long as I have a game with Fighter, Rogue/Thief, Cleric, Wizard (vancian I hope) then I can play.  In PF2, I believe the structure is good but the elements may be in some cases objectionable.  Such a system is easier to house rule than one where the structure is not good (for me).  

It's kind of why I was so disappointed in 5e not providing a subset of the game that is usable by people like myself.  Again it's a hit so not questioning their business decisions.  It seems it would have been easy to do it without losing what they have though.  By putting Second Wind and Action Surge at the class level instead of inside one of the paths, they made the entire class unusable by me.  The Champion was my big hope and it came close.  I have to think they were trying but just didn't fully grasp the issues shared by people like myself.  I hope it's not because they don't care.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> I am a big fan of Fate, including aspects and fate points, but I recognize that it is not for everyone. So if you just like fudge dice and skill trees, then perhaps you should look into Fudge. There is a reason those dice you love are called "fudge dice" after all.




Yes.  I think there is a lot of potential for a game using a fudge like system but for high fantasy I'm more of a D&D guy.  But for sci-fi or moderns, yeah I'd like it.


----------



## 5ekyu

Imaculata said:


> I've never been bothered with meta-game concepts in the game design of any game, or with meta gaming in general. I guess it is a sliding scale, but most of the time I don't mind my players thinking as gamers. There's nothing wrong with approaching the game like a game. Whether that means using game rules that have no real in-game explanation, or thinking about the game strategically (instead of what your character would do), it's fine.
> 
> And on the latter: I've had situations in my campaign where a player wanted to prepare spells, but as a player he expected undead, while his character did not have any in-game reason to expect those. So I just said to him: Bring what ever spells you as a player want to bring. It's only a game, and it is okay to approach it as a game every now and then. I think this relaxed attitude of mine towards meta-gaming in general, explains why I feel equally relaxed about meta-game mechanics.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter in regards to the metagame side of the discussion, what we call these game mechanics? Whether they be special class rules or feats, they are still special abilities that a character can unlock by leveling.
> 
> As it just so happens, I'm currently working on a semi-realistic board game, in which the game mechanics all need to be justified by realism in regards to its subject matter, while still trying to keep the game light on rules and easy to understand (and remember). So, although there is some clear balancing being done in the rules, I try to have a logical explanation for everything, that is also internally consistent. And I find that is quite a challenge.  I have done away with hit points entirely, and with armor values, or tracking ammunition. This abstraction seems to work in this game's favor, because it means there is less to keep track of, and it simulates a certain degree of deadliness in combat that is in line with the realism goal. I've basically replaced hit points, with either being wounded, not wounded, or dead.



"And on the latter: I've had situations in my campaign where a player wanted to prepare spells, but as a player he expected undead, while his character did not have any in-game reason to expect those"

Just curious, can you give any sprcifics on the undead prep case? I am curious as to why a player would want to prep for or expect undead but the character have no in-game sense of it.

Was it player saw other scenes playing out his character was not at and had no input from and so he knew but character didn't or something less divergent?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Emerikol said:


> What about you old schoolers?  There is a lot to like in some of the old school games but I find them not systematic enough for me.  Heck 5e probably isn't as much as I'd like.  Everything is a special class rule.  I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e.  But I am also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.
> 
> Thoughts?




I can't help you much, I'm an old schooler playing an OD&D clone and I have no issues with metagaming.  But I wish you luck on finding what you need to max your fun at the table.


----------



## Emerikol

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I can't help you much, I'm an old schooler playing an OD&D clone and I have no issues with metagaming.  But I wish you luck on finding what you need to max your fun at the table.




So what drew you to old school gaming over say 5e?  I kind of thought a lot of old schoolers where like me.  They prefer old style healing and no metagame.  Of course I loved Gygax's writing as well.  He never wrote like he was inventing anything.  He wrote like he was revealing something that already existed.  .


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> To me there is a style of play, let me call it story creation, that I'm not a fan of personally.  Where the players, thinking as players, are moving their characters around with the intent of making a cool story.  So they might make suboptimal choices intentionally for the good of the story.




In my experience, that doesn't happen in FATE games.  I think you are in fear of a bugaboo.

The player is still always making optimal choices - they want a cool story _in which their character succeeds and is a hero_.  Sometimes, the optimal choice in FATE games is for the player to accept a minor difficulty now, so as to have the FATE points later to more thoroughly stomp the bad guy with later.  But the aim is still to make optimal choices.

The point to remember is that, while in D&D your character is probably at their most resource rich at the start of the adventure/day.  While you may gain some resources at various parts along the way, an adventure overall is a challenge of resource conservation, to make sure you don't spend too many resources before their final climactic encounters.  While in FATE, an adventure is a challenge of resource *building*, so that the character is at peak resources just as they enter climactic encounters.



> In my style of play, the players do things that their characters would do to win.  I admit I can't enforce this absolutely but it definitely trends that way.  In the undead example above, if my players knew undead were coming, my characters would too.




Yes.  Did you somehow come to the conclusion that in FATE, if players knew undead were coming, they would conspicuously *not* prepare for them?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Emerikol said:


> So what drew you to old school gaming over say 5e?  I kind of thought a lot of old schoolers where like me.  They prefer old style healing and no metagame.  Of course I loved Gygax's writing as well.  He never wrote like he was inventing anything.  He wrote like he was revealing something that already existed.  .




Mostly simplicity and I personally found 5e to be easy mode D&D at my table, after about 5th level there wasn't much challenge unless they rushed an obvious TPK.  So i was having to rework a lot of published material that I used since I lack the time to really write up full campaigns and at that point I was spending as much time reworking as if I was writing it myself.  Old style healing is part of it, when you embrace the healing nature of 5e it becomes a bit too over the top for me.  The running joke was a good nights sleep cures cancer.  I started with red box basic and while 5e had a lot of nods to the classic game it had a bunch of stuff that I found hard to take seriously.  

S&W is more seat of my pants but I don't mind that at the table and I want less staring at sheets trying to perfectly time feat combos and more tell me what you want to do and we will figure it out.  Plus meat grinder dungeons work better in the older editions and this is a game that is more players vs dungeon/referee.  And it hits my nostalgia button no doubt. 

But my opinion on meta-gaming is that I expect players to use their knowledge to improve their chance of succeeding and having fun at the table.  I view it as a game first and foremost.  A fun game with action, adventure, exploration, and story that comes out of all that.  I don't sweat why a player uses action surge at this point and why he can't do it again until he gets some shut eye. I just figure he had the last little bit of reserves to throw at it when the key moment arrived. Later when the story comes together its not that important to me why the fighter had that burst, but that he did and evil was vanquished.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Umbran said:


> In my experience, that doesn't happen in FATE games.  I think you are in fear of a bugaboo.



FATE is pretty explicit with its goals. There are points in the rulebook where it actually tells you to do what will make for a better story, because the mechanics will reward you with points that you can use to contrive coincidences later on.

That's not me trying to connect the dots with the reward mechanic, either. It _literally_ says to take certain actions _because_ you will get points for it.


----------



## Umbran

Saelorn said:


> FATE is pretty explicit with its goals. There are points in the rulebook where it actually tells you to do what will make for a better story, because the mechanics will reward you with points that you can use to contrive coincidences later on.
> 
> That's not me trying to connect the dots with the reward mechanic, either. It _literally_ says to take certain actions _because_ you will get points for it.




Yes.  And you do get rewarded.  So... the choice that gets you the reward.. that's the optimal choice, now isn't it?  

Do you define "optimal" in some way other than, "the one that is most likely to get you what you really want"?  Yes, it is optimal from the player's perspective, not the character's.  The player accepts difficulties for the character, because they make play more interesting, and they pay off in the long run.  

Those choices still have to result in things that make sense in the fiction.  If the PCs hear there's vampires coming, they're going to prep up for vampires.  You are not asked to do stuff that makes no sense for yo to do - it is more like accepting that the Universe isn't going to play nice with your attempts to prepare for vampires.  

GM: "So, as you are prepping, you discover... the grocer is out of garlic! *hands player a Fate Point*."
Player: *takes Fate point* "Oh, well, I wasn't looking forward to a fight that smelled like scampi anyway.  Let's focus on the UV strobes instead...."


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> In my experience, that doesn't happen in FATE games.  I think you are in fear of a bugaboo.
> 
> The player is still always making optimal choices - they want a cool story _in which their character succeeds and is a hero_.  Sometimes, the optimal choice in FATE games is for the player to accept a minor difficulty now, so as to have the FATE points later to more thoroughly stomp the bad guy with later.  But the aim is still to make optimal choices.




I'm probably just not clear enough in explaining my view.  Choosing to accept something bad now in a metagame way to pave the way for future success has to be player thinking.  A character would not think that way.  On every action he is trying to do his best.



Umbran said:


> The point to remember is that, while in D&D your character is probably at their most resource rich at the start of the adventure/day.  While you may gain some resources at various parts along the way, an adventure overall is a challenge of resource conservation, to make sure you don't spend too many resources before their final climactic encounters.  While in FATE, an adventure is a challenge of resource *building*, so that the character is at peak resources just as they enter climactic encounters.




Even in a fantasy world, doesn't the D&D way seem more realistic given the fantasy assumptions?  Getting more powerful as you go is perhaps a tv trope.  Meaning the hero seems to face defeat a few times before finally succeeding.  It does feel right to me.




Umbran said:


> Yes.  Did you somehow come to the conclusion that in FATE, if players knew undead were coming, they would conspicuously *not* prepare for them?




No.  I'm saying that in my style of play character knowledge and player knowledge is the same.  So whatever you choose to do you are already basing it on character knowledge alone because as DM that is all I'm giving you.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> Yes.  And you do get rewarded.  So... the choice that gets you the reward.. that's the optimal choice, now isn't it?
> 
> Do you define "optimal" in some way other than, "the one that is most likely to get you what you really want"?  Yes, it is optimal from the player's perspective, not the character's.  The player accepts difficulties for the character, because they make play more interesting, and they pay off in the long run.




I should have waited on this post to respond.  This disconnect between player and character is what this thread is about.  I don't like it and others do like it.  I'm taking ideas on the best approach to get the style I prefer.  YMMV.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Umbran said:


> Yes.  And you do get rewarded.  So... the choice that gets you the reward.. that's the optimal choice, now isn't it?



It's the optimal choice for the player, but it's not necessarily the optimal choice for the character. But it's a role-playing game, so I should be doing what the _character_ wants, rather than what the _player_ wants.

Although, honestly, I'm not keen on any mechanic that puts the goals of the character and the goals of the player at odds with each other. I know that the correct choice in that circumstance is to do what the _character_ wants, rather than what the player wants, but I still can't help but feel somewhat conflicted about it.


----------



## Emerikol

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Mostly simplicity and I personally found 5e to be easy mode D&D at my table, after about 5th level there wasn't much challenge unless they rushed an obvious TPK.




I haven't played 5e and I've only ever looked at the free stuff but I suspected it was going to be an easy mode game.  4e was that way for me too.  I was throwing ungodly stuff at them just to get some sort of suspense in combat.  

Some old school things I like to emphasize
1.  Preparation which includes planning and equipping.
2.  Battle field tactics and teamwork.  My players have been really good in the past at utilizing every advantage.
3.  Caution and boldness where effective.
4.  Innovation as in creative uses of abilities.
5.  Death has serious consequences.  A restart at 1st at lower levels and at minimum a lost level or something equivalent at higher levels.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Emerikol said:


> I haven't played 5e and I've only ever looked at the free stuff but I suspected it was going to be an easy mode game.  4e was that way for me too.  I was throwing ungodly stuff at them just to get some sort of suspense in combat.
> 
> Some old school things I like to emphasize
> 1.  Preparation which includes planning and equipping.
> 2.  Battle field tactics and teamwork.  My players have been really good in the past at utilizing every advantage.
> 3.  Caution and boldness where effective.
> 4.  Innovation as in creative uses of abilities.
> 5.  Death has serious consequences.  A restart at 1st at lower levels and at minimum a lost level or something equivalent at higher levels.




Part of what I'm doing in S&W is reintroducing logistics to my group.  Encumbrance is a key issue to deal with, henchmen may be necessary.  Things like rations and water must be tracked.  They are going into a horrible dungeon and hunting isn't much of an option unless they want to eat goblin and rats if that is available.  I made them get rid of the 'loot sheet' which had become this extra dimensional space where they put 2.5 tons of gear and just ignored it unless they needed it.  In my game I started them at L3 so they can go right to the dungeon, Rappan Athuck, and all new PC start at L3 no matter.  I would have liked to do L1 but they they have to adventure for a few months to get to the level they need to be in order to hit the dungeon proper.  Being dropped into negative HP means at least a week of recovery so caution is the key, not to mention they have 2 CLW spells in total.  

Some people find 5e to be just what they are looking for, but with a larger group and using the "optional" parts the published material becomes a joke.  Then again apparently the baseline they are writing for is no feats and no magic items, which I'd wager is a style a tiny fraction of the players embrace. I still play in a 5e game on nights I need a break, but overall its not for me.  

Probably getting off topic.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> I will just bounce off my own experiences. IME, the mentality of players "playing to win" is just another form of the conceit of metagaming. I have often observed that players are more inclined to act out-of-character and metagame when the circumstances creates dissonance between their in-game character and choices dicated by the player's "play to win" mentality. In those moments, the character becomes less of a character, and more of the player's chess piece. The player mutes, sidelines, or recalibrates the prior established character for the sake of the player's desire to win. For me one of the biggest perks of the former approach is one of immersion and verisimilitude. The characters become more real and lifelike because they have more foibles and flaws that guide their actions. This is really just to say that we have our respective different preferences.



Given this, I'll ask how careful are you about keeping player knowledge and character knowledge in synch.

For example, if the party send a lone scout ahead do you take the scout's player to a different room to RP the scouting mission, to prevent the other players knowing information and-or outcomes their PCs would not?

Because no matter what else, from the characters' perspective even if they're not specifically trying to win they're sure as hell trying not to lose; as loss usually means pain or death or some other form of ruin.  Chances are high the players feel the same way, and it's way easier to play true to character if what you know as a player matches what you know as a character.

Lanefan


----------



## Emerikol

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Part of what I'm doing in S&W is reintroducing logistics to my group.  Encumbrance is a key issue to deal with, henchmen may be necessary.  Things like rations and water must be tracked.  They are going into a horrible dungeon and hunting isn't much of an option unless they want to eat goblin and rats if that is available.  I made them get rid of the 'loot sheet' which had become this extra dimensional space where they put 2.5 tons of gear and just ignored it unless they needed it.  In my game I started them at L3 so they can go right to the dungeon, Rappan Athuck, and all new PC start at L3 no matter.  I would have liked to do L1 but they they have to adventure for a few months to get to the level they need to be in order to hit the dungeon proper.  Being dropped into negative HP means at least a week of recovery so caution is the key, not to mention they have 2 CLW spells in total.
> 
> Some people find 5e to be just what they are looking for, but with a larger group and using the "optional" parts the published material becomes a joke.  Then again apparently the baseline they are writing for is no feats and no magic items, which I'd wager is a style a tiny fraction of the players embrace. I still play in a 5e game on nights I need a break, but overall its not for me.
> 
> Probably getting off topic.




Actually the no feats option comprises more than 50% of the playerbase the last article I saw on it.

I'm with you.  Especially at lower levels, I want to track perishables, ammo, etc...  It's part of "winning" the game.  Be prepared.  I also like the idea that you hiring henchman and hirelings to help transport the loot.  I think we'd enjoy gaming together.


----------



## Lanefan

5ekyu said:


> Just curious, can you give any sprcifics on the undead prep case? I am curious as to why a player would want to prep for or expect undead but the character have no in-game sense of it.
> 
> Was it player saw other scenes playing out his character was not at and had no input from and so he knew but character didn't or something less divergent?



Could be as simple as this:

Character: is about to set off with her party to explore a forest in which are rumoured to be some old ruins, along with various more or less dangerous forest dwellers throughout.
Player: sees the DM pull out a module titled "Lichie and the Zombiemen"...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Emerikol said:


> Actually the no feats option comprises more than 50% of the playerbase the last article I saw on it.
> 
> I'm with you.  Especially at lower levels, I want to track perishables, ammo, etc...  It's part of "winning" the game.  Be prepared.  I also like the idea that you hiring henchman and hirelings to help transport the loot.  I think we'd enjoy gaming together.




If that's the case I'm surprised.  I never really run into anyone who plays no magic items, but I had assumed from PE that feats were the same.  Learn something new every day. 

Yeah, I'm tired of hand waving how a group of 6 gets all that treasure out of a hostile dungeon.


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> I'm probably just not clear enough in explaining my view.  Choosing to accept something bad now in a metagame way to pave the way for future success has to be player thinking.  A character would not think that way.  On every action he is trying to do his best.




Yes, I know.

I am separating the problems of "players make suboptimal choices" with "players have metagame mechanics".   With this mechanic, what seems a sub-optimal happenign for the character for the moment is stil a better thing in the long run.

And, this is also done consistent with the definition of the character.  If a character has an aspect, "Two-fisted drinker" during prep scene, the GM may say, "You know, this is really stressful.  Wouldn't you take a couple of shots to take the edge off?  *offers Fate chip*.  If the player says yes, the character is still trying to do their best... but their best may not be perfection.  

Or, the player can choose to not accept the compel.  Doing that means they won't be tipsy when the vampires show up, but will have fewer Fate points to spend during the fight.  They get to make a choice as to which they want.  They get to optimize, based on what they want to do.  

Yes, it is still a metagame mechanic.  I'm just trying to say "metagame" and "character not doing their best" are not equivalent.



> Even in a fantasy world, doesn't the D&D way seem more realistic given the fantasy assumptions?




Not particularly, to be honest.  For two reasons:

1) Your D&D way of characters always making optimal choices is not realistic.  Real people don't always make optimal choices.  Under stress, the *rarely* make all optimal choices.  The person who always acts perfectly is unrealistic, and kind of a dull personality.  

2) Making all-optimal D&D choices requires a player to to have more rules-expertise, and to be engaged more with the mechanic, rather than less.  D&D fights with optimizing characters is a prolonged rules-discussion, really.  The mechanics of FATE are simple, and don't generally need to be discussed much, such that major fights are more like describing scenes than talkign about damage ranges, resistances, and saving throws.



> Getting more powerful as you go is perhaps a tv trope.  Meaning the hero seems to face defeat a few times before finally succeeding.




TV gets it from mythology and pulp action stories from before TV was invented, dude. 

A real optimal party of D&D characters does not face defeat often, because 1) defeat in D&D is usually death, 2) Optimized choices include not starting a fight if you don't know you can win it.



> It does feel right to me.




And that's fine.  I'm really just trying to dispel some seeming misconceptions.



> I'm saying that in my style of play character knowledge and player knowledge is the same.  So whatever you choose to do you are already basing it on character knowledge alone because as DM that is all I'm giving you.




Except, you know, for hit points, and armor classes, and damage ranges, and saving throws... pretty much the entire combat mechanic is metagame information. D&D (and every game) is LOADED with information the players have that the character does not, and that information is crucial for optimal decisions making in play.

But what you say is generally what is happening in FATE, as well.  While some GMs use foreshadowing techniques, those are rare.  In practice, the players and characters are moving forward with mostly the same inforamtion about what is coming.  It is just that the player can occasionally use that information in ways the character cannot.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Umbran said:


> Your D&D way of characters always making optimal choices is not realistic.  Real people don't always make optimal choices.  Under stress, the *rarely* make all optimal choices.



Players rarely make perfectly optimal choices, because they don't have all of the information, and there are inherent limits to the rationality of their intellect. Often, they won't realize their mistakes until it's too late to do anything about them, if they ever end up realizing them at all.

FATE uses meta-game mechanics to try and align player goals with character flaws (e.g. your character wants a drink, and you want a fate point, so you're both in agreement about what you should do next). The problem is that, in doing so, it causes the flaw to actually become a strength. It's no longer a _problem_, that your character wants a drink, even though that would normally impair them; since giving in to the flaw _causally_ generates fate points, it means you're actually _stronger_ when you need to be, because you gave in. It means that so-called flaws are _actually_ benefits, due to meta-game reasons that your character cannot possibly understand. It means that you shouldn't send Captain America out on an important mission, because he won't make enough mistakes along the way for him to succeed in the end; instead you should send Gomer Pyle, who is guaranteed to fail enough that he will eventually come out on top. It's just shenanigans from a causality standpoint.

If I want to play a flawed character in D&D, then I can do that. I will choose to make the wrong choices, because I'm role-playing a flawed character, and that's what they would do. Rewarding that choice should not be necessary.


Umbran said:


> The person who always acts perfectly is unrealistic, and kind of a dull personality.



That's not a very nice thing to say about Squirrel Girl.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> Yes, I know.
> Not particularly, to be honest.  For two reasons:
> 
> 1) Your D&D way of characters always making optimal choices is not realistic.  Real people don't always make optimal choices.  Under stress, the *rarely* make all optimal choices.  The person who always acts perfectly is unrealistic, and kind of a dull personality.



And they don't in my game either because you know humans are playing those characters and they don't always make the optimal choice.  You always seem to twist my words into a strawman.  The characters though are trying to act optimally.  




Umbran said:


> 2) Making all-optimal D&D choices requires a player to to have more rules-expertise, and to be engaged more with the mechanic, rather than less.  D&D fights with optimizing characters is a prolonged rules-discussion, really.  The mechanics of FATE are simple, and don't generally need to be discussed much, such that major fights are more like describing scenes than talkign about damage ranges, resistances, and saving throws.



This is definitely a strawman.  I'm talking about general play in the game.  Behavior that looks a whole lot like real life.  I do have a few with lots of rules expertise and I have others with much less.  Either way they are striving to do at the moment of decision the best thing for the character just like a character would really do.



Umbran said:


> TV gets it from mythology and pulp action stories from before TV was invented, dude.



Sure. You are coming across as condescending.  I should have said literary trope.  Whatever.  Again this sideline is just a distraction from the conversation.



Umbran said:


> A real optimal party of D&D characters does not face defeat often, because 1) defeat in D&D is usually death, 2) Optimized choices include not starting a fight if you don't know you can win it.



Defeat is a lot of things.  Death is one and it's always there in a world in my games.  But failing to rescue someone, having to retreat due to a superior enemy, springing a trap (small defeat), or the bad guys just plain getting away with the treasure are all defeats.  Failure to achieve the goal.  






Umbran said:


> Except, you know, for hit points, and armor classes, and damage ranges, and saving throws... pretty much the entire combat mechanic is metagame information. D&D (and every game) is LOADED with information the players have that the character does not, and that information is crucial for optimal decisions making in play.



Every one of those things though not perfect are representative of things characters know in game.  They know the big sword tends to do more than the small dagger.  They know some people are better at avoiding spell damage than others.  They all know that hit points represent their overall well being and nearness to death.  My characters all know that.  That is in game knowledge every bit of it.  

I think maybe I've triggered you which is not my intention.  This thread is getting off track.  I don't agree with what you think is metagame which to me is not.  Just realize that for me it is not.  I think it's not for others too in many cases but again that is unimportant to the questions I'm asking.




Umbran said:


> But what you say is generally what is happening in FATE, as well.  While some GMs use foreshadowing techniques, those are rare.  In practice, the players and characters are moving forward with mostly the same inforamtion about what is coming.  It is just that the player can occasionally use that information in ways the character cannot.




And like I keep saying, I don't like that.  It takes me from being a character to playing a piece in a game.  Immersion if you will.


----------



## Emerikol

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> If that's the case I'm surprised.  I never really run into anyone who plays no magic items, but I had assumed from PO that feats were the same.  Learn something new every day.
> 
> Yeah, I'm tired of hand waving how a group of 6 gets all that treasure out of a hostile dungeon.




Yeah magic items are pretty old school.  The key I believe they were emphasizing was that they were unnecessary.  My guess is almost everyone plays with magic items.  

I was surprised Feats were played as little as they were but realize you don't get a stat bump if you don't play a feat.  If I DM'd a 5e game, my first act would be to poll the group and based on feedback choose feats or stats (or both) for everyone.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Emerikol said:


> No.  I'm saying that in my style of play character knowledge and player knowledge is the same.  So whatever you choose to do you are already basing it on character knowledge alone because as DM that is all I'm giving you.




And this is where I have little understanding of where you are coming from.

As a player I can not see what my character sees. I can not smell what my character smells. I don't know the history of the world or the smell of salt air on the breeze in the way my character does. No matter how much the GM describes I will not and can not see the setting in the same detail as my character unless my character is literally blind and being guided around by someone describing things.

Also as a player my character is unable to look at their own character sheet. My character can't say how many hit points they have left, and far from an exact knowledge of their stats they normally have a version of the (real rather than cartoon) Dunning Krueger Effect, thinking they are a bit above average no matter whether they are poor or exceptional. And they certainly don't have objective information that way.

I often try to approximate the two as closely as I possibly can and there are many ways of doing this (and giving narrative control helps in some circumstances but not all).

And then there's background knowledge. The more time a character spends in a city the more they know it. If someone was playing a character who'd lived in a large city all their life and wanted to e.g. find a certain type of second hand bookshop they would know roughly where to find it, and I'd let them describe the bookshop as this (as opposed to exact knowledge of the books on the shelves) would be in character knowledge.

And regarding Fate, last time I played it we were playing Dresden Files. Fate Points were spent for precisely one purpose in the half dozen sessions. It always and without exception happened where the character was saying "This is what is important to me. Here is where I am going to grit my teeth, spend my physical and mental stamina, and make sure I get this right." An entirely in character decision. (And yes, we had remarkably few compels that game). And to me this is one of the weaknesses of most forms of D&D - the inability to pace yourself and to decide when to really go all out mechanically takes what should be an obvious choice in character and means there's no weight behind it.

As for the question of whether to spend hit dice, my normal assumption is that you spend hit dice when bandaging your wounds and recovering your strength. An in character decision to take a rest and to bandage yourselves. How many you spend is obvious - you spend until you are in about as good shape as you think you are going to get with the only question being that extra layer of bandages that will do a fractionally better job but may get in the way (i.e. do you spend hit dice when you are close to but not at full hit points).


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Neonchameleon said:


> As a player I can not see what my character sees. I can not smell what my character smells. I don't know the history of the world or the smell of salt air on the breeze in the way my character does. No matter how much the GM describes I will not and can not see the setting in the same detail as my character unless my character is literally blind and being guided around by someone describing things.
> 
> Also as a player my character is unable to look at their own character sheet. My character can't say how many hit points they have left, and far from an exact knowledge of their stats they normally have a version of the (real rather than cartoon) Dunning Krueger Effect, thinking they are a bit above average no matter whether they are poor or exceptional. And they certainly don't have objective information that way.



As you say, you cannot see the world as well as your character does. We really should be giving the benefit of the doubt to these characters, far more often than some people like to portray. The character knows a lot more about the world than what the DM can convey.

No, the character cannot see their own character sheet, but they don't need to. They can see the _actual_ reality, of which those stats are merely a pale reflection. They can see how strong someone _actually_ is, by their appearance and how they walk. They can see the blood flowing from a wound, which gives them far more information than we have. Every single item on a character sheet corresponds to information that is objectively observable within the game world.


----------



## Emerikol

Neonchameleon said:


> And this is where I have little understanding of where you are coming from.
> 
> As a player I can not see what my character sees. I can not smell what my character smells. I don't know the history of the world or the smell of salt air on the breeze in the way my character does. No matter how much the GM describes I will not and can not see the setting in the same detail as my character unless my character is literally blind and being guided around by someone describing things.



As regards sensory perception, it is a limitation of the system that the DM has to describe those things. I don't feel it is a fatal limitation.  Meaning the player hears the description imagines what is happening and then the character acts.  

As regards history, I work really hard on my worlds to provide a lot of depth.  So I know a ton as DM.  Often though I have the characters start out in territory unknown to them for this reason.  Even so there does come a time when a player can ask, "Does my character recognize any of those books".  I either know as DM or I roll.  The player is told.  Nothing has happened in game though.  What we as humans recognize instantly in realize has to travel from DM to player to character.  It is though still real knowledge the character ultimately has.



Neonchameleon said:


> Also as a player my character is unable to look at their own character sheet. My character can't say how many hit points they have left, and far from an exact knowledge of their stats they normally have a version of the (real rather than cartoon) Dunning Krueger Effect, thinking they are a bit above average no matter whether they are poor or exceptional. And they certainly don't have objective information that way.




I play the game as the stats are description of what the character perceives about himself.  The granularity may be too fine but I don't find it that unbelievable.  I guess I just don't find that information to really be metagame.  Perhaps the character does know too much or in too fine grained a detail but it's still about in game things.  



Neonchameleon said:


> I often try to approximate the two as closely as I possibly can and there are many ways of doing this (and giving narrative control helps in some circumstances but not all).
> 
> And then there's background knowledge. The more time a character spends in a city the more they know it. If someone was playing a character who'd lived in a large city all their life and wanted to e.g. find a certain type of second hand bookshop they would know roughly where to find it, and I'd let them describe the bookshop as this (as opposed to exact knowledge of the books on the shelves) would be in character knowledge.



I addressed this above.  If I really wanted one of my characters to be a local I'd give him literally a book of information about the city.  



Neonchameleon said:


> And regarding Fate, last time I played it we were playing Dresden Files. Fate Points were spent for precisely one purpose in the half dozen sessions. It always and without exception happened where the character was saying "This is what is important to me. Here is where I am going to grit my teeth, spend my physical and mental stamina, and make sure I get this right." An entirely in character decision. (And yes, we had remarkably few compels that game). And to me this is one of the weaknesses of most forms of D&D - the inability to pace yourself and to decide when to really go all out mechanically takes what should be an obvious choice in character and means there's no weight behind it.



I guess I don't really buy the idea of saving up some reasons or making one great effort that uses that resource.  I think in the course of a round of combat that your great exertion is that moment when you really try to hit the enemy as opposed to feinting etc...




Neonchameleon said:


> As for the question of whether to spend hit dice, my normal assumption is that you spend hit dice when bandaging your wounds and recovering your strength. An in character decision to take a rest and to bandage yourselves. How many you spend is obvious - you spend until you are in about as good shape as you think you are going to get with the only question being that extra layer of bandages that will do a fractionally better job but may get in the way (i.e. do you spend hit dice when you are close to but not at full hit points).



I appreciate your view but it just doesn't work for me.  I think any reasonable character would 100% of the time try to get as healthy as possible.  This would not be optimal thinking though as a player who wants to manage hit dice.   I've got even bigger issues with healing in 5e in general and would undoubtedly use one of the optional systems or create my own if I did play 5e.  


I find it fun to debate with the people trying to convert me but I believe I'm pretty unconvertible.  So don't feel bad.  I don't tend to take up positions lightly but once I've considered everything it's hard to change me.  

I'm more interested in the best approach to get a game I like.  Not change my own views on gaming.  No offense.  I am genuinely glad you all enjoy playing the game the way you do.  The world is big enough for more than one playstyle.  I'm just trying to figure out which game system is closest so I can hack it.  I doubt any system is right there.  

I am following all the posts about pf2e.  I keep thinking that it would be so easy to just eliminate any feat or even archetype I found objectionable.  I'd ban the goblin so fast it's tiny head would spin.  But so what?  If the basic infrastructure would work, I could then just build up from that.  Not sure it will of course as I haven't seen that rulebook but I will look it over in August.  Maybe.


----------



## Emerikol

Neonchameleon said:


> And this is where I have little understanding of where you are coming from.




As an additional aside, I do think there is a big disconnect between people who care and those who don't.  It's definitely a matter of degrees too.  So it's like people fall on a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is someone like me.  A lot of people opposed 4e for some of it's metagame and perhaps those people are 5's or 7's but they accept 5e's similar approaches because they aren't as far along that line as me.  

For those who really aren't bothered at all about it, they seem to have little empathy and how could they.  They just don't feel what I feel.  Whether it's left brain, right brain or whatever.  It might even be that for some people D&D is just like playing any other game.  They have no empathy about my concerns.  I play other games like that but for me roleplaying provides a far deeper and richer experience.  I can lose myself in another world in ways playing a board game or a minis game just doesn't satisfy.   And when the rpg becomes more like those other games to me it's a poor version of that sort of fun.

So that was all just me theorizing.  I don't claim to have a Ph.D in anything on such matters.  My observation is that people's tastes are different.  Shocking.  .   Why they are we may never know.  I enjoy talking about it and theorizing about it but not sure that will change anything or anyone.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Emerikol said:


> As regards sensory perception, it is a limitation of the system that the DM has to describe those things. I don't feel it is a fatal limitation.  Meaning the player hears the description imagines what is happening and then the character acts.




I do however regard it as _a_ limitation and one that if there is some way of mitigating it can be useful to do so.



> I play the game as the stats are description of what the character perceives about himself.  The granularity may be too fine but I don't find it that unbelievable.  I guess I just don't find that information to really be metagame.  Perhaps the character does know too much or in too fine grained a detail but it's still about in game things.




And here's the heart of the matter.



> I guess I don't really buy the idea of saving up some reasons or making one great effort that uses that resource.  I think in the course of a round of combat that your great exertion is that moment when you really try to hit the enemy as opposed to feinting etc...




Whereas I think that any warrior who isn't terminally stupid who is fighting kobolds and knows that they will be fighting a dragon later will deliberately pace themselves against the kobolds and go all out against the dragon. In the one case they die only if they  up, and in the other they die if they don't bring their A game.



> I appreciate your view but it just doesn't work for me.




And here is where castigate just about every designer of a class based game between E. Gary Gygax in 1974 and D. Vincent Baker in 2010. Because to me "it just doesn't work for me" is a big part of what should be the beauty of a class based game.

If I see a fighter (as I do) as an athlete who paces themselves and who needs some form of mechanic to indicate when they are going all out against the enemy in order to fit the archetype and you see a fighter as someone who always performs at the same level then, in a class based game, there is precisely no reason we shouldn't be able to have our two fighters sitting side by side at the same table from different classes or subclasses. And whereas I'd find yours mechanically tedious, stifling, and anti-immersive and you'd find mine dissasociated and anti-immersive _who cares_? I don't have to play yours and you don't have to play mine. 

Designing a class in a class based game should essentially be designing almost an entirely new game (and both Gygax and Baker got that; the oD&D fighter, magic user, and cleric were basically playing entirely different games based on their relationship to exploration and loot while Baker's Apocalypse World and its good hacks are essentially a different game per playbook with some overlap).



> I think any reasonable character would 100% of the time try to get as healthy as possible.




First, I think most adventurers would be unreasonable people or they wouldn't make their living as adventurers. Second I work in a hospital and I can tell you this isn't true.



> I'm more interested in the best approach to get a game I like.  Not change my own views on gaming.  No offense.  I am genuinely glad you all enjoy playing the game the way you do.  The world is big enough for more than one playstyle.  I'm just trying to figure out which game system is closest so I can hack it.  I doubt any system is right there.




And one question I'd ask is whether you want to control the parts of the game you interface with for your playstyle or you need all the players to interface with the game the same way. As I said, one of the key strengths of a class based game is that different people can handle things differently.


----------



## Umbran

Saelorn said:


> If I want to play a flawed character in D&D, then I can do that. I will choose to make the wrong choices, because I'm role-playing a flawed character, and that's what they would do. Rewarding that choice should not be necessary.




You should reward the choices of the form you want players to make.  If you want players to make exquisite tactical plans, you should present them with situations where those plans work well, so that they'll win and be rewarded for those plans.  If you want them to improvise and shoot from the hip, you should provide them with situations where that's the best approach.  If you want them to use diplomacy, you should reward them when they use diplomacy.

And, if you want them to display the flaws of a character?  Well, you should reward them for that.

And if you have a preferred playstyle, that means you do have types of choices you want the players to take over other types.



> That's not a very nice thing to say about Squirrel Girl.




Yeah, I'm not actually a fan of Squirrel Girl.  Or Deadpool.  Or Batman.  If they've had a comic of the form "Character beats up *everyone else*" I'm probably not a big fan.


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> You always seem to twist my words into a strawman.




I am trying to take your words as they are stated.  



> The characters though are trying to act optimally.




And I'm saying that's the unrealistic bit.  Real people don't always even try to act optimally, much less achieve it.

For example - many real world people smoke tobacco.  The number of people born in the US after 1970 who do not know that smoking is a really bad idea is vanishingly small.  But about 17% of adults still smoke - they are not even trying to be optimal. People do all sort of suboptimal things, not just because they don't have all the information, not just because their logical abilities are limited, but because humans have conflicting drives.  They don't want just one thing, to which an optimal route is available.  Humans often want conflicting, mutually exclusive things, such that there's no optimal route to what they want.  And sometimes, they act sub-optimally _just because_!

It is past midnight, and I have a job interview tomorrow, and I'm here discussing how to pretend to be elves!  Not optimal!  Insomnia keeps me from having access to anything even vaguely optimal at the moment.  So, I just pick something, until something better comes along.



> Defeat is a lot of things.  Death is one and it's always there in a world in my games.  But failing to rescue someone, having to retreat due to a superior enemy, springing a trap (small defeat), or the bad guys just plain getting away with the treasure are all defeats.  Failure to achieve the goal.




I can't win for losing.  In another discussion, I try to convince someone that death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, and they were having none of it.  Here, I can't get someone to accept death as the clearest consequence for screwing up in D&D.  

Make up your minds, people! 



> Every one of those things though not perfect are representative of things characters know in game.  They know the big sword tends to do more than the small dagger.  They know some people are better at avoiding spell damage than others.  They all know that hit points represent their overall well being and nearness to death.  My characters all know that.  That is in game knowledge every bit of it.




Do they look up in books during a fight which sword does more damage?  'Cause that's something players do.



> I think maybe I've triggered you which is not my intention.




With respect, nothing you can say can "trigger" me.  You can't moderate boards like this as long as I have and be "triggered" by piddling things like differences of opinion on how to pretend to be elves.

And that word is wildly overused.  Let's reserve it for people who have PTSD, like it was intended, please



> This thread is getting off track.  I don't agree with what you think is metagame which to me is not.  Just realize that for me it is not.  I think it's not for others too in many cases but again that is unimportant to the questions I'm asking.




Okay, actually, if we do want to get this back to something you care about, it is really an important bit.  We cannot advise you on how to achieve no-metagame _when your conception of what constitutes metagame is different than ours_.  If there's one thing here we should *not* discard, it is this.  Yoru conception of what constitutes metagame is *central* to the issue.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Umbran said:


> And, if you want them to display the flaws of a character?  Well, you should reward them for that.



That's not a very impartial way of adjudicating uncertainty in action resolution. It's a highly biased method, for promoting certain outcomes above others, by encouraging the player to meta-game. It basically violates every tenet of traditional role-playing games.


Umbran said:


> Yeah, I'm not actually a fan of Squirrel Girl.



:-(


----------



## Umbran

Saelorn said:


> That's not a very impartial way of adjudicating uncertainty in action resolution. It's a highly biased method, for promoting certain outcomes above others, by encouraging the player to meta-game. It basically violates every tenet of traditional role-playing games.




Oh, really?  You sure?

AD&D (1e) DMG, pg 110: Conducting The Game

_"In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice things such as melee hits and saving throws.  However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players.  You might do this to keep them from knowing a specific fact.  You might also want to give them an edge in finding a particular clue.... You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur."_

Those are the words of Gary Gygax.  Nothing more "traditional" than that!  Clearly, the most traditional tenets of role-playing games are *NOT* of totally impartially adjudicated uncertainty.  When a Gygaxian GM wants something to happen a certain way, it happens, action resolution system be darned!   Your having action resolution be inviolate is the new-fangled, non-traditional thing, I dare say.  As far as Gygax was concerned, the GM most certainly had some say in what way things were going to go.

Be that as it may, I'm not trying to advocate mucking with the action resolution system.  Quite the contrary - I'm talking more about influencing what choice of actions the players make, not about influencing how those actions are resolved once chosen.  I'm talking about an action resolution system that rewards a type of play *naturally*, without the GM having to intervene directly in the course of play!  

Alternatively, a few of the things I mentioned are probably best handled by adventure design that encourages one style of play over another, without touching the rules.

There's more than one way for the GM to set up the rewards for playstyle.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> If I really wanted one of my characters to be a local I'd give him literally a book of information about the city.



I think that's actually quite impractical for a lot of RPGing situations.  And also still doesn't do the job. No doubt there's stuff in the Lonely Planet guide to Melbourne that I don't know; but as far as knowing the shortcuts and alleyways around my house, I know them better than the Lonely Planet will tell you about them.



Emerikol said:


> I guess I don't really buy the idea of saving up some reasons or making one great effort that uses that resource.  I think in the course of a round of combat that your great exertion is that moment when you really try to hit the enemy as opposed to feinting etc...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think any reasonable character would 100% of the time try to get as healthy as possible.  This would not be optimal thinking though as a player who wants to manage hit dice.





Neonchameleon said:


> I think that any warrior who isn't terminally stupid who is fighting kobolds and knows that they will be fighting a dragon later will deliberately pace themselves against the kobolds and go all out against the dragon. In the one case they die only if they  up, and in the other they die if they don't bring their A game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I see a fighter (as I do) as an athlete who paces themselves and who needs some form of mechanic to indicate when they are going all out against the enemy



I think having mechanics that allow a PC to pace him-/herself, and to try harder (or not) are not at odds with "realism". It's realistic for serious athletes to do this.



Emerikol said:


> I do think there is a big disconnect between people who care and those who don't.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For those who really aren't bothered at all about it, they seem to have little empathy and how could they.  They just don't feel what I feel.



To be honest I find this a little melodramatic. I've GMed thousands of hours of Rolemaster, and have played RQ and other games, all of which are largely metagame free. A big part of the appeal of those games, compared to classic D&D, is that they are metagame free (especially in their combat mechanics, but also their spellcasting - spell memorisation encourages metagaming, like @Immaculata's example with the undead, even though there is a veneer of in-fiction justification layered over the top - and in their advancement mechanics too - no "gold for XP" in those systems!).

So I think I've got a pretty good handle on the appeal of metagame-free RPGing. What I don't get is why anyone who plays mostly D&D would advocate for it.


----------



## Imaculata

Umbran said:


> You should reward the choices of the form you want players to make.  If you want players to make exquisite tactical plans, you should present them with situations where those plans work well, so that they'll win and be rewarded for those plans.  If you want them to improvise and shoot from the hip, you should provide them with situations where that's the best approach.  If you want them to use diplomacy, you should reward them when they use diplomacy.




Completely agree. I once gave my players full exp for overcoming an encounter with a bunch of giant crabs in a non-violent way. I even gave them bonus exp, because their solution was really clever (the Druid shape-shifted into a crab to bypass the monsters  ).



Umbran said:


> And, if you want them to display the flaws of a character?  Well, you should reward them for that.




^ This is perhaps even more important. When players take extra effort to play out their character flaws, it should be rewarded.



Saelorn said:


> It's the optimal choice for the player, but it's not necessarily the optimal choice for the character. But it's a role-playing game, so I should be doing what the _character_ wants, rather than what the _player_ wants.




I have a player in my current group whose character acquired a magic lamp with a genie at some point. He made one wish, to have his ship restored after a costly naval battle, and then he wished the lamp to be far away from him. This was a fantastic role playing moment, that had the other players screaming in astonishment, but I rewarded him exp for it.

Because it made sense for his character. His character understood the danger of being in the possession of this powerful item that every good and evil person in the world would want to get their hands on. He knew that no wish came without a cost, and so he did the sensible thing, and protected the rest of the party against their greed. 

As he explained it: 

_"He was a captain. He already had everything he needed; a ship and the open sea. He had no need for wishes. No good could come from it."_

It probably would have been beneficial to him as a player (and to the rest of the party) to keep making more wishes. But his character chose otherwise.


----------



## Imaculata

5ekyu said:


> "And on the latter: I've had situations in my campaign where a player wanted to prepare spells, but as a player he expected undead, while his character did not have any in-game reason to expect those"
> 
> Just curious, can you give any sprcifics on the undead prep case? I am curious as to why a player would want to prep for or expect undead but the character have no in-game sense of it.
> 
> Was it player saw other scenes playing out his character was not at and had no input from and so he knew but character didn't or something less divergent?




The party was going into the catacombs underneath a local church. As a player, he knew that this just spells out "UNDEAD!!!!", but his character had no reason to presume the catacombs would have undead in them.

Which is why I said to him: "Bring what ever spells 'you' want to bring. Maybe you're right, or maybe you're wrong. It doesn't matter. But there is no need to handicap yourself because of metagaming."

And in the end it does indeed not matter. If I want to catch my players off guard, I'll just throw in something that is not an undead. Or maybe I want to reward their preparations, and just have it be a threat that they are prepared to deal with. Either way I will ensure as a DM that their crawl through the catacombs will be fun. Heck, maybe combat with undead isn't even the main focus of the quest? In which case what spells they happen to bring is pretty irrelevant.


----------



## Jhaelen

Umbran said:


> AD&D (1e) DMG, pg 110: Conducting The Game
> 
> _"In many situations it is correct and fun to have the players dice things such as melee hits and saving throws.  However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players.  You might do this to keep them from knowing a specific fact.  You might also want to give them an edge in finding a particular clue.... You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur."_



Oh, dear. Gary Gygax was a cheater!!! And worse, he was trying to tempt others into cheating, as well! The horror!!!


----------



## Neonchameleon

Emerikol said:


> As an additional aside, I do think there is a big disconnect between people who care and those who don't.  It's definitely a matter of degrees too.  So it's like people fall on a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is someone like me.  A lot of people opposed 4e for some of it's metagame and perhaps those people are 5's or 7's but they accept 5e's similar approaches because they aren't as far along that line as me.
> 
> For those who really aren't bothered at all about it, they seem to have little empathy and how could they.  They just don't feel what I feel.  Whether it's left brain, right brain or whatever.  It might even be that for some people D&D is just like playing any other game.  They have no empathy about my concerns.  I play other games like that but for me roleplaying provides a far deeper and richer experience.  I can lose myself in another world in ways playing a board game or a minis game just doesn't satisfy.   And when the rpg becomes more like those other games to me it's a poor version of that sort of fun.
> 
> So that was all just me theorizing.  I don't claim to have a Ph.D in anything on such matters.  My observation is that people's tastes are different.  Shocking.  .   Why they are we may never know.  I enjoy talking about it and theorizing about it but not sure that will change anything or anyone.




On reflection I think that the real difference here is between inclusionists and exclusionists. Inclusionists consider the important part to be that they are able to make decisions that are as similar as possible to their character, and if that leaves them able to make other decisions too then why worry? They just won't make those decisions because their character wouldn't. Exclusionist consider it vitally important that they be unable to make decisions their character can't and if that cuts off decisions their character could then just too bad.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> My PCs often have non-adventuring goals like creating a temple or building a fortress.  Winning comes down to achieving goals.



I hope you don't presume here that my PCs don't.  



Lanefan said:


> Given this, I'll ask how careful are you about keeping player knowledge and character knowledge in synch.



It is inherently a fool's errand. You are correct that "it's easier to play true to character if what you know as a player matches what you know as a character," but this is striving after wind. There is an inherent disconnect and power imbalance between player and character knowledge that  [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] overviews quite well. So for me this is really a discussion of "which metagaming poison do you pick?" 

----- 

Compels in Fate are not really a mechanism about putting players in the position to "lose," and likewise it would be misguided IMO to view them in opposition to characters "winning." Character compels represent the introduction of character-oriented complications in the drama of the roleplaying experience. 

If your character Trouble is "Most Wanted Outlaw in the Three Territories," then the player presumably wants significant 'screentime' to roleplay this out. And that may mean that during an opportune time the GM slips the player a fate point and says, "While you are trying to lay low on your fact-finding mission, there is a patron at the bar wearing two pistol belts. He occasionally glances in your direction. He seems to recognize your face as dollar signs are starting to glow in his eyes." 

There is nothing inherently involved here about the player losing. The player gets a fate point for accepting this story complication that affects their character, but in-character, it is the player character deciding their wants in this dramatic moment: "Do I buckle-down on laying low so that I can dodge this bounty hunter for the good of the mission or do I live up to my reputation as a wanted outlaw?" The character embracing this potential chaos may even lead to "victory" depending on how this plays out. Maybe this impresses the person they are trying to gather dirt on, and they invite them into their circle. Maybe the other characters use this as a distraction to get the information they need. 

_But isn't that metagaming?_ Sure, but part of Fate's social contract is that a player creates the Troubles that _the player wants their character to experience_ in the game. The player is getting rewarded for roleplaying the character they wanted. This "metagame" is important for Fate as a game. The mechanic engages the player to embrace and think as character. You can spend Fate points when you put yourself into opportunites that lean on your character aspects. You gain Fate points when you put yourselves into opportunities that lean on your character aspects. 

I do not doubt that this process can be immersion-breaking for some, but these transactions most often transpire in-character for most Fate games I have played or run. Not only has  [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] raised how this makes him feel like they are playing a chess piece, I had a similar conversation with  [MENTION=4789]Lord Mhoram[/MENTION] about this awhile back too. But several of players in my D&D group have said that D&D makes them feel more like minis in a tactical war game than characters, and they find Fate's mechanics more conducive for in-character roleplaying. (Though I wager that most people who game don't care.) My point here being that people have different preferences for mechanics that engender the in-character roleplaying experiences they want, and different games can produce different results depending on those preferences.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Umbran said:


> Those are the words of Gary Gygax.  Nothing more "traditional" than that!  Clearly, the most traditional tenets of role-playing games are *NOT* of totally impartially adjudicated uncertainty.  When a Gygaxian GM wants something to happen a certain way, it happens, action resolution system be darned!   Your having action resolution be inviolate is the new-fangled, non-traditional thing, I dare say.  As far as Gygax was concerned, the GM most certainly had some say in what way things were going to go.



Gygax was a war-gamer, and he never pretended otherwise. Actual role-playing - making decisions as though the character was a real person in a living world, rather than a game piece or a narrative construct - didn't come to the fore-front of the hobby until 2E. That shift in tone is a much greater difference between 1E and 2E than the minor changes in the rules.

I apologize for confusing terms, though. I should have said that it was against all of the traditional tenets of role-playing, rather than the tenets of traditional role-playing games. Traditional role-playing games, of the Gygaxian sort, were never really about role-playing so much as they were about strict book-keeping and providing a challenge to the players.


----------



## Emerikol

Saelorn said:


> Gygax was a war-gamer, and he never pretended otherwise. Actual role-playing - making decisions as though the character was a real person in a living world, rather than a game piece or a narrative construct - didn't come to the fore-front of the hobby until 2E. That shift in tone is a much greater difference between 1E and 2E than the minor changes in the rules.
> 
> I apologize for confusing terms, though. I should have said that it was against all of the traditional tenets of role-playing, rather than the tenets of traditional role-playing games. Traditional role-playing games, of the Gygaxian sort, were never really about role-playing so much as they were about strict book-keeping and providing a challenge to the players.




I don't agree Saelorn.  D&D became popular to Gygax because it transcended what he could get out of wargaming.  Sure day one he went in as a wargamer.  He soon discovered far more and shared it with the world.  That is why D&D exploded as a hobby.


----------



## Emerikol

On the metagame and how I view it.  Hopefully this will help us to dispense with the debate about what I think it is.

1. There was little or no metagame in D&D core books from 3e back. (As a rule I never allowed non-core books by default.  Each element allowed in had to be examined and approved by me as DM).  So if you think of a mechanic that is core to D&D all along, I don't think it is metagame.  I did for any given edition ban a few things.  My players tended almost universally to play the core 4 + the paladin.

2. No. I cannot enjoy a game if anyone in the group is playing using metagame constructs.  I don't mind at all if the game itself has them and they are easy to remove.  I don't care if other groups metagame to their hearts content.  I've found that what I offer as a DM is worth either giving up metagaming to get or attractive to people like myself who dislike metagame.

3. Many non-core books across the years have been metagame.  I believe much of 4e was metagame for me.  Any martial daily is unquestionably so for me.  So saving any sort of potential combat attack energy resource across combats is absolutely not something I believe happens.  I believe that inside of an individual combat that the opportunity to deliver an extra big blow is almost never the character's decision alone.  It happens because the enemy lets down his guard or is overwhelmed already with lesser attacks, etc..  So critical hits on a 20 are because you rolled a good attack and the defender had a bad day defending.  The planets aligned.  So I could see special attacks and maneuvers activated by certain die rolls.  I don't believe it can be delivered with certainty.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s post makes an important point - there is no contrast, in general, between _enjoys metagame mechanics_ and _does not care about immersion in character_. Rather, the metagame mechanics are _part of the techniques used to achieve immersion_.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> There was little or no metagame in D&D core books from 3e back.



This claim is controversial.

AD&D saving throws are metagame: Gygax says as much in his discussion of saving throws in his DMG.

AD&D hit points are metagame: see above.

Barbarian rage, in 3E, is as metagame as martial dailies in 4e.

Spell memorisation encourages highly metagame play, and the fact that there is a veneer of an in-fiction rationale doesn't change that.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> I hope you don't presume here that my PCs don't.
> 
> It is inherently a fool's errand. You are correct that "it's easier to play true to character if what you know as a player matches what you know as a character," but this is striving after wind. There is an inherent disconnect and power imbalance between player and character knowledge that  [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] overviews quite well. So for me this is really a discussion of "which metagaming poison do you pick?"



I've been doing it successfully for years.  I just don't tell players what they don't know.  I change up monster stats all the time.  I once had a player complain that a certain monster could not do what it was doing.  My answer "Are you going to trust some dusty old tomes you read in a library or are you going to trust your eyes?"  You see only what I tell the players is reality.  



Aldarc said:


> _But isn't that metagaming?_ Sure, but part of Fate's social contract is that a player creates the Troubles that _the player wants their character to experience_ in the game. The player is getting rewarded for roleplaying the character they wanted. This "metagame" is important for Fate as a game. The mechanic engages the player to embrace and think as character. You can spend Fate points when you put yourself into opportunites that lean on your character aspects. You gain Fate points when you put yourselves into opportunities that lean on your character aspects.



You are arguing that metagaming can be fun.  I'm saying good for you.  I know it can be fun for many people. It would be insane on my part to deny something so obvious.  I stated though that for me it's not or it lessens the game for me and I'd rather go for it all when I roleplay.   Roleplaying is a far bigger commitment timewise than most other games.  I want only the very best game I can get for me.  And it's not because it would be absolutely impossible for me to play through a metagame style rpg.  It just wouldn't satisfy me any more than a board game would and I'm unwilling to commit that much for board game level fun.  And before anyone cries foul, I am not saying your approach IS board gaming.  I am saying that the satisfaction I would get is equivalent to the satisfaction I'd get from a one off board game.  Which is not zero by any measure but it's not even close to a good rpg campaign.

My way of dealing with the example of the outlaw is just rolling for it.  In this town, what are the odds are famous outlaw will be recognized.  Just roll for the various patrons.  So yes, it is out of the players hands.  Some don't like that.  But it really is true that the character if he is hiding out doesn't want to be detected OR the character can let that out of the bag himself intentionally.



Aldarc said:


> I do not doubt that this process can be immersion-breaking for some, but these transactions most often transpire in-character for most Fate games I have played or run. Not only has  [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] raised how this makes him feel like they are playing a chess piece, I had a similar conversation with  [MENTION=4789]Lord Mhoram[/MENTION] about this awhile back too. But several of players in my D&D group have said that D&D makes them feel more like minis in a tactical war game than characters, and they find Fate's mechanics more conducive for in-character roleplaying. (Though I wager that most people who game don't care.) My point here being that people have different preferences for mechanics that engender the in-character roleplaying experiences they want, and different games can produce different results depending on those preferences.




On this there can be no doubt. I hope I have not in anyway given the impression that I don't agree that people have different tastes and different experiences.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Emerikol said:


> I don't agree Saelorn.  D&D became popular to Gygax because it transcended what he could get out of wargaming.  Sure day one he went in as a wargamer.  He soon discovered far more and shared it with the world.  That is why D&D exploded as a hobby.



That doesn't mean he discovered role-playing, though. From what I can tell, his discoveries were much more in line with discovering a new type of board game, to which he applied a storytelling layer. Consider the Tomb of Horrors, which he wrote in order to challenge his players, after they thought themselves to have mastered the game. Consider how he described a fighter chained to a rock, with a dragon breathing fire on him, and a successful save against breath weapon meaning that the fighter must have broken free and hidden behind the rock.

Nothing I've ever read about him has ever given me the impression that he cared about role-playing, as we understand the term. He would never have been caught up in the debate between what a player wants to do, and whether it makes sense for the character to do that. Meta-gaming, in the common usage of the term, was entirely expected at his table.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> This claim is controversial.
> 
> AD&D saving throws are metagame: Gygax says as much in his discussion of saving throws in his DMG.
> 
> AD&D hit points are metagame: see above.
> 
> Barbarian rage, in 3E, is as metagame as martial dailies in 4e.
> 
> Spell memorisation encourages highly metagame play, and the fact that there is a veneer of an in-fiction rationale doesn't change that.




I don't agree that saving throws or hit points are metagame.  Saving throws represent your likelihood of avoiding some negative effect.  That is in world truth.  Hit points are how hard you are to kill.  Again in world truth.  

I agree Barbarian rage is metagame.  No one ever played a Barbarian in my campaigns.  

My PCs do try to pick the right spells but they only act on their character knowledge.  So sure if they have been dealing with undead or see signs of undead they will prepare accordingly.  Who wouldn't?  They may even research before going to a dungeon.  Maybe cast legend lore etc...   They don't act on out of game knowledge because I as DM give them none.


----------



## Emerikol

Neonchameleon said:


> On reflection I think that the real difference here is between inclusionists and exclusionists. Inclusionists consider the important part to be that they are able to make decisions that are as similar as possible to their character, and if that leaves them able to make other decisions too then why worry? They just won't make those decisions because their character wouldn't. Exclusionist consider it vitally important that they be unable to make decisions their character can't and if that cuts off decisions their character could then just too bad.




I don't see any decisions getting cut off but essentially except for that I agree.  It's very important to act as your character.  It's also not necessary to incentivize any act that can still be freely taken.  The PC can still do it.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> I am trying to take your words as they are stated.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm saying that's the unrealistic bit.  Real people don't always even try to act optimally, much less achieve it.
> 
> For example - many real world people smoke tobacco.  The number of people born in the US after 1970 who do not know that smoking is a really bad idea is vanishingly small.  But about 17% of adults still smoke - they are not even trying to be optimal. People do all sort of suboptimal things, not just because they don't have all the information, not just because their logical abilities are limited, but because humans have conflicting drives.  They don't want just one thing, to which an optimal route is available.  Humans often want conflicting, mutually exclusive things, such that there's no optimal route to what they want.  And sometimes, they act sub-optimally _just because_!
> 
> It is past midnight, and I have a job interview tomorrow, and I'm here discussing how to pretend to be elves!  Not optimal!  Insomnia keeps me from having access to anything even vaguely optimal at the moment.  So, I just pick something, until something better comes along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umbran said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't win for losing.  In another discussion, I try to convince someone that death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, and they were having none of it.  Here, I can't get someone to accept death as the clearest consequence for screwing up in D&D.
> 
> Make up your minds, people!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are different people Umbran and I actually posted in support of you on that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umbran said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they look up in books during a fight which sword does more damage?  'Cause that's something players do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my players during the game session.  "Oh you are pulling out a treatise on swordsmanship in the middle of a battle? I guess that means you won't be doing anything for a few rounds while you do that research."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umbran said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, nothing you can say can "trigger" me.  You can't moderate boards like this as long as I have and be "triggered" by piddling things like differences of opinion on how to pretend to be elves.
> 
> And that word is wildly overused.  Let's reserve it for people who have PTSD, like it was intended, please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I admit text is harder to get a read on a person.  You just seemed that way in the way you were responding.  If not then no worries.
> 
> As for the word, no.  It's entered the wider vernacular now.  They even have classes on it and those classes aren't about PTSD.  But for this conversation of course we've cleared the matter up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umbran said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, actually, if we do want to get this back to something you care about, it is really an important bit.  We cannot advise you on how to achieve no-metagame _when your conception of what constitutes metagame is different than ours_.  If there's one thing here we should *not* discard, it is this.  Yoru conception of what constitutes metagame is *central* to the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did a post above that hopefully will help clarify things.  I'm just trying to avoid getting into a big argument over what I should like which will inevitably fail anyway and get on to given what I do like what would be the best approach for achieving it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jacob Lewis

I find this topic very interesting. Even though my experience with 5e was short, I recognize the mechanics pointed out. I have some thoughts.



Emerikol said:


> 1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?



Resilience? Spirit? Endurance? Maybe an abstract combination not unlike how we try and define what hit points represent. I think it's just utilizing existing resources and recycling it into another mechanic. Good designs are like that. But if you're looking for higher fidelity, think of it as stamina. Body, mind, and spirit can only recover so many times from continual beatings before it reaches a breaking point. Being able to fully rest used to be the only method of recovery before the short rest became a thing. The hit dice just acts as a built in counter, as opposed to introducing something else, like healing surges. 



Emerikol said:


> 2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.



I can see a character used to battle knowing how to push beyond his limits in an unexpected surge of determination and grit. I just don't see why it's limited to just fighters since every D&D character class in every edition is built and bred for battle. But I guess the fighter needed something.



Emerikol said:


> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.



Another surge of resolve and tenacity? I think I'm seeing a pattern...



Emerikol said:


> 4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.



This is a conundrum. Since Inspiration is largely a metagaming mechanic--DMs often use this as a reward for the player, not the character--it's going to feel metagamey. There's no way around it. How about some XP instead?

Good topic! Thanks for that.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> I hope you don't presume here that my PCs don't.




No.  I was responding in my mind to the idea that my style would lack those things and not that your style does.  

We have a very rich downtime game almost always in my campaigns.  I do like that PF2e is really making it part of the official game.  I find I end up writing the rules anyway because my groups all want them.  They end up running businesses, building all sorts of structures, influencing the various rulers of nations, etc...  So while my adventures very much are about survival and optimal play, there exists all the other traditional stuff around it.


----------



## Emerikol

Saelorn said:


> That doesn't mean he discovered role-playing, though. From what I can tell, his discoveries were much more in line with discovering a new type of board game, to which he applied a storytelling layer. Consider the Tomb of Horrors, which he wrote in order to challenge his players, after they thought themselves to have mastered the game. Consider how he described a fighter chained to a rock, with a dragon breathing fire on him, and a successful save against breath weapon meaning that the fighter must have broken free and hidden behind the rock.
> 
> Nothing I've ever read about him has ever given me the impression that he cared about role-playing, as we understand the term. He would never have been caught up in the debate between what a player wants to do, and whether it makes sense for the character to do that. Meta-gaming, in the common usage of the term, was entirely expected at his table.




Again I disagree.  I think a lot of "modern" roleplaying concepts would be foreign to him yes.  But if you read the DMG 1e, you will see advice on handling player knowledge vs character knowledge.  That tells me he is aware of the issue.  I still consider the 1e DMG to be a great book on how to run a campaign successfully (at least in my preferred style).


----------



## Emerikol

Jacob Lewis said:


> I find this topic very interesting. Even though my experience with 5e was short, I recognize the mechanics pointed out. I have some thoughts.



If it can stay civil, it can be interesting.  Not sure my desired outcome though will be achieved. 




Jacob Lewis said:


> Resilience? Spirit? Endurance? Maybe an abstract combination not unlike how we try and define what hit points represent. I think it's just utilizing existing resources and recycling it into another mechanic. Good designs are like that. But if you're looking for higher fidelity, think of it as stamina. Body, mind, and spirit can only recover so many times from continual beatings before it reaches a breaking point. Being able to fully rest used to be the only method of recovery before the short rest became a thing. The hit dice just acts as a built in counter, as opposed to introducing something else, like healing surges.



But how and why do I choose to use HD as a player?  It seems more logical to me to say you keep using HD until you are healed up or run out.  In fact, I'd just take the average of all the HD, add the number to a pool and draw off that pool until it's gone.  The decision making going on here to use or not use a HD is not character decision making.



Jacob Lewis said:


> I can see a character used to battle knowing how to push beyond his limits in an unexpected surge of determination and grit. I just don't see why it's limited to just fighters since every D&D character class in every edition is built and bred for battle. But I guess the fighter needed something.
> 
> Another surge of resolve and tenacity? I think I'm seeing a pattern...



This has been a big debate for a long time and I think most of the people who believe in these "surges" are wrong.  It could be a whole different thread though and I'm not sure I want to even go to that thread.  All that is going to be said on the matter has been said.  You either believe it or don't.  I don't.  And it's not necessary for anyone to get on here and shout that I'm wrong.  We can just agree to disagree.  And Jacob, that last sentence was not at you but the whole thread.




Jacob Lewis said:


> This is a conundrum. Since Inspiration is largely a metagaming mechanic--DMs often use this as a reward for the player, not the character--it's going to feel metagamey. There's no way around it. How about some XP instead?
> 
> Good topic! Thanks for that.




Inspiration is a great way to provide metagaming to those that want it though.  It is so easy to remove so it doesn't become a problem for those not wanting it.  It is there and well defined for those that do.  That is a big win in the design space.  So I will say I like inspiration in D&D 5e but I would never allow it's use in one of my games.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Emerikol said:


> On the metagame and how I view it.  Hopefully this will help us to dispense with the debate about what I think it is.




Indeed. It just convinces me that we have an extremely different understanding of the world - and I think yours appears to derive more from historic Dungeons & Dragons rules rather than from the real world.



> 1. There was little or no metagame in D&D core books from 3e back.




 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has already pointed out a few that are metagame and explicitly pointed out as such by Gygax.



> 2. No. I cannot enjoy a game if anyone in the group is playing using metagame constructs.




Why do you care how other people have fun if it doesn't directly impact yours? Why do you want to force their understanding of the world to match yours like this?



> Any martial daily is unquestionably so for me.  So saving any sort of potential combat attack energy resource across combats is absolutely not something I believe happens.




I consider this pair of sentences to be far more telling than you intended it to be.



> I believe that inside of an individual combat that the opportunity to deliver an extra big blow is almost never the character's decision alone.




Well, obviously. If it was the character's decision alone then we wouldn't bother rolling attack rolls. We'd just say it hit. 

But if you watch _any_ combat sport from boxing to MMA to professional wrestling (and yes I know wrestling is fake) you'll find that the pace of the fight varies. You'll find that there are times when the fighters are probing each other. You'll find there are times when they are times when they are taking advantage of mistakes. And you'll find there are times when they either pick up the pace, pull tricks, or go in with extra force to try to force an opening.

By not having some sort of mechanics this way you're denying me the opportunities to do any of these except go in in neutral, and wait to find a mistake to take advantage of.

As for saving energy across combat, if you listen to marathon runners it takes them about a day per mile to recover. If you think exerting yourself hard (because you are fighting for your life and still trying to raise the tempo) is something you can do arbitrarily often and it just takes a few minutes of rest to recover from every single time I don't know what to tell you.



> It happens because the enemy lets down his guard or is overwhelmed already with lesser attacks, etc..  So critical hits on a 20 are because you rolled a good attack and the defender had a bad day defending.




And this is of course entirely independent of exerting yourself harder, raising the pace of the fight to try to force an opening and either end it faster or change the way it is going.



> The planets aligned.  So I could see special attacks and maneuvers activated by certain die rolls.  I don't believe it can be delivered with certainty.




Once again if you could automatically succeed there would be no reason for the to hit roll.



Emerikol said:


> I don't agree that saving throws or hit points are metagame.  Saving throws represent your likelihood of avoiding some negative effect.  That is in world truth.  Hit points are how hard you are to kill.  Again in world truth.




Hit point loss on the other hand represents absolutely nothing at all. Someone is as physically capable of everything except taking damage at 1hp as they are at full hp. If it were anything to do with injury of any sort this would not be the case. So unless hit points are magical force fields then hit point mechanics are pure, raw metagame.



Emerikol said:


> I don't see any decisions getting cut off but essentially except for that I agree.  It's very important to act as your character.  It's also not necessary to incentivize any act that can still be freely taken.  The PC can still do it.




Yes _of course_ I can raise the tempo or force of a fight, trying to force openings rather than exchanging blows and probing. And it absolutely feels right when I want to do this that it should have no mechanical impact at all.

Without the ability to try to control the pace of a fight and mechanics that back me up on this as mechanics are a big part of my standard interface with the game world I find it literally impossible to immerse in the role of fighter who is anything other than the sort of fighter that is less intelligent than his warhorse (and played more normally like a stereotypical barbarian). Fighting is what fighters are meant to be good at - and that goes beyond just swinging a sword with precision and accuracy.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Umbran said:


> I can't win for losing.  In another discussion, I try to convince someone that death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, and they were having none of it.  Here, I can't get someone to accept death as the clearest consequence for screwing up in D&D.
> 
> Make up your minds, people!




Different post for a different tangent. Of course death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, but one of the things I have noticed is that (unless you are dealing with rust monsters) D&D both encourages characters who do not have connections to the game world, and in which there are few long term mechanical consequences for anything short of death (and even then there's always resurrection). On the other hand put even a minor mechanical metagame resource on the player's sheet and threaten to take it off and there will be a lot of player reaction!


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Emerikol said:


> Again I disagree.  I think a lot of "modern" roleplaying concepts would be foreign to him yes.  But if you read the DMG 1e, you will see advice on handling player knowledge vs character knowledge.  That tells me he is aware of the issue.  I still consider the 1e DMG to be a great book on how to run a campaign successfully (at least in my preferred style).



I'll take your word for it, but it's at odds with everything I've read from him prior to that, so maybe he just changed his mind at some point. That does make it hard to use him as a reference for anything, though, since he's said enough conflicting things that he can support any position.


----------



## Emerikol

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]
Let's just agree to disagree.  This thread was not intended to reopen a new front on an old war long lost from my viewpoint.  

If I am constantly defending my view of the game then this thread ultimately is going nowhere.  I'm seeking options that fit me and my groups needs.  I've explained what I like and what I believe metagaming is for me and my group.  Let's leave it at that.  

I used to enjoy debating this stuff but in the end it never goes anywhere.  It just ends up being your perception of reality vs my own.  I think I'm right and you think you are right.  So it just goes no where.  You can prove to me your right and I can't prove to you I'm right.

One thing is for sure.  I'm not playing with stuff I don't like.  At my age, I'm not likely to start liking it.  I'm just looking at games and trying to figure out what is the best solution for me and my players.  

1.  Try to hack 5e.  It's looking like that will be too hard.
2.  Hack Pf2e.  Maybe.  I'll know more in August.  I'm hopeful mainly because everything is tied up in feats which I can remove or add easily.
3.  Go back to 3e and hack it.  Maybe but unlikely.
4.  Hack a retroclone.  They offer so little that option 5 is likely my take before this one.
5.  Write my own game.  A distinct possibility.  This is also an outcome if 1 through 3 got out of hand.  .

I'm at a stage where every game offers something.  And sure I'd rather play a poorly designed game than one that is metagame so, gun to the head, I'd pick 1e over 5e.  Surely though, no gun is at my head, so I don't have to make that choice.


----------



## Emerikol

Saelorn said:


> I'll take your word for it, but it's at odds with everything I've read from him prior to that, so maybe he just changed his mind at some point. That does make it hard to use him as a reference for anything, though, since he's said enough conflicting things that he can support any position.




That was my whole point.  I believe he did exactly what you say he did.  He went into it as a wargamer and for some time played it that way.  Roleplaying just grew on him.  By the time 1e rolled around a lot had changed.  Realize he went through several pre-1e editions.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Neonchameleon said:


> Hit point loss on the other hand represents absolutely nothing at all. Someone is as physically capable of everything except taking damage at 1hp as they are at full hp. If it were anything to do with injury of any sort this would not be the case. So unless hit points are magical force fields then hit point mechanics are pure, raw metagame.



Alternatively, hit point damage measures the degree to which you are beaten up, and the mechanical ramifications of such are not worth applying to such a simplistic model within the expected context.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Saelorn said:


> Alternatively, hit point damage measures the degree to which you are beaten up, and the mechanical ramifications of such are not worth applying to such a simplistic model within the expected context.




On the other hand the impacts are huge. I don't think that death spirals would be good for the game (and neither, from memory, did Gygax) - but far from being not worth applying this is a deliberate design decision to make hit points not represent anything much (Gygax claims it's absurd to think of them as physical damage) other than a mix of luck, fate, and stamina, to get a better game. And if they are luck and fate they are getting pretty meta.


----------



## Lanefan

Saelorn said:


> Gygax was a war-gamer, and he never pretended otherwise. Actual role-playing - making decisions as though the character was a real person in a living world, rather than a game piece or a narrative construct - didn't come to the fore-front of the hobby until 2E. That shift in tone is a much greater difference between 1E and 2E than the minor changes in the rules.



Keep in mind that said shift in tone was largely driven by the sheer volume of players and DMs who had already shifted 1e in that direction much earlier, at their own tables.

Some players, even early-era ones, played it that way right from the start.

Where it met - and, sadly, still meets - opposition was from those who would prefer players to make decisions based on metagame considerations (e.g. keep the party together, always do the heroic thing, etc.) rather than what the character, given its personality and established patterns, would in fact most likely do.


----------



## Lanefan

Neonchameleon said:


> Different post for a different tangent. Of course death isn't the only source of suspense in a game, but one of the things I have noticed is that (unless you are dealing with rust monsters) D&D both encourages characters who do not have connections to the game world, and in which there are few long term mechanical consequences for anything short of death (and even then there's always resurrection). On the other hand put even a minor mechanical metagame resource on the player's sheet and threaten to take it off and there will be a lot of player reaction!



Poster child for this: level draining.

Where has that gone?

A large part of the reason death is the primary source of suspense is that many of the other sources - level draining, permanent stat damage or reduction, significant loss or permanent disenchantment of magic items, etc. - have either largely or completely been taken out of the game as written.

Never mind that even death has been made both easier to recover from (less costly, lower-level spell, etc.) and less penalizing (no permanent con loss, no level loss) once you do.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> 1.  Try to hack 5e.  It's looking like that will be too hard.
> 2.  Hack Pf2e.  Maybe.  I'll know more in August.  I'm hopeful mainly because everything is tied up in feats which I can remove or add easily.
> 3.  Go back to 3e and hack it.  Maybe but unlikely.
> 4.  Hack a retroclone.  They offer so little that option 5 is likely my take before this one.
> 5.  Write my own game.  A distinct possibility.  This is also an outcome if 1 through 3 got out of hand.  .
> 
> I'm at a stage where every game offers something.  And sure I'd rather play a poorly designed game than one that is metagame so, gun to the head, I'd pick 1e over 5e.



So...why not just hack 1e, or Basic?


----------



## Emerikol

Lanefan said:


> So...why not just hack 1e, or Basic?




Well, the hacking required to bring in a lot of modern game design I like would be a substantial effort.  It basically just becomes #5.  If the work exceeds cutting out what doesn't work and maybe adding a tiny bit, then it ends up at #5.  

And really, many retroclones have done some of that hacking already so I'd assuredly start there rather than reclimb that mountain.  If that is my take.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Neonchameleon said:


> On the other hand the impacts are huge. I don't think that death spirals would be good for the game (and neither, from memory, did Gygax) - but far from being not worth applying this is a deliberate design decision to make hit points not represent anything much (Gygax claims it's absurd to think of them as physical damage) other than a mix of luck, fate, and stamina, to get a better game. And if they are luck and fate they are getting pretty meta.



Everything that Gygax has ever stated on the topic is in agreement that hit points _do_ include a physical component. The question at hand is simply whether there are two distinct pools, or just one: Is it that the top 90% of your HP are meta-physical, and you are only scratched when you get into the bottom 10%? Or is each individual point 90% meta-physical and 10% physical, such that a 7-point wound on the high-level character is only one-tenth as severe? There are enough conflicting details to support either side, if you really wanted to argue it.

Relevant to the topic at hand, if you wanted to choose the latter interpretation, it would mean that there is a (relatively minor) physical symptom associated with every instance of HP damage, which means that characters _can_ observe and plan address them. Only in the former case - when you take a wound _purely_ to your luck - would it be meta-gaming to try and Cure that.


----------



## Emerikol

Saelorn said:


> Everything that Gygax has ever stated on the topic is in agreement that hit points _do_ include a physical component. The question at hand is simply whether there are two distinct pools, or just one: Is it that the top 90% of your HP are meta-physical, and you are only scratched when you get into the bottom 10%? Or is each individual point 90% meta-physical and 10% physical, such that a 7-point wound on the high-level character is only one-tenth as severe? There are enough conflicting details to support either side, if you really wanted to argue it.
> 
> Relevant to the topic at hand, if you wanted to choose the latter interpretation, it would mean that there is a (relatively minor) physical symptom associated with every instance of HP damage, which means that characters _can_ observe and plan address them. Only in the former case - when you take a wound _purely_ to your luck - would it be meta-gaming to try and Cure that.




Yeah lets not open that can of worms.  I am in the latter camp.  Your physical body doesn't change that much though maybe a little.  You just turn deadly attacks into far less deadly ones.  For me there is always a physical component but again let's just not go there.  In my games, hit points abstractly represent in game knowledge and always have.  So I likely won't stop playing them that way.


----------



## Ted Serious

Saelorn said:


> I'll take your word for it, but it's at odds with everything I've read from him prior to that, so maybe he just changed his mind at some point. That does make it hard to use him as a reference for anything, though, since he's said enough conflicting things that he can support any position.





Saelorn said:


> Everything that Gygax has ever stated on the topic is in agreement that hit points _do_ include a physical component. .



Seriously?


----------



## Jer

I will admit to not reading the whole thread, but if you're looking to hack 5e to get rid of the elements you list on the front page that are more narrative than simulationist, I have a few suggestions:

1. Hit Dice - eliminate HD healing entirely and just give all characters 2HD per level instead of 1.  That's functionally what short rest healing does - it splits your hp into two separate pools that you can't access all at once and gives you a narrative where when you rest you restore some energy.  Editions prior to 4e didn't need it, so if you don't like it get rid of it.  You could also just get rid of HD entirely and not double their hp - the only impact would be to reduce the length of the adventuring day as your front line can't keep fighting as long and will need to take a long rest sooner.

2. Action Surge - replace the "player's choice" version of this with one that is triggered on an event that happens on a rough schedule of once per combat for a fighter.  One version of this - utterly unplaytested - would be "when you roll a natural 17 or higher on an attack roll against a foe, you have gotten lucky and have somehow outmaneuvered or confounded or otherwise tricked your foe.  You may take an extra action."  No recharge on a short rest, no player choice as to whether or not to use the power, no recharge on the power - just luck of the battle that gives them a momentary advantage.  It could come up multiple times in a battle or it could come up zero times in the battle so that's a bit of a trade off, but on average if your combats go 5 rounds on average it should average out to 1/battle.  (If your combats are shorter on average you'd might make the range larger - if your average combat goes 6+ round you might make the range smaller, but only if you're really worried about it coming up 1/battle on average - if you're willling to just take the luck of the draw, I'd probably jut make it 17 or 18+ and be done with it )  At 17th level you can double the range so that it probably happens twice per battle on average.  It's not as much fun as Action Surge because you can' get the "he failed on his first attack but used Action Surge to swing around and succeed on a second swing" narrative in there, but when you cut narrative control away from the players something has to give.

The other option would be to replace it with a damage bonus for fighters.  The rough benefit of Action Surge is that a fighter will once per combat  have one more chance to attack.  It would probably be fair to exchange this feature for one that gives the fighter a +1 bonus to all damage rolls (or maybe a +2 bonus - I'd have to think about it, and then double i when you get to 17th level).  Not as flashy or as fun as an extra attack, and if your combats tend to be short it's going to be less damage than an extra attack would give you on average, but it's not as swingy either.

3. Second Wind - again, take away the player's conrol of this.  There are two easy ways to do this - one would be to have it trigger on an event - I'd have it be automatic once the PC falls to half hp the first time in a battle.  If you still think that's too weird and not simulationist enough, another idea would be to acknowlege that this class feature basically gives the Fighter an extra 10 + level hp times the number of encounters they see in a day.  You could just hand the fighter an extra number of hp based on that up front - of course this means the Fighter has tons of hp, but in reality the Fighter DOES have tons of hp compared to other character classes - they're just hidden.  Mathematically it would be roughly equivalent.  (I personally prefer the triggered Second Wind option at half hp, but YMMV).

4. Inspiration - ignore it.  It's a narrative and roleplaying cookie that can give players a bit of help in a variety of ways but it does't break the game if you never give out inspiration.  It just means your players have to work a bit harder and will fail a bit more often on die rolls if they don't actively look for things they can do in game to gain advantage.

Dunno if you'll like any of these suggestions, but that's how I'd hack 5e to try to keep it roughly in line with expectations while removing player narrative control.  Move actions that are triggered by player choice to being triggered by other events outside of player control, mostly based either on predictable events that will always happen once in the battle or triggered on random rolls during the battle that represent the chaos of the battlefield rather than player choice.


----------



## Emerikol

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]

Not to get off track here too far but assuming I wanted to play a sci-fi game some time where does N.E.W. fall on the metagame axis?


----------



## Bawylie

Emerikol said:


> While I have a strong opinion on metagame design elements, I by no means intend to imply that those who enjoy such concepts are doing it wrong or should convert to my way of thinking.  This is about a preference.  It would be just as silly to try to convert everyone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Vanilla is better in my opinion but philosophically "a matter of taste cannot be disputed"
> 
> So a short definition:  Metagaming.
> Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of metagame rules in 5e.
> 
> 1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?
> 
> 2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.
> 
> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.
> 
> 4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.
> 
> 
> I realize I'm picking on the fighter but the fighter is pretty egregious in these areas.  I'm sure may of the other classes have at least some issues like this though perhaps not to the same degree.
> 
> So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?
> 
> I've been thinking about Pathfinder 2e as another possibility.  Do you think it will do better in that particular area?  Worse?  I'm going to check out the pdf.
> 
> What about you old schoolers?  There is a lot to like in some of the old school games but I find them not systematic enough for me.  Heck 5e probably isn't as much as I'd like.  Everything is a special class rule.  I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e.  But I am also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.
> 
> Thoughts?




I got thoughts. 

For one, I’m sympathetic that 5E’s design didn’t quite deliver on the dials and tweaks that might’ve accommodated your preferences and mine alongside one another. But I’ll leave that aside for a sec and see if I might take a stab at some of your fighter concerns. 

Biggest ‘offenders’ (or let’s say ‘areas of opportunity for change’) I see are Second Wind, Action Surge, and Indomitable. Each of these, the player decides to use when they wish, and then must rest some amount of time before they can be used again. So we’re looking for the smallest possible alterations we can make so that the choice to use these abilities originates from the character, doesn’t have an arbitrary limit on use, or perhaps replaces the ability with a functional equivalent. 

Second Wind regains hit points commensurate with the fighter’s level, and can be used any time, but you need a rest to use it again. In an average day, the fighter has one 8 hour rest of sleep, and realistically one or two short rests of an hour during an adventuring day. In short, he can regain 3d10 plus 3 times his level hit points every day. Practically speaking, you could easily replace Second Wind with a couple Cure Wounds Spells, a packet of bonus hit points (that maybe increases as they level), or a slight resistance to damage. 
I propose: “True Grit” - whenever you are damaged by an attack, reduce the incoming damage by an amount equal to your constitution modifier (minimum 1). No problems now, the fighter is just a bit more durable on average than everyone else. 

Action Surge. This lets you take an extra action in one combat, and you have to rest before you can do it again. Alright that’s tougher. We have to look at some averages to gauge a replacement. It’s said there’s 6-8 medium difficulty encounters in an adventuring day. It’s said that each encounter is about 3 combat rounds. So it looks like you get one extra action every other combat. There’s no real limit on what that action can do. But after about 11th level, if you’re not using it for attacks, I’m a monkey’s uncle. That’s 6 attacks in one of your combat turns! A damage bonus might be sufficient. I think that’s sufficient but boring. 
I propose: “Grand Slam” On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to zero hit points with one, you can use the momentum of your devastating strike to carry you forward and take another action this turn. This keeps the extra action fun, but changes the frequency of use so that it doesn’t conflict with your sensibilities. It happens in particular circumstances, based on battle conditions and in-world effects. 

Finally we have Indomitable: re-roll a failed saving throw. Recharge after a rest. This is like how the AD&D fighter had the most favorable saving throw progression. I think we solve it the same way - improve the saving throw. It could be as simple as “you have advantage on all saving throws.”  Here’s why: you were only ever going to re-roll failed ones, and you would only ever take the best result. Practically speaking, there’s a very small boost in giving a blanket advantage to all saving throws over Indomitable-as-written. Alternatively, you could gain proficiency in a new saving throw at 9th, another at 13th, and another at 17th. I’d personally stick with advantage on all saving throws, but whatever. Either way, we don’t run into arbitrary use or limits. 

In each change I’ve proposed, your fighter is always trying their best. Not selectively - all the time. And the changes aren’t even big. Just a replacement sentence at most. That ought to make this class more palatable to your particular taste.  Let me know what you think.


----------



## Bawylie

Bawylie said:


> I got thoughts.
> 
> For one, I’m sympathetic that 5E’s design didn’t quite deliver on the dials and tweaks that might’ve accommodated your preferences and mine alongside one another. But I’ll leave that aside for a sec and see if I might take a stab at some of your fighter concerns.
> 
> Biggest ‘offenders’ (or let’s say ‘areas of opportunity for change’) I see are Second Wind, Action Surge, and Indomitable. Each of these, the player decides to use when they wish, and then must rest some amount of time before they can be used again. So we’re looking for the smallest possible alterations we can make so that the choice to use these abilities originates from the character, doesn’t have an arbitrary limit on use, or perhaps replaces the ability with a functional equivalent.
> 
> Second Wind regains hit points commensurate with the fighter’s level, and can be used any time, but you need a rest to use it again. In an average day, the fighter has one 8 hour rest of sleep, and realistically one or two short rests of an hour during an adventuring day. In short, he can regain 3d10 plus 3 times his level hit points every day. Practically speaking, you could easily replace Second Wind with a couple Cure Wounds Spells, a packet of bonus hit points (that maybe increases as they level), or a slight resistance to damage.
> I propose: “True Grit” - whenever you are damaged by an attack, reduce the incoming damage by an amount equal to your constitution modifier (minimum 1). No problems now, the fighter is just a bit more durable on average than everyone else.
> 
> Action Surge. This lets you take an extra action in one combat, and you have to rest before you can do it again. Alright that’s tougher. We have to look at some averages to gauge a replacement. It’s said there’s 6-8 medium difficulty encounters in an adventuring day. It’s said that each encounter is about 3 combat rounds. So it looks like you get one extra action every other combat. There’s no real limit on what that action can do. But after about 11th level, if you’re not using it for attacks, I’m a monkey’s uncle. That’s 6 attacks in one of your combat turns! A damage bonus might be sufficient. I think that’s sufficient but boring.
> I propose: “Grand Slam” On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to zero hit points with one, you can use the momentum of your devastating strike to carry you forward and take another action this turn. This keeps the extra action fun, but changes the frequency of use so that it doesn’t conflict with your sensibilities. It happens in particular circumstances, based on battle conditions and in-world effects.
> 
> Finally we have Indomitable: re-roll a failed saving throw. Recharge after a rest. This is like how the AD&D fighter had the most favorable saving throw progression. I think we solve it the same way - improve the saving throw. It could be as simple as “you have advantage on all saving throws.”  Here’s why: you were only ever going to re-roll failed ones, and you would only ever take the best result. Practically speaking, there’s a very small boost in giving a blanket advantage to all saving throws over Indomitable-as-written. Alternatively, you could gain proficiency in a new saving throw at 9th, another at 13th, and another at 17th. I’d personally stick with advantage on all saving throws, but whatever. Either way, we don’t run into arbitrary use or limits.
> 
> In each change I’ve proposed, your fighter is always trying their best. Not selectively - all the time. And the changes aren’t even big. Just a replacement sentence at most. That ought to make this class more palatable to your particular taste.  Let me know what you think.




Further thoughts. Hit dice - remove them. If you prefer challenge the way I think you do, just remove these. Go with fixed healing after a long rest and spells, OG style. If you want to keep hit dice, here’s a proposal: you only get hit dice equal to your proficiency score. Whenever you rest (short, long, whatever), roll ALL your hit dice and regain that much HP.  Or half on a short rest and full on a long rest. It’s a bit of healing at low levels but nothing to truly count on at mid-to-high levels. I suspect you wouldn’t miss anything removing them though and removing them has no further ramifications on your game. 

Inspiration - also remove. It’s a sort of carrot for role playing your character. You and your group will not miss it.


----------



## Emerikol

Before I respond, let me say thanks for this effort.



Jer said:


> I will admit to not reading the whole thread, but if you're looking to hack 5e to get rid of the elements you list on the front page that are more narrative than simulationist, I have a few suggestions:
> 
> 1. Hit Dice - eliminate HD healing entirely and just give all characters 2HD per level instead of 1.  That's functionally what short rest healing does - it splits your hp into two separate pools that you can't access all at once and gives you a narrative where when you rest you restore some energy.  Editions prior to 4e didn't need it, so if you don't like it get rid of it.  You could also just get rid of HD entirely and not double their hp - the only impact would be to reduce the length of the adventuring day as your front line can't keep fighting as long and will need to take a long rest sooner.



A complaint I've heard about 5e is that it is too easy.  My characters are brutally efficient so I might just leave as is in this case and maybe adjust on the monster end later if it shows up as an issue.  And yes I know that efficiency is what I've been rewarding so that is what I am getting.  Glad to get it.




Jer said:


> 2. Action Surge - replace the "player's choice" version of this with one that is triggered on an event that happens on a rough schedule of once per combat for a fighter.  One version of this - utterly unplaytested - would be "when you roll a natural 17 or higher on an attack roll against a foe, you have gotten lucky and have somehow outmaneuvered or confounded or otherwise tricked your foe.  You may take an extra action."  No recharge on a short rest, no player choice as to whether or not to use the power, no recharge on the power - just luck of the battle that gives them a momentary advantage.  It could come up multiple times in a battle or it could come up zero times in the battle so that's a bit of a trade off, but on average if your combats go 5 rounds on average it should average out to 1/battle.  (If your combats are shorter on average you'd might make the range larger - if your average combat goes 6+ round you might make the range smaller, but only if you're really worried about it coming up 1/battle on average - if you're willling to just take the luck of the draw, I'd probably jut make it 17 or 18+ and be done with it )  At 17th level you can double the range so that it probably happens twice per battle on average.  It's not as much fun as Action Surge because you can' get the "he failed on his first attack but used Action Surge to swing around and succeed on a second swing" narrative in there, but when you cut narrative control away from the players something has to give.
> 
> The other option would be to replace it with a damage bonus for fighters.  The rough benefit of Action Surge is that a fighter will once per combat  have one more chance to attack.  It would probably be fair to exchange this feature for one that gives the fighter a +1 bonus to all damage rolls (or maybe a +2 bonus - I'd have to think about it, and then double i when you get to 17th level).  Not as flashy or as fun as an extra attack, and if your combats tend to be short it's going to be less damage than an extra attack would give you on average, but it's not as swingy either.



I like the damage bonus idea the best I think but it could be a player choice.




Jer said:


> 3. Second Wind - again, take away the player's conrol of this.  There are two easy ways to do this - one would be to have it trigger on an event - I'd have it be automatic once the PC falls to half hp the first time in a battle.  If you still think that's too weird and not simulationist enough, another idea would be to acknowlege that this class feature basically gives the Fighter an extra 10 + level hp times the number of encounters they see in a day.  You could just hand the fighter an extra number of hp based on that up front - of course this means the Fighter has tons of hp, but in reality the Fighter DOES have tons of hp compared to other character classes - they're just hidden.  Mathematically it would be roughly equivalent.  (I personally prefer the triggered Second Wind option at half hp, but YMMV).



yeah for me it makes more sense to add the hit points.  I think I'd just increase per level hit points for the fighter.  I think I wouldn't increase them though as much as your suggesting.  The ability to heal them back up is a significant advantage so maybe I just add +1 per level max.



Jer said:


> 4. Inspiration - ignore it.  It's a narrative and roleplaying cookie that can give players a bit of help in a variety of ways but it does't break the game if you never give out inspiration.  It just means your players have to work a bit harder and will fail a bit more often on die rolls if they don't actively look for things they can do in game to gain advantage.



Sure.  Inspiration is my favorite metagame mechanic.  Very easy to remove.




Jer said:


> Dunno if you'll like any of these suggestions, but that's how I'd hack 5e to try to keep it roughly in line with expectations while removing player narrative control.  Move actions that are triggered by player choice to being triggered by other events outside of player control, mostly based either on predictable events that will always happen once in the battle or triggered on random rolls during the battle that represent the chaos of the battlefield rather than player choice.




They are good suggestions.  I admit many of them have crossed my mind.  It's a big hack.  It's also probably not complete in that I'd have other changes too that weren't mentioned in my original post.  I didn't list every single thing, just some illustrative stuff.  Also the fighter is my pet peeve so may that is another reason I focused on it.  

Thanks for doing this and you definitely game me some thoughts to consider.  I appreciate knowing what you think is a balanced tradeoff.


----------



## Emerikol

It's nice to see you on here Bawylie.  If you post a thread with your needs, I'll be happy to try and help you out if I can.

I also appreciate that you seem to truly understand my needs on a level I haven't seen on this thread yet.  No offense to those others trying.  Bawylie and I have a long history so he knows me better than most and understands all my old arguments from times past.



Bawylie said:


> I got thoughts.
> 
> For one, I’m sympathetic that 5E’s design didn’t quite deliver on the dials and tweaks that might’ve accommodated your preferences and mine alongside one another. But I’ll leave that aside for a sec and see if I might take a stab at some of your fighter concerns.
> 
> Biggest ‘offenders’ (or let’s say ‘areas of opportunity for change’) I see are Second Wind, Action Surge, and Indomitable. Each of these, the player decides to use when they wish, and then must rest some amount of time before they can be used again. So we’re looking for the smallest possible alterations we can make so that the choice to use these abilities originates from the character, doesn’t have an arbitrary limit on use, or perhaps replaces the ability with a functional equivalent.



You are dead on in your analysis of the problem areas on the fighter.



Bawylie said:


> Second Wind regains hit points commensurate with the fighter’s level, and can be used any time, but you need a rest to use it again. In an average day, the fighter has one 8 hour rest of sleep, and realistically one or two short rests of an hour during an adventuring day. In short, he can regain 3d10 plus 3 times his level hit points every day. Practically speaking, you could easily replace Second Wind with a couple Cure Wounds Spells, a packet of bonus hit points (that maybe increases as they level), or a slight resistance to damage.
> I propose: “True Grit” - whenever you are damaged by an attack, reduce the incoming damage by an amount equal to your constitution modifier (minimum 1). No problems now, the fighter is just a bit more durable on average than everyone else.



This is a decent idea and still seems iconic for the fighter.



Bawylie said:


> Action Surge. This lets you take an extra action in one combat, and you have to rest before you can do it again. Alright that’s tougher. We have to look at some averages to gauge a replacement. It’s said there’s 6-8 medium difficulty encounters in an adventuring day. It’s said that each encounter is about 3 combat rounds. So it looks like you get one extra action every other combat. There’s no real limit on what that action can do. But after about 11th level, if you’re not using it for attacks, I’m a monkey’s uncle. That’s 6 attacks in one of your combat turns! A damage bonus might be sufficient. I think that’s sufficient but boring.
> I propose: “Grand Slam” On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to zero hit points with one, you can use the momentum of your devastating strike to carry you forward and take another action this turn. This keeps the extra action fun, but changes the frequency of use so that it doesn’t conflict with your sensibilities. It happens in particular circumstances, based on battle conditions and in-world effects.



I like this a lot.  It also makes the fighter a real lawnmower when it comes to mooks.  That is okay and cool.  In my book that is his job.



Bawylie said:


> Finally we have Indomitable: re-roll a failed saving throw. Recharge after a rest. This is like how the AD&D fighter had the most favorable saving throw progression. I think we solve it the same way - improve the saving throw. It could be as simple as “you have advantage on all saving throws.”  Here’s why: you were only ever going to re-roll failed ones, and you would only ever take the best result. Practically speaking, there’s a very small boost in giving a blanket advantage to all saving throws over Indomitable-as-written. Alternatively, you could gain proficiency in a new saving throw at 9th, another at 13th, and another at 17th. I’d personally stick with advantage on all saving throws, but whatever. Either way, we don’t run into arbitrary use or limits.



I like the advantage idea.



Bawylie said:


> In each change I’ve proposed, your fighter is always trying their best. Not selectively - all the time. And the changes aren’t even big. Just a replacement sentence at most. That ought to make this class more palatable to your particular taste.  Let me know what you think.



I like.  If I'm getting free help from you, I may need you to quickly peruse the Rogue.  I think the Cleric and Wizard will be okay but those four are my only absolute requirements.


----------



## Emerikol

Bawylie said:


> Further thoughts. Hit dice - remove them. If you prefer challenge the way I think you do, just remove these. Go with fixed healing after a long rest and spells, OG style. If you want to keep hit dice, here’s a proposal: you only get hit dice equal to your proficiency score. Whenever you rest (short, long, whatever), roll ALL your hit dice and regain that much HP.  Or half on a short rest and full on a long rest. It’s a bit of healing at low levels but nothing to truly count on at mid-to-high levels. I suspect you wouldn’t miss anything removing them though and removing them has no further ramifications on your game.



You are right.  The game I've heard is too easy which is a criticism I had for 4e as well.  I'm not surprised.  Again they are likely targeting new and inexperienced players.  




Bawylie said:


> Inspiration - also remove. It’s a sort of carrot for role playing your character. You and your group will not miss it.




To me it's already optional it's so set apart.  


This is really interesting.  I want to see what drops this August on Pf2e but you've made me rethink 5e.  

What are you playing these days yourself?  Still using 4e or trying 5e?  Or maybe something else entirely?


----------



## Bawylie

Emerikol said:


> You are right.  The game I've heard is too easy which is a criticism I had for 4e as well.  I'm not surprised.  Again they are likely targeting new and inexperienced players.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me it's already optional it's so set apart.
> 
> 
> This is really interesting.  I want to see what drops this August on Pf2e but you've made me rethink 5e.
> 
> What are you playing these days yourself?  Still using 4e or trying 5e?  Or maybe something else entirely?




I’m playing 5E in a 4E style that’s heavily into maps and minis and tactical play. I have some issues with every gosh darned class being a spell-caster and every spell-caster playing like a wizard so I’ve been staring really hard at the cleric and warlock and thinking of how I might overhaul them. But that’s just Brad-silliness. Game plays just fine by default for my kids group and adults group.


----------



## Emerikol

Bawylie said:


> I’m playing 5E in a 4E style that’s heavily into maps and minis and tactical play. I have some issues with every gosh darned class being a spell-caster and every spell-caster playing like a wizard so I’ve been staring really hard at the cleric and warlock and thinking of how I might overhaul them. But that’s just Brad-silliness. Game plays just fine by default for my kids group and adults group.




I don't think maps and minis is even an alternate way of playing 5e.  A lot of people I'm sure have been using such things all the way through 1e till now.  It's nice for those that do not like them to be able to not use them.  But I use maps for sure and minis or counters when anything complicated is at hand.  

Well game design is fun to play around with even if just speculatively.  My own theory is that I kind of like the idea of channel divinity being the defining feature of a holy class.  I'd have a priest which is more like a wizard in style and I'd have a paladin which is more like a fighter.  But I'm derailing this thread.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Bawylie

Emerikol said:


> I don't think maps and minis is even an alternate way of playing 5e.  A lot of people I'm sure have been using such things all the way through 1e till now.  It's nice for those that do not like them to be able to not use them.  But I use maps for sure and minis or counters when anything complicated is at hand.
> 
> Well game design is fun to play around with even if just speculatively.  My own theory is that I kind of like the idea of channel divinity being the defining feature of a holy class.  I'd have a priest which is more like a wizard in style and I'd have a paladin which is more like a fighter.  But I'm derailing this thread.  Good luck with that.




I took a quick look at the Rogue and the only thing I can find that might bug you is Stroke of Luck at level 20. Which, I mean, will you get there? Even if you do, you could just remove that one and nobody would miss much. 

But if there’s something in the Rogue you have a problem with other than that, let me know and I’d be happy to take a look.


----------



## Emerikol

Bawylie said:


> I took a quick look at the Rogue and the only thing I can find that might bug you is Stroke of Luck at level 20. Which, I mean, will you get there? Even if you do, you could just remove that one and nobody would miss much.
> 
> But if there’s something in the Rogue you have a problem with other than that, let me know and I’d be happy to take a look.




I didn't think the Rogue was as problematic as the Fighter.  Yeah that one is probably the issue and sure my campaigns rarely get to 20.


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> Gygax was a war-gamer, and he never pretended otherwise. Actual role-playing - making decisions as though the character was a real person in a living world, rather than a game piece or a narrative construct - didn't come to the fore-front of the hobby until 2E. That shift in tone is a much greater difference between 1E and 2E than the minor changes in the rules.




From Page 11 of the 1e DMG.

"The purpose of AD&D is to allow participants to create and develop interesting player characters who will adventure and interact with their surroundings. If personality traits are forced upon PCs, then participants will be doing little more than moving automatons around while you, the DM, tell them how their characters react to situations. It is therefore absolutely necessary for you to allow each player the right to develop his or her character as he or she chooses!"

Right there in his own words he says that the purpose of AD&D is roleplaying.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> Well, regardless of when this happened it would not be while actually playing the character.  If one of my players called me and said "I think I may want to multiclass into Sorcerer" then that would definitely be the player and not the character making that call.  Right?  So how do I deal with that?  Well I could have the dragon blood manifest itself unexpectedly to the character and then play it from there.  I admit that my groups don't do a lot of multiclassing especially the caster classes and sorcerer is not popular.   My groups tend to be the big 4 and paladins.




I don't understand.
The player making a decision the character could not that changes history.  How does that not fall in the metagame.

Can you give an example other than HD or the fighter.


----------



## Jhaelen

Saelorn said:


> That doesn't mean he discovered role-playing, though. From what I can tell, his discoveries were much more in line with discovering a new type of board game, to which he applied a storytelling layer. Consider the Tomb of Horrors, which he wrote in order to challenge his players, after they thought themselves to have mastered the game. Consider how he described a fighter chained to a rock, with a dragon breathing fire on him, and a successful save against breath weapon meaning that the fighter must have broken free and hidden behind the rock.
> 
> Nothing I've ever read about him has ever given me the impression that he cared about role-playing, as we understand the term. He would never have been caught up in the debate between what a player wants to do, and whether it makes sense for the character to do that. Meta-gaming, in the common usage of the term, was entirely expected at his table.



I believe it was actually Dave Arneson's influence which caused D&D to become an actual role-playing game. Without him, Gary Gygax probably would never have thought of it.

After reading some interviews and posts by Gary I got the impression, though, that he recognized that his game was improved by the addition of role playing concepts.

Still, as you mentioned, he could never quite let go the idea of D&D as a (competitive) tournament game. I'm also fairly sure that meta-gaming was something he expected from his players. Imho, that shows in his designs for traps, monsters, dungeon layouts, etc. He enjoyed to challenge the players, not necessarily the player characters. There was a certain expectancy of system mastery and applying the things an experienced _player_ had learned by playing plenty of different characters, no matter which character a player actually played.

In a way it was an implementation of the 'Eternal Hero' series by 'Michael Moorcock': Even though a player might play lots of different characters over the years, they'd all share some common aspects and - most importantly - knowledge.


----------



## pemerton

Jacob Lewis said:


> Since Inspiration is largely a metagaming mechanic--DMs often use this as a reward for the player, not the character--it's going to feel metagamey. There's no way around it. How about some XP instead?



Classic D&D XP is super metagamey. XP for "good roleplaying" even moreso. I don't know what system for awarding XP [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] uses.


----------



## Morrus

Emerikol said:


> [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]
> 
> Not to get off track here too far but assuming I wanted to play a sci-fi game some time where does N.E.W. fall on the metagame axis?




The Metagame Axis sounds like an evil organization!

It's about level with 5E on that aspect, I think.


----------



## Emerikol

Ted Serious said:


> I don't understand.
> The player making a decision the character could not that changes history.  How does that not fall in the metagame.
> 
> Can you give an example other than HD or the fighter.




Well, in the past like the early editions of the game, anything like that that required something innate to the character was not something I allowed at all but your example is pretty rare.  I doubt I'd allow it now.  But again, I've never had a single sorcerer character in my games (maybe one in 4e but as you see that was where I became fully enlightened to the issue).  

I disliked things in prior editions and probably at heart had the same goals but I figured out "one" of the things it was during my play of 4e.  It clicked at that point I guess.

Multiclassing and dual classing are both fraught with peril in my book.  Multiclassing if you don't do it right up front doesn't feel right to me.  In 1e, 2e, the only multiclassing we did was right at the start you took fighter/magic user.  You'd never go to 5th level as a fighter and then take magic user for a few levels.  That style didn't come around until 3e.  We never did it then.

I'm getting a lot of questions which I honestly have no experience of practically.


----------



## Emerikol

Morrus said:


> The Metagame Axis sounds like an evil organization!
> 
> It's about level with 5E on that aspect, I think.




As a game or an evil organization? 

LOL.  Maybe I'll use that as an evil organization in one of my campaigns.

As you know, I am a rules junky.  And while I really like D&D style play (at least some subset of it),  I am not sold on a sci-fi game as yet.  That is why I asked.  Do you have a starter document for your system?  One where I could see the basic mechanics etc..

Edit:
I checked out the character creation on WOIN.  Pretty awesome.  I love how you build up the characters backstory.  It's definitely something I like in rpgs.  So far the luck as used in character creation isn't an issue since it's pre-game setup.  I imagine it does get used elsewhere in a problematic way for me but just ditching it doesn't seem that big a deal.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Edit 2:
I did some investigation and found your starter set.  Looks interesting.


----------



## Emerikol

Here are some of the roleplaying games I own folks....

(and probably more but these right off the top of my head)
All versions of D&D except 5e.  I would sell my 4e to a good home if someones interested.
Pathfinder 1e.  Not a whole lot more of their books though.  
GURPS (and tons of support books which I find useful even without Gurps.  Gurps Space for example)
Savage Worlds
Traveller
Fate Core (and the book on making your own Fate game)
RuneQuest
Numenera
Star Wars: Edge of Empire
Top Secret (I own a ton of old books on this game)
13th Age (yes I bought this KNOWING I wouldn't probably play it just because it had some good ideas I might steal)
d20 Modern
Hackmaster (The one that attempted to be a serious game)


So yes, if there is a game buyers anonymous I need to go.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> I've been doing it successfully for years.  I just don't tell players what they don't know.  I change up monster stats all the time.  I once had a player complain that a certain monster could not do what it was doing.  My answer "Are you going to trust some dusty old tomes you read in a library or are you going to trust your eyes?"  You see only what I tell the players is reality.



This seems presumptuous, though disputing your claim opens up further conversation that I doubt would be particularly productive for our mutual purposes here. 



> You are arguing that metagaming can be fun.  I'm saying good for you.



Thank you, though I do think that you implying that Fate is a "metagame style rpg" comes across as belittling. But I am also arguing that metagaming is a core and inescapable part of gaming.* There are metagaming mechanics that you find acceptable for your gaming preference and can rationalize (e.g., HP, saving throws, etc.) and there are those that you cannot or disrupt your gaming preferences (e.g., fate points). This is why I remarked to Lanefan that this conversation for me is a matter of "picking your metagaming poison" rather than finding games without metagaming or metagaming mechanics. 

* For a more mainstream example of metagaming as part of gameplay, see Basketball. Rules on fouls exist per original intent to discourage and minimize "foul play" from the players, but they are now a fundamental part of how basketball is played at all levels of organized play. You foul to control the tempo of play, particularly the last minutes of the game. You foul to setup plays. You foul to disrupt critical plays. You rotate players to manage your available number of fouls. "Hack-a-Shaq" even became a metagame strategy of intentionally fouling players who routinely make terrible free throw shots. If you change the rules or mechanics, then metagaming does not stop, new metas form around the new norm, which we see time and time again in basketball and other games. To paraphrase the esteemed Jeff Golblum: "_the metagame finds a way_." 



> My way of dealing with the example of the outlaw is just rolling for it.  In this town, what are the odds are famous outlaw will be recognized.  Just roll for the various patrons.  So yes, it is out of the players hands. * Some don't like that.* But it really is true that the character if he is hiding out doesn't want to be detected OR the character can let that out of the bag himself intentionally.



I am one of those people. Rolling for it seems like too much work for less payoff. Why not make the story happen now? As a GM it's about having the character make interesting choices at interesting times rather than as a randomized event potentially detached from interesting consequences. 



> On this there can be no doubt. I hope I have not in anyway given the impression that I don't agree that people have different tastes and different experiences.



Of course. It may be beneficial for discussion for you to provide your sense for what constitutes metagaming mechanics. We may still disagree or see this as a double-standard -- this may not be fair for your goals in this thread, but it is unavoidable for such discussions -- but we may have a better sense of where you are coming from. Meanwhile, I will provide some additional suggestions for other systems you may want to check out. I do not know whether you will find their mechanics as metagaming or not, but they are worth looking into for your purposes. 

Dungeon World: It is a more narrative/fiction-first approach to D&D-style fantasy. It's designed to discourage the button-pushing approach of D&D play: "When entering the room, I roll for Perception." Players in DW describe their actions and reactions to the GM's narrative framing (i.e., "this happens, what do you do?") which may trigger "moves" that the player can perform (e.g., hack and slash, defy danger, spout lore, etc.). But it is easily hackable. Bonds may be a bit too metagamey for you, but they also be appropriate for your metagame preferences. 

Black Hack: It has been receiving quite a bit of praise for its rules simplicity and elegance, though I have not yet had a chance to play it. 


> The Black Hack is a super-streamlined roleplaying game that uses the Original 1970s Fantasy Roleplaying Game as a base, and could well be the most straightforward modern OSR compatible clone available. If speed of play and character creation, compatibility, and simple - yet elegant rules are what you yearn for. Look no further!
> 
> The Black Hack is a fast playing game and the rules can be picked up in minutes. The full rules fit in a single 20 page A5 book!




Tiny Dungeon: It is a simple rules lite d6 D&D OSR style game. 


> Powered by the TinyD6 engine, with streamlined mechanics that utilize only one to three single six-sided dice on every action, characters that can be written 3x5 notecard, and easy to  understand and teach rules, Tiny Dungeon 2e is great for all groups, ages, and experience levels!




Index Card RPG: It is a d20 D&D stripped-down naked. Fast-paced and easy to play. It almost reduces the game to ability scores and loot, including spells. Distinct dice for distinct purposes. Classes are more akin to guidelines of recommended gear, milestone rewards, and abilities. But it is also _super easy_ to hack.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> Well, regardless of when this happened it would not be while actually playing the character. If one of my players called me and said "I think I may want to multiclass into Sorcerer" then that would definitely be the player and not the character making that call. Right? So how do I deal with that? Well I could have the dragon blood manifest itself unexpectedly to the character and then play it from there. I admit that my groups don't do a lot of multiclassing especially the caster classes and sorcerer is not popular. My groups tend to be the big 4 and paladins..




It can be handled in character.  There's no way to write down everything that the PC knows about himself.  He will in fact know more about himself than the player does if the PC is to be considered to be like a real person, so it's very plausible that the PC knows about dragon blood being in his family and manifesting some of them as sorcerers.  With that in mind...

1. You could have it spontaneously manifest the power as you mentioned above.
2. The PC over time try to manifest power and eventually succeed.
3. The PC could start seeking out sages, wizards, or other sources of arcane knowledge, seeking a way to strengthen the blood and/or bring out the power.
4. Perhaps a pact with a dragon god to become a sorcerer instead of a warlock.
5. Perhaps he has no dragon blood and needs to kill a dragon and use an arcane ritual he found to infuse the fresh blood of the dead dragon into his body.
6. Many other ways.


----------



## Aldarc

Neonchameleon said:


> Hit point loss on the other hand represents absolutely nothing at all. Someone is as physically capable of everything except taking damage at 1hp as they are at full hp. If it were anything to do with injury of any sort this would not be the case. So unless hit points are magical force fields then hit point mechanics are pure, raw metagame.



Indeed. If HP truly represented flesh, meat, or bodily wounds, then we can only conclude that as player characters level-up they gain more mass in flesh.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> This seems presumptuous, though disputing your claim opens up further conversation that I doubt would be particularly productive for our mutual purposes here.




The problem is that every time I bring up the subject the players who do like metagaming tell me that I'm metagaming too and I should just accept their interpretation.  I've went to some lengths to clarify what is and is not metagaming for purposes of our discussion.  To keep the peace, I'm willing to take as a given that it is my definition for me.  I don't believe that but I can accept it because I don't want this thread to become world war 3.

And I get that you don't perceive the differences that I perceive.  Of course you don't.  If you did you'd likely object to them as I do.  That is the crux of the issue here.  So to the degree you can, just accept that there exists a class of mechanics I don't like.  The reason is irrelevant.  I've already said I'd give up roleplaying if my only choice was using those mechanics. I'm serious about that.  

So attributes that describe something true about a character in game are not metagame.  Actions or decisions decided on by the player for the character which would be unknown to that character or objectionable to the character are metagame.  Just take that on faith for now.  I've spent years in debate on this which by the way is why Bawylie could go right to the crux of my desires even though he doesn't agree with me.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> It can be handled in character.  There's no way to write down everything that the PC knows about himself.  He will in fact know more about himself than the player does if the PC is to be considered to be like a real person, so it's very plausible that the PC knows about dragon blood being in his family and manifesting some of them as sorcerers.  With that in mind...
> 
> 1. You could have it spontaneously manifest the power as you mentioned above.
> 2. The PC over time try to manifest power and eventually succeed.
> 3. The PC could start seeking out sages, wizards, or other sources of arcane knowledge, seeking a way to strengthen the blood and/or bring out the power.
> 4. Perhaps a pact with a dragon god to become a sorcerer instead of a warlock.
> 5. Perhaps he has no dragon blood and needs to kill a dragon and use an arcane ritual he found to infuse the fresh blood of the dead dragon into his body.
> 6. Many other ways.




I don't generally let my players pull background out of their hats after character creation.  We do spend more time on character creation than most groups I'd wager.  I actually have a one on one interview with the player to discuss background etc... about the character.

Some of your other ideas in the list could work as options.  Again it's solving a problem I don't have but I appreciate the advice.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Indeed. If HP truly represented flesh, meat, or bodily wounds, then we can only conclude that as player characters level-up they gain more mass in flesh.




I don't think that is necessarily true.  Suppose we have a fighter that at 1st level has 10 hit points.  At 10th level lets say he has 100 just to keep the math easy.  When the 1st level fighter takes 1 hit point of damage he is at the same state as when the 10th level fighter takes 10 hit points of damage.  The 10th level fighter is just better at minimizing real damage.

In my games a hit is always contact and some sort of damage.  Obviously early on it is minor.  It is why I don't accept the quick rest and recover rules of some games.  

Again though we are off track on this thread.  There is no need to refight the old wars.  You play your way and I will play my way.  You playing your way doesn't bother me in the least.  I hope that me playing my way doesn't bother you.  If it does you need help.  The world is a big place and we all have different tastes in gaming.

So let's stay on track.  Anybody at all familiar with different games?  I've already figured out how to hack WOIN and it wasn't very hard.  I'm thinking I will buy the sci-fi version of that game.  Bawylie has some good ideas on D&D 5e.  Anybody more familiar with Pf2e and how it's going to work?  Will it be easy or hard?


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> I don't generally let my players pull background out of their hats after character creation.  We do spend more time on character creation than most groups I'd wager.  I actually have a one on one interview with the player to discuss background etc... about the character.
> 
> Some of your other ideas in the list could work as options.  Again it's solving a problem I don't have but I appreciate the advice.




I let them come up with things within reason.  Real people have more background by age 8 than even the most detailed characters.  You just can't think of anywhere near all the things that happens to a PC in the lifetime up to the start of game play. As long as they aren't using background as the Batbelt and pulling out everything they need when they need it, I have no problem with a cool idea or thing coming from background after game play.  

Usually, they will need to link the new thing somehow to something else in the background.  For example, if the PC wanted to give advice to a farmer NPC that they need information from on how to grow prize carrots, the player could point to his background where one of his uncles is a farmer to let me know how he would have learned that sort of information.  Dragon blood, though, is tougher to link like that, but since multiclassing into sorcerer is allowed pretty freely, I don't have an issue with that being added in after the fact.

I also understand that it's not a problem you have.  I was putting that forward to show how things that may initially seem incompatible can often be made compatible.


----------



## Jacob Lewis

Emerikol said:


> If it can stay civil, it can be interesting.  Not sure my desired outcome though will be achieved.



You are posting on these boards and criticizing something about 5e. You, sir, are dancing in a minefield. The best possible outcome is to get through the song unscathed. 



Emerikol said:


> But how and why do I choose to use HD as a player?  It seems more logical to me to say you keep using HD until you are healed up or run out.  In fact, I'd just take the average of all the HD, add the number to a pool and draw off that pool until it's gone.  The decision making going on here to use or not use a HD is not character decision making.



If I'm understanding correctly (and my memory still serves me), hit dice are rolled during a short rest and the character recovers that many hit points? So, hit points regained are generated randomly, not fixed?? Now I understand. That IS a terrible mechanic. I don't even like the idea of rolling for hit points when you level up. You know they fixed that in 4e? And healing surges were fixed. You spend one, you gain X hps back. You knew exactly what you needed to spend to get where you wanted to be. Maybe that's the solution, or, as you suggested, a fixed pool of hit points to draw from. Seems easy enough to house rule.



Emerikol said:


> This has been a big debate for a long time and I think most of the people who believe in these "surges" are wrong.  It could be a whole different thread though and I'm not sure I want to even go to that thread.  All that is going to be said on the matter has been said.  You either believe it or don't.  I don't.  And it's not necessary for anyone to get on here and shout that I'm wrong.  We can just agree to disagree.  And Jacob, that last sentence was not at you but the whole thread.



I haven't read through 10+ pages of posts so I'm not up to speed on the disagreement, but I know that telling people they are "wrong" because they believe something you don't usually doesn't win you the popular vote. And of course, if they say you're wrong for not seeing things their way... hey, Welcome to the Boards!! 

I don't know if surges are good or bad. It's something they just put in the game. I don't roleplay every single little action and thought my characters do trying to immerse the narrative so that the game books and mechanics somehow disappear. And it's not wrong if someone else does. But there are other systems out there better at pushing the narrative to the fore front of the game than D&D. To me, D&D was at its best (and sometimes worst!) during 4th Edition because it was being more honest about the kind of game it really is: a tactical fantasy combat game. The rules don't create stories and plot lines and character motivations at my game table. I do that, and those playing with me do that. And we did that quite well, even with 4e. We still can.



Emerikol said:


> Inspiration is a great way to provide metagaming to those that want it though.  It is so easy to remove so it doesn't become a problem for those not wanting it.  It is there and well defined for those that do.  That is a big win in the design space.  So I will say I like inspiration in D&D 5e but I would never allow it's use in one of my games.



I don't really care for it, myself. It's basically a game cheat that is not actually part of the game. You can award it for something you do as a player, not your character. And, if awarded for something your character did as actual "inspiration", there is nothing that suggests it's use must be relative to whatever inspired him/her in the first place! The player can hold on to it for the rest of the session and use it for pretty much any dice check he makes. But as you say, easy to ignore and often just forgotten anyway.

I don't know what your goal is, whether you're looking for a new system that better suits your style of play, looking to hack current rules to better suit your ideas, or just making conversation. So I don't know if anything I say is helpful, annoying, or offensive. I'll settle for entertaining any day, and thought-provoking on a few others. Hope things work out for you!

P.S. You listed *Edge of the Empire* in your collection of games. THAT is the system I found was a great fit for me when I want more roleplaying and storytelling. But I still love tinkering with 4e. I kept all of those, and even collected more that I found in used book stores!


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> The problem is that every time I bring up the subject the players who do like metagaming tell me that I'm metagaming too and I should just accept their interpretation.  I've went to some lengths to clarify what is and is not metagaming for purposes of our discussion.  To keep the peace, I'm willing to take as a given that it is my definition for me.  I don't believe that but I can accept it because I don't want this thread to become world war 3.
> 
> And I get that you don't perceive the differences that I perceive.  Of course you don't.  If you did you'd likely object to them as I do.  That is the crux of the issue here.  So to the degree you can, just accept that there exists a class of mechanics I don't like.  The reason is irrelevant.  I've already said I'd give up roleplaying if my only choice was using those mechanics. I'm serious about that.
> 
> So attributes that describe something true about a character in game are not metagame.  Actions or decisions decided on by the player for the character which would be unknown to that character or objectionable to the character are metagame.  Just take that on faith for now.  I've spent years in debate on this which by the way is why Bawylie could go right to the crux of my desires even though he doesn't agree with me.



You want a discussion of this class of mechanics.

We can't discuss something without knowing what it is.

You gave some examples.  But nothing else we ask about qualifies.  If it was the whole list.  As DM just remove them.

Run shorter adventures or give clerics more slots to make up for the loss of HD.  
Timmy can play a barbarian.


----------



## Emerikol

Jacob Lewis said:


> You are posting on these boards and criticizing something about 5e. You, sir, are dancing in a minefield. The best possible outcome is to get through the song unscathed.



Well I asked questions I hope in a constructive way.  I wish people would just accept my tastes as mine and go from there.




Jacob Lewis said:


> If I'm understanding correctly (and my memory still serves me), hit dice are rolled during a short rest and the character recovers that many hit points? So, hit points regained are generated randomly, not fixed?? Now I understand. That IS a terrible mechanic. I don't even like the idea of rolling for hit points when you level up. You know they fixed that in 4e? And healing surges were fixed. You spend one, you gain X hps back. You knew exactly what you needed to spend to get where you wanted to be. Maybe that's the solution, or, as you suggested, a fixed pool of hit points to draw from. Seems easy enough to house rule.



The whole healing thing is another area of contention.  My answer was in the context of the rules as written.  Meaning to fix particular problem X here is what I would do.  It's still problematic for me but not because of metagaming so I didn't want to get into that as well .




Jacob Lewis said:


> I haven't read through 10+ pages of posts so I'm not up to speed on the disagreement, but I know that telling people they are "wrong" because they believe something you don't usually doesn't win you the popular vote. And of course, if they say you're wrong for not seeing things their way... hey, Welcome to the Boards!!



Well that is my opinion.  I didn't want anyone to think I didn't have a strong opinion.  But that was a bit light hearted as I know everyone who disagrees would not accept my statement.   So we can agree to disagree.  There is a type of mechanic that can bet categorized that I don't like.  Whatever name you want to put on it is okay with me.  It is not though unique to me.  I have reasons that others share to varying degrees.  Two people like me could grade a hundred elements in a game and come to the same conclusion on all of them.  So there is an underlying quality these mechanics have that sets them apart.  I don't care at this point what the name is.




Jacob Lewis said:


> I don't know if surges are good or bad. It's something they just put in the game. I don't roleplay every single little action and thought my characters do trying to immerse the narrative so that the game books and mechanics somehow disappear. And it's not wrong if someone else does. But there are other systems out there better at pushing the narrative to the fore front of the game than D&D. To me, D&D was at its best (and sometimes worst!) during 4th Edition because it was being more honest about the kind of game it really is: a tactical fantasy combat game. The rules don't create stories and plot lines and character motivations at my game table. I do that, and those playing with me do that. And we did that quite well, even with 4e. We still can.



I've been playing D&D since the red books.  I haven't ever had any trouble having a game that wasn't devoted entirely to combat.  In many cases, it was me as DM giving the PC a role if no rule covered it.  It wasn't that hard.  My groups are more sandbox than adventure path.




Jacob Lewis said:


> I don't really care for it, myself. It's basically a game cheat that is not actually part of the game. You can award it for something you do as a player, not your character. And, if awarded for something your character did as actual "inspiration", there is nothing that suggests it's use must be relative to whatever inspired him/her in the first place! The player can hold on to it for the rest of the session and use it for pretty much any dice check he makes. But as you say, easy to ignore and often just forgotten anyway.



Then you like me have some mechanics that don't fit what you like.  Your sensitivity perhaps is not as strong as mine but you do draw the line and not surprisingly for the same reasons.




Jacob Lewis said:


> I don't know what your goal is, whether you're looking for a new system that better suits your style of play, looking to hack current rules to better suit your ideas, or just making conversation. So I don't know if anything I say is helpful, annoying, or offensive. I'll settle for entertaining any day, and thought-provoking on a few others. Hope things work out for you!



It's open ended but I hoped for constructive comments.  Like Jer's and Bawylies.  Suggestions on how to make 5e or some other game work given my constraints.  I even listed off some choices in an earlier post.  




Jacob Lewis said:


> P.S. You listed *Edge of the Empire* in your collection of games. THAT is the system I found was a great fit for me when I want more roleplaying and storytelling. But I still love tinkering with 4e. I kept all of those, and even collected more that I found in used book stores!




I don't like the way advancement works in those games but especially for non-combat situations I like the dice giving you more nuance as to the result.  So that is a good feature.  For sci-fi, I'm also looking at WOIN.  For this thread though I was mainly looking for a D&D style fix which covers 5e, Pf2e, or some retroclone.  Those are all D&D flavor to me.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> Indeed. If HP truly represented flesh, meat, or bodily wounds, then we can only conclude that as player characters level-up they gain more mass in flesh.



Well that would certainly explain why characters tend to retire once they reach name level - they're too fat to do anything else except sit around and hire people to build a stronghold or temple or lab for them.


----------



## Manbearcat

Neonchameleon said:


> Indeed. It just convinces me that we have an extremely different understanding of the world - and I think yours appears to derive more from historic Dungeons & Dragons rules rather than from the real world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But if you watch _any_ combat sport from boxing to MMA to professional wrestling (and yes I know wrestling is fake) you'll find that the pace of the fight varies. You'll find that there are times when the fighters are probing each other. You'll find there are times when they are times when they are taking advantage of mistakes. And you'll find there are times when they either pick up the pace, pull tricks, or go in with extra force to try to force an opening.
> 
> By not having some sort of mechanics this way you're denying me the opportunities to do any of these except go in in neutral, and wait to find a mistake to take advantage of.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes _of course_ I can raise the tempo or force of a fight, trying to force openings rather than exchanging blows and probing. And it absolutely feels right when I want to do this that it should have no mechanical impact at all.
> 
> Without the ability to try to control the pace of a fight and mechanics that back me up on this as mechanics are a big part of my standard interface with the game world I find it literally impossible to immerse in the role of fighter who is anything other than the sort of fighter that is less intelligent than his warhorse (and played more normally like a stereotypical barbarian). Fighting is what fighters are meant to be good at - and that goes beyond just swinging a sword with precision and accuracy.




Very good post here.

I think each discrete part is very salient.  I think the first part happens to be a big component of these conversations because a great many D&D players seem to have internalized an AD&D rules paradigm as representing something like the actual mental overhead that is going on in physical, hand-to-hand combat...when they, in all likelihood, have never engaged in actual hand-to-hand combat.  

Most D&D combats entail something like the equivalent of an low proficiency blue belt in Brazilian Jiujitsu tangling with an extremely proficient purple or brown belt (that being the Fighter).  Trust me when I say that, while belt is an indicator of knowledge, it certainly isn't that great of an indicator of how potent a single BJJ player is.  Average black belts can get utterly_wrecked by extremely proficient purple belts who are long-limbed, have extremely loose hips, a nasty/active guard, great transitions/control, maybe just an average Arm Bar/Choke game, but a brutal Arm Triangle and Gogoplata from guard.

Guys that are that good (as D&D Fighters would be) would be playing a constant game of linear catch-22 chess with combatants, just as it happens when a great BJJ player is rolling with someone significantly inferior.  The mental overhead is all about pacing > managing positioning/transitions, pushing when you're ready and putting your opponent in a bad catch-22 where you're dictating the positioning, rinse/repeat until finish.  You're moving down a linear track of A > B > C > D > E > FINISHED (if you get that far).  That is what it means to be immersed as an extremely proficient combatant.  TTRPG PC build tools (that some mistakenly consider metagame constructs) that let the warrior ration their ability, inflict catch-22s, dictate position, and push the pace at their discretion are EXACTLY what its like to be inhabiting the mental framework of an extremely proficient and practiced warrior in dangerous combat.  Without PC build or action resolution mechanics that even shallowly representing that paradigm you have absolutely_zero ability to inhabit that mental framework.


----------



## Bawylie

Emerikol said:


> The problem is that every time I bring up the subject the players who do like metagaming tell me that I'm metagaming too and I should just accept their interpretation.  I've went to some lengths to clarify what is and is not metagaming for purposes of our discussion.  To keep the peace, I'm willing to take as a given that it is my definition for me.  I don't believe that but I can accept it because I don't want this thread to become world war 3.
> 
> And I get that you don't perceive the differences that I perceive.  Of course you don't.  If you did you'd likely object to them as I do.  That is the crux of the issue here.  So to the degree you can, just accept that there exists a class of mechanics I don't like.  The reason is irrelevant.  I've already said I'd give up roleplaying if my only choice was using those mechanics. I'm serious about that.
> 
> So attributes that describe something true about a character in game are not metagame.  Actions or decisions decided on by the player for the character which would be unknown to that character or objectionable to the character are metagame.  Just take that on faith for now.  I've spent years in debate on this which by the way is why Bawylie could go right to the crux of my desires even though he doesn't agree with me.




Actually yeah and that’s pretty funny. If I hadn’t fought with you for a year and half over this stuff, I wouldn’t have understood what specifically bugged you.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Well that would certainly explain why characters tend to retire once they reach name level - they're too fat to do anything else except sit around and hire people to build a stronghold or temple or lab for them.




My PC is just big boned.


----------



## Emerikol

Bawylie said:


> Actually yeah and that’s pretty funny. If I hadn’t fought with you for a year and half over this stuff, I wouldn’t have understood what specifically bugged you.




Well something good came out of all of that .  

I think a person's preferences are also a lot like an rpg character.  They are composed of all sorts of different views on different things all fused together.  So while I have my views on metagame elements, I also have my views on healing, and a variety of other parts of the game.  Sometimes those things overlap or criss cross the discussion as well.  

I also believe you probably are more moderate on all of these things.  My debates usually raged the loudest with my polar opposites.  Those who not only believed the mechanics were okay but that they were beneficial.  It probably comes down to overall game goals in the quest for fun.  Hopefully we can all agree the ultimate goal is fun.


----------



## Umbran

Emerikol said:


> I also believe you probably are more moderate on all of these things.  My debates usually raged the loudest with my polar opposites.




That is a bit of the nature of internet discussions.  There is a tendency for discussion to drift to poles, even when the people in the discussion originally didn't start at poles.

Another was, as I had noted - exactly what you counted as "metagaming" wasn't clear.  When we both use the same term, but have different meanings, that leads to confusion - specifically, it made you look inconsistent in your position, which may in part drive what you see.  Others think X and Y are both metagaming.  You don't.  So, they see accepting X and Y together as natural, and find it very weird that you cannot.

If it took someone _a year and a half_ to understand where you were coming from, some difficulties should have been expected.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> My PC is just big boned.



Which tells me that where damage to other players' PCs just affects their flesh, with yours it goes straight to the bone.

Got it.


----------



## MichaelSomething

It could be said that 4E was a very extreme edition; in that in order to make the game balanced/newbie friendly/tactical/whatever it had to sacrifice many, many, MANY sacred cows.  

So [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] , how far are you willing to go to eliminate metagaming?  What is the price you'll pay?  Are you willing to as far as 4E did in order to remake the game into what you want???

From what I read so far, it sounds like you'll willing to go quite far.


----------



## Emerikol

Umbran said:


> That is a bit of the nature of internet discussions.  There is a tendency for discussion to drift to poles, even when the people in the discussion originally didn't start at poles.
> 
> Another was, as I had noted - exactly what you counted as "metagaming" wasn't clear.  When we both use the same term, but have different meanings, that leads to confusion - specifically, it made you look inconsistent in your position, which may in part drive what you see.  Others think X and Y are both metagaming.  You don't.  So, they see accepting X and Y together as natural, and find it very weird that you cannot.
> 
> If it took someone _a year and a half_ to understand where you were coming from, some difficulties should have been expected.




I think when you accept metagaming as a desirable part of your play you don't spend any effort to view a mechanic as not metagame.  So for example hit points, AC, or whatever.  If metagame is okay then you just say it's all metagame because you spend no mental energy solving a problem you don't have.  I've never viewed those as metagame precisely because I would never have come to a metagame solution for something and kept playing it.  It was quiet easy though on those things to consider them information the character has.  Not the names of course but the concepts which is the key for me.  Mechanics that sit in an area where interpretation can dictate perspective are okay mechanics.  We can just interpret differently.  Some mechanics don't fit in that space though.

I also think that a lot of people did get what I was saying back then right off.  Not all of them consider it a deal breaker obviously.  Bawylie took a bit longer and others just never got it.  I do think to give Bawylie credit he was trying whereas I think in some cases some of the others weren't.  They did not want to concede that 4e had cross the line in a big way in areas where the previous editions had just flirted with the idea often in books outside the core.  I don't know why because even I admitted the mechanics aren't evil or anything just different.  They satisfy a different sort of playstyle desire.  

One of our biggest debates was over whether I could devise a formula that would include all of my objectionable mechanics while include none of the others.  For some reason they considered it incredibly important that I not be able to show that.  I don't know why.  My personal opinion is that I could but they disagree.  It's why I made so many pre-qualifications for this topic above.  I was trying to avoid the reigniting of all these debates.  I was like...just solve the problem for me instead of solve it for this class of players.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Which tells me that where damage to other players' PCs just affects their flesh, with yours it goes straight to the bone.
> 
> Got it.




That's bad to the bone, buddy.  Bad to the bone.  And don't you forget it!


----------



## Emerikol

MichaelSomething said:


> It could be said that 4E was a very extreme edition; in that in order to make the game balanced/newbie friendly/tactical/whatever it had to sacrifice many, many, MANY sacred cows.
> 
> So [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] , how far are you willing to go to eliminate metagaming?  What is the price you'll pay?  Are you willing to as far as 4E did in order to remake the game into what you want???
> 
> From what I read so far, it sounds like you'll willing to go quite far.




For my game, I will go very far.  Just realize that core 1e, 2e, and 3e were okay for me.  Perhaps I should say super-core.  
1. Fighter, Wizard/Magic-User, Rogue/Thief, Cleric + maybe Paladin were the only classes I had to have work.
2. Only the PHB was allowed in the game without DM approval.
3.  Most splat books were ignored.

I am not 100% certain that Pf2e won't work out of the box either.  I'm waiting to see.  If the only thing objectionable is a widget that has replacements already available then I don't really have a problem.  I just ban the individual widgets.   In this case when I say widget I mean feat but it could be any replaceable widget.

I like games in general where there are enough choices that banning individual items doesn't require me to create new rules to fix the loss.  I wish 5e had put Second Wind and Action Surge on a subtype.  Bawylies ideas were good though and I believe I could pretty easily house rule 5e.  What is funny for me though is that the game is probably way to easy for my group anyway so maybe when I make the healing changes I don't do anything to compensate.  Maybe now the game is just hard enough for them.


----------



## Scott Christian

This seems like it causes consternation in some people. I personally, have always just understood it to be a balance issue. Designers are always trying to balance the game, and sometimes to do that, one has to have meta-mechanics. Earlier games didn't seem to have as much of it because the need for balance wasn't as great. Gamma World anyone? The paladin in D&D 1e? Again, not as much balance, and in my eyes, not as much meta-gaming mechanics. They were there, yes, but not as much.  
That said, I believe all of them can be explained through narrative. It may be a stretch at times, but we've all seen a stretch, even in real life. I mean, c'mon, those poor students trapped in a cave. Could things go more right and wrong at the same time? (Fingers crossed, hopes and thoughts, and good dice rolls is what I am sure we are all wishing.)


----------



## Emerikol

Scott Christian said:


> This seems like it causes consternation in some people. I personally, have always just understood it to be a balance issue. Designers are always trying to balance the game, and sometimes to do that, one has to have meta-mechanics. Earlier games didn't seem to have as much of it because the need for balance wasn't as great. Gamma World anyone? The paladin in D&D 1e? Again, not as much balance, and in my eyes, not as much meta-gaming mechanics. They were there, yes, but not as much.



I've been accused of trying to keep the martials down by being against metagaming.  I also admit I'll take martials that need magic items to equalize if the only other option is metagame mechanics.  If you don't care though, as I suspect the D&D designers don't, then why throw away a wide open design space.  




Scott Christian said:


> That said, I believe all of them can be explained through narrative. It may be a stretch at times, but we've all seen a stretch, even in real life. I mean, c'mon, those poor students trapped in a cave. Could things go more right and wrong at the same time? (Fingers crossed, hopes and thoughts, and good dice rolls is what I am sure we are all wishing.)




It gets people worked up no doubt. Mainly because I think they perceive especially during the 5e design period that I was trying to keep their style of play out of the game.  I was primarily just trying to keep my style in as an option.  I failed by the way but I thought the effort worth it.

And sure there are far worse things than gaming disputes.  I think we all enjoy some degree of it but we also have a hard time keeping it under control.  I think we are doing better than we used to though.  I'm not going to emotionally invest so heavily in the hopes a game company will satisfy my desires for a game.


----------



## Bawylie

Emerikol said:


> For my game, I will go very far.  Just realize that core 1e, 2e, and 3e were okay for me.  Perhaps I should say super-core.
> 1. Fighter, Wizard/Magic-User, Rogue/Thief, Cleric + maybe Paladin were the only classes I had to have work.
> 2. Only the PHB was allowed in the game without DM approval.
> 3.  Most splat books were ignored.
> 
> I am not 100% certain that Pf2e won't work out of the box either.  I'm waiting to see.  If the only thing objectionable is a widget that has replacements already available then I don't really have a problem.  I just ban the individual widgets.   In this case when I say widget I mean feat but it could be any replaceable widget.
> 
> I like games in general where there are enough choices that banning individual items doesn't require me to create new rules to fix the loss.  I wish 5e had put Second Wind and Action Surge on a subtype.  Bawylies ideas were good though and I believe I could pretty easily house rule 5e.  What is funny for me though is that the game is probably way to easy for my group anyway so maybe when I make the healing changes I don't do anything to compensate.  Maybe now the game is just hard enough for them.




It’s not so much that 5th edition is too easy - it’s more like the default setting is too easy for you. Taking the average values for damage expression and monster hit points, or designing only medium-difficulty encounters would not be a sufficient challenge at your table.  

The underlying math system is robust enough to work at the difficulty you want, though. Just turn the heat up a bit from the default on the page. For instance, each monster has a damage listing for their attacks that give both a fixed value and a dice expression. Like “5 (1d6+2) piercing damage.” And you can just use 5, or roll. But you could also use a fixed value of 8 instead. 

They do the same with by points. The default is average but the dice expression permits a wide range. So just use the higher end of the range.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Emerikol said:


> I also think that a lot of people did get what I was saying back then right off.  Not all of them consider it a deal breaker obviously.  Bawylie took a bit longer and others just never got it.  I do think to give Bawylie credit he was trying whereas I think in some cases some of the others weren't.  They did not want to concede that 4e had cross the line in a big way in areas where the previous editions had just flirted with the idea often in books outside the core.  I don't know why because even I admitted the mechanics aren't evil or anything just different.  They satisfy a different sort of playstyle desire.
> 
> One of our biggest debates was over whether I could devise a formula that would include all of my objectionable mechanics while include none of the others.  For some reason they considered it incredibly important that I not be able to show that.  I don't know why.  My personal opinion is that I could but they disagree.  It's why I made so many pre-qualifications for this topic above.  I was trying to avoid the reigniting of all these debates.  I was like...just solve the problem for me instead of solve it for this class of players.




The problem is that I can predict with extremely high accuracy what you will consider metagaming and what you will not through one simple algorithm. Is it made from parts that are either classic D&D or from classic 80s physics-sim design. The problem is that this category is not anything to do with the sort of choices you make or resource mechanics you have. It is entirely and completely to do with how familiar you are with those mechanics.

If you were to say "This is not to my taste" I would shrug. I've a pretty clear understanding of your taste. When you say "My problem is [thing]" I am going to want to explore the bounds of [thing] because I enjoy game design - and because one of the key aspects of a class based system is that it enjoys players with very different preferences to sit down at the same table and all have fun as long as they have at least the flexibility to accept that not every class must cater in every way to them.



Emerikol said:


> I've been accused of trying to keep the martials down by being against metagaming.  I also admit I'll take martials that need magic items to equalize if the only other option is metagame mechanics.  If you don't care though, as I suspect the D&D designers don't, then why throw away a wide open design space.




First, this is an entirely different thing from metagame mechanics. If we use Circe as the fictional inspiration for the wizard, why not Hercules or Cu-Cuchlain for the fighter? And if we use a random real world fighter for the fighter basis, why not a stage magician for the wizard? I'm serious here. One of my fundamental problems with non-4e WotC fighters is, even once you get past them being unable to make meaningful decisions in the very area that form the basis of them being an expert fighter like how to pace themselves, is that we're playing Ars Magica or Harry Potter with wizards and muggles.

Second, Gygax and Arneson both used magic items as a balancing mechanic. If you look at the 1E DMG the magic items table is not just weighted towards magic weapons, but roughly 60% of all magic weapons were swords which the fighter could use and the cleric couldn't. Also swords reached +5, most weapons reached +3. And all the intelligent weapons on the magic item table were swords, which was another huge boost in power for the fighters. (3.0 of course proceeded to flush all this and the most accessible magic items in that game were scrolls, while you could get about three wands of cure light wounds for the cost of a single +1 sword).


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> For my game, I will go very far.  Just realize that core 1e, 2e, and 3e were okay for me.  Perhaps I should say super-core.
> 1. Fighter, Wizard/Magic-User, Rogue/Thief, Cleric + maybe Paladin were the only classes I had to have work.
> 2. Only the PHB was allowed in the game without DM approval.
> 3.  Most splat books were ignored.
> 
> I am not 100% certain that Pf2e won't work out of the box either.  I'm waiting to see.  If the only thing objectionable is a widget that has replacements already available then I don't really have a problem.  I just ban the individual widgets.   In this case when I say widget I mean feat but it could be any replaceable widget.
> 
> I like games in general where there are enough choices that banning individual items doesn't require me to create new rules to fix the loss.  I wish 5e had put Second Wind and Action Surge on a subtype.  Bawylies ideas were good though and I believe I could pretty easily house rule 5e.  What is funny for me though is that the game is probably way to easy for my group anyway so maybe when I make the healing changes I don't do anything to compensate.  Maybe now the game is just hard enough for them.



Have you looked into any of my TTRPG recommendations yet? 

I also have another: Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures. It combines Basic/1e OSR and more contemporary game design.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> I think when you accept metagaming as a desirable part of your play you don't spend any effort to view a mechanic as not metagame.  So for example hit points, AC, or whatever.  If metagame is okay then you just say it's all metagame because you spend no mental energy solving a problem you don't have.  I've never viewed those as metagame precisely because I would never have come to a metagame solution for something and kept playing it.  It was quiet easy though on those things to consider them information the character has.  Not the names of course but the concepts which is the key for me.  Mechanics that sit in an area where interpretation can dictate perspective are okay mechanics.  We can just interpret differently.  Some mechanics don't fit in that space though.
> 
> I also think that a lot of people did get what I was saying back then right off.  Not all of them consider it a deal breaker obviously.  Bawylie took a bit longer and others just never got it.  I do think to give Bawylie credit he was trying whereas I think in some cases some of the others weren't.  They did not want to concede that 4e had cross the line in a big way in areas where the previous editions had just flirted with the idea often in books outside the core.  I don't know why because even I admitted the mechanics aren't evil or anything just different.  They satisfy a different sort of playstyle desire.
> 
> One of our biggest debates was over whether I could devise a formula that would include all of my objectionable mechanics while include none of the others.  For some reason they considered it incredibly important that I not be able to show that.  I don't know why.  My personal opinion is that I could but they disagree.  It's why I made so many pre-qualifications for this topic above.  I was trying to avoid the reigniting of all these debates.  I was like...just solve the problem for me instead of solve it for this class of players.




METAGAME
n. A game about games; a game based on exploiting the rules etc. of some other game, at a higher level than simply playing the game normally.

Metagaming is something we do, not something a game is.  

You have a short list of things that are a problem.
Just cut them.  You're the DM, it's your job.  Give the fighter more magic items if you feel sorry for him and move on.


----------



## Arilyn

This wasn't really supposed to be a discussion of what is or isn't metagaming. Emerikol was quite clear that he wasn't looking for a fight, just suggestions on games that might fit his preference. I mean, I kinda get it. I wanted to leap in and defend my preferred "meta-gamey" games too, and I think I might have hit xp on some Fate defender posts, but I think it's pretty clear on what was asked. I don't agree with Emerikol on his definition of metagame, and we play a very different kind of game, but I'm having no trouble understanding what kind of game he's looking for. So...
1. WOIN
2. AGE
3. Castles and Crusades
4.Runequest
5.Warhammer(earlier edition)
6. The Warhammer clone that I can't remember title of
7. Lamentations of the Flame Princess
8. Legend of the Five Rings (pre Fantasy Flight)
Aldarc' s suggestion of Beyond the Wall is good one too.


----------



## Neonchameleon

[







Arilyn said:


> This wasn't really supposed to be a discussion of what is or isn't metagaming. Emerikol was quite clear that he wasn't looking for a fight, just suggestions on games that might fit his preference. I mean, I kinda get it. I wanted to leap in and defend my preferred "meta-gamey" games too, and I think I might have hit xp on some Fate defender posts, but I think it's pretty clear on what was asked.




The problem is that without understanding what was meant by metagamey you can not give good recommendations. And there are people with Emerikol's tastes who are a whole lot more flexible than Emerikol - for example (a) they don't care what everyone else at the table does as long as they don't themselves need to use metagame mechanics, (b) they are fine with WoD-style quintessence mechanics, blood pools, or even willpower, or even the (a+b) combination where they are fine with Fate style mechanics as long as someone points out to them that for _their_ character they can use stamina, willpower, or blood pools as a physical representation of fate points.

If I were to recommend the game I can think of with the fewest metagame mechanics I'd start out by recommending Apocalypse World - but I'm almost certain that it would be anathema to Emerikol on the grounds that it has a different player/GM relationship from the one he likes, and especially a different relationship between the GM and the world and it allows for player choice in how they approach the world in a way historic D&D doesn't but that is entirely in line with the way people can decide to approach the world.

And where I'd start for Emerikol? Almost any game from the 80s from GURPS to Call of Cthulhu, plus many many games with those design sensibilities including WoIN, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e, Starfinder, and most of the OSR. They aren't hard to find.


----------



## Emerikol

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem is that I can predict with extremely high accuracy what you will consider metagaming and what you will not through one simple algorithm. Is it made from parts that are either classic D&D or from classic 80s physics-sim design. The problem is that this category is not anything to do with the sort of choices you make or resource mechanics you have. It is entirely and completely to do with how familiar you are with those mechanics.
> 
> If you were to say "This is not to my taste" I would shrug. I've a pretty clear understanding of your taste. When you say "My problem is [thing]" I am going to want to explore the bounds of [thing] because I enjoy game design - and because one of the key aspects of a class based system is that it enjoys players with very different preferences to sit down at the same table and all have fun as long as they have at least the flexibility to accept that not every class must cater in every way to them.



Well I keep using different names in an attempt to keep the peace.  There is a class of mechanic, name it what you will (and it has nothing to do with 80's games of necessity).  I've used many names for it and everyone wants to fight every single time on the name.  So we can't can't discuss anything because the other side just derails the conversation.

And I don't care about someone with your tastes playing in my specific game. I think you'd likely be unhappy and end up making everyone else unhappy with your discontent.  I would not likely be happy in your game either.  I am not worried about make every GROUP open to every playstyle.  If I had a goal, and I don't now that the game is out, it would have been for the game to be open to all playstyles so people could group to the playstyle they prefer.  

But these things I find objectionable are just as objectionable when done with a different character than mine.  When everyone in your group comes up with a really great name except for one guy who calls himself "Bob", what is your reaction? Doesn't his lack of commitment to the type of game bother you?  Now if it's intended to be a comedy that is fine.  I don't tend to play those types of games.




Neonchameleon said:


> First, this is an entirely different thing from metagame mechanics. If we use Circe as the fictional inspiration for the wizard, why not Hercules or Cu-Cuchlain for the fighter? And if we use a random real world fighter for the fighter basis, why not a stage magician for the wizard? I'm serious here. One of my fundamental problems with non-4e WotC fighters is, even once you get past them being unable to make meaningful decisions in the very area that form the basis of them being an expert fighter like how to pace themselves, is that we're playing Ars Magica or Harry Potter with wizards and muggles.



That though does not of necessity relate to my post.  Yes we can bring up everything I've ever argued about on any thread with any earnestness.  Realize though that many people played 1e, 2e, and 3e without feeling like the fighter was overshadowed.  The rogue, sure maybe and I've said how I'd fix that.  So for us the cure is worse than the problem.  But that is beside the point to my original post.  I have tried really hard I think to keep us focused here.  You like a certain style of play and you have certain views on what makes a good game.  We don't agree.  Guess what?  My players are having loads of fun.  I could run a campaign every night of the week if I wanted to.  So we are doing it right.  I can only assume that you and your players are having fun as well playing the way you are playing.  If so, then you are doing it right.  We are arguing about entertainment.




Neonchameleon said:


> Second, Gygax and Arneson both used magic items as a balancing mechanic. If you look at the 1E DMG the magic items table is not just weighted towards magic weapons, but roughly 60% of all magic weapons were swords which the fighter could use and the cleric couldn't. Also swords reached +5, most weapons reached +3. And all the intelligent weapons on the magic item table were swords, which was another huge boost in power for the fighters. (3.0 of course proceeded to flush all this and the most accessible magic items in that game were scrolls, while you could get about three wands of cure light wounds for the cost of a single +1 sword).



Again this is off topic.  I am not going to justify my tastes.  They are my tastes and they are what I like.  I don't care if you don't like them.  Good for you.  And I really don't care if you play differently.  How does that affect me?  I asked a simple question on how to avoid mechanics that are objectionable to ME.  That is all we need to know for this thread.  It's intent is not to rehash all of the edition wars.  You guys (or others like you of course not you specifically) tried for years (LITERALLY) to convince me my tastes were wrong.  Didn't work.  Can we agree to just let that go? If you don't want to help out someone like me then I suggest a variety of other threads you can peruse.

SO.... let's all stay on topic.  How to find/fix/houserule/etc.. various fantasy games to avoid these mechanics I do not prefer.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Have you looked into any of my TTRPG recommendations yet?
> 
> I also have another: Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures. It combines Basic/1e OSR and more contemporary game design.




The game may have some interesting mechanics but creating the world is something I enjoy doing for my campaigns.  It seems like it's trying to make world creation unnecessary.  It has a price so I didn't buy it just to look but what sort of modern mechanics does it have?


----------



## Emerikol

Neonchameleon said:


> [
> 
> The problem is that without understanding what was meant by metagamey you can not give good recommendations. And there are people with Emerikol's tastes who are a whole lot more flexible than Emerikol - for example (a) they don't care what everyone else at the table does as long as they don't themselves need to use metagame mechanics, (b) they are fine with WoD-style quintessence mechanics, blood pools, or even willpower, or even the (a+b) combination where they are fine with Fate style mechanics as long as someone points out to them that for _their_ character they can use stamina, willpower, or blood pools as a physical representation of fate points.
> 
> If I were to recommend the game I can think of with the fewest metagame mechanics I'd start out by recommending Apocalypse World - but I'm almost certain that it would be anathema to Emerikol on the grounds that it has a different player/GM relationship from the one he likes, and especially a different relationship between the GM and the world and it allows for player choice in how they approach the world in a way historic D&D doesn't but that is entirely in line with the way people can decide to approach the world.
> 
> And where I'd start for Emerikol? Almost any game from the 80s from GURPS to Call of Cthulhu, plus many many games with those design sensibilities including WoIN, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e, Starfinder, and most of the OSR. They aren't hard to find.




You would be right about Apocalypse World.  What amazes me is that a game where the players make up the world is so far from where I am at playstyle wise.  How is that not metagame?  The characters obviously aren't making up the world as they go.  To the best of my ability, I'd like for the players to be inside their characters heads and seeing through their characters eyes.  Obviously, we can only achieve that to a degree.  So the DM occasionally says things which the player has to translate to the character before acting as that character.  Information like Hit Points etc.. are there so the player can act as the character because otherwise the player won't know enough to be in the characters shoes.  So when you are down 50% of your hit points (whatever that means to you) it definitely means you are half way to death.  You are beginning to lose.  That is character knowledge.  The player takes the raw number and translates it to the character.  Then the player acts as the character.


----------



## Emerikol

Arilyn said:


> This wasn't really supposed to be a discussion of what is or isn't metagaming. Emerikol was quite clear that he wasn't looking for a fight, just suggestions on games that might fit his preference. I mean, I kinda get it. I wanted to leap in and defend my preferred "meta-gamey" games too, and I think I might have hit xp on some Fate defender posts, but I think it's pretty clear on what was asked. I don't agree with Emerikol on his definition of metagame, and we play a very different kind of game, but I'm having no trouble understanding what kind of game he's looking for. So...
> 1. WOIN
> 2. AGE
> 3. Castles and Crusades
> 4.Runequest
> 5.Warhammer(earlier edition)
> 6. The Warhammer clone that I can't remember title of
> 7. Lamentations of the Flame Princess
> 8. Legend of the Five Rings (pre Fantasy Flight)
> Aldarc' s suggestion of Beyond the Wall is good one too.




Most of the retroclones do the job.  I bought N.E.W. and have been reading the pdf while I wait for the book to arrive.  I like the system a lot but it has quite a few objectionable mechanics.  Morrus said it was about the same as 5e D&D in that way.  Fortunately, I feel like WOIN is a lot more component-tized so I may run a sci-fi campaign using that system.  I'll just house rule all the stuff involving luck dice and daily powers.  I fear on the skill feats that Pf2e will go this route too.

I own a lot of Castles and Crusades stuff so I know about that system.  I like it but don't love it.  I like a systematic design better than a hardcoded one.   So feat slots are better than class powers.  etc...  WOIN is strong in this area.

I own Dungeon Crawl Classics (and a zillion of their modules).  DCC just tried too hard to make magic more dangerous. Still it has a lot of good ideas in it.

I own Hackmaster 2e.  There are things I like about this game but it's way too slow moving combat wise.  My group wouldn't like it.  I do like that the weapon you use moves you down the initiative track.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Emerikol said:


> Well I keep using different names in an attempt to keep the peace.  There is a class of mechanic, name it what you will (and it has nothing to do with 80's games of necessity).




It has nothing _out of necessity_ to do with 80s games. It has everything observationally to do with 80s RPGs.



> I think you'd likely be unhappy and end up making everyone else unhappy with your discontent.




Not everyone is you.  I'd probably be quite happy playing a wizard in your game who came from across the sea. I wouldn't be happy playing a fighter in your game.



> But these things I find objectionable are just as objectionable when done with a different character than mine.




To me this makes as much sense as a blanket statement as "the food I find objectionable I find objectionable no matter whether it is on my plate or the plate of someone else at the restaurant".

If I am playing a fighter with an actual brain who paces himself between combats, who thinks, and works on outmaneuvering his opponents this interferes with your having fun because you, in your lack of understanding how real world athletes and warriors actually work think that my making in character decisions is somehow objectionable just because you don't think people ever pace themselves in athletic events.

To me it's no skin off my nose if you want to play a fighter like a complete dunce at the area they are supposed to be focussed on. What he does is believable and if we are going out for a group meal I don't care what is on your plate as long as it stays on your plate even if it is just tofu and ramen. _I_ don't have to think about things that way. And what reaches the gaming table is workable.



> When everyone in your group comes up with a really great name except for one guy who calls himself "Bob", what is your reaction? Doesn't his lack of commitment to the type of game bother you?  Now if it's intended to be a comedy that is fine.  I don't tend to play those types of games.




That depends. If the game is a Shadowrun game and someone decides to call themselves Bob that's fine if it fits with the character. But the reason I'm harping on about the fighter is that in Middle Earth terms you are reacting to someone who went out and bought a Tolkein dictionary and picked the third most common Elven name just because you have problems pronouncing it and don't like it.



> Realize though that many people played 1e, 2e, and 3e without feeling like the fighter was overshadowed.




And many others didn't, and more still dropped after trying the fighter. Also there was a difference between those different fighters, in part due to the combat scheme.

You here are saying "Because some people liked the classic fighter no one is ever allowed to play any other interpretation of the fighter as an archetype." I'm saying "Some people like the simple fighter. Others find it cripplingly anti-immersive because the way you need to think for one is nothing like an actual fighter. And a third group of people like it because it's anti-immersive with no thought required and you can just smash things. That doesn't mean a 'simple mechanics fighter' should be banned. It means that other options should be available."



> You like a certain style of play and you have certain views on what makes a good game.




I like quite a lot of styles of play from classic pawn play dungeon crawling to complete metagame heavy collaborative storytelling to immersed improv-with-dice. 

What I am pointing out is that you personally can not stand someone having what you consider BadWrongFun by making decisions that real people in the situation would make - and indeed in your own words you find people having an understanding of the world different to yours to be "objectionable". This is where I have a serious disagreement with you. First that your understanding of the world is just plain wrong. Second that you find that other people having a different understanding from you to be "objectionable".



> SO.... let's all stay on topic.  How to find/fix/houserule/etc.. various fantasy games to avoid these mechanics I do not prefer.




And one answer to this is to realise how arbitrary your preferences are and to not sweat the small stuff.



Emerikol said:


> You would be right about Apocalypse World.  What amazes me is that a game where the players make up the world is so far from where I am at playstyle wise.  How is that not metagame? The characters obviously aren't making up the world as they go.




Because the players making large chunks of the world up in Apocalypse World happens during character creation. After character creation is done the players see the world through their character's eyes, respond in character, and you trigger a dice roll when someone tries to do something in character that triggers a roll.

In character creation in D&D you put down on your character sheet your fighter's stats, feats, and equipment - and doing so is pure metagame. In character creation in Apocalypse World if you are playing a Chopper you put down details about your character's stats and equipment - and also details about your Chopper's biker gang including what its strengths and weaknesses and general aesthetic are, and the names of your chief lieutenants and what it's most likely to do if you can't keep it under control. In neither character creation are you in character - it's just that Apocalypse World's is a bit more expansive and fits the character into the setting.

After character creation your Chopper's biker gang is entirely made up of unruly NPCs who consider you their leader for as long as you can keep them in line. You aren't making the world up as you go - you just built a lot of aspects of the local environment when you all created characters.


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> SO.... let's all stay on topic.  How to find/fix/houserule/etc.. various fantasy games to avoid these mechanics I do not prefer.



 You said 3.5 did not suffer from this class of mechanics that cannot be named.

With Pathfinder 3.5 has had the longest publication history.  The most books published.  The most support of any Pencil & Paper RPG ever.  If it works for you, you need nothing else.

Pathfinder 2 should work for you also.

The only complaint with 5e is Hit Dice, Inspiration, and a couple fighter things.
You're the DM, you can just get rid of them.

You don't need any help or advice to figure that out.

So why are you posting this at all.  When you also complain you've done so many times before.  And that you were attacked for it.

It sounds like that's what you want.  To be attacked.

You have everything you say you want from a game.  Always have. 

Do you just need to be attacked for it.  To stop feeling guilty for all that privilege.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> The game may have some interesting mechanics but creating the world is something I enjoy doing for my campaigns.  It seems like it's trying to make world creation unnecessary.



My take-away reading was the opposite here, though we likely refer to the same phenomenon. For me, this system makes world creation necessary - as in the process necessarily transpires - because it partially happens through the character creation process via playbooks. The major strength of this system is that it 1) alleviates some of the world-creation process from the GM, 2) it connects PCs to other PCs and NPCs through character creation, and 3) this process can also be used for the purpose of adventure creation in scenario packs. I get that some grognard GMs may buckle at this idea - "I am perfect GM worldbuilder and I have perfect group. We were doing this already! So this system is stupid." - but I have found that it makes for interesting fun from the perspective of discovery from the part of the GM. 

You can still make the world or setting, but the character creation process helps plug characters into that fairly easily. You are simply building around a tavern, which could be in a village or city. The players will create an NPC or location or two. And the GM will mostly be filling out the rest. So unless you are an autocratic control freak, then you are effectively losing minimal control over world creation. 



> It has a price so I didn't buy it just to look but what sort of modern mechanics does it have?



It has a price of $8 for the pdf on DriveThruRPG (and Further Afield at $5) plus a lot of free or pay-what-you-want content so it's far from a steep entry point. 

I would say that the use of *Playbooks* is the big modern innovator. Though they are implemented differently in BtW from Powered by the Apocalypse-inspired games (e.g., Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark) the playbooks are mostly about providing players with an easy-access character concept who is not just a pre-gen. Your rolls expand your backstory and stats at the same time. So it is OSR "roll to discover your character" meets New School "plug-n-play". 

But the playbooks are _optional_. (And this point also applies to your earlier bit on world creation.) There are rules for just rolling stats and sticking with the basic classes as written. So you can stick with the game-as-written but also take out everything else you don't like. There are also rules for using the 3e+ three saving throws instead. Super hackable game. 

*Freeform Skill System:* There is not a set skill list. Players can pick their own "skills." Skills and ability checks operate as roll-under ability score to succeed, with skills raising your circumstantial ability score by +2 or +4 when making the relevant check. Actually most d20 mechanics are roll-under-ability score except saving throws and attack rolls. 

Someone on the BtW Google+ community also made a "Black Hack" of BtW which simplifies the system even more, such as turning the five saving throws and attack rolls into simple roll-under ability checks, but it also uses advantage/disadvantage mechanics. 



Emerikol said:


> You would be right about Apocalypse World.  What amazes me is that a game where the players make up the world is so far from where I am at playstyle wise.  How is that not metagame?  The characters obviously aren't making up the world as they go.



It's as metagame as creating a new character with a backstory or leveling up in D&D. It mostly happens at character creation or between sessions. It is the GM who narrates the framing of scenes and the world with the players reacting. If something does not exist in the world, then the GM can say "no, that doesn't exist" or "no, that's not possible." 

In contrast, players can make up stuff about the world in Fate during play, but IME this mostly amounts to the players invoking a character aspect and being like "I know a guy from my time as part of [my aspect here]," "I know a way into this place because my time [insert aspect here]," or "Didn't you know? I learned to speak this language due to [aspect]." But I find that this process mostly happens in a character-facing way that does not come across as metagaming in the context of play. It's about the player asserting who their character is in the world and the character being proactive in the world. 

Let's take for example "I know a guy." How would this be potentially handled outside of Fate? The GM will likely say something akin to "you have not established knowing this person in your backstory, so they do not exist." The GM may also say, "We can discuss your backstory outside of play and decide then (but no)." Or the player may not be the one saying it, but the GM just tells the player, "you know a guy," which would be railroading the PCs to a set NPC. Or the PC may even say, "Yeah, but why or how do I know that guy? I never established that with you either." This can be absolutely frustrating from a player perspective because in their own head space of who the character is and their backstory, they absolutely would "know a guy for that" or have someone they could turn to in the world. This is often a roadblock I have witnessed that takes the player out of their character immersion. 

But here is the thing that I like about the Fate system here as a GM: 1) the player characters are being proactive in the world; 2) the characters are roleplaying and establishing their identity; 3) the players have just created a NPC that expands the world, 4) the players may have created that NPC through roleplaying, but that NPC is now mine to control. This aside is not too relevant to your point, but I do enjoy talking about Fate.


----------



## Emerikol

Ted Serious said:


> You said 3.5 did not suffer from this class of mechanics that cannot be named.
> 
> With Pathfinder 3.5 has had the longest publication history.  The most books published.  The most support of any Pencil & Paper RPG ever.  If it works for you, you need nothing else.
> 
> Pathfinder 2 should work for you also.
> 
> The only complaint with 5e is Hit Dice, Inspiration, and a couple fighter things.
> You're the DM, you can just get rid of them.
> 
> You don't need any help or advice to figure that out.
> 
> So why are you posting this at all.  When you also complain you've done so many times before.  And that you were attacked for it.
> 
> It sounds like that's what you want.  To be attacked.
> 
> You have everything you say you want from a game.  Always have.
> 
> Do you just need to be attacked for it.  To stop feeling guilty for all that privilege.




I was mostly wanting to discuss specific approaches.  Bawylie's post above on his solution to the problem would be the sort of post that is helpful to the conversation.  Yes, I can do anything practically as GM.  I also realize that other ideas might surface by having a discussion.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> My take-away reading was the opposite here, though we likely refer to the same phenomenon. For me, this system makes world creation necessary - as in the process necessarily transpires - because it partially happens through the character creation process via playbooks. The major strength of this system is that it 1) alleviates some of the world-creation process from the GM, 2) it connects PCs to other PCs and NPCs through character creation, and 3) this process can also be used for the purpose of adventure creation in scenario packs. I get that some grognard GMs may buckle at this idea - "I am perfect GM worldbuilder and I have perfect group. We were doing this already! So this system is stupid." - but I have found that it makes for interesting fun from the perspective of discovery from the part of the GM.



It's hard for me to comment greatly on the details of a system I have not read.  I am though not at all averse to games that allow you to build a character history.  Though of course that "generic" history has to be fit into the specifics of the campaign world.  WOIN does this pretty well.  You might be a wizards apprentice as your origin but which wizard and where still has to be decided in game.




Aldarc said:


> It has a price of $8 for the pdf on DriveThruRPG (and Further Afield at $5) plus a lot of free or pay-what-you-want content so it's far from a steep entry point.



I didn't mean to imply it was too expensive.  I was just saying I wasn't going at this very moment to check it out.  I just sunk some cash into WOIN but I will definitely consider this game.



Aldarc said:


> It's as metagame as creating a new character with a backstory or leveling up in D&D. It mostly happens at character creation or between sessions. It is the GM who narrates the framing of scenes and the world with the players reacting. If something does not exist in the world, then the GM can say "no, that doesn't exist" or "no, that's not possible."



I don't consider character creation to be "play" time.  I know that it is metagame.  A character couldn't "think" about the creation of his attributes since he is born that way.  



Aldarc said:


> In contrast, players can make up stuff about the world in Fate during play, but IME this mostly amounts to the players invoking a character aspect and being like "I know a guy from my time as part of [my aspect here]," "I know a way into this place because my time [insert aspect here]," or "Didn't you know? I learned to speak this language due to [aspect]." But I find that this process mostly happens in a character-facing way that does not come across as metagaming in the context of play. It's about the player asserting who their character is in the world and the character being proactive in the world.



Yes this sort of stuff is metagame for me.  I have only briefly looked at Dungeon World.  I think I went to a seminar at Gen Con one time.  So I thought Dungeon World allowed players to do that sort of stuff but I look at a lot of games so I might be off.




Aldarc said:


> Let's take for example "I know a guy." How would this be potentially handled outside of Fate? The GM will likely say something akin to "you have not established knowing this person in your backstory, so they do not exist." The GM may also say, "We can discuss your backstory outside of play and decide then (but no)." Or the player may not be the one saying it, but the GM just tells the player, "you know a guy," which would be railroading the PCs to a set NPC. Or the PC may even say, "Yeah, but why or how do I know that guy? I never established that with you either." This can be absolutely frustrating from a player perspective because in their own head space of who the character is and their backstory, they absolutely would "know a guy for that" or have someone they could turn to in the world. This is often a roadblock I have witnessed that takes the player out of their character immersion.



It can be a challenge but for me I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Whenever a PC is in his home waters, I almost always give him some NPC contacts.  At character creation if it's important to the PC (and they know how I play) they will request certain types of contacts.   




Aldarc said:


> But here is the thing that I like about the Fate system here as a GM: 1) the player characters are being proactive in the world; 2) the characters are roleplaying and establishing their identity; 3) the players have just created a NPC that expands the world, 4) the players may have created that NPC through roleplaying, but that NPC is now mine to control. This aside is not too relevant to your point, but I do enjoy talking about Fate.




All of those are valid reasons for that style of play.  In fact when listing the advantages of that playstyle, your items are often given as advantages.  It's just not what I'm looking for in a game.  I find FATE a very interesting game in many ways.  As written it's just not for me.  In fact I believe WOIN has a lot of the same advantages and a system a bit easier to house rule away the parts I don't like.


----------



## Emerikol

Neonchameleon said:


> It has nothing _out of necessity_ to do with 80s games. It has everything observationally to do with 80s RPGs.



Well it is true that games suddenly started using those types of mechanics in larger doses at some point on the timeline.  I assume people like yourself really enjoyed those innovations and thus they were used more.  In some cases it may just have been the designer not even knowing an issue existed for some people.





Neonchameleon said:


> Not everyone is you.  I'd probably be quite happy playing a wizard in your game who came from across the sea. I wouldn't be happy playing a fighter in your game.



Well who knows but my guess is that you wouldn't enjoy my game.  We won't ever know so let's leave it at that.




Neonchameleon said:


> To me this makes as much sense as a blanket statement as "the food I find objectionable I find objectionable no matter whether it is on my plate or the plate of someone else at the restaurant".



No.  It shows a complete lack of understanding of how these mechanics affect people who don't like them.  If something breaks your immersion or causes the feel of the game to be wrong, that happens regardless of who is doing it.  It's silly to think you could ignore the entire game except for your own characters actions.




Neonchameleon said:


> If I am playing a fighter with an actual brain who paces himself between combats, who thinks, and works on outmaneuvering his opponents this interferes with your having fun because you, in your lack of understanding how real world athletes and warriors actually work think that my making in character decisions is somehow objectionable just because you don't think people ever pace themselves in athletic events.
> 
> To me it's no skin off my nose if you want to play a fighter like a complete dunce at the area they are supposed to be focussed on. What he does is believable and if we are going out for a group meal I don't care what is on your plate as long as it stays on your plate even if it is just tofu and ramen. _I_ don't have to think about things that way. And what reaches the gaming table is workable.



And now comes the judgment.  This doesn't even deserve a response.  My fighters traditionally have been one of the most important to my game and loads of fun to play.  I always have more trouble finding spell casters.  





Neonchameleon said:


> And many others didn't, and more still dropped after trying the fighter. Also there was a difference between those different fighters, in part due to the combat scheme.
> 
> You here are saying "Because some people liked the classic fighter no one is ever allowed to play any other interpretation of the fighter as an archetype." I'm saying "Some people like the simple fighter. Others find it cripplingly anti-immersive because the way you need to think for one is nothing like an actual fighter. And a third group of people like it because it's anti-immersive with no thought required and you can just smash things. That doesn't mean a 'simple mechanics fighter' should be banned. It means that other options should be available."



NO I AM NOT.  I am saying in my game there can be no metagame mechanics.  I don't mind anyone else doing anything they want.  You are getting all upset and offended about what goes on in one group.  Why do you care if someone else in a different group plays in a different style?  You seem to have an attitude where you want everyone to accept your presumptions about what is a good game.  Why?  Live and let live.




Neonchameleon said:


> I like quite a lot of styles of play from classic pawn play dungeon crawling to complete metagame heavy collaborative storytelling to immersed improv-with-dice.
> 
> What I am pointing out is that you personally can not stand someone having what you consider BadWrongFun by making decisions that real people in the situation would make - and indeed in your own words you find people having an understanding of the world different to yours to be "objectionable". This is where I have a serious disagreement with you. First that your understanding of the world is just plain wrong. Second that you find that other people having a different understanding from you to be "objectionable".



AT MY GAME TABLE!!!!! It doesn't bother me one iota that it exists which is something I'm coming to believe you don't grant me.




Neonchameleon said:


> And one answer to this is to realise how arbitrary your preferences are and to not sweat the small stuff.



Why would I play games that are not fun?  Would you?


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> It's hard for me to comment greatly on the details of a system I have not read.  I am though not at all averse to games that allow you to build a character history.  Though of course that "generic" history has to be fit into the specifics of the campaign world.  WOIN does this pretty well.  You might be a wizards apprentice as your origin but which wizard and where still has to be decided in game.



It's similar with Beyond the Wall. However, BtW is more young adult oriented. It takes inspiration from the novels of Ursula LeGuin (Earthsea), Lloyd Alexander (Chronicles of Prydain), Tolkien (The Hobbit), and arguably the first few books of Robert Jordan (Wheel of Time), where it is often about relatively young heroes exploring beyond the bounds of their lifelong homes and grow into heroes. It's why playbooks are generally are akin to "Would-Be Knight," "Self-Taught Mage," "Young Woodsman," or "Untested Thief," etc. You may be level 1 in the game, but you are level 0 in life. As such, BtW generally assumes that your characters belong to the same village or town. 

Your background questions are generally about your history in this town: who are your parents? how were you distinguished as a child? how did you learn your trade? Who was village adult who you were close with? But most of these answers are fairly generic and give the player and GM room to collaboratively create. It's really about basic things like, "Okay, Player 2. You get to create and place a location in the town. Since you rolled that your parents are blacksmiths, perhaps you should add a smithy." Your players will create the minimum and then you get to fill in the rest. 



> I didn't mean to imply it was too expensive.  I was just saying I wasn't going at this very moment to check it out.  I just sunk some cash into WOIN but I will definitely consider this game.



Yeah, WOIN looks pretty neat, but I have too many other systems to try first. 



> Yes this sort of stuff is metagame for me.  I have only briefly looked at Dungeon World.  I think I went to a seminar at Gen Con one time.  So I thought Dungeon World allowed players to do that sort of stuff but I look at a lot of games so I might be off.



Although this is 'metagame' - and not appropriate for your tastes - it also isn't an issue for me because of how it blends player and player character engagement. The player must engage and roleplay their character in order to invoke their aspects. The player characters are pushing themselves when it pertains to who they are, their values, their history, and their nature. I just don't see metagame mechanics as a bogeyman when it actually engenders roleplay and player enagement. 



> It can be a challenge but for me I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Whenever a PC is in his home waters, I almost always give him some NPC contacts.  At character creation if it's important to the PC (and they know how I play) they will request certain types of contacts.



Sure but sometimes you don't necessarily know what would be appropriate for your character until during the midst of play itself. IMO, this is the benefit of Fate's mechanic here. You may call it metagame, but it ensures that the roleplay can continue without player-PC dissonance disruption. Not all metagaming breaks roleplaying immersion. It's the player character saying, "Hey, I was a bodyguard for the prince, so I know there is actually a secret entrance that leads from the outer garden shed to the palace kitchen." 



> All of those are valid reasons for that style of play.  In fact when listing the advantages of that playstyle, your items are often given as advantages.  It's just not what I'm looking for in a game.  I find FATE a very interesting game in many ways.  As written it's just not for me.  In fact I believe WOIN has a lot of the same advantages and a system a bit easier to house rule away the parts I don't like.



Oh, I understand that this is not what you are looking for in a game, but as I said before, I like talking about Fate.  

I am going to recommend the Black Hack again, which apparently will have a second edition this year. (I just found out about 2e from a recently finished Kickstarter.) It is D&D O/BX meets 5E. Stripped down basic classes: warrior, thief, conjuror, cleric. Advantage/disadvantage. Unified roll-under-ability checks: for saves, attacks, and skills. Super customizable. Cheap (~$2). Entire rules are ~20 pages.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Emerikol said:


> What amazes me is that a game where the players make up the world is so far from where I am at playstyle wise.  How is that not metagame?  The characters obviously aren't making up the world as they go.  To the best of my ability, I'd like for the players to be inside their characters heads and seeing through their characters eyes.



Maybe I missed your specific definition, but when I use the term, it refers to the decisions you make as your character and how those decisions are influenced by things that the character doesn't know. Free-form world creation as-you-go wouldn't be meta-game, as I understand the term, because it has nothing to do with your character; it takes place _entirely_ outside of the character's influence. (But if someone acting in the capacity of world-designer is making decisions based on information that _they_ can't know, like who the PCs are, then that's meta-gaming from the other side; you wouldn't be authentically role-playing the gods, or any of the countless NPCs in the history of that world, if your decisions take the PCs into account.)

It's still out-of-character player agency, of course, which I'm not a fan of. I would never play a game that asked the player to do such things, because the reason I play a role-playing game is so I can role-play, and I don't want to be dragged out of character like that.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Neonchameleon said:


> To me this makes as much sense as a blanket statement as "the food I find objectionable I find objectionable no matter whether it is on my plate or the plate of someone else at the restaurant".



If anyone at the table is eating eggs, then it's going to make me nauseous, and I'm going to excuse myself. I'm not having fun anymore.

RPGs are a communal effort that is both produced and consumed by everyone at the table. If someone at the table is actively cheating (as an example, not saying that meta-gaming is necessarily cheating), then it's the equivalent of them adding eggs to the stew. I'm not having fun anymore.  There are many other ways in which a single player can ruin the experience for everyone else, and they're mostly going to be a matter of preference.


Neonchameleon said:


> If I am playing a fighter with an actual brain who paces himself between combats, who thinks, and works on outmaneuvering his opponents this interferes with your having fun because you, in your lack of understanding how real world athletes and warriors actually work think that my making in character decisions is somehow objectionable just because you don't think people ever pace themselves in athletic events.



It doesn't matter how enthusiastically you try and argue that there are five lights, when there are actually four. Maybe this comes down to quibbling about whether or not something technically counts as a light, but if someone tells you that they aren't counting it because it doesn't meet X criteria, then you aren't helping them at all by asking them to change those criteria.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Emerikol said:


> No.  It shows a complete lack of understanding of how these mechanics affect people who don't like them.  If something breaks your immersion or causes the feel of the game to be wrong, that happens regardless of who is doing it.  It's silly to think you could ignore the entire game except for your own characters actions.




What matters to me is what actually happens within the gameworld. My speculations about anything else including how and why _other people_ made their decisions are just that. Speculations. To know for certain would require telepathy.



> And now comes the judgment.




Next time don't call playstyles objectionable if you don't want fire returned.



> I always have more trouble finding spell casters.




And when I made a suggestion about simple spellcasters you rejected it.



> NO I AM NOT.  I am saying in my game there can be no metagame mechanics.




And as has been pointed out repeatedly _athletes pacing themselves is not a metagame mechanic_. What you are saying is that there can be no mechanics that disagree with the way you see the world.



> You are getting all upset and offended about what goes on in one group.[/quopte]
> 
> I am getting particularly upset and offended that you are sneering at people who actually try to get into the head of fighters and you call changing your approach and pacing yourself metagame mechanics despite the fact they are nothing of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care if someone else in a different group plays in a different style?  You seem to have an attitude where you want everyone to accept your presumptions about what is a good game.  Why?  Live and let live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who is claiming that fighters are metagaming when they think the way real world fighters do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I play games that are not fun?  Would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Saelorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone at the table is eating eggs, then it's going to make me nauseous, and I'm going to excuse myself. I'm not having fun anymore.
> 
> RPGs are a communal effort that is both produced and consumed by everyone at the table. If someone at the table is actively cheating (as an example, not saying that meta-gaming is necessarily cheating), then it's the equivalent of them adding eggs to the stew. I'm not having fun anymore.  There are many other ways in which a single player can ruin the experience for everyone else, and they're mostly going to be a matter of preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem here is when you say "I can't stand eggs" and then claim that a water chestnut is an egg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how enthusiastically you try and argue that there are five lights, when there are actually four. Maybe this comes down to quibbling about whether or not something technically counts as a light, but if someone tells you that they aren't counting it because it doesn't meet X criteria, then you aren't helping them at all by asking them to change those criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. It does not matter how enthusiastically or repetitively you argue that athletes do not pace themselves in combat and fighters don't mix up what they are doing to outmaneuver other fighters - they do.
> 
> I'm not asking him to _change_ his criteria. I'm asking him to _be honest_ about them - thinking the way real life athletes do and making the same sort of choices they do is not metagaming. Metagaming isn't the problem. Disagreeing with his understanding of the world and the way D&D has historically understood things is. He has clearly internalised D&D design assumptions and they are what he needs for flow. But he has internalised them to the point that it is impossible for him to enjoy games that handle things in a more realistic manner.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Neonchameleon said:


> Indeed. It does not matter how enthusiastically or repetitively you argue that athletes do not pace themselves in combat and fighters don't mix up what they are doing to outmaneuver other fighters - they do.



It does not matter how much you insist that Action Surge and Second Wind are representative of in-character decisions, when the arbiter has disagreed with that evaluation. If you can't understand _why_ it's a problem, then you're in no position to offer a solution to that problem. 

It would be like matching paint samples with someone who has different color perception. It doesn't even really matter whether there's an answer which is objectively correct. It doesn't matter how it looks to _you_. The question is how to make it look right _to_ someone else.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Saelorn said:


> It does not matter how much you insist that Action Surge and Second Wind are representative of in-character decisions, when the arbiter has disagreed with that evaluation. If you can't understand _why_ it's a problem, then you're in no position to offer a solution to that problem.
> 
> It would be like matching paint samples with someone who has different color perception. It doesn't even really matter whether there's an answer which is objectively correct. It doesn't matter how it looks to _you_. The question is how to make it look right _to_ someone else.




On the contrary. This is a public thread and one entitled "a discussion of metagame concepts in game design". If it was one entitled "Emerikol's type of games" that would be different. But he says he wants purple paints but not yellow ones. He's perfectly welcome to say he doesn't like _matt_ purples and only wants gloss ones. But this doesn't give him the right to arbitrarily declare a matt purple a yellow and no amount of insisting it is will make it so.

As I said earlier on the thread, the best game I'm aware of for thinking in character rather than about mechanics is Apocalypse World. I also said I know that he would absolutely hate it - and not just because you create large parts of the world as a part of character creation.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Neonchameleon said:


> On the contrary. This is a public thread and one entitled "a discussion of metagame concepts in game design". If it was one entitled "Emerikol's type of games" that would be different. But he says he wants purple paints but not yellow ones. He's perfectly welcome to say he doesn't like _matt_ purples and only wants gloss ones. But this doesn't give him the right to arbitrarily declare a matt purple a yellow and no amount of insisting it is will make it so.



It's more like saying that a purple or a green is a blue. You could get quite a following of people who agree that a certain purple is a blue, or that a certain green is a blue, even if most artists disagreed on those points.

The opinion at hand, which forms the basis of this thread, is not an unusual one. It is a _common_ perspective. _Many_ people drew the line at martial dailies.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> It's similar with Beyond the Wall. However, BtW is more young adult oriented. It takes inspiration from the novels of Ursula LeGuin (Earthsea), Lloyd Alexander (Chronicles of Prydain), Tolkien (The Hobbit), and arguably the first few books of Robert Jordan (Wheel of Time), where it is often about relatively young heroes exploring beyond the bounds of their lifelong homes and grow into heroes. It's why playbooks are generally are akin to "Would-Be Knight," "Self-Taught Mage," "Young Woodsman," or "Untested Thief," etc. You may be level 1 in the game, but you are level 0 in life. As such, BtW generally assumes that your characters belong to the same village or town.
> 
> Your background questions are generally about your history in this town: who are your parents? how were you distinguished as a child? how did you learn your trade? Who was village adult who you were close with? But most of these answers are fairly generic and give the player and GM room to collaboratively create. It's really about basic things like, "Okay, Player 2. You get to create and place a location in the town. Since you rolled that your parents are blacksmiths, perhaps you should add a smithy." Your players will create the minimum and then you get to fill in the rest.



I could probably live with this given the blacksmith background was already in place.  



Yeah, WOIN looks pretty neat, but I have too many other systems to try first. 



			
				Aldarc;7459636
Although this is 'metagame' - and not appropriate for your tastes - it also isn't an issue for me because of how it blends player and player character engagement. The player must engage and roleplay their character in order to invoke their aspects. The player characters are pushing themselves when it pertains to who they are said:
			
		

> Blending player and character engagement is practically the definition.  I understand though there are different types of metagame and they offend people sensibilities differently.  For example, a daily martial power might be less acceptable than a fate point because the character has to know about such a thing whereas you might keep the fate point aspect (forgive the pun) of it completely away from the characters view.  I don't like either but I do understand there are degrees and some people go so far and no farther.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aldarc;7459636
> Sure but sometimes you don't necessarily know what would be appropriate for your character until during the midst of play itself. IMO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, what if a map exists and there is no secret entrance.  I tend to have that sort of thing worked out ahead of time.  I'm old school I guess but my players still map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aldarc;7459636
> Oh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will check out black hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Emerikol

Saelorn said:


> Maybe I missed your specific definition, but when I use the term, it refers to the decisions you make as your character and how those decisions are influenced by things that the character doesn't know. Free-form world creation as-you-go wouldn't be meta-game, as I understand the term, because it has nothing to do with your character; it takes place _entirely_ outside of the character's influence. (But if someone acting in the capacity of world-designer is making decisions based on information that _they_ can't know, like who the PCs are, then that's meta-gaming from the other side; you wouldn't be authentically role-playing the gods, or any of the countless NPCs in the history of that world, if your decisions take the PCs into account.)
> 
> It's still out-of-character player agency, of course, which I'm not a fan of. I would never play a game that asked the player to do such things, because the reason I play a role-playing game is so I can role-play, and I don't want to be dragged out of character like that.




You see metagaming to one degree (see my example in the response above).  I want the players making only decisions as their characters.  Yes even to me it's probably worse if the player character is making metagame decisions but both are so far past where I want to be that it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Emerikol

Neonchameleon said:


> Next time don't call playstyles objectionable if you don't want fire returned.



Did I imply in any way that I was talking about anyone besides myself.  If something is not to my taste and I am forced to eat it that is objectionable.  Roleplaying mechanics that I don't like are objectionable when I play that game.  




Neonchameleon said:


> And when I made a suggestion about simple spellcasters you rejected it.



You should go back and read what I wrote.  I said I had no issue with having such a class but that none of my group would likely pick it up.




Neonchameleon said:


> And as has been pointed out repeatedly _athletes pacing themselves is not a metagame mechanic_. What you are saying is that there can be no mechanics that disagree with the way you see the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting all upset and offended about what goes on in one group.[/quopte]
> 
> I am getting particularly upset and offended that you are sneering at people who actually try to get into the head of fighters and you call changing your approach and pacing yourself metagame mechanics despite the fact they are nothing of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote my sneer?  I am saying I don't like that playstyle and I avoid it.  You just can't stand that fact.  You are getting all bent out of shape for nothing.  Please if you have nothing constructive to add, I will carry on with the people who do seem to understand my question and are offering advice that could prove helpful.
> 
> We don't agree on what is and is not metagame.  I get that.  It does not matter.  You can't convince me and I don't even care to try to convince you.  I don't care what you think is or is not metagame.  I have my opinion and since it's a game that is really all I care about.
> 
> 
> 
> Neonchameleon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who is claiming that fighters are metagaming when they think the way real world fighters do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just repeat what I said above
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neonchameleon said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem here is when you say "I can't stand eggs" and then claim that a water chestnut is an egg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay I am going to respond the way you do.  Some guy at the table thinks an egg is a water chesnut and he insists on eating it at the table.  Everyone else at the table knows it's an egg.  I think you'll agree that player would be bounced fast.
> 
> Remember I have a group that thinks like I do.  We know what we want.  Even if I adopted your playstyle, I'd be finding a new group because they'd bounce me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neonchameleon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. It does not matter how enthusiastically or repetitively you argue that athletes do not pace themselves in combat and fighters don't mix up what they are doing to outmaneuver other fighters - they do.
> 
> I'm not asking him to _change_ his criteria. I'm asking him to _be honest_ about them - thinking the way real life athletes do and making the same sort of choices they do is not metagaming. Metagaming isn't the problem. Disagreeing with his understanding of the world and the way D&D has historically understood things is. He has clearly internalised D&D design assumptions and they are what he needs for flow. But he has internalised them to the point that it is impossible for him to enjoy games that handle things in a more realistic manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am being honest.  You just happen to be wrong.  And you keep belaboring the point.  What do you think you will achieve? Make everyone mad?  Please just leave the thread.  You obviously having nothing constructive to add to this conversation.  You want to argue and reopen all the old edition wars because you apparently didn't get it out of your system.  I did.
> 
> I am trying to solicit advice for my game.  Where there is confusion I have explained.  I think at least some people on here accept my views (doesn't mean they agree or want to play my playstyle) and are trying to help.
Click to expand...


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> Maybe I missed your specific definition, but when I use the term, it refers to the decisions you make as your character and how those decisions are influenced by things that the character doesn't know. Free-form world creation as-you-go wouldn't be meta-game, as I understand the term, because it has nothing to do with your character; it takes place _entirely_ outside of the character's influence. (But if someone acting in the capacity of world-designer is making decisions based on information that _they_ can't know, like who the PCs are, then that's meta-gaming from the other side; you wouldn't be authentically role-playing the gods, or any of the countless NPCs in the history of that world, if your decisions take the PCs into account.)




That's how I understand the term as well.



> It's still out-of-character player agency, of course, which I'm not a fan of. I would never play a game that asked the player to do such things, because the reason I play a role-playing game is so I can role-play, and I don't want to be dragged out of character like that.



Player agency is what the game and/or DM give to the player.  It's outside of some kinds of player agency, but not others.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> I could probably live with this given the blacksmith background was already in place.



Yeah, it's often just basic minor things like "the character knew a widow exists in this village" or even "Player 2 helped Player 1 defend themselves from being attacked by a ghost." Though if you don't have ghosts in your campaign, I'm sure you could just replace the word 'ghost' with 'rabid badger' or something. 



> Blending player and character engagement is practically the definition.  I understand though there are different types of metagame and they offend people sensibilities differently.  For example, a daily martial power might be less acceptable than a fate point because the character has to know about such a thing whereas you might keep the fate point aspect (forgive the pun) of it completely away from the characters view.  I don't like either but I do understand there are degrees and some people go so far and no farther.



Blending player and character engagement is practically the definition _of all roleplaying games_.  



> You see, what if a map exists and there is no secret entrance.  I tend to have that sort of thing worked out ahead of time.  I'm old school I guess but my players still map.



Naturally, but Fate does not generally operate from the mindset that there is no objective world apart from what the GM creates. If a map exists but there is no secret entrance, then that says something about the map and not the reality in the game. The map could be wrong. 



> I will check out black hack.



Cool. I hope you find something you like about it. This thread got me looking into other modernizing OSR games. 

There is also Into the Unknown, which is available for free on Google+ for playtesting. It tries to be 5e OSR, but I think it has a few of the metagaming elements you dislike for fighters. But it may provide you with a nice skeleton for building your own OSR. OSRs a dime-a-dozen, with everyone practically building their own. 

I wouldn't mind playing a nice OSR game due to their basic, sleek designs, but I personally loathe D&D's Big 6 attributes that almost all of these OSRs obstinately preserve. So if I did, I would have to hack my own, but it definitely would likely not be D&D 0e compatible.


----------



## Ratskinner

Emerikol said:


> I'm probably just not clear enough in explaining my view.  Choosing to accept something bad now in a metagame way to pave the way for future success has to be player thinking.  A character would not think that way.  On every action he is trying to do his best.
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a fantasy world, doesn't the D&D way seem more realistic given the fantasy assumptions?  Getting more powerful as you go is perhaps a tv trope.  Meaning the hero seems to face defeat a few times before finally succeeding.  It does feel right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm saying that in my style of play character knowledge and player knowledge is the same.  So whatever you choose to do you are already basing it on character knowledge alone because as DM that is all I'm giving you.



Getting a Fate point isn't (necessarily, anyway) about the character doing something suboptimally. It can simply be that some complication happens in the fiction. I've run Fate a lot more than I've played it, so FWIW: As either GM or Player, Fate has always felt more solidly connected with the fiction than D&D does for me. The fiction and "what actually happens" or "what we see on screen" is always upfront and center. 

HP are a central mechanic of D&D and they are meta as anything. The fact that Schrodinger's Wounds is even a term should illustrate that. Virtually any system interaction with HP will be an accounting exercise, rather than character-facing experience. D&D's lack of coherence to fiction has always been a source a frustration for me. I suspect it "feeling right" to you has a lot to more do with familiarity. But...

To me it sounds like you are talking about the distinction between "actor mode" and "author/director mode" rather than meta-fictional mechanics. Which is totally legit. That really makes me want to suggest that you check out Dungeon World. Even if that didn't do it for you, its easily hacked to change the moves to avoid "authoring".

I only have one suggestion for the 5e stuff you brought up, regarding hit dice: when you rest, burn hit dice one at a time until a) you are out of hit dice or b) you are at full.

Anyway, I hope that helps.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> Naturally, but Fate does not generally operate from the mindset that there is no objective world apart from what the GM creates. If a map exists but there is no secret entrance, then that says something about the map and not the reality in the game. The map could be wrong.



If it's the DM's map then by definition it cannot be wrong; and whatever secret passage is being remembered has long since been collapsed and bricked over.



> Cool. I hope you find something you like about it. This thread got me looking into other modernizing OSR games.
> 
> There is also Into the Unknown, which is available for free on Google+ for playtesting. It tries to be 5e OSR, but I think it has a few of the metagaming elements you dislike for fighters. But it may provide you with a nice skeleton for building your own OSR. OSRs a dime-a-dozen, with everyone practically building their own.
> 
> I wouldn't mind playing a nice OSR game due to their basic, sleek designs, but I personally loathe D&D's Big 6 attributes that almost all of these OSRs obstinately preserve. So if I did, I would have to hack my own, but it definitely would likely not be D&D 0e compatible.



Attributes as in Str-Int-Wis-Dex-Con-Cha?

Curious: what would you replace these with?

Lan-"one of these days I'm going to name a character Strint Wisdex Concha, just for kicks"-efan


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Ratskinner said:


> HP are a central mechanic of D&D and they are meta as anything. The fact that Schrodinger's Wounds is even a term should illustrate that.



The term Schrodinger's Wounds is specifically a criticism of how 4E and 5E fail to represent HP in a consistent manner. It has little to do with the historic abstraction of HP in D&D, and everything to do with how that abstraction doesn't hold up in the face of Healing Surges and Hit Dice.

Once you get rid of rapid natural healing, Schrodinger's Wounds would no longer apply as a criticism, since HP could go back to being treated consistently.


----------



## Emerikol

Ratskinner said:


> Getting a Fate point isn't (necessarily, anyway) about the character doing something suboptimally. It can simply be that some complication happens in the fiction. I've run Fate a lot more than I've played it, so FWIW: As either GM or Player, Fate has always felt more solidly connected with the fiction than D&D does for me. The fiction and "what actually happens" or "what we see on screen" is always upfront and center.



I get the concept.  Don't you agree that you calling it "the fiction" indicates a certain perspective on playstyle?  It's not about feeling and thinking as your character.  It's about creating a story with your character but the player does not share anything with the character (talking viewpoints here).




Ratskinner said:


> HP are a central mechanic of D&D and they are meta as anything. The fact that Schrodinger's Wounds is even a term should illustrate that. Virtually any system interaction with HP will be an accounting exercise, rather than character-facing experience. D&D's lack of coherence to fiction has always been a source a frustration for me. I suspect it "feeling right" to you has a lot to more do with familiarity. But...



They are an abstraction, perhaps a poor one, and not metagame.  The player has to interpret information coming from the DM and translate it down to the character.  Once he has received the information, the character can then act as the character.  It is a conceit of all roleplaying games that information has to be passed verbally from the DM to the player to the character.  As long as the information describes the world etc.. then it's not metagame.  Hit points are just a way of telling the character how close he is to death.  We can have another thread and argue what THAT means but abstractly it means that.  In my campaign, that is absolutely character knowledge.




Ratskinner said:


> To me it sounds like you are talking about the distinction between "actor mode" and "author/director mode" rather than meta-fictional mechanics. Which is totally legit. That really makes me want to suggest that you check out Dungeon World. Even if that didn't do it for you, its easily hacked to change the moves to avoid "authoring".



It is related to that.  So you have character view only, director, and author.  I want character view only.  A director will make decisions for the character that cannot possibly be character decisions.  Like accepting a fate point.  An author will go further.  An author will as the player be able to actually bring new information into the world that does not come from his character's genuine knowledge.   So all three of these approaches are popular.  They probably were discovered in the order I listed them. 




Ratskinner said:


> I only have one suggestion for the 5e stuff you brought up, regarding hit dice: when you rest, burn hit dice one at a time until a) you are out of hit dice or b) you are at full.
> 
> Anyway, I hope that helps.




Thanks.  That is a good idea.  I think I suggested that as one of my options above.  It's a hypothetical solution though because simultaneously I'd be changing the healing system anyway for reasons not related to metagame issues.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> That's how I understand the term as well.
> 
> Player agency is what the game and/or DM give to the player.  It's outside of some kinds of player agency, but not others.




I agree that you describe two different cases but both cases bother me in the same way and to me seem metagame.  

The players job outside of acting as the character is to interpret what the DM says into equivalent sensory perceptions as handed down by the DM.  The player is then to interpret what the character would really do and convey that back to the DM in language that makes sense.  This job is the sole job of the player in my style of games.   The fun for me anyway is you feel what the character feels.  The fear, anticipation, adrenaline, etc....  For a moment, you ARE your character and the rest disappears kind of like when you read a book and suddenly you are so into the story that the mechanics of reading fade away.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> I agree that you describe two different cases but both cases bother me in the same way and to me seem metagame.



I see what you are saying.  I just think that using metagame for both confuses the term.    



> The players job outside of acting as the character is to interpret what the DM says into equivalent sensory perceptions as handed down by the DM.  The player is then to interpret what the character would really do and convey that back to the DM in language that makes sense.  This job is the sole job of the player in my style of games.   The fun for me anyway is you feel what the character feels.  The fear, anticipation, adrenaline, etc....  For a moment, you ARE your character and the rest disappears kind of like when you read a book and suddenly you are so into the story that the mechanics of reading fade away.




Yep.  With traditional DM/player roles, that's the way the game plays.  It's also the way I play the game.  All I'm saying is that with other methods agency differs.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] - there was a whole generation of fantasy RPGers who, because they disliked metagame mechanics, dropped D&D for metagame-free systems like RQ, RM and the like. (At the time, these were promoted as "realistic" systems.)

Those systems all drop AC. They all drop combat-as-hp-attrition. (Though they may use hp for other purposes - as meat points in RQ, as a measure of bruising, blood loss and (some) exhaustion in RM.) Armour becomes a source of damage reduction (in RQ it affects damage dice; in RM it affects the attack-and-damage chart, and can also mitigate crit results).

They all drop D&D-style classes. (RQ in total. RM uses class as a device for allocating skill costs.)

They all drop D&D-style casting, which promotes metagame thinking (as in, "What spell load-out do I probably need to beat this bit of this GM's dungeon?").

They all drop XP-from-gold, and move towards a more realistic mode of progression (practice and training in RQ; XP through "hard field training" in RM).

There were, at the same time, D&D players who were proposing different approaches to XP, and defending hp and AC as "realistic" or "simulationist" - which often involved adopting different rules for falling damage, and sometimes for fireball damage also (see eg Roger Musson's "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive" in a fairly early number of White Dward).

I am a long-time RM player who has also played plenty of Traveller, RQ and other metagame free systems. I look at, say, AD&D or 3E and _cannot_ see how anyone can see those as metagame free except by dint of familiarity (as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] suggested) - eg the action economy in 3E is obviously metagame, and so is hp as soaking falling damage or dragon's breath in all of them (the parrying rationale only makes sense of a fairly narrow category of melee combat).

If I had your preferences, I would be playing RQ, RM or HARP - or perhaps HERO or GURPS (I don't know those systems as well, though.)


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> If it's the DM's map then by definition it cannot be wrong; and whatever secret passage is being remembered has long since been collapsed and bricked over.



This definition kinda begs the question, and I don't think that your assertion here is true. 



> Attributes as in Str-Int-Wis-Dex-Con-Cha?



Yes. 



> Curious: what would you replace these with?



Does it matter? The point is not those. 

If you were forced to create attributes that were not the Big Six (or the Big Six renamed), what attributes would you create or use? (So no "they are perfect as they" are non-answers.)


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> They all drop D&D-style casting, which promotes metagame thinking (as in, "What spell load-out do I probably need to beat this bit of this GM's dungeon?").



As an aside, one simple way to de-meta this a bit yet remain within the D&D framework is to do away with spell pre-memorization and make all casters spontaneous a la the 3e Sorcerer.  You've still got a limited number of slots per level, but with each of those slots you can cast any spell of that level you have access to (a cleric/mage multiclass would have two parallel tracks, one for each side) and this does away with having to worry about the load-out question.



> They all drop XP-from-gold



This can also easily be done in 1e while staying within the D&D framework, and everything 2e and onwards made it official.



> There were, at the same time, D&D players who were proposing different approaches to XP, and defending hp and AC as "realistic" or "simulationist" - which often involved adopting different rules for falling damage, and sometimes for fireball damage also (see eg Roger Musson's "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive" in a fairly early number of White Dward).
> 
> I am a long-time RM player who has also played plenty of Traveller, RQ and other metagame free systems. I look at, say, AD&D or 3E and _cannot_ see how anyone can see those as metagame free except by dint of familiarity (as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] suggested) - eg the action economy in 3E is obviously metagame, and so is hp as soaking falling damage or dragon's breath in all of them (the parrying rationale only makes sense of a fairly narrow category of melee combat).



3e D&D is certainly not meta-free; in fact I found it if anything more meta than 1e during the run of play.

Falling damage has never worked right.  Probably never will, for all that. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Neat trick.  I ask a question which you answer thus:


Aldarc said:


> Does it matter? The point is not those.



And then having evaded any kind of real answer, in the next sentence you turn around and ask me the very same question in different words:



> If you were forced to create attributes that were not the Big Six (or the Big Six renamed), what attributes would you create or use? (So no "they are perfect as they" are non-answers.)



Hmmm...

There's certain aspects of a character - particularly the physical ones - that kinda need to be mechanically represented somehow: raw muscle power, endurance, short-term (sprint) and long-term (marathon) stamina, body agility or co-ordination (seen in things like dancing, gymnastics, etc.), manual dexterity (fiddly use of hands, feet, etc.), and appearance/attractiveness are but some.  D&D covers these with Str Con Dex and a part of Cha, but it's clunky.

Then there's the non-physical aspects of a character, mechanical representation of at least some of which also comes in handy: willpower, learning comprehension, info retention, memory capacity and-or accuracy, cognitive processing (the ability to get C out of A plus B), spiritual fortitude (or, resiliency of the soul), judgment, and - for lack of a better word - radiance.  D&D has Int, Wis and some of Cha for these; again vaguely functional but clunky.

So, that's about 15 "attributes" - 7 physical and 8 non-physical - which is probably too many to be viable.  A few can easily be conjoined; for example learning comprehension, info retention and memory can be concatenated to two: learning prowess and memory.  But you're still going to end up with twelve or so:

Strength: raw muscle power, carrying capacity, bench press
Short-term stamina: how well you stand up under short bursts of high exertion e.g. a sprint or short martial combat
Long-term stamina: how well you stand up to prolonged exertion e.g. a marathon or a lengthy climb (also plays into disease and poison resistance)
Endurance: how much abuse or pain can your body handle before it gives out; also how fragile are your bones, joints, etc.
Co-ordination: how clumsy or dextrous are you (this could be broken down into full-body and small-scale co-ordination if desired, I've combined them here)
Appearance: how physically attractive and-or sexy are you, includes body build/type as well as face

Comprehension: how well and how fast do you learn new things, also how quickly do you re-learn things once known but forgotten
Memory: how well do you remember things, and for how long, and with what accuracy
Cognitive processing: how good are you at synthesizing information, solving problems, reaching conclusions from data or evidence given, finding patterns or trends
Willpower: how determined (or stubborn!) are you, also a measure of mental resistance to influence
Spiritual fortitude: how strong and-or resilient is your soul or spirit (highly relevant (but often overlooked) in games where revival from the dead and-or spiritual travel may occur)
Radiance: how much personal magnetism do you exude, also how persuasive or captivating are you

I intentionally left out judgment as this would normally be reflected in a characters role-played personality rather than mechanical stats.

Very conveniently, there's now 12 instead of 6.  Intentional?  Not really, but I like that it worked out that way.  Even better is they remain evenly divided between physical and non-physical - 6 each - though I'm very open to re-jigging of the physical ones.  How these would be rolled up during character generation is a topic best left for another time... 

And note the above names are more intened for clarity than in-game use; better ones can be found for about half of them.

So, I've given my attempt at an answer - how 'bout you?

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton

On Attributes: the attributes in In a Wicked Age are interesting:

* Covertly
* Direclty
* For myself
* For others
* With love
* With violence

These are rated with dice, and every action uses two of them for its resolution.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Neat trick.  I ask a question which you answer thus:
> And then having evaded any kind of real answer, in the next sentence you turn around and ask me the very same question in different words:
> 
> So, I've given my attempt at an answer - how 'bout you?



Truth of the matter is that I do not know what new attributes I would create, because I also think such things would depend on my design goals for the system, and I have not created a new system yet. I would prefer attributes/abilities with distinct and clear non-overlapping functionality, and *I agree with Angry DM* that this is where D&D's Big Six fails hard. (This is also part of my dissatisfaction with some of Dungeon World's conservative design elements.) There are a lot of arguments, for example, about the distinctions between Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Both Charisma and Wisdom claim purview over willpower or even faith. These distinctions have changed in D&D. They are not set. And I don't think that it is any real perfection or marvel of design that we keep the Big Six but purely because we are trained by the familiarity of tradition. The nature of a stat seems to shift depending upon the needs of the metagame design(er). 

If I was designing an OSR style system, I would prefer aiming for simplicity for ease of play. You would want to reduce explanation of what the attributes are so you can jump into character creation and gameplay. Probably either no skills (e.g., Black Hack) or no formal skill list (e.g., Beyond the Wall). I am intrigued by using a simple roll-under-attribute method that would be unified for attacks/defense, skills, and saving throws. 

The question thereby becomes how many attributes are desired and what you would seek to emulate through the game mechanics of attributes. So you would likely need enough such that you can sufficiently differentiate characters. You provided a longer list with greater differentiation. And there are other such systems that opt to expand or "clarify" their sense of attributes: e.g., Fantasy Age (Accuracy, Communication, Constitution, Dexterity, Fighting, Intellect, Perception, Strength, Willpower) and now the new Warhammer RPG (Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative, Agility, Dexterity, Intelligence, Willpower, Fellowship). But what if we went the other direction? Could one potentially do this with three stats? Sure. And I find such a simplification tempting for an OSR style game if our design goals harken back to the days of basic, streamlined gaming. 

_The Cypher System_ uses "Might, Speed, Intellect." And a few other systems also using something akin to this: e.g., "Strength, Agility, and Intelligence." 

_The One Ring_ uses (from what I recall) "Body, Heart, Wits." We could probably also include the similar schema of "Body, Mind, and Spirit." 

_Warrior, Rogue, & Mage_ uses... wait for it... "Warrior, Rogue, and Mage" as the ranked attributes. This profession-oriented system reminds me of the Fate game Jadepunk that has players rank the professions "Aristocrat, Engineer, Explorer, Fighter, Scholar, and Scoundrel" as skill groups / attributes. 

Firefly (Cortex system) uses "Physical, Mental, and Social." I usually lean on   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s greater familiarity with Cortex for greater clarity. 

So I would possibly work with something like the above. Maybe expand it four, if I felt it would be suitable for the game design: e.g., Physical Power (Strength/Brawn), Physical Finesse (Dexterity/Agility), Mental Power (Spirit/Willpower), Mental Finesse (Wits/Intellect).

We could even play around with this schema. Just brainstorming off-the-cuff here. You could even entertain the possibility of using this four-attribute schema for other derived stats. Okay, so maybe Physical Power plus Mental Power equals your Hit Points, or how much Resolve/Mettle you have. Or your Physical Finesse plus Mental Finesse determines your initiative. Or your Mental Finesse plus Mental Power determines your Magic potential. It really just depends on what you want. Mix and match as desired. 

So to answer your question, possibly 3-4 attributes.


----------



## 5ekyu

Aldarc said:


> This definition kinda begs the question, and I don't think that your assertion here is true.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Does it matter? The point is not those.
> 
> If you were forced to create attributes that were not the Big Six (or the Big Six renamed), what attributes would you create or use? (So no "they are perfect as they" are non-answers.)



Just touching on the last bit...

I would tend to use triads of stats - power, finesse, toughness - for each area being started- physical, mental, social as baseline. Could add more triads for specialties such as magic, psionics, faith, cybernetics etc depending on genre.

Gives each clear divisions and trade-offs to then apply as part of a test mechanic.


----------



## 5ekyu

Lanefan said:


> As an aside, one simple way to de-meta this a bit yet remain within the D&D framework is to do away with spell pre-memorization and make all casters spontaneous a la the 3e Sorcerer.  You've still got a limited number of slots per level, but with each of those slots you can cast any spell of that level you have access to (a cleric/mage multiclass would have two parallel tracks, one for each side) and this does away with having to worry about the load-out question.
> 
> This can also easily be done in 1e while staying within the D&D framework, and everything 2e and onwards made it official.
> 
> 3e D&D is certainly not meta-free; in fact I found it if anything more meta than 1e during the run of play.
> 
> Falling damage has never worked right.  Probably never will, for all that.
> 
> Lanefan



As an alternative, the preparation scheme could be made more exemplar if you took it a step further back. Preparing the spell *is* casting it into some form of battery. You could have it be holy symbols or talismans or fetishes or any other prop or gimmick. So like editions of old, your actual casting options are pre-set when you prepare.

Goes back to spontaneous having few options but flexible uses in play while prepares have tons of options but pick in advance. (Option for changing in short rest for some all to mitigate.)

To my mind if the original model wasn't "prep and store in head" but "ritual cast into fetish(es)/gimmick(s)" it would have been more thematic and palatable - not to mention setting material comps in different light.


----------



## Lanefan

5ekyu said:


> As an alternative, the preparation scheme could be made more exemplar if you took it a step further back. Preparing the spell *is* casting it into some form of battery. You could have it be holy symbols or talismans or fetishes or any other prop or gimmick. So like editions of old, your actual casting options are pre-set when you prepare.
> 
> Goes back to spontaneous having few options but flexible uses in play while prepares have tons of options but pick in advance. (Option for changing in short rest for some all to mitigate.)
> 
> To my mind if the original model wasn't "prep and store in head" but "ritual cast into fetish(es)/gimmick(s)" it would have been more thematic and palatable - not to mention setting material comps in different light.



Fine idea, but it doesn't solve the root problem - you're still preparing ahead of time, meaning you still have to guess what's coming.

I'd like to do away with ahead-of-time preparation altogether if possible, and have done so (with, I admit, mixed results so far) in my own game.


----------



## 5ekyu

Lanefan said:


> Fine idea, but it doesn't solve the root problem - you're still preparing ahead of time, meaning you still have to guess what's coming.
> 
> I'd like to do away with ahead-of-time preparation altogether if possible, and have done so (with, I admit, mixed results so far) in my own game.



I agree it doesn't solve your problem, but to me having one caster option as limited spells known but choose on the fly and another with lots spells known but have to prepare/plan/guess ahead is a valuable differentiation, not a problem. 

To me the problem is more that if everybody has choose on demand casting and spell variety maintains such a large role, it's hard to create comparable classes with a significant difference in spells known. I feel the current offset between say sorc and wiz 5e phb is not that good at least at tiers 1-2. Can see arguments it gets better at 3-4 *if* campaign is stingy with scrolls and extra spells.


----------



## Ratskinner

Saelorn said:


> The term Schrodinger's Wounds is specifically a criticism of how 4E and 5E fail to represent HP in a consistent manner. It has little to do with the historic abstraction of HP in D&D, and everything to do with how that abstraction doesn't hold up in the face of Healing Surges and Hit Dice.
> 
> Once you get rid of rapid natural healing, Schrodinger's Wounds would no longer apply as a criticism, since HP could go back to being treated consistently.



Hit points have never been treated consistently. All you have to do is look at how, even in the early editions, a high-level fighter who was only down half his hit points and not really injured significantly at all might require a cure critical wound or similar higher magic to heal.  Meanwhile the princess you just rescued can be brought from near-death too full with just a cure light wounds.

Numerous threads and arguments have gone on about HP, regardless of the edition. Heck some are preserved in the early books. That's hardly the hallmark of a consistent mechanic.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Ratskinner said:


> Hit points have never been treated consistently. All you have to do is look at how, even in the early editions, a high-level fighter who was only down half his hit points and not really injured significantly at all might require a cure critical wound or similar higher magic to heal.  Meanwhile the princess you just rescued can be brought from near-death too full with just a cure light wounds.



That doesn't necessarily mean that the Hit Points are inconsistent; it could just means that the spells are inaccurately named. (It doesn't necessarily mean that, either, though.)

Suffice it to say, at any given table, it was entirely possible to play the game while treating HP damage in a consistent fashion and describing the effect as it happens. I could name three such internally-consistent models, just off the top of my head.


----------



## Arilyn

Ratskinner said:


> Hit points have never been treated consistently. All you have to do is look at how, even in the early editions, a high-level fighter who was only down half his hit points and not really injured significantly at all might require a cure critical wound or similar higher magic to heal.  Meanwhile the princess you just rescued can be brought from near-death too full with just a cure light wounds.
> 
> Numerous threads and arguments have gone on about HP, regardless of the edition. Heck some are preserved in the early books. That's hardly the hallmark of a consistent mechanic.




Yes, HP in DnD has always been a mess. Are they an actual representation of physical damage or skill? Why do they go up so fast? How come there is no actual pain involved in getting wounded? Wouldn't cure spells make way more sense if they cured a percentage, rather than a number? 

Are they fatigue, cuts and bruises or actual serious injury? There is no firm answer. Best not to examine the issue too closely. So yeah, pretty meta, or at least so far into the abstract that there is no bearing on reality.


----------



## Ratskinner

Emerikol said:


> Don't you agree that you calling it "the fiction" indicates a certain perspective on playstyle?  It's not about feeling and thinking as your character.  It's about creating a story with your character but the player does not share anything with the character (talking viewpoints here).




No. At least no more than calling it the "story" (as you just did) or the "gameworld" (which seems to common parlance, IME.) Its a term we use when talking about the game or gameplay. Refusing to acknowledge that we will be creating a fictional narrative while we play the game seems delusional to me.



Emerikol said:


> They are an abstraction, perhaps a poor one, and not metagame.  The player has to interpret information coming from the DM and translate it down to the character.  Once he has received the information, the character can then act as the character.  It is a conceit of all roleplaying games that information has to be passed verbally from the DM to the player to the character.  As long as the information describes the world etc.. then it's not metagame.  Hit points are just a way of telling the character how close he is to death.  We can have another thread and argue what THAT means but abstractly it means that.  In my campaign, that is absolutely character knowledge.




Wouldn't it be better if you actually had information about the injuries (or lack thereof) that the character had suffered? Any information about the type, cause, or nature of your wounds disappears (dare I say disassociates) into that abstraction. How many injuries did you suffer? How bad were they and who or what caused them...all gone. If you pay careful attention to the narrative at a D&D table, things get ridiculous in a hurry. Wounds appear and disappear without Fate at least gives you half a shot at that.

I have never once, thought to myself "I have 13/22 of my vigor, skill, luck, divine providence, or any of that other stuff Gygax describes HP as being, left." Have you? I submit that a combatant who pauses to do the accounting homework that my players often do would be dead. IRL, a warrior doesn't think "another swing of that sword and I'm dead." because _ANY/I] swing of that sword could kill them. I suspect any realistic combatant who took the time during combat to do the HP accounting that my players do would be dead.

If anything, HP are a pacing mechanic, and not much else.



Emerikol said:



			It is related to that.  So you have character view only, director, and author.  I want character view only.  A director will make decisions for the character that cannot possibly be character decisions.  Like accepting a fate point.  An author will go further.  An author will as the player be able to actually bring new information into the world that does not come from his character's genuine knowledge.   So all three of these approaches are popular.  They probably were discovered in the order I listed them.
		
Click to expand...



HP definitely break that character view for me (Not in a huge way, mind you, but still it grates). From what I can tell, the only thing that keeps it from being so for folks like you is familiarity. For me, Fate points (and the compel mechanic you seem to be focusing on) don't. "You took 14 points" is a non-fictional abstraction, and immediately mechanical and not character-facing. "Since you're an Unrepentant Alcoholic Doesn't it make sense that you'd spend the night in the bar?" isn't, that's just playing the character as described._


----------



## Ratskinner

Saelorn said:


> That doesn't necessarily mean that the Hit Points are inconsistent; it could just means that the spells are inaccurately named. (It doesn't necessarily mean that, either, though.)
> 
> Suffice it to say, at any given table, it was entirely possible to play the game while treating HP damage in a consistent fashion and describing the effect as it happens. I could name three such internally-consistent models, just off the top of my head.




All I can say is that years (decades now) of debate and argument and multiple DMs running them different ways would argue otherwise.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Ratskinner said:


> All I can say is that years (decades now) of debate and argument and multiple DMs running them different ways would argue otherwise.



That doesn't actually go against what I said. I said that, under the previous rulesets, you _could_ run Hit Points in a consistent manner at any given table. There might be a difference in that interpretation _between_ different tables, and individual DMs might not agree on what the best interpretation was, but any one of them could run Hit Points in a way that made sense to them. 

It's only since 4E that HP damage has needed to remain uncertain, such that it could only be explained in retrospect.


----------



## Emerikol

Ratskinner said:


> No. At least no more than calling it the "story" (as you just did) or the "gameworld" (which seems to common parlance, IME.) Its a term we use when talking about the game or gameplay. Refusing to acknowledge that we will be creating a fictional narrative while we play the game seems delusional to me.



Maybe I'm reading too much into your use of that word.  My observation has been that people with your playstyle preferences are more apt to use the term the way you did but that is anecdotal.





Ratskinner said:


> Wouldn't it be better if you actually had information about the injuries (or lack thereof) that the character had suffered? Any information about the type, cause, or nature of your wounds disappears (dare I say disassociates) into that abstraction. How many injuries did you suffer? How bad were they and who or what caused them...all gone. If you pay careful attention to the narrative at a D&D table, things get ridiculous in a hurry. Wounds appear and disappear without Fate at least gives you half a shot at that.



I'm not seeking an absolute simulation.  I am though wanting the information to be character information.  And the player is the one who calculates and interprets.  The character is acting on what would likely be instinctual knowledge.  And in my games wounds don't appear and disappear without magic being involved.  I can imagine that magic can in theory do anything and is constrained mainly by the type of game you desire.





Ratskinner said:


> I have never once, thought to myself "I have 13/22 of my vigor, skill, luck, divine providence, or any of that other stuff Gygax describes HP as being, left." Have you? I submit that a combatant who pauses to do the accounting homework that my players often do would be dead. IRL, a warrior doesn't think "another swing of that sword and I'm dead." because _ANY/I] swing of that sword could kill them. I suspect any realistic combatant who took the time during combat to do the HP accounting that my players do would be dead.
> _



_
I explained this above but let me emphasize it.  The character is not thinking about numbers.  The player gets the number from the DM and it is interpreted down to the character.  This is necessary because the DM is our senses and language is our medium.  The DM paints a picture and the character view comes into focus by filling in the details.  So when you are in a terrible fight and are being driven back and are taking a few wounds, your anxiety over potential death will be the same anxiety generated by dwindling hit points.



Ratskinner said:



			HP definitely break that character view for me (Not in a huge way, mind you, but still it grates). From what I can tell, the only thing that keeps it from being so for folks like you is familiarity.
		
Click to expand...


That is a common accusation but for me it is not a correct description of my thinking on the matter.  Abstract descriptive information about in game state used to convey information to a character is different from a player driven mechanic happening outside the character's mind and which the character would likely not choose.  And I have no issue with anyone objecting to Hit Points for a variety of reasons like you don't like that level of abstraction.  My only assertion is that I am consistent in what I like.  



Ratskinner said:



			For me, Fate points (and the compel mechanic you seem to be focusing on) don't. "You took 14 points" is a non-fictional abstraction, and immediately mechanical and not character-facing. "Since you're an Unrepentant Alcoholic Doesn't it make sense that you'd spend the night in the bar?" isn't, that's just playing the character as described.
		
Click to expand...


If my PC was an unrepentant alcoholic, I wouldn't have to nudge him to spend a night in the bar.  He's just roleplay that he did that.  

Look, I'm not trying to make you quit playing Fate or using Fate points.  I'm just not interested in systems where the player chooses to use some abstract pool of points based on nothing in game to achieve advantages.  So hero points, luck, fate points, bennies, are all not the kind of thing I'm interested in playing.

I do concede that Fate has an interesting take on how and why you get Fate points.  I bought the game just out of interest and I've read the book.  So I'm not hating on Fate and I wish people well who want to play it.  It would be like me hating on the game of Sorry because I like Monopoly better.  It really is about taste._


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Emerikol there was a whole generation of fantasy RPGers who, because they disliked metagame mechanics, dropped D&D for metagame-free systems like RQ, RM and the like. (At the time, these were promoted as "realistic" systems.)



I think your mistake is you are confusing metagame with realistic.  Hit points are undoubtedly an unrealistic abstraction even when used as I use them.  They are though the reality of the D&D world.  Hit points do represent how close your character is to death.  That is real in game knowledge.  So a player being told he takes 14 damage and the player then conveying that knowledge to the character (This would be no different than a DM describing a serene lake) is not metagame.  

I don't doubt in those days there were people wanting more realistic games.  So a wound system could be added or not added.  Added wounds though would not in any way make the game more or less metagame.  It's about players doing things that affect the game world which the character could not do himself nor even imagine doing himself.

And I am not going to say that some unrealism doesn't bother me.  It's all a matter of degrees.  I'm just saying this thread is not about realism.




pemerton said:


> Those systems all drop AC. They all drop combat-as-hp-attrition. (Though they may use hp for other purposes - as meat points in RQ, as a measure of bruising, blood loss and (some) exhaustion in RM.) Armour becomes a source of damage reduction (in RQ it affects damage dice; in RM it affects the attack-and-damage chart, and can also mitigate crit results).
> 
> They all drop D&D-style classes. (RQ in total. RM uses class as a device for allocating skill costs.)
> 
> They all drop D&D-style casting, which promotes metagame thinking (as in, "What spell load-out do I probably need to beat this bit of this GM's dungeon?").
> 
> They all drop XP-from-gold, and move towards a more realistic mode of progression (practice and training in RQ; XP through "hard field training" in RM).
> 
> There were, at the same time, D&D players who were proposing different approaches to XP, and defending hp and AC as "realistic" or "simulationist" - which often involved adopting different rules for falling damage, and sometimes for fireball damage also (see eg Roger Musson's "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive" in a fairly early number of White Dward).
> 
> I am a long-time RM player who has also played plenty of Traveller, RQ and other metagame free systems. I look at, say, AD&D or 3E and _cannot_ see how anyone can see those as metagame free except by dint of familiarity (as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] suggested) - eg the action economy in 3E is obviously metagame, and so is hp as soaking falling damage or dragon's breath in all of them (the parrying rationale only makes sense of a fairly narrow category of melee combat).
> 
> If I had your preferences, I would be playing RQ, RM or HARP - or perhaps HERO or GURPS (I don't know those systems as well, though.)




No.  If you understood my preferences you'd be doing what I am doing.  It's clear from all those examples that this division in the hobby was not at all about metagaming.  It was about realism and maybe to a degree simulationism if you want to go there.  

The real key here is what does the character know.  You will claim that your characters don't know about a lot of things that I will claim my characters know about.  My characters know the perhaps unrealistic abstractions of D&D.  They know what HP represents.  They wouldn't use the term HP but they'd know their general well being.  They know how hard it is for them to be hit.  They know this stuff.  It is highly abstracted so maybe some don't like abstractions.  I like them in some instances but not in others.  None of it is about metagaming though.

I'd probably separate RQ/GURPS/HERO from D&D by the term low or high fantasy.  Another example is WOIN.  It is on the GURPS end of the spectrum but it has metagame elements.  You can be a highly realistic game (not saying WOIN is highly realistic) and still be metagame.  It's about player/character view and how you derive your pleasure from the game.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> So to answer your question, possibly 3-4 attributes.




I don't think I'd go this route but I think I would come up with a different set.  Game design is always fun.  

I didn't like Numenera's approach.  I love Monte Cook's work in the past especially Ptolus so it saddens me to lose him to mostly his own stuff.  But hey he is doing well so I wish him well.  I just feel the loss on the D&Dish side of the world.

In fact I think Ptolus is the finest roleplaying product ever made that wasn't a full system.


As for spells, I liked vancian because preparation is something I like.  Trying to figure out the best setup for a particular adventure / encounter can be a lot of fun.


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> Multiclassing and dual classing are both fraught with peril in my book.  Multiclassing if you don't do it right up front doesn't feel right to me.  In 1e, 2e, the only multiclassing we did was right at the start you took fighter/magic user.  You'd never go to 5th level as a fighter and then take magic user for a few levels.  That style didn't come around until 3e.  We never did it then.




1e multi classing is way to metagamy for me and I love the meta game.  If you play a Fighter who because of game reasons wants to become a Cleric then you are stuff out of luck if your stats are not exceptional and if you are not human.  3e fixed that problem.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Hit points are undoubtedly an unrealistic abstraction even when used as I use them.  They are though the reality of the D&D world.



I think this is quite an idiosyncratic view.

I would say that the reality of the D&D world is that people suffer light, serious and critical wounds, suffer maiming (which requires Regeneration to heal), and have mystical "life essence" which some undead can drain and which requires Restoration to restore.

Nothing in an D&D rulebook or setting has ever made me think that hit points are the reality of wellbeing and injury in the gameworld.


----------



## Lanefan

5ekyu said:


> I agree it doesn't solve your problem, but to me having one caster option as limited spells known but choose on the fly and another with lots spells known but have to prepare/plan/guess ahead is a valuable differentiation, not a problem.
> 
> To me the problem is more that if everybody has choose on demand casting and spell variety maintains such a large role, it's hard to create comparable classes with a significant difference in spells known. I feel the current offset between say sorc and wiz 5e phb is not that good at least at tiers 1-2. Can see arguments it gets better at 3-4 *if* campaign is stingy with scrolls and extra spells.



Well, yeah, were I to do this in 5e I'd fold the Wizard and Sorcerer classes into one, treating the whole bloodline thing as just another background option.  The one I'd redesign completely in order to make it different is Bard - ability-based rather than spell-based, sonic effects rather than arcane/divine, etc....either that, or just drop the class as redundant.


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> 1e multi classing is way to metagamy for me and I love the meta game.  If you play a Fighter who because of game reasons wants to become a Cleric then you are stuff out of luck if your stats are not exceptional and if you are not human.  3e fixed that problem.



It's fairly easily fixable in 1e as well.

And 3e's 'fix' is still very meta - you go a whole level in one class, then a whole level in another while stopping advancement in the first one.  It's a flaw with the additive level design in 3e that calls a Ranger-8/Cleric-2 a 10th level character.

Far more fluid and somewhat less meta (in that it better reflects what's happening with the character) is tracking each class separately and then dividing xp earned into those classes in proportion to how they were earned.  Here, a Ranger-8/Cleric-2 would be pretty much a Ranger-8 with a few extra divine spells; and any 4th-4th character would be about equivalent to a 5th rather than an 8th-level.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I would say that the reality of the D&D world is that people suffer light, serious and critical wounds, suffer maiming (which requires Regeneration to heal), and have mystical "life essence" which some undead can drain and which requires Restoration to restore.
> 
> Nothing in an D&D rulebook or setting has ever made me think that hit points are the reality of wellbeing and injury in the gameworld.



Perhaps, but most of the time they're the closest reflection of such we have to work with.

The way I see it, if my 65-h.p. character takes a 15 h.p. hit from something the DM tells me-the-player it hits for 15 and I-in-character wince and make it clear I felt that.  When I'm down to 25 I can say in character I'm starting to fade a bit; my character obviously doesn't know the numbers but does know she's taking a pounding.  After a combat when I'm at 45 out of 65 (in a system with slow natural healing!) and a healer asks me how I'm doing, in character I can say "There's others worse off, I'll be fine; but I did take a hit or two."

As the numbers are no more than a reflection of the character's reality it's just a matter of translating the numbers on the page into words spoken by the character that don't reference said numbers.

Lanefan


----------



## 5ekyu

Lanefan said:


> Well, yeah, were I to do this in 5e I'd fold the Wizard and Sorcerer classes into one, treating the whole bloodline thing as just another background option.  The one I'd redesign completely in order to make it different is Bard - ability-based rather than spell-based, sonic effects rather than arcane/divine, etc....either that, or just drop the class as redundant.



Yup different flavors for different tastes. 

I really like divisions having major differences betwern spell-craftsmen/trappers (wizards). Spell-callers (divines and warlocks) and spell-born (sorcerer).

Agree that bard is odd man out but my intent for them would be to define their source better and likely roll them into spell callers or spell born based on what road that definition took.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Falling damage has never worked right.  Probably never will, for all that.




I've been toying with the idea of making it a percentage of your max hit points.  Something like 20-100%(d6+d4x10%) of hit your points as a base, then adding 20% for every 10 feet beyond the first 10.  A fall of 30 feet will give you 50-160% of your max hit points, with an average of 100%, making it likely that you will fall unconscious or die at that distance, unless you are playing 5e.  It takes 50 feet before it's possible to die outright in 5e, but shorter distances would start death saves.  It makes falls dangerous or deadly at all levels, as they should be.  No more 20th level characters jumping off of 300 foot cliffs and brushing themselves off after they land.


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> It's fairly easily fixable in 1e as well.
> 
> And 3e's 'fix' is still very meta - you go a whole level in one class, then a whole level in another while stopping advancement in the first one.




That is indeed the problem of using a level system but it is much the same in 1e you go up one whole level in one class at a time.

It was definitely a big improvement over the dual class rules for humans though where you stopped being a Fighter until your other class was high enough.



> It's a flaw with the additive level design in 3e that calls a Ranger-8/Cleric-2 a 10th level character.




That is true.  Most martial classes did add together so a Fighter 8/Rogue 2 would be much the same as a Fighter 10 and on the other hand spell casting classes really can get boned, a Wizard 5/Cleric 5 is not the same as a Wizard 10.  Which is what the prestige class system tried to patch in many ways.


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> As the numbers are no more than a reflection of the character's reality it's just a matter of translating the numbers on the page into words spoken by the character that don't reference said numbers.
> 
> Lanefan




You would imagine that would be the case wouldnt you but nope.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> I've been toying with the idea of making it a percentage of your max hit points.  Something like 20-100%(d6+d4x10%) of hit your points as a base, then adding 20% for every 10 feet beyond the first 10.  A fall of 30 feet will give you 50-160% of your max hit points, with an average of 100%, making it likely that you will fall unconscious or die at that distance, unless you are playing 5e.  It takes 50 feet before it's possible to die outright in 5e, but shorter distances would start death saves.  It makes falls dangerous or deadly at all levels, as they should be.  No more 20th level characters jumping off of 300 foot cliffs and brushing themselves off after they land.



That might be a bit more harsh than I'd be looking for, at first glance - I don't mind falls of up to 30 or 40' being survivable most of the time, if painful.  But anything more than 50' or so should carry a risk of death or long-term injury, with the death risk sharply increasing as the distance fallen increases.

Tons of mitigating factors to consider, though, which is why blanket rules are hard to work with:
 - armour worn (can very heavy armour absorb some of the impact?)
 - magic armour
 - surface landed on (spikes, jagged rock, flat stone, dirt, snow, water...)
 - character abilities (for example some Hollywood stunties frequently do the sort of falls that would probably kill either of us, as they know how to roll etc. when they land)

It's not the 20th-level PC jumping off a 300' cliff that concerns me, if only because by 20th level if you don't have a flight or levitation or feather-fall device you're probably doing it wrong. It's the 8th-level PC with 70 h.p. being able to survive a 20d6 fall half the time that concerns me.


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> That is indeed the problem of using a level system but it is much the same in 1e you go up one whole level in one class at a time.



Maybe it's 2e that made this official, or maybe it never was, but we've house-ruled it this way since forever in 1e: your classes advance independent of each other.  You determine the ratio of xp you're going to dump into each class - say, a F-MU that's 75% Fighter, 25% MU - and each class just bumps when it bumps.

So you start as a 1-1 with 0 xp on each side.  During your first few adventures you earn 4000 xp, which puts 3000 on your F side and 1000 on your MU side - you're now F-2/MU-1.  Get another 4000 and you'll have 6000 on your F side (so now 3rd level) and 2000 on your MU side (still 1st level but 2nd is getting close).  Do this again, so now you've got 9000 on your F side and 3000 on your MU side, and you're a F-4/MU-2....and so it goes.

See how this works?

There's nuances - we allow the ratio to be changed between adventures, for example, to reflect character development.  In the above example, the player-as-PC might now decide to focus more on magic use, and flip the xp ratio for the next adventure to 75% MU/25% F.  You always have to put at least 10% into a class, thus 90-10 is the most extreme ratio we allow.

It certainly requires a little more arithmetic on the player side, but I see this as their problem not mine. 



> It was definitely a big improvement over the dual class rules for humans though where you stopped being a Fighter until your other class was high enough.



 Yeah, that one was kinda dumb.



> That is true.  Most martial classes did add together so a Fighter 8/Rogue 2 would be much the same as a Fighter 10 and on the other hand spell casting classes really can get boned, a Wizard 5/Cleric 5 is not the same as a Wizard 10.  Which is what the prestige class system tried to patch in many ways.



With my very first 3e character I tried to do the equivalent of a 90% Fighter/10% Wizard.  Big-time fail, mechanically.

Lanefan


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> Maybe it's 2e that made this official, or maybe it never was, but we've house-ruled it this way since forever in 1e: your classes advance independent of each other.  You determine the ratio of xp you're going to dump into each class - say, a F-MU that's 75% Fighter, 25% MU - and each class just bumps when it bumps.
> 
> So you start as a 1-1 with 0 xp on each side.  During your first few adventures you earn 4000 xp, which puts 3000 on your F side and 1000 on your MU side - you're now F-2/MU-1.  Get another 4000 and you'll have 6000 on your F side (so now 3rd level) and 2000 on your MU side (still 1st level but 2nd is getting close).  Do this again, so now you've got 9000 on your F side and 3000 on your MU side, and you're a F-4/MU-2....and so it goes.
> 
> See how this works?
> 
> There's nuances - we allow the ratio to be changed between adventures, for example, to reflect character development.  In the above example, the player-as-PC might now decide to focus more on magic use, and flip the xp ratio for the next adventure to 75% MU/25% F.  You always have to put at least 10% into a class, thus 90-10 is the most extreme ratio we allow.
> 
> It certainly requires a little more arithmetic on the player side, but I see this as their problem not mine.




I had not heard of having an uneven split with XP.  But you see that you go up one level of Fighter and then another level of Fighter and then finally one level of Wizard which is effectively the same as leveling up one level of Fighter, one level of Fighter, one level of Wizard (except not being able to start as a Fighter/Wizard at level 1 of course.)



> Yeah, that one was kinda dumb.
> 
> With my very first 3e character I tried to do the equivalent of a 90% Fighter/10% Wizard.  Big-time fail, mechanically.
> 
> Lanefan




I dont know maybe there is an exploit using True Strike that could combo with Fighter.  Or maybe the Arcane Archer prestige class. :shrug:


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> I had not heard of having an uneven split with XP.  But you see that you go up one level of Fighter and then another level of Fighter and then finally one level of Wizard which is effectively the same as leveling up one level of Fighter, one level of Fighter, one level of Wizard (except not being able to start as a Fighter/Wizard at level 1 of course.)



Mechanicall, yes; the bumps end up going like that.  But the process feels more organic, if that makes any sense.



> I dont know maybe there is an exploit using True Strike that could combo with Fighter.  Or maybe the Arcane Archer prestige class. :shrug:



Don't think Arcane Archer would have worked - dexterity wasn't exactly his strong suit. 

My idea was to make him a tank most of the time, using spells only for out-of-combat stuff like camp defense, detecting and identifying magic items, and so on.  All I really ended up doing was gimping his fighter side.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> I don't think I'd go this route but I think I would come up with a different set.  Game design is always fun.



Such as? 



> I didn't like Numenera's approach.  I love Monte Cook's work in the past especially Ptolus so it saddens me to lose him to mostly his own stuff.  But hey he is doing well so I wish him well.  I just feel the loss on the D&Dish side of the world.
> 
> In fact I think Ptolus is the finest roleplaying product ever made that wasn't a full system.



I'm a fan of Numenera, and I have been looking over the just-released-to-backers Numenera 2: Discovery and Destiny the past few days. It's probably in my top 3 favorite settings ever created. Though I like the Cypher system, I don't love it, and there are a few things that sometimes frustrate me when it comes to character creation and customization. But I sometimes think that comes with being spoiled by Fate.



> As for spells, I liked vancian because preparation is something I like.  Trying to figure out the best setup for a particular adventure / encounter can be a lot of fun.



Sounds like you enjoy the metagame.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> The way I see it, if my 65-h.p. character takes a 15 h.p. hit from something the DM tells me-the-player it hits for 15 and I-in-character wince and make it clear I felt that.  When I'm down to 25 I can say in character I'm starting to fade a bit; my character obviously doesn't know the numbers but does know she's taking a pounding.  After a combat when I'm at 45 out of 65 (in a system with slow natural healing!) and a healer asks me how I'm doing, in character I can say "There's others worse off, I'll be fine; but I did take a hit or two."



A "pounding" that doesn't slow her or impede her performance in any way.

And what does "I did take a hit or two" mean when your PC has been fighting a dragon? It only got in a couple of bites?!


----------



## Nytmare

pemerton said:


> On Attributes: the attributes in In a Wicked Age are interesting:
> 
> * Covertly
> * Direclty
> * For myself
> * For others
> * With love
> * With violence
> 
> These are rated with dice, and every action uses two of them for its resolution.




I like that a lot, and it brought to mind the old Everway attributes of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.  If I remember correctly earth was basically constitution, air was intelligence, fire was strength, and water was perception, but then you'd combine them.  So if you were arguing angrily, you'd use a combination of fire and air, but if you were trying to calmly persuade someone to see your point, you'd use air and water.


----------



## Nytmare

This thread has also reminded me a lot about the heated arguments my college gaming club used to get into when 3rd Ed came out about how everyone was cheating (I think I only started hearing the term metagaming two or three years later) if they didn't roll up their stats 3D6 straight down the attribute list.

We had a pretty strong contingent of people who felt that the only way to make a character was to come up with a character concept, roll the dice, and then play that character as rolled because that was what they felt properly imitated reality.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> I think this is quite an idiosyncratic view.
> 
> I would say that the reality of the D&D world is that people suffer light, serious and critical wounds, suffer maiming (which requires Regeneration to heal), and have mystical "life essence" which some undead can drain and which requires Restoration to restore.
> 
> Nothing in an D&D rulebook or setting has ever made me think that hit points are the reality of wellbeing and injury in the gameworld.




I'm probably more of a rules as physics kind of guy.  There seems to be a correlation between my different views but not a necessary correlation.


----------



## Emerikol

Shasarak said:


> That is indeed the problem of using a level system but it is much the same in 1e you go up one whole level in one class at a time.




You may be confusing that with 3e.  In 1e, you divide all x.p. across each of your classes as you gain them.  Typically when you hit a new level in one class your others are not far behind.  Typically a 7/7 character would be the same as a 10 level single class character advancement wise.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Sounds like you enjoy the metagame.




No.  Vancian casting is not metagame.  It's magic.  My characters really do prepare their spells.  In 1e they memorized their spell book.  This was an in game activity.  When they cast the spells they were no longer available.  You might not like the system but everything you don't like doesn't just become metagame.  So planning out which spells you will prepare is very much an in game activity that the character does.  Since the DM doesn't provide any info outside what the character knows, the player is acting on character info alone when they choose spells.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> A "pounding" that doesn't slow her or impede her performance in any way.
> 
> And what does "I did take a hit or two" mean when your PC has been fighting a dragon? It only got in a couple of bites?!




I see it Lanefan's way too.  It's abstracted in my game too just not as abstracted as your game.  Dragon's probably bend the reality to the breaking point in both our approaches.


----------



## Emerikol

Nytmare said:


> This thread has also reminded me a lot about the heated arguments my college gaming club used to get into when 3rd Ed came out about how everyone was cheating (I think I only started hearing the term metagaming a two or three later) if they didn't roll up their stats 3D6 straight down the attribute list.
> 
> We had a pretty strong contingent of people who felt that the only way to make a character was to come up with a character concept, roll the dice, and then play that character as rolled because that was what they felt properly imitated reality.




They are tastes no doubt but they don't necessarily overlap.  I've used 4d6 drop the lowest arrange as you like since 1e.  Nowadays though I've realized there ought to be a better way that still gets you a decent score in your prime attribute but not always a top score.  I also hate dump stats.  I half wish those could be rolled separately.

So yeah how you generate attributes is a topic many have debated for years.  Not related to metagaming but obviously people from both groups overlap (as they do with most game elements).  Is there a correlation?  Maybe.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> A "pounding" that doesn't slow her or impede her performance in any way.



Which makes sense.  At 25 of 65 you're like an athlete in a full-contact sport (being Canadian, obviously ice hockey is my go-to example) 2/3 of the way through the game - you've picked up some bruises and maybe lost a tooth, and are certainly a little fatigued, but you've still got enough left in the tank that you won't be an anchor on your teammates in the third period: you can play as well as your usual for a while yet.



> And what does "I did take a hit or two" mean when your PC has been fighting a dragon? It only got in a couple of bites?!



Or wing buffets, or claw scratches - maybe I even got clipped by its breath weapon.  The "hit or two" would have, in the fiction, been whatever caused the damage that took me from 65 to 40 or whatever.

Lan-"with my luck, some of that damage would also have come from my own allies fumbling into me or catching me in their blast spells"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> You may be confusing that with 3e.  In 1e, you divide all x.p. across each of your classes as you gain them.  Typically when you hit a new level in one class your others are not far behind.  Typically a 7/7 character would be the same as a 10 level single class character advancement wise.



We find usually an x/x double-class character is vaguely equal to an x+1 single class, with some variance depending on what the particular classes are.

The actual xp numbers mostly agree with this; remember the j-curve on the 1e advancement tables as written is pretty steep.

The one double-class combination that throws all these nice generalities off is Ranger-MU* - both slow-advancing classes that can eat up gobs of xp before seeing any appreciable level advancement.  But multiclass Rangers are a headache anyway, so I've rather harshly cut back on them over the years.

* - we allow a considerably greater breadth of multi-class combinations than the game as written.


----------



## Emerikol

Lanefan said:


> We find usually an x/x double-class character is vaguely equal to an x+1 single class, with some variance depending on what the particular classes are.
> 
> The actual xp numbers mostly agree with this; remember the j-curve on the 1e advancement tables as written is pretty steep.
> 
> The one double-class combination that throws all these nice generalities off is Ranger-MU* - both slow-advancing classes that can eat up gobs of xp before seeing any appreciable level advancement.  But multiclass Rangers are a headache anyway, so I've rather harshly cut back on them over the years.
> 
> * - we allow a considerably greater breadth of multi-class combinations than the game as written.




You may be right.  I must be thinking a 7/10 f/mu is equivalent to a 12 standard class.  It gradually separates into two levels.

A 7/10 is the same as a 10/10 of course since even after reaching max 7 in fighter you still only get half for the magic user.


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> You may be right.  I must be thinking a 7/10 f/mu is equivalent to a 12 standard class.  It gradually separates into two levels.
> 
> A 7/10 is the same as a 10/10 of course since even after reaching max 7 in fighter you still only get half for the magic user.



We took nearly all the racial etc. maxima off ages ago as well.  Multi-classing works the same for all races, other than some races simply cannot be some classes e.g. there are no Dwarf Magic-Users*.  But an Elf and a Human, for example, multi-class just the same as each other in our system.

Lan-"we don't allow Gnome Paladins either; and I can think of at least one poster on these boards who of this would approve"-efan


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> You may be confusing that with 3e.  In 1e, you divide all x.p. across each of your classes as you gain them.  Typically when you hit a new level in one class your others are not far behind.  Typically a 7/7 character would be the same as a 10 level single class character advancement wise.




No the differences between ADnD and 3e are pretty clear.  I think Lanefan explained it pretty well the real difference is that 3e does what Lanefans split XP system also does.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> I'm probably more of a rules as physics kind of guy.  There seems to be a correlation between my different views but not a necessary correlation.



But in this case, you can just read the mechanics of encounter powers and the like into the physics of the world. Just like a character knows that being hit by a longsword will never maim or cause serious bleeding, but will simply whittle away staying power, so s/he knows that once between hour rests s/he can make an extra spurt of action (or whatever else it is that is on a short rest recovery basis).

********************************



Lanefan said:


> you've picked up some bruises and maybe lost a tooth



So does hit point loss cause a penaltu to chewing in your game?



Lanefan said:


> Or wing buffets, or claw scratches - maybe I even got clipped by its breath weapon.  The "hit or two" would have, in the fiction, been whatever caused the damage that took me from 65 to 40 or whatever.



My point is that "a hit or two" from a dragon's bite, which doesn't slow me down or generate any need even for bandaging, is very hard for me to envisage. What is actually happening in the fiction?



Emerikol said:


> Dragon's probably bend the reality to the breaking point in both our approaches.



Well, if you're prepared to treat hp loss as near misses, scratches, running down luck, etc, plus allow that high level PCs have supernatural resilience, then they're not too bad.


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> No the differences between ADnD and 3e are pretty clear.



Yes, and I just realized one more - see below.


> I think Lanefan explained it pretty well the real difference is that 3e does what Lanefans split XP system also does.



I'm not quite sure how you're arriving at this conclusion, but...OK.

One other very signficant difference between my system (or normal 1e, for all that) and 3e is this: in my system you're putting xp into a class before you level up in that class - the end result clearly matches the process that got it there in that xp put into class A as I go along result in a bump in class A once I get enough.  In-game, the character is consciously trying to improve a specific set of abilities (class) and the xp total meta-measures that improvement.

In 3e it's not until you bump that you're forced to retroactively (!) decide where that last level's worth of xp was actually going.  I'm a Ranger 8 and just got my 9th - and only now must I decide whether to go R-9 or R-8/Cleric-1.  I've been earning xp, sure, but not in any particular class: the process and the end result don't quite match in that those xp could, when I bump, retroactively go into class A or B or C or wherever.  In-game there's no process required of the character (though some DMs did houserule that you had to declare at the start of each level where that level's xp were going), just a meta-choice on bumping as to what class to put that level's worth of xp into.

Just on this, 3e = way more meta. 

Lan-"and the above is true for single-class characters too"-efan


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I'm not seeking an absolute simulation.  I am though wanting the information to be character information.  And the player is the one who calculates and interprets.  The character is acting on what would likely be instinctual knowledge.  And in my games wounds don't appear and disappear without magic being involved.  I can imagine that magic can in theory do anything and is constrained mainly by the type of game you desire.
> 
> I explained this above but let me emphasize it.  The character is not thinking about numbers.  The player gets the number from the DM and it is interpreted down to the character.  This is necessary because the DM is our senses and language is our medium.  The DM paints a picture and the character view comes into focus by filling in the details.  So when you are in a terrible fight and are being driven back and are taking a few wounds, your anxiety over potential death will be the same anxiety generated by dwindling hit points.
> 
> That is a common accusation but for me it is not a correct description of my thinking on the matter.  Abstract descriptive information about in game state used to convey information to a character is different from a player driven mechanic happening outside the character's mind and which the character would likely not choose.  And I have no issue with anyone objecting to Hit Points for a variety of reasons like you don't like that level of abstraction.  My only assertion is that I am consistent in what I like.




Emerikol, let me pose you a question.

I'm not sure you've ever GMed or played under the following paradigm, so let me lay it out.  Try to conceive of simply switching out the HP model from your current game for a low overhead system that handles it in fictional terms that also intersect with action resolution (what action declarations might be permissible, what may be penalized).

It looks like this.  Instead of HP ablation, when you're physically imposed upon by the world, you roll some kind of Saving Throw.  If you fail, you receive some kind of Harm.  Harm has 5 boxes and comes in 4 stages.

Harm 1 has two boxes.
Harm 2 has two boxes
Harm 3 has one box
Harm 4 is death

Harm 1 might be Confused, Demoralized, Distracted
Harm 2 might be Concussed, Sprained Ankle, Panick-ridden
Harm 3 might be Nervous Breakdown, Broken Hand, Impaled Shoulder

You could have multiple Harm spanning multiple boxes.  But if you fill up Harm 1's two boxes, any further Harm 1 you get automatically becomes Harm 2 (and so on, until you're dead).  

Each Harm level and condition comes with an codified impact on action resolution and fictional adjudication (eg Confused carries action resolution consequence 
x when you attempt declaration y or z...and it also arises that some things become non-permissible - how are you running the rooftops with that sprained ankle?).

Each Harm level and condition comes with a codified means of removal (duration and care/therapy required to remove).

Something like this is pretty trivially integrated into D&D (especially given the fiddly, not-well-integrated or conceived, and unwieldy subsystems that I've seen folks try to hack onto various D&D substrate).  

So my question is:

How do you think supplanting HP ablation for such a system would impact your play?


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> So does hit point loss cause a penaltu to chewing in your game?



Sigh.

Usually not; and nor does a hockey player lose a tooth in every game.  Simply used as a real-world example of a minor but painful injury a player can (and often does) play through.



> My point is that "a hit or two" from a dragon's bite, which doesn't slow me down or generate any need even for bandaging, is very hard for me to envisage. What is actually happening in the fiction?



If a dragon bit you twice and knocked out 25 of your 65 hit points in total there's all kinds of ways to narrate it: you've a couple of big-time bruises on your hip where the teeth caught you but didn't get enough grip to pick you up and throw you (dunno 'bout you but my dragons like to play with their food  ) and are otherwise somewhat winded and out of breath; or you've got a shoulder-to-hip line of noticeable but fairly tolerable pain down your side where a tooth ran your chainmail armour into your skin between the underpadding; or the thing briefly had hold of your foot before you escaped with only a couple of scratches and a no-longer-new left boot; or.....need I go on?

In any case, with each of these hits comes the realization to the character that she's only good for so many more of these before fatigue and pain catch up to her and render her vulnerable to a killing blow (i.e. at the table she gets to a low enough h.p. total that one more hit will finish her off).

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Emerikol, let me pose you a question.
> 
> I'm not sure you've ever GMed or played under the following paradigm, so let me lay it out.  Try to conceive of simply switching out the HP model from your current game for a low overhead system that handles it in fictional terms that also intersect with action resolution (what action declarations might be permissible, what may be penalized).
> 
> It looks like this.  Instead of HP ablation, when you're physically imposed upon by the world, you roll some kind of Saving Throw.  If you fail, you receive some kind of Harm.  Harm has 5 boxes and comes in 4 stages.
> 
> Harm 1 has two boxes.
> Harm 2 has two boxes
> Harm 3 has one box
> Harm 4 is death
> 
> Harm 1 might be Confused, Demoralized, Distracted
> Harm 2 might be Concussed, Sprained Ankle, Panick-ridden
> Harm 3 might be Nervous Breakdown, Broken Hand, Impaled Shoulder
> 
> You could have multiple Harm spanning multiple boxes.  But if you fill up Harm 1's two boxes, any further Harm 1 you get automatically becomes Harm 2 (and so on, until you're dead).
> 
> Each Harm level and condition comes with an codified impact on action resolution and fictional adjudication (eg Confused carries action resolution consequence
> x when you attempt declaration y or z...and it also arises that some things become non-permissible - how are you running the rooftops with that sprained ankle?).
> 
> Each Harm level and condition comes with a codified means of removal (duration and care/therapy required to remove).
> 
> Something like this is pretty trivially integrated into D&D (especially given the fiddly, not-well-integrated or conceived, and unwieldy subsystems that I've seen folks try to hack onto various D&D substrate).
> 
> So my question is:
> 
> How do you think supplanting HP ablation for such a system would impact your play?



Not [MENTION=10638]Emirikol[/MENTION] but this has caught my interest, at least on the surface of it.

To answer your last question first, changing to a system like this would immediately up the 'gritty' factor by a whole bunch...maybe even too much; I wouldn't know until I tried it.

But on first reading I also have some questions; though fair enough if you don't have the asnwers if this is something you just dreamed up and haven't thought all the way through yet:

Does the saving throw to avoid ticking a harm box get varied or amended by the source of the damage?  For example, is a harm save vs. a dagger blow easier than a harm save vs. a greatsword blow or a hit from a giant's club?

If yes to the above, do the saving throws get progressively more difficult with each success unitl one fails, then get reset? (this to allow for a 'death by a thousand cuts' narrative)

Where is 'unconscious' as a condition?  Could it be a modifier to the save against harm 4 - if you roll within +/-3 of the DC or cutoff point you're unconscious instead of dead, maybe; and if left untended you'll later (maybe minutes, maybe hours, whenever) get another save, where you either wake up (and live), remain unconscious (and repeat this process later), or die?

How does magical healing or curing work with any of this?

Panic-ridden, Confused, and Demoralized are all conditions that can be inflicted by spell (in 1e D&D: Cause Fear, Confusion, and Emotion respectively) - what's the interaction here?  Do these spells now just tick a harm box?

Lanefan


----------



## Ratskinner

Emerikol said:


> I'm not seeking an absolute simulation.  I am though wanting the information to be character information.  And the player is the one who calculates and interprets.  The character is acting on what would likely be instinctual knowledge.  And in my games wounds don't appear and disappear without magic being involved.




Just for clarity's sake. I'm not seeking simulation, either. I'm just seeking a coherent, interesting narrative (preferably with a light mechanical overhead as well). I haven't played in your games, but in every other D&D game I've played in, DMs will casually describe a hit...and then that description is quickly abandoned in the face of the HP total. I think the dissonance that it causes is why so many DMs abandon describing the hits with any detail beyond...you guessed it, a HP total. (Although perhaps time to resolve combat rounds is a bigger factor there.)

Best of luck with your games.


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> On Attributes: the attributes in In a Wicked Age are interesting:
> 
> * Covertly
> * Direclty
> * For myself
> * For others
> * With love
> * With violence
> 
> These are rated with dice, and every action uses two of them for its resolution.




I find myself liking this kind of "mode"-style attributes more and more as time goes on. Fate Accelerated calls its batch "Approaches" (Forceful, Sneaky, Quick, Careful, Flashy, and Clever). I was skeptical at first, but have run FAE a few times and see the value in the method.


----------



## Ratskinner

Aldarc said:


> If you were forced to create attributes that were not the Big Six (or the Big Six renamed), what attributes would you create or use? (So no "they are perfect as they" are non-answers.)




Assuming we're restricting ourselves to D&D-like games here.

I would lean towards what Fate Accelerated (and maybe Marvel Heroic?) call "Approaches" rather than traditional attributes. By default, FAE uses Forceful, Clever, Quick, Flashy, Sneaky, and Careful. (They are often re-named to be more evocative for specific implementations) By stepping away from a quasi-physical descriptor of the character and into a mode of describing the action, they could free the game up a lot. You could almost instantly have Fighters with statistical and stylistic individuality.  I would wrap the stuff in traditional attributes into a system of quirks/bennies, some of which might be class-based, or class-accessed.


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> Yes, and I just realized one more - see below.
> I'm not quite sure how you're arriving at this conclusion, but...OK.
> 
> One other very signficant difference between my system (or normal 1e, for all that) and 3e is this: in my system you're putting xp into a class before you level up in that class - the end result clearly matches the process that got it there in that xp put into class A as I go along result in a bump in class A once I get enough.  In-game, the character is consciously trying to improve a specific set of abilities (class) and the xp total meta-measures that improvement.
> 
> In 3e it's not until you bump that you're forced to retroactively (!) decide where that last level's worth of xp was actually going.  I'm a Ranger 8 and just got my 9th - and only now must I decide whether to go R-9 or R-8/Cleric-1.  I've been earning xp, sure, but not in any particular class: the process and the end result don't quite match in that those xp could, when I bump, retroactively go into class A or B or C or wherever.  In-game there's no process required of the character (though some DMs did houserule that you had to declare at the start of each level where that level's xp were going), just a meta-choice on bumping as to what class to put that level's worth of xp into.
> 
> Just on this, 3e = way more meta.
> 
> Lan-"and the above is true for single-class characters too"-efan




Wait are you trying to say that earning XP is meta?  Because I would definitely agree with that.

If you are trying to argue that using XP to go up a level is meta then I would say that yes it could be if you did not roleplay how you were specifically working to go up a level Ranger or Cleric or some such.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Ratskinner said:


> I haven't played in your games, but in every other D&D game I've played in, DMs will casually describe a hit...and then that description is quickly abandoned in the face of the HP total. I think the dissonance that it causes is why so many DMs abandon describing the hits with any detail beyond...you guessed it, a HP total.



Why does that cause dissonance for you? Why do you see the HP total as being at odds with the narrative description, rather than reinforcing it? They're supposed to be two different languages for conveying the exact same information.

If you have 40hp, and the giant drives its maul into your chest and you can hear ribs cracking, then why does it hurt for the DM to tell you that it was 36 damage? Or to the next point, if you know that you have 40hp, why can't you infer how badly you are hurt in the narrative, based on the damage number?


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> They are tastes no doubt but they don't necessarily overlap.  I've used 4d6 drop the lowest arrange as you like since 1e.  Nowadays though I've realized there ought to be a better way that still gets you a decent score in your prime attribute but not always a top score.  I also hate dump stats.  I half wish those could be rolled separately.




That's why I allow the players if they want to choose two stats to roll at 5d6 drop 2, two stats at 4d6 drop 1, and two stats at 3d6.  They have to choose which rolls go into which stats before they start rolling.  The 3d6 are the "dump" stats, but I've seen rolls there that are higher than the 5d6 rolls.  Now, I also allow the swapping of one pair of stats, because I want them to be able to play the PC they want, but you don't have to if you don't want to.  That method will still allow you to get decent scores in prime stats, while rolling "dump" stats separately.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> in my system you're putting xp into a class before you level up in that class - the end result clearly matches the process that got it there in that xp put into class A as I go along result in a bump in class A once I get enough.  In-game, the character is consciously trying to improve a specific set of abilities (class) and the xp total meta-measures that improvement.
> 
> In 3e it's not until you bump that you're forced to retroactively (!) decide where that last level's worth of xp was actually going.



In 3E the "process" is defeating monsters. They might have been defeated via swordplay, or a mighty spell, or by being tricked into running off a cliff. The XP system is indifferent to these nuances.

So what would it even _mean_ to be "consciously trying to improve a specific set of abilities"?

In your system, does a player have to use a ranger weapon to put XP into the ranger class? Cast spells to put XP into magic-user?


----------



## Jhaelen

Nytmare said:


> I like that a lot, and it brought to mind the old Everway attributes of Earth, Air, Fire and Water.  If I remember correctly earth was basically constitution, air was intelligence, fire was strength, and water was perception, but then you'd combine them.  So if you were arguing angrily, you'd use a combination of fire and air, but if you were trying to calmly persuade someone to see your point, you'd use air and water.



Interesting!
I've been working on a board game that also associates elements with D&D-style stats (and a few other aspects that are important for the game: general spell effects & monster roles, inspired by D&D 4e).
Here's what I did:
STR - Fire - Attack - Brute
CON - Earth -Defense - Guard
DEX - Water - Movement - Skirmisher
INT - Air - Vision - Artillery
WIS - Light - Healing - Leader
CHA - Darkness - Enchantment - Controller


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> No.  Vancian casting is not metagame.  It's magic.  My characters really do prepare their spells.  In 1e they memorized their spell book.  This was an in game activity.  When they cast the spells they were no longer available.  *You might not like the system but everything you don't like doesn't just become metagame.*



Have you even been paying attention to our conversation?  



> So planning out which spells you will prepare is very much an in game activity that the character does.  Since the DM doesn't provide any info outside what the character knows, the player is acting on character info alone when they choose spells.



IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> Wait are you trying to say that earning XP is meta?  Because I would definitely agree with that.



I wasn't really trying to say that, but yeah - xp are a necessary-evil form of meta.



> If you are trying to argue that using XP to go up a level is meta then I would say that yes it could be if you did not roleplay how you were specifically working to go up a level Ranger or Cleric or some such.



I'm more trying to argue that it's a higher degree of meta to assign the xp to a specific class after gaining a level (a la 3e) than it is to be assigning them to said class while working toward said level (a la 1e-2e).


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> In 3E the "process" is defeating monsters. They might have been defeated via swordplay, or a mighty spell, or by being tricked into running off a cliff. The XP system is indifferent to these nuances.



The 'process' I'm referring to is the game-mechanical process of awarding and assigning xp after said monsters have been defeated, or missions accomplished, or diplomacy spoken, or whatever else earns xp in a given game.



> So what would it even _mean_ to be "consciously trying to improve a specific set of abilities"?



The character (via its player) has for the time being decided to focus it's activities on, say, thieving and sneaking (Rogue) more than on martial action (Fighter).

A real-world equivalent might be that I could decide that for the next half-year or so I'm going to focus my writing efforts (analagous here to adventuring exploits) on creating D&D modules, as opposed to the song lyrics I've been focusing on for the past while.  End result: for the next while I gain more module-writing practice than lyric-writing practice, thus in theory over that time - for these purposes assuming practice leads closer to perfect at a constant rate - I become a marginally better lyric writer through limited practice and a more noticeably better module writer through greater practice.

What I can't do is just write whatever I feel like and then six months from now decide I'm suddenly a better module writer, which is analagous to how 3e does it.



> In your system, does a player have to use a ranger weapon to put XP into the ranger class? Cast spells to put XP into magic-user?



We don't break it down to that degree, but there's the occasional time when a batch of xp will be forced into one class - our usual example is a 25% fighter/75% MU who defeats a foe solely by use of physical combat might get the xp for that combat forced to her Fighter side only.

Most of the time, what I find is that some double-class characters will often tend to use mostly one class in one combat and mostly the other in the next, such that it vaguely evens out in the end.  And I don't even think this is intentional on the player's part - it just works out that way.

That, and many double-class characters in effect mostly use one class just to support and augment the other, as in a Thief/MU who mostly uses her spells to help with her sneaking and thieving. (or my favourite, which unfortunately I've never really been able to get off the ground yet despite having got a couple into play over time: a Necromancer/Assassin who uses the Necromancer side to augment the Assassin side to better and more neatly kill things which in turn provides corpses for the Necromancer side to play with) 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'



Vancian pre-memorization isn't really meta in and of itself; one can if one wants quite easily justify it within a setting as being how magic functions - you have to prepare the spells now that you're going to unleash later.

But it almost inevitably becomes meta very quickly, as players try to guess what's coming up that day using information their caster character doesn't have.  On the flip side, there's the inevitable annoyance (both in-character and meta) when you get to a spot that needs a particular spell to continue and nobody memorized it, so the party grinds to a halt for the day.

I don't mind Vancian slots - way better than spell points, and I've used both - but I've come to detest Vancian pre-memorization in any form.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> The character (via its player) has for the time being decided to focus it's activities on, say, thieving and sneaking (Rogue) more than on martial action (Fighter).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> We don't break it down to that degree, but there's the occasional time when a batch of xp will be forced into one class - our usual example is a 25% fighter/75% MU who defeats a foe solely by use of physical combat might get the xp for that combat forced to her Fighter side only.
> 
> Most of the time, what I find is that some double-class characters will often tend to use mostly one class in one combat and mostly the other in the next, such that it vaguely evens out in the end.  And I don't even think this is intentional on the player's part - it just works out that way.
> 
> That, and many double-class characters in effect mostly use one class just to support and augment the other, as in a Thief/MU who mostly uses her spells to help with her sneaking and thieving.



I don't see what your issue is, then, with the ranger/cleric in 3E. The cleric does the odd bit of melee fighting, and wanders through some interesting terrain! Which is what a ranger does.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'




How is it metagame for the PC wizard to say to his companions, "We are about to set foot into the Mountains of Unfriendly Giants.  I'm going to memorize rock to mud in case we need to clear out some stone, reduce in case I need to shrink a giant to manageable size, and flight in case we need to cross a chasm?"  The player making the decision on what to memorize as the PC and based on what the PC knows about his environment.  That's not metagaming.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> But it almost inevitably becomes meta very quickly, as players try to guess what's coming up that day using information their caster character doesn't have.




Right. It would be metagaming if the player in my example above had said, "The DM likes to hit us with invisible creatures in the mountains.  I'm also going to memorize see invisibility."  Vancian casting itself is not metagaming, but how you use it can be."



> On the flip side, there's the inevitable annoyance (both in-character and meta) when you get to a spot that needs a particular spell to continue and nobody memorized it, so the party grinds to a halt for the day.



Been there!  More times than I can count.


----------



## Nytmare

Emerikol said:


> So yeah how you generate attributes is a topic many have debated for years.  Not related to metagaming but obviously people from both groups overlap (as they do with most game elements).




Like I said before, they wouldn't have used the term at the time, but their complaint would have most certainly been that it was metagaming.  What stuck in their craw was that it didn't emulate "real life" and a person didn't decide, after they were born, what their charisma or intelligence was.  This was a choice that the player was making outside of the world that they thought the rules were trying to imitate.

More to the point, I think that what I was trying to illustrate was that maybe the concept of what metagaming "is" has more to do with what the person writing the definition is used to, and what the new version of the game is doing differently.


----------



## Ted Serious

Aldarc said:


> Have you even been paying attention to our conversation?
> 
> IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'




I don't like metagame.   If I like something, it must not be metagame.   

Contraposition.  

Valid in form.  Assumes perfect consistency in a subjective judgement.

Vancian old memorization or 3e or Pathfinder preparation is not metagame.  Memorizing or preparing spells based on player knowledge is.

5e slot casting sounds metagame.  The slots don't represent anything.  


Are characters in Fate able to tamper with the workings of Fate somehow?  If not calling it fate would still leave it metagame.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Vancian pre-memorization isn't really meta in and of itself; one can if one wants quite easily justify it within a setting as being how magic functions - you have to prepare the spells now that you're going to unleash later.



Part of the issue is that the entire vancian magic system works in the meta economy of spell slots and levels where you can cast X number of times per day. 



> I don't mind Vancian slots - way better than spell points, and I've used both - but I've come to detest Vancian pre-memorization in any form.



I usually prefer magic as "skill" rolls/checks (e.g., Blue Rose, True20). Keep casting until you fatigue yourself. This would also be fantastic for a fail-forward or success-with-a-cost subsystem. So the caster could "fail" the ability check for the casting roll, but then force themselves to cast it no matter the cost to themselves because of its necessity to the mission. 



Maxperson said:


> How is it metagame for the PC wizard to say to his companions, "We are about to set foot into the Mountains of Unfriendly Giants.  I'm going to memorize rock to mud in case we need to clear out some stone, reduce in case I need to shrink a giant to manageable size, and flight in case we need to cross a chasm?"  The player making the decision on what to memorize as the PC and based on what the PC knows about his environment.  That's not metagaming.



Because there is a player awareness of most effective spells that are often best or most useful in the meta of D&D play, and that player awareness will form part of the strategy of "character choices." You can justify it as "character knowledge," but it still fundamentally operates as part of the metagame of D&D. Also, the entire spell organization of spell slots and spell levels is pretty darn metagame. 



Ted Serious said:


> Are characters in Fate able to tamper with the workings of Fate somehow?  If not calling it fate would still leave it metagame.



Sure, why not? Spending fate points represents the character exerting themselves in the narrative or influencing the narrative.


----------



## 5ekyu

Lanefan said:


> Vancian pre-memorization isn't really meta in and of itself; one can if one wants quite easily justify it within a setting as being how magic functions - you have to prepare the spells now that you're going to unleash later.
> 
> But it almost inevitably becomes meta very quickly, as players try to guess what's coming up that day using information their caster character doesn't have.  On the flip side, there's the inevitable annoyance (both in-character and meta) when you get to a spot that needs a particular spell to continue and nobody memorized it, so the party grinds to a halt for the day.
> 
> I don't mind Vancian slots - way better than spell points, and I've used both - but I've come to detest Vancian pre-memorization in any form.



Inevitable use of info the character doesnt have to prepare spells?

Please provide examples? 

I certainly have not seen this occur at all often enough to classify itcas inevitable.

What info the character doesnt have are they using to pick/guess?


----------



## 5ekyu

Maxperson said:


> Right. It would be metagaming if the player in my example above had said, "The DM likes to hit us with invisible creatures in the mountains.  I'm also going to memorize see invisibility."  Vancian casting itself is not metagaming, but how you use it can be."
> 
> Been there!  More times than I can count.



Are you saying the player is drawing conclusions here from other games in other settings... So that the invisibles in mountains is not established in the setting? 

Sounds like a very bad bet to make, based on my experience. 

Your games see this as inevitable?


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I don't see what your issue is, then, with the ranger/cleric in 3E. The cleric does the odd bit of melee fighting, and wanders through some interesting terrain! Which is what a ranger does.



I don't have any issue with the idea of a Ranger-Cleric...in fact the level numbers I've been quoting (R-8/C-2) are from a character I actually played up to that level.  He went straight to R-8 as a single-class then due to some in-game developments he flipped to Cleric.

I do have an issue - well, a series of issues - with how 3e's mechanics interact with the concept, and with 3e's multiclassing in general.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> Part of the issue is that the entire vancian magic system works in the meta economy of spell slots and levels where you can cast X number of times per day.



Agreed, but some baked-in meta elements kinda just come with the territory.  This is one.  Hit points, in many ways, are another.



> I usually prefer magic as "skill" rolls/checks (e.g., Blue Rose, True20). Keep casting until you fatigue yourself. This would also be fantastic for a fail-forward or success-with-a-cost subsystem. So the caster could "fail" the ability check for the casting roll, but then force themselves to cast it no matter the cost to themselves because of its necessity to the mission.



Were it me, they'd already be committed to casting by the time the roll was made (in other words, the roll to succeed would come at the end of the casting process, at resolution, rather than at the start of it when the caster can still potentially bail out).

This is how I do it now, in situations where successful casting isn't guaranteed.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

5ekyu said:


> Inevitable use of info the character doesnt have to prepare spells?
> 
> Please provide examples?
> 
> I certainly have not seen this occur at all often enough to classify itcas inevitable.



When I played/ran games using pre-mem I saw it just about every time casters did their prep while in the field.  Players would use info they had as players (e.g. knowing the DM's preferred monsters, seeing the module cover, etc.).

But, this is to me a minor issue compared to this: with pre-mem a caster is often stuck with spells she can't use and a party is often stuck because the spell they need to continue wasn't memorized.  It's these things that eventually led me to drop pre-mem entirely.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Because there is a player awareness of most effective spells that are often best or most useful in the meta of D&D play, and that player awareness will form part of the strategy of "character choices." You can justify it as "character knowledge," but it still fundamentally operates as part of the metagame of D&D.




Character knowledge isn't a justification.  It's quite literally the entirety of whether something is metagaming or not.  If the character knows about something, the character making a decision based on the knowledge cannot be metagaming.



> Also, the entire spell organization of spell slots and spell levels is pretty darn metagame.




I disagree.  The entirely of the system exists with reasonable game world explanations of why it happens that way.  Those explanations take away any metagame aspects of the system, because the PC is making all of the choices in character for in character reasons.


----------



## Maxperson

5ekyu said:


> Are you saying the player is drawing conclusions here from other games in other settings... So that the invisibles in mountains is not established in the setting?
> 
> Sounds like a very bad bet to make, based on my experience.




If you know that the DM very often does use invisible creatures in the mountains, it's a very good bet to make.  Your only loss if you are wrong is a see/detect invisible spell memorized that might have been something else.  If on the other hand the high odds of encountering an invisible creature occurs, you are FAR better off with the spell than without.



> Your games see this as inevitable?



No.  Metagaming is never inevitable.  It's simply a preference some people(not me) have.  It's not allowed in my game.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Agreed, but some baked-in meta elements kinda just come with the territory.  This is one.  Hit points, in many ways, are another.




As are experience points and levels.  A few things you kinda just have to accept.  I don't agree about vancian casting itself, though.  It's entirely in character.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Character knowledge isn't a justification.  It's quite literally the entirety of whether something is metagaming or not.  If the character knows about something, the character making a decision based on the knowledge cannot be metagaming.



The character can know about lots of things that would still nevertheless constitute metagaming. The character can "know" that they still have a single Second Wind available. The character can "know" that they have one level-one spell left. The character can "know" the placement of allies and foes in combat despite the fact that the character is operating from the players have a tactical advantage via miniatures. 



> I disagree.  The entirely of the system exists with reasonable game world explanations of why it happens that way.  Those explanations take away any metagame aspects of the system, because the PC is making all of the choices in character for in character reasons.



I disagree, as you're just putting lipstick on the metagame pig. 



Maxperson said:


> As are experience points and levels.  A few things you kinda just have to accept.  I don't agree about vancian casting itself, though.  It's entirely in character.



It can be, but I don't think it inherently is. Like others have mentioned before, it's basis for not being metagaming seems more strongly rooted in familiarity and tradition than any real legit analysis.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Maxperson said:


> As are experience points and levels.  A few things you kinda just have to accept.  I don't agree about vancian casting itself, though.  It's entirely in character.



Even experience points and levels are representative of in-game reality which the characters can observe. They know as well as we do that the path to greatness lies in adventure and overcoming challenges.

The only thing on the character sheet that _doesn't_ correspond to in-game reality that the character can understand is "Player Name".


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> The character can know about lots of things that would still nevertheless constitute metagaming. The character can "know" that they still have a single Second Wind available.




No, this really isn't something that the character can know.  It's nonsensical that you can only ever have one, and as an in-game thing, it defies reason.  It's purely a metagame ability that the player uses that the PC doesn't know about.  People can't decide, "Hey, I'm now going to get my second wind!!"  



> The character can "know" that they have one level-one spell left.




This is true.  There is a reasonable in-game explanation for why this happens, so PCs can know it.



> The character can "know" the placement of allies and foes in combat despite the fact that the character is operating from the players have a tactical advantage via miniatures.




This is one of those necessary evils.  Combat just doesn't work without some metagame happening.  Realistic combat is impossible to achieve without bogging the game down in hours or days(real life days) of combat.  The PC really can't know where everyone is at all times.  That's another thing that fails to have an in-game explanation, so is purely a metagame player ability.


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> Even experience points and levels are representative of in-game reality which the characters can observe. They know as well as we do that the path to greatness lies in adventure and overcoming challenges.
> 
> The only thing on the character sheet that _doesn't_ correspond to in-game reality that the character can understand is "Player Name".




It corresponds to an in-game reality, but the PC can't know that it has 18000xp, or that he's level 3 vs. level 5.  Those numbers are representative of metagame ideas.  The PC has them and uses them, but doesn't really have a basis for knowing them.  He can just know that he's capable of doing more now and has learned a bunch of stuff since he started.


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> I wasn't really trying to say that, but yeah - xp are a necessary-evil form of meta.
> 
> I'm more trying to argue that it's a higher degree of meta to assign the xp to a specific class after gaining a level (a la 3e) than it is to be assigning them to said class while working toward said level (a la 1e-2e).




I dont see it as any more or less meta.  Infact I had a discussion with [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] regarding planning out 20 levels of your character progression in advance, is that not what a multiclass Cleric/Ranger has done?  It effectively does not matter what they do to earn their XP because you know that you are going to level up in Cleric first irregardless of how much Rangering that you have done.  And then you have an adventure where you are Clericing your heart out and get enough XP to level up in Ranger.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Maxperson said:


> It corresponds to an in-game reality, but the PC can't know that it has 18000xp, or that he's level 3 vs. level 5.  Those numbers are representative of metagame ideas.  The PC has them and uses them, but doesn't really have a basis for knowing them.  He can just know that he's capable of doing more now and has learned a bunch of stuff since he started.



The numbers are arbitrary, but the ideas they represent exist wholly within the game world. You could replace every number on the sheet with a paragraph describing how it looks to the character, if you really wanted to. 

It's a true fact of their reality that a particular wizard may need to slay fifteen more goblins before he is capable of casting _fireball_, and there's no reason why the wizard _couldn't_ know that. All of the variables involved - how many goblins a given wizard has overcome, and how powerful of spells they can cast - are observable to the character. The chain of causality is as real within the narrative as it is within the mechanics.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> No, this really isn't something that the character can know.  It's nonsensical that you can only ever have one, and as an in-game thing, it defies reason.  It's purely a metagame ability that the player uses that the PC doesn't know about.  People can't decide, "Hey, I'm now going to get my second wind!!"



It seems absurd to say this when this is on the same level as, "Hey, I'm going to cast one of my level 4 spells, and then I will be out of spell slots of that level." The resource management of Vancian casting is simply part of the metagame. Call it a "necessary evil" if you like, but let's face it: metagaming is an intrinsic part of the D&D spell system. 



> This is true.  *There is a reasonable in-game explanation* for why this happens, so PCs can know it.



Again, lipstick on a pig. 



> This is one of those necessary evils.  Combat just doesn't work without some metagame happening.  Realistic combat is impossible to achieve without bogging the game down in hours or days(real life days) of combat.  The PC really can't know where everyone is at all times.  That's another thing that fails to have an in-game explanation, so is purely a metagame player ability.



But it is still a metagame, which is my point here.


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> The numbers are arbitrary, but the ideas they represent exist wholly within the game world. You could replace every number on the sheet with a paragraph describing how it looks to the character, if you really wanted to.
> 
> It's a true fact of their reality that a particular wizard may need to slay fifteen more goblins before he is capable of casting _fireball_, and there's no reason why the wizard _couldn't_ know that. All of the variables involved - how many goblins a given wizard has overcome, and how powerful of spells they can cast - are observable to the character. The chain of causality is as real within the narrative as it is within the mechanics.




You act as if they've gone out and scientifically researched how many goblins it takes to "level up."  It's not like they tested 15 goblins with a wizard solo, then added wizard and one companion, all the way up to a party of five.  A wizard isn't going to have any idea how many more of anything it will take to gain a level.  They will be aware when their power increases, though.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Maxperson said:


> You act as if they've gone out and scientifically researched how many goblins it takes to "level up."  It's not like they tested 15 goblins with a wizard solo, then added wizard and one companion, all the way up to a party of five.  A wizard isn't going to have any idea how many more of anything it will take to gain a level.  They will be aware when their power increases, though.



The Forgotten Realms does seem to operate on the notion that Adventurer is a well-established and well-understood profession. It's a pretty weird place, and based on the novels I've read, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone had actually performed such tests.

More generally, though, the basic premise of a class-and-level system is that you're doing all sorts of things all the time. A level is a long enough period that you should have used all of your skills and spells along the way, before gaining the next level. (You don't get better at casting spells by killing goblins; you get better at casting spells by casting spells, which you are assumed to do in proportion to how many goblins you kill.) To that end, a wizard who is almost to level 5 _will_ be more knowledgeable and more competent than one barely past the level 4 threshold; it's just that the game mechanics are insufficient to reflect that difference.

To the wizards who actually live in that world, it seems reasonable that one might be able to figure out that they can _almost_ cast Fireball. Narratively speaking, they are _almost_ competent enough - in terms of magical energy, or skill - to prepare it. They're certainly better than they were two weeks ago, when they finally mastered Flaming Sphere. They're aware of the in-game reality which corresponds to Experience, because it's literally just experience.


----------



## GMMichael

Emerikol said:


> So a short definition:  Metagaming.
> Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.
> 
> So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?



The complaint, if I'm reading it right, is that characters are all but required to act on metagame elements. 

I think that's a problem shared by every game that uses character sheets to record anything other than character backstory.

Since rules are metagame elements, is it really possible to write a rule that fixes the problem?


----------



## 5ekyu

Lanefan said:


> When I played/ran games using pre-mem I saw it just about every time casters did their prep while in the field.  Players would use info they had as players (e.g. knowing the DM's preferred monsters, seeing the module cover, etc.).
> 
> But, this is to me a minor issue compared to this: with pre-mem a caster is often stuck with spells she can't use and a party is often stuck because the spell they need to continue wasn't memorized.  It's these things that eventually led me to drop pre-mem entirely.



I have not seen as i recall players in games i played in or gmed every saying anything like "this gm likes abc so...". They sure might say "these show signs of..." Or "we keep encountering" or "the travelkers we passed said they heard..." etc etc etc.

As for both that and the wrong spells ready, if its key to you the gm that they move quickly past whatever is blocking their progress, the most obvious ways to deal with that are them getting info along the way that lets them know (we came thru there yesterday and the bridge was out) or finding another resource (this troll we kilked, looks like he has been killing and we found this scroll of flying as well as a partial map of our destination.)

If its not key they cross it quickly, it sets up an overnight stay and encounter opportunity.

Each gm has their own peeves and preferences so, to me, not having the right tool prepared all the time has not been to me a large gaming problem... Any,more than say any other meaningful choice they can get wrong is. 

If they always have to be right, not that meaningful a choice to me.


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> The Forgotten Realms does seem to operate on the notion that Adventurer is a well-established and well-understood profession. It's a pretty weird place, and based on the novels I've read, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone had actually performed such tests.
> 
> More generally, though, the basic premise of a class-and-level system is that you're doing all sorts of things all the time. A level is a long enough period that you should have used all of your skills and spells along the way, before gaining the next level. (You don't get better at casting spells by killing goblins; you get better at casting spells by casting spells, which you are assumed to do in proportion to how many goblins you kill.) To that end, a wizard who is almost to level 5 _will_ be more knowledgeable and more competent than one barely past the level 4 threshold; it's just that the game mechanics are insufficient to reflect that difference.
> 
> To the wizards who actually live in that world, it seems reasonable that one might be able to figure out that they can _almost_ cast Fireball. Narratively speaking, they are _almost_ competent enough - in terms of magical energy, or skill - to prepare it. They're certainly better than they were two weeks ago, when they finally mastered Flaming Sphere. They're aware of the in-game reality which corresponds to Experience, because it's literally just experience.




I get all of that.  My point is that to the wizard, fireball might happen at level 2, 6, 12 or 18 for all he knows.  All he is aware of are those changes as he gradually grows stronger.  In fact, to the wizard there probably are no levels at all.  He just gradually gets stronger and more knowledgeable.  Think of yourself in your career.  If you have been in it for any length of time, you are very much better at it than when you started, but you couldn't truly name me a level that you were at. 

The levels themselves are metagame.


----------



## 5ekyu

Maxperson said:


> Character knowledge isn't a justification.  It's quite literally the entirety of whether something is metagaming or not.  If the character knows about something, the character making a decision based on the knowledge cannot be metagaming.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  The entirely of the system exists with reasonable game world explanations of why it happens that way.  Those explanations take away any metagame aspects of the system, because the PC is making all of the choices in character for in character reasons.



I would tend to assume a GM using invisible monsters in mountains is a setting element... Not sure i have ever seen such a bias across multiple games with different settings.

But hey, maybe enough gms are seen by some to be so cross campaign biased as to make it seem inevitable.

You and i agree tho it seems - metagaming is not inevitable as others have said it is.


----------



## 5ekyu

Aldarc said:


> It seems absurd to say this when this is on the same level as, "Hey, I'm going to cast one of my level 4 spells, and then I will be out of spell slots of that level." The resource management of Vancian casting is simply part of the metagame. Call it a "necessary evil" if you like, but let's face it: metagaming is an intrinsic part of the D&D spell system.
> 
> Again, lipstick on a pig.
> 
> But it is still a metagame, which is my point here.



In a scifi version of the same type of 5e the slots represent implanted power cores that can be used to power devices and that recharge with long rests. So there are easy ways to express the same kind of "slots" into fantasy if one is really really hung up on the "metagaming" fixation. 

Admittedly, perhaps easier with a point talent system like presented in the DMG optional rules. I personally would use that for sorcs and let wizards use fixed slots.


----------



## 5ekyu

Maxperson said:


> You act as if they've gone out and scientifically researched how many goblins it takes to "level up."  It's not like they tested 15 goblins with a wizard solo, then added wizard and one companion, all the way up to a party of five.  A wizard isn't going to have any idea how many more of anything it will take to gain a level.  They will be aware when their power increases, though.



There are multiple non-goblin counting advancement options for gms who dont like goblin cpunting xp based systems for whatever reason. So, its a choice, not a mandate.


----------



## Guest 6801328

I have observed that when people just simply don't like certain aspects/rules/behaviors in an RPG they will concoct elaborate...and sometimes impressively sophisticated...theories to explain why this is not just their opinion, but that these things are objectively bad.  In particular, people will latch onto arguments invoking "realism" and "metagaming" to prove why they are right. 

I remember Emerikol from the old WotC forums.  IIRC, he hated..._hated_...any non-magical power that wasn't at will.  Effectively, "If a fighter knows how to do something, why can't he do it twice?"  He's ok with the sheer improbability of a "whirlwind" attack allowing a Fighter to attack all targets within reach in one attack; what he can't abide by is that the number of uses is somehow restricted.  In other words, it's the "at-will martial abilities" sinkhole.

And it's a fair question, philosophically: "If I know how to do it, why can I only do it once per day?"  I would have thought a satisfactory answer would be "because if all non-magical abilities were at-will, all non-magical abilities would have to be relatively weaker, for game balance, and you wouldn't get cool moves like Whirlwind attacks" (a.k.a. "this is why we can't have nice things").

But given all the ways we have to metagame to play these games, it strikes me as somewhat odd to latch onto this argument to justify the aesthetic preference.  You don't have to justify it: you don't like it.  That's cool.

Personally, I'm fine with the "narrativist" answer: circumstances rarely align in which you get to do this cool thing, both for game balance and storytelling reasons (cool things are only cool if they are relatively uncommon).  You, the player, are given narrative control to decide when that occurs.  Yes, your character would do it every "round" (omg metagame construct warning!) if he could, but he can't.  You are hereby empowered to narrate the reason why not.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> This is one of those necessary evils.  Combat just doesn't work without some metagame happening.  Realistic combat is impossible to achieve without bogging the game down in hours or days(real life days) of combat.





Maxperson said:


> As are experience points and levels.  A few things you kinda just have to accept.  I don't agree about vancian casting itself, though.  It's entirely in character.



There is no need for combat reslutoin to involve metagame, just as there is no need for (say) climbing resolution, or swimming resolution, or resolving a friendly game of darts, to involve metagame.

For instance, in combat each combatant makes a roll, adjusted appropriately by armour, weapon, etc, and the higher roll wins. Much as one might resolve a game of darts.

The fact that D&D resolves combats in rounds, thereby imposing some metagame from the start, is a legacy of wargaming. It's not inherent to RPGing.



Maxperson said:


> No, this really isn't something that the character can know.  It's nonsensical that you can only ever have one, and as an in-game thing, it defies reason.  It's purely a metagame ability that the player uses that the PC doesn't know about.  People can't decide, "Hey, I'm now going to get my second wind!!"



A characterknowing that s/he has one second wind between rests is no more or less absurd than knowing that s/he has one second level spell slot between rests. It doesn't "defy reason". And deciding that now is the time to try all out is, in fact, something that a person can decide. (This point has already been made upthread by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].)



Maxperson said:


> If the character knows about something, the character making a decision based on the knowledge cannot be metagaming.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The entirely of the system exists with reasonable game world explanations of why it happens that way.  Those explanations take away any metagame aspects of the system, because the PC is making all of the choices in character for in character reasons.





Maxperson said:


> My point is that to the wizard, fireball might happen at level 2, 6, 12 or 18 for all he knows.  All he is aware of are those changes as he gradually grows stronger.  In fact, to the wizard there probably are no levels at all.  He just gradually gets stronger and more knowledgeable.  Think of yourself in your career.  If you have been in it for any length of time, you are very much better at it than when you started, but you couldn't truly name me a level that you were at.
> 
> The levels themselves are metagame.



If Vancian slots aren't metagame, then the wizard, in the fiction, knows exactly when s/he has the ability to memorise more spells of a given level. Which means that s/he can identify the levels s/he is earning as s/he earns them. There is no "gradually growing stronger" at all.

But in any event, none of this goes to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point. Vancian spell casting is a wargame mechanic, that creates a little sub-game of choosing the right spells to defeat the anticipated obstacles. The fact that a veneer of in-fiction rationale is layered over the top doesn't change that about it.



5ekyu said:


> I have not seen as i recall players in games i played in or gmed every saying anything like "this gm likes abc so...". They sure might say "these show signs of..." Or "we keep encountering" or "the travelkers we passed said they heard..." etc etc etc.
> 
> As for both that and the wrong spells ready, if its key to you the gm that they move quickly past whatever is blocking their progress, the most obvious ways to deal with that are them getting info along the way that lets them know (we came thru there yesterday and the bridge was out) or finding another resource (this troll we kilked, looks like he has been killing and we found this scroll of flying as well as a partial map of our destination.)
> 
> If its not key they cross it quickly, it sets up an overnight stay and encounter opportunity.



On the first thing, my players know that I prefer undead, demons, cultists and the like as opponents, and make choices based on that.

On the second, this is an example of mechanics and gameplay parting ways, yet the mechanics lingering on. In the game for which Vancian casting was invented (Chainmail and early D&D), there is no such thing as _it being key to cross an obstacle quickly_. If an obstacle can't be crossed, then the players simplhy can't get that treasure, or defeat that opponent, or whatever it might be. That's part of the point of Vancian memorisation as a mechanic - it puts the players to the test in this way.

If gameplay has changed, though, so that the GM is establishing a story that the players must progress through, and that progression requires crossing certain obstacles, which in turn requires having certain spells memorised - then why would one even use Vancian casting? What is it adding to the game?

And if we stick with Vancian casting, but the GM takes steps to mitigate the costs of bad memorisation decisions, then what is the GM doing to correspondingly power-up fighters? (Who don't get the benefit of this partiular bit of GM mitigation.)


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> A character knowing that s/he has one second wind between rests is no more or less absurd than knowing that s/he has one second level spell slot between rests. It doesn't "defy reason". And deciding that now is the time to try all out is, in fact, something that a person can decide. (This point has already been made upthread by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].)




It absolutely is different.  On one hand you have a magic system explained in the game world that allows the wizard to know about his spells.  On the other hand you don't have that for the fighter.  He has the power, but no such in game explanation for how his character could or would possibly know about it.



> If Vancian slots aren't metagame, then the wizard, in the fiction, knows exactly when s/he has the ability to memorise more spells of a given level. Which means that s/he can identify the levels s/he is earning as s/he earns them. There is no "gradually growing stronger" at all.




This is objectively false.

You start with 2 first level spells, then gradually increase to 3.  Then you gradually increase to 4 and gain 2 second level spells.  Then you gradually increase to 4 first and 3 second.  And so on.  There is nothing in the game world that says that there is even a single level involved, let alone 3 or 5 or however many levels, with that gradual increase in magical power.  



> But in any event, none of this goes to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point. Vancian spell casting is a wargame mechanic, that creates a little sub-game of choosing the right spells to defeat the anticipated obstacles. The fact that a veneer of in-fiction rationale is layered over the top doesn't change that about it.




You are assuming that they are picked due to anticipated obstacles.  A great many of them are picked because they are generally good, not because of any obstacle the player thinks is coming.  Metagaming could happen, but is not in any way an inherent part of vancian casting.


----------



## Maxperson

5ekyu said:


> I would tend to assume a GM using invisible monsters in mountains is a setting element... Not sure i have ever seen such a bias across multiple games with different settings.




You're reading too much into this.  I pulled that example out of my ass to show that some DMs do have predictable behaviors.  It could have been dragons in the mountains, kraken on sea voyages, or any other such behavior.  Myself, I tend to use more undead than is probably healthy.  There are just so many good ones out there and tombs and such would have them roaming about.  I'm trying to use them less and add in more variety.


----------



## 5ekyu

pemerton said:


> There is no need for combat reslutoin to involve metagame, just as there is no need for (say) climbing resolution, or swimming resolution, or resolving a friendly game of darts, to involve metagame.
> 
> For instance, in combat each combatant makes a roll, adjusted appropriately by armour, weapon, etc, and the higher roll wins. Much as one might resolve a game of darts.
> 
> The fact that D&D resolves combats in rounds, thereby imposing some metagame from the start, is a legacy of wargaming. It's not inherent to RPGing.
> 
> A characterknowing that s/he has one second wind between rests is no more or less absurd than knowing that s/he has one second level spell slot between rests. It doesn't "defy reason". And deciding that now is the time to try all out is, in fact, something that a person can decide. (This point has already been made upthread by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION].)
> 
> 
> If Vancian slots aren't metagame, then the wizard, in the fiction, knows exactly when s/he has the ability to memorise more spells of a given level. Which means that s/he can identify the levels s/he is earning as s/he earns them. There is no "gradually growing stronger" at all.
> 
> But in any event, none of this goes to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point. Vancian spell casting is a wargame mechanic, that creates a little sub-game of choosing the right spells to defeat the anticipated obstacles. The fact that a veneer of in-fiction rationale is layered over the top doesn't change that about it.
> 
> On the first thing, my players know that I prefer undead, demons, cultists and the like as opponents, and make choices based on that.
> 
> On the second, this is an example of mechanics and gameplay parting ways, yet the mechanics lingering on. In the game for which Vancian casting was invented (Chainmail and early D&D), there is no such thing as _it being key to cross an obstacle quickly_. If an obstacle can't be crossed, then the players simplhy can't get that treasure, or defeat that opponent, or whatever it might be. That's part of the point of Vancian memorisation as a mechanic - it puts the players to the test in this way.
> 
> If gameplay has changed, though, so that the GM is establishing a story that the players must progress through, and that progression requires crossing certain obstacles, which in turn requires having certain spells memorised - then why would one even use Vancian casting? What is it adding to the game?
> 
> And if we stick with Vancian casting, but the GM takes steps to mitigate the costs of bad memorisation decisions, then what is the GM doing to correspondingly power-up fighters? (Who don't get the benefit of this partiular bit of GM mitigation.)



If a gm is so predictable that the choices, goid choices, made in character using campaign in game info are being bypassed by his players and their assumptions of gm bias are being used instead, i think the problem is not anything to do with definition of metagaming.

Players who decided to ignore the info in front of their character's faces and take a choices based on what i did in some other game would find those bad choices in my games. 

What does Vancian prep add for a game where sometimes specific abilities are needed? Well, it provides meaningful choices and trade offs and to a large extent rewards advance research and scouting. 

It allows, for example, one archtype of large toolbox but prep time vs another with smaller toolbox on the fly.

Whether its vancian spells, which armor to wear, which weapons to learn, what gear to carry, on foit or on horse... A lot of choices can lead to delays due to mismatch between plans and expectations.

The bottleneck is far more likely and problematic  in the small toolbox non-prepare sorc than the prep wizard or cleric.


----------



## 5ekyu

Maxperson said:


> You're reading too much into this.  I pulled that example out of my ass to show that some DMs do have predictable behaviors.  It could have been dragons in the mountains, kraken on sea voyages, or any other such behavior.  Myself, I tend to use more undead than is probably healthy.  There are just so many good ones out there and tombs and such would have them roaming about.  I'm trying to use them less and add in more variety.



But is the metagaming bothersome because in your games you use more undead than the setting makes reasonable to expect? 

Do you have townsfolk saying "undead, we never see those" yet have undead lurking round every basement in town?

If your game actually has that many undead, in fact, is it metagaming fir foljs in that campaign to prrpare for undead as a general rule?

If there have bern three robberies in my neighborhood in the last six months is my buying a home security system metagaming? Or just prudent?

Is the problem the players expecting lits of undead from your games and being right or you as GM not reflecting the lots of undead in the game world as a reasonable observable thing? 

In my games whatever us really there likely is what is observed and reported in character as a lot of different signs and rumors often enough that they have in game info to draw on.


----------



## Maxperson

5ekyu said:


> But is the metagaming bothersome because in your games you use more undead than the setting makes reasonable to expect?




My players don't metagame, so it's not bothersome to me at all.  I'm just pointing out how it COULD be used to metagame, not how it is used in my game.



> Do you have townsfolk saying "undead, we never see those" yet have undead lurking round every basement in town?
> 
> If your game actually has that many undead, in fact, is it metagaming fir foljs in that campaign to prrpare for undead as a general rule?




In my games, monsters are exceedingly rare.  If they were not, the PC races would have been wiped off the map thousands of years ago.  Monsters just seem more plentiful to PCs, because their job takes them to places where such things can be found, and their fate is to become powerful by overcoming these creatures.  The players know that I use a lot of undead, but new PCs don't.  Fortunately, my players don't use knowledge that their PCs don't have.


----------



## 5ekyu

Maxperson said:


> My players don't metagame, so it's not bothersome to me at all.  I'm just pointing out how it COULD be used to metagame, not how it is used in my game.
> 
> 
> 
> In my games, monsters are exceedingly rare.  If they were not, the PC races would have been wiped off the map thousands of years ago.  Monsters just seem more plentiful to PCs, because their job takes them to places where such things can be found, and their fate is to become powerful by overcoming these creatures.  The players know that I use a lot of undead, but new PCs don't.  Fortunately, my players don't use knowledge that their PCs don't have.



We both agree players can try to metagame. 

That was never in dispute.

If thats what your point boils down to then hey we agree.

I dont see it as inevitable or tied to vancian magic inevitably as others seem to.


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> I dont see it as any more or less meta.  Infact I had a discussion with [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] regarding planning out 20 levels of your character progression in advance, is that not what a multiclass Cleric/Ranger has done?  It effectively does not matter what they do to earn their XP because you know that you are going to level up in Cleric first irregardless of how much Rangering that you have done.  And then you have an adventure where you are Clericing your heart out and get enough XP to level up in Ranger.



Though I'm just one example, that's not at all how it worked for my R-C.

My original intent with him was that he'd be a Ranger all the way: I was trying to see if 3e would let me have the heavy tank-style Ranger I so loved in 1e.  He was about 7 levels into his career before any thought of religion or Clericism came along, and once he got his 8th some things happened in-game that strongly pointed toward his becoming a Cleric. (and to a deity of oceans at that; for some reason random chance just over and over again kept pushing him toward marine stuff - wasn't my idea)   But it was a fine example of organic growth of a character in a direction initially unforeseen by its player.

I didn't do, and quite dislike the concept of, the 1-20 plan-out before starting out with him or any of my other 3e PCs.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

5ekyu said:


> I have not seen as i recall players in games i played in or gmed every saying anything like "this gm likes abc so...". They sure might say "these show signs of..." Or "we keep encountering" or "the travelkers we passed said they heard..." etc etc etc.
> 
> As for both that and the wrong spells ready, if its key to you the gm that they move quickly past whatever is blocking their progress



No, it's more key to me the player.  Me the DM doesn't care as much, other than I know my players are as frustrated as I would be were I in that situation. 



> the most obvious ways to deal with that are them getting info along the way that lets them know (we came thru there yesterday and the bridge was out) or finding another resource (this troll we kilked, looks like he has been killing and we found this scroll of flying as well as a partial map of our destination.)



True.  I just took a bigger hammer to the problem: bye-bye pre-mem.   And so far it's worked out not too badly - the main thing I need to tweak is how many slots they get at what levels, but nothing major.

(for added info: we took all Clerics off pre-mem 30+ years ago; the new development for us is taking it off all Mages as well)

Of course, sometimes they don't have the required spell available at all (a chasm to cross and the wizard never learned Fly); and then they do have to get creative...or skip that bit of the adventure.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> I get all of that.  My point is that to the wizard, fireball might happen at level 2, 6, 12 or 18 for all he knows.  All he is aware of are those changes as he gradually grows stronger.  In fact, to the wizard there probably are no levels at all.  He just gradually gets stronger and more knowledgeable.  Think of yourself in your career.  If you have been in it for any length of time, you are very much better at it than when you started, but you couldn't truly name me a level that you were at.
> 
> The levels themselves are metagame.



In a game where you bump as you go and don't ever need to train, I'd agree.

But in a game like mine that requires training in order to access (nearly all of) the benefits of a new level then for caster-types in particular it would almost be like school: what grade are you here to study? For divine types: what circle are you training for?  For Monks, what belt are you aspiring to?  For Bards: what college?  Etc.

It's only with the non-casters where it gets murky.


----------



## 5ekyu

Lanefan said:


> No, it's more key to me the player.  Me the DM doesn't care as much, other than I know my players are as frustrated as I would be were I in that situation.
> 
> True.  I just took a bigger hammer to the problem: bye-bye pre-mem.   And so far it's worked out not too badly - the main thing I need to tweak is how many slots they get at what levels, but nothing major.
> 
> (for added info: we took all Clerics off pre-mem 30+ years ago; the new development for us is taking it off all Mages as well)
> 
> Of course, sometimes they don't have the required spell available at all (a chasm to cross and the wizard never learned Fly); and then they do have to get creative...or skip that bit of the adventure.



I dont see the issues here... But thats ok they dont have to.

I see "we need to cross or..." as an opportunity for preppie caster to be able to shine with "if we wait til,morning, i can use fly and we get across" if he doesnt have rhe spell prepped but has a large array of spells.

That greatly contrasts their strength vs the smalker toolbox guy with "sorry, no fly, lets get really creative or skip this part."

So if the latter is seen as just part of the game by a group, i just dont see how the former is a sign of a problem needing bigger hammer level rules revisions. 

It looks like a chance to shine for the preppie, their strength showing, not frustration necessitating huge hammers to rulesets.

Back in the days of old, the bulging spellbook and time and prep and planning were to us the hallmark of the wiz. 

Course that was before video games and instant gratification permeated the idea of rpgs perhaps as much as they did later.

But again, not necessary for me to reach same conclusions on preferences or expectations.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> And if we stick with Vancian casting, but the GM takes steps to mitigate the costs of bad memorisation decisions, then what is the GM doing to correspondingly power-up fighters? (Who don't get the benefit of this partiular bit of GM mitigation.)



At first glance, that's a very good question.

All I can say is that over the long run in my own games (1e-ish, both DMed and played) fighters and other martial types have generally hung in there just fine*.  Part of that is due, I think, to sheer durability: warrior types tend to have lots of hit points, wizard types not so many, meaning when the enemy blast effects hit the wizard types fall down and die a lot more often.  I know this because of all the spindly wizards I play... 

It's Thieves I need to power up somehow both in and out of combat; either that or rein everyone else in so the Thieves have a puncher's chance.  Project for next campaign's design phase, I suppose...whenever that is; and at the same time I'll look to rein in Nature Clerics (Druids) a bit.

* - a currently-active pure Fighter PC (not mine) in the game I play in has - amongst the thousand or more characters that have passed through these games - of late become, only mildly arguably, our overall GOAT.  The more-or-less top 5 all-time among our campaigns, in no real order, are a War Cleric, a Magic-User, a Fighter-Thief, a Cleric, and the Fighter I mention above.

So somehow, without my really having to do anything about it, the warriors are doing fine...even though - as you say - it makes sense that they'd be falling behind.

Lan-"it was all completely intentional - honest!"-efan


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> Though I'm just one example, that's not at all how it worked for my R-C.




That example is how a mulitclass Cleric/Ranger works in ADnD.  You get a fixed planned progression with no choices on which class you level up in.



> My original intent with him was that he'd be a Ranger all the way: I was trying to see if 3e would let me have the heavy tank-style Ranger I so loved in 1e.  He was about 7 levels into his career before any thought of religion or Clericism came along, and once he got his 8th some things happened in-game that strongly pointed toward his becoming a Cleric. (and to a deity of oceans at that; for some reason random chance just over and over again kept pushing him toward marine stuff - wasn't my idea)   But it was a fine example of organic growth of a character in a direction initially unforeseen by its player.
> 
> I didn't do, and quite dislike the concept of, the 1-20 plan-out before starting out with him or any of my other 3e PCs.
> 
> Lanefan




Your example is exactly why I believe that multiclassing in 3e is less metagamy then in ADnD.   Your Ranger could never do that in ADnD unless he happened to be Human with exceptional Wisdom and even then you would have finished as a Cleric that had no Ranger abilities.


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> That example is how a mulitclass Cleric/Ranger works in ADnD.  You get a fixed planned progression with no choices on which class you level up in.



That it worked out the same as 1e would do it is sheer luck. 



> Your example is exactly why I believe that multiclassing in 3e is less metagamy then in ADnD.



When it's organic like this was, perhaps.

When it's done as part of a 1-20 plan-out as adip to gain some bennies without much if any in-character reason attached, then yeah, it's pretty meta.



> Your Ranger could never do that in ADnD unless he happened to be Human with exceptional Wisdom and even then you would have finished as a Cleric that had no Ranger abilities.



In 1e as written, you are correct.  In the 1e variant I'm used to, he could have done it but it would have taken him a half-year or more of training to boot up the Cleric side, as it wasn't something he'd planned right from day 1.

Lan-"Bjarnni has never had this much media coverage before"-efan


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> I get all of that.  My point is that to the wizard, fireball might happen at level 2, 6, 12 or 18 for all he knows.  All he is aware of are those changes as he gradually grows stronger.  In fact, to the wizard there probably are no levels at all.  He just gradually gets stronger and more knowledgeable.  Think of yourself in your career.  If you have been in it for any length of time, you are very much better at it than when you started, but you couldn't truly name me a level that you were at.
> 
> The levels themselves are metagame.




If levels are just a metagame then how come you used to gain a new title with each level?

Depending on what career you are in I can bet that you have different titles depending where you are in your career path.  I know that Doctors for example go through several ranks as they are leveling up and that they are expected to have certain skills at those ranks.  They can also choose to specialise in different schools of magic, I mean medicine.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> It absolutely is different.  On one hand you have a magic system explained in the game world that allows the wizard to know about his spells.  On the other hand you don't have that for the fighter.  He has the power, but no such in game explanation for how his character could or would possibly know about it.



The ingame explanation is the same way s/he knows s/he is breathing, or hurting - s/he feels it.



Maxperson said:


> You start with 2 first level spells, then gradually increase to 3.  Then you gradually increase to 4 and gain 2 second level spells.  Then you gradually increase to 4 first and 3 second.  And so on.  There is nothing in the game world that says that there is even a single level involved, let alone 3 or 5 or however many levels, with that gradual increase in magical power.



There's no "gradually increaasing".

You start being able to memorise (say) 1 1st level spell. Then you can memorise 2. Then you can memorise 1 second level spell as well. Then 3 1st and 2 2nd. (I'm using the AD&D charts.) Each step up corresponds exactly to a class level - so if you treat Vancian memorisation as an in-fiction thing, then the wizards can rank themselves exactly based on their memorisation ability, and that ranking will correlate exactly to class levels. (At least up until 8th level. At 9th level and above it is complicated because some wizards with INTs that are too low don't get the 5th or higher level slots.)  



Maxperson said:


> You are assuming that they are picked due to anticipated obstacles.  A great many of them are picked because they are generally good, not because of any obstacle the player thinks is coming.  Metagaming could happen, but is not in any way an inherent part of vancian casting.



No, that's not what I'm assuming. Of course some spells are chosen because - given the nature of D&D play, which itself has a high metagame component (eg players know that, everything else being equal, they are more likely to have to successfully fight orcs than to successfully balance a ledger) - they are generally good.

My point, and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s as I understand it, is that (i) the whole categorisation of spells into levels, which are available to players in the form of slots per spell level, is an obvious gameplay device, and that (ii) its function as a gameplay device is to set up the opportunity for skilled players to do their stuff by optimising their load out.

Layering a veneer of in-fiction rationale over the top of it doesn'lt change these features. And it's no coincidence that metagame-repudiating systems like RQ and RM don't use anything like it for their magic systems.


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> When it's organic like this was, perhaps.
> 
> When it's done as part of a 1-20 plan-out as adip to gain some bennies without much if any in-character reason attached, then yeah, it's pretty meta.




That is pretty much the Stormwind Fallacy though.  What you think is meta I could explain with a perfectly logical in-game reasoning.

It would be even better if you could work with the DM to explain what was happening and on the other hand you can not rely on the DM supporting your 20 level character plan so sometimes it is just better to just do it without a big fanfare.



> In 1e as written, you are correct.  In the 1e variant I'm used to, he could have done it but it would have taken him a half-year or more of training to boot up the Cleric side, as it wasn't something he'd planned right from day 1.
> 
> Lan-"Bjarnni has never had this much media coverage before"-efan




I used to follow that train of thought but came to the conclusion that a) if you enforced a half year training montage then effectively the character was gone from the game as the game did not stop to wait for the character and 2) having 1 level of say Cleric is essentially on the job training condensed to the real essence of a class.

For example would you learn the theory of how to turn undead more effectively with six months of training at a Monastery?  Yes probably but you also learn the practical ability much more quickly if you are relying on it to save you from a zombie trying to bite your face off too.


----------



## pemerton

5ekyu said:


> If a gm is so predictable that the choices, goid choices, made in character using campaign in game info are being bypassed by his players and their assumptions of gm bias are being used instead, i think the problem is not anything to do with definition of metagaming.



Who said there is a problem? I find it tends to help things that I and my players are on the same page.



5ekyu said:


> What does Vancian prep add for a game where sometimes specific abilities are needed? Well, it provides meaningful choices and trade offs and to a large extent rewards advance research and scouting.
> 
> It allows, for example, one archtype of large toolbox but prep time vs another with smaller toolbox on the fly.



If the GM is either going to move quickly through the blocking obstacle, or else there is an overnight rest and encounter opportunity, I'm not really seeing the meaningful choice or trade off. Why does the passage of ingame time, and the passage of time at the table dealing with that extra encounter, matter?



5ekyu said:


> The bottleneck is far more likely and problematic  in the small toolbox non-prepare sorc than the prep wizard or cleric.



"The bottleneck" is an artefact of a certain sort of play. It's not a problem I have in my games.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Maxperson said:


> I get all of that.  My point is that to the wizard, fireball might happen at level 2, 6, 12 or 18 for all he knows.  All he is aware of are those changes as he gradually grows stronger.  In fact, to the wizard there probably are no levels at all.  He just gradually gets stronger and more knowledgeable.  Think of yourself in your career.  If you have been in it for any length of time, you are very much better at it than when you started, but you couldn't truly name me a level that you were at.
> 
> The levels themselves are metagame.



Spellcasters are a case where they would very definitely recognize individual skill plateaus, because (at least in The Forgotten Realms) spell slots are a real thing. Whether a given person can or cannot cast Fireball is a thing that they talk about. For wizards, in particular, they have to physically perform the action of preparing the spell ahead of time, which is a process that they discuss with each other. "Do you have any third level spell slots?" is an in-character thing that one wizard might ask another wizard.

My career doesn't have such equivalent milestones, but if you want to switch it to a different skill, a good equivalent would be Dance Dance Revolution. Each song is rated on a scale from 1-9 (or so), based on its complexity, and I know that I'm good enough to pass a 4 (generally speaking). When I started out, I could only pass a 2. At my best, I could pass most fives and a handful of sixes.

Wizards are exactly the same. Spells are organized by complexity and energy requirements, and a given wizard knows that they can cast spells of a certain difficulty. Given how it takes a similar skill level to cast any of the spells that the players would know as level 3, it's improbable that they would not also recognize that fact. They probably don't categorize their own levels in any way, since their own skill is increasing continuously over time, but it seems probable that they recognize ten distinct levels of spell.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Elfcrusher said:


> But given all the ways we have to metagame to play these games, it strikes me as somewhat odd to latch onto this argument to justify the aesthetic preference.



Except you don't _have to_ metagame at all, in order to play. You have actions that are _entirely_ out-of-character, like making a character. You have actions that are _entirely_ in-character, like preparing spells and drinking heal potions. There's no point where you're _required_ to make an in-character decision, based on out-of-game factors, or vice versa.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> Not [MENTION=10638]Emirikol[/MENTION] but this has caught my interest, at least on the surface of it.
> 
> To answer your last question first, changing to a system like this would immediately up the 'gritty' factor by a whole bunch...maybe even too much; I wouldn't know until I tried it.
> 
> But on first reading I also have some questions; though fair enough if you don't have the asnwers if this is something you just dreamed up and haven't thought all the way through yet:
> 
> Does the saving throw to avoid ticking a harm box get varied or amended by the source of the damage?  For example, is a harm save vs. a dagger blow easier than a harm save vs. a greatsword blow or a hit from a giant's club?
> 
> If yes to the above, do the saving throws get progressively more difficult with each success unitl one fails, then get reset? (this to allow for a 'death by a thousand cuts' narrative)
> 
> Where is 'unconscious' as a condition?  Could it be a modifier to the save against harm 4 - if you roll within +/-3 of the DC or cutoff point you're unconscious instead of dead, maybe; and if left untended you'll later (maybe minutes, maybe hours, whenever) get another save, where you either wake up (and live), remain unconscious (and repeat this process later), or die?
> 
> How does magical healing or curing work with any of this?
> 
> Panic-ridden, Confused, and Demoralized are all conditions that can be inflicted by spell (in 1e D&D: Cause Fear, Confusion, and Emotion respectively) - what's the interaction here?  Do these spells now just tick a harm box?
> 
> Lanefan




I don’t want to dig down too deeply into the rest of the hacking required, because I was trying to solicit solely the visceral reaction from [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] . I’m inthe same camp as [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] ; the reaction to one type of mechanics or information organization versus another is primarily because of familiarity or the internalization of a set of stuff into a mental framework that you’ve settled into permanently.

So what is the visceral reaction to a set of mechanics which are low mental overhead, much more internally consistent than HPs when modeling biological interactions...yet unfamiliar.

But just a brief foray into your question:

1) No, these are not my own ideas (we can discuss the source later).

2) All you would have to do is:

a) sub out current HP and condition mechanics and interactions for Harm levels (eg give Mooks no Harm box- everything is Harm 4, make a level one spell that inflicts x condition do y Harm). This would include deriving present system maths:Harm and Saving Throws at your discretion.

b) sorting out Armor and mitigation abilities that step down Harm levels (or stop it outright) or Saving Throw interaction.

c) sort out recovery (and spell interactions).

It would be some effort, but not too terribly much for a GM/player that (i) cares and (ii) likes to hack/tinker....which isnt exactly non-pervasive in our hobby!


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> If levels are just a metagame then how come you used to gain a new title with each level?




You didn't.  Not really.  Those titles were for the player to have fun with.  That's why, if you read the DMG, 9th level fighters are not really lords.  They have no noble status unless born with it, in which case they were a lord from level 1, regardless of "class title."  People didn't play the game and have their character walk up and say, "Hey, I'm Poopy Thunderpants the Superhero.  Pleased to meet you."



> Depending on what career you are in I can bet that you have different titles depending where you are in your career path.




And I bet that I can find people with better titles that aren't as skilled or knowledgeable as others lower down the title totem pole.



> I know that Doctors for example go through several ranks as they are leveling up and that they are expected to have certain skills at those ranks.  They can also choose to specialise in different schools of magic, I mean medicine.



And yet you will still find the above in the medical profession.  Rank =/= equal skill.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The ingame explanation is the same way s/he knows s/he is breathing, or hurting - s/he feels it.




Yes, the fighter would feel himself get the second wind.  The fighter would not have control over when that happens.



> There's no "gradually increaasing".




I don't think that means what you think it means.  You start saying this, then describe a gradual increase below



> You start being able to memorise (say) 1 1st level spell. Then you can memorise 2. Then you can memorise 1 second level spell as well. Then 3 1st and 2 2nd. (I'm using the AD&D charts.) Each step up corresponds exactly to a class level - so if you treat Vancian memorisation as an in-fiction thing, then the wizards can rank themselves exactly based on their memorisation ability, and that ranking will correlate exactly to class levels. (At least up until 8th level. At 9th level and above it is complicated because some wizards with INTs that are too low don't get the 5th or higher level slots.)




There are no in game class levels to correlate it with.  The gradual increase which you just described, and I described to you in my post, could just as easily happen without any levels at all as far as the wizard in the game world is concerned.  



> No, that's not what I'm assuming. Of course some spells are chosen because - given the nature of D&D play, which itself has a high metagame component (eg players know that, everything else being equal, they are more likely to have to successfully fight orcs than to successfully balance a ledger) - they are generally good.




There's no metagame involved with picking generally good spells.  The wizard knows which spells are generally good.  Metagaming only comes into play when the PC takes an action or makes a decision that it has no way of knowing, but that the player knows.  For example, the player has gone through a module before and knows that you have to walk down the left side of the corridor for 10 feet, then alternate every 10 feet for the 100' length of the corridor in order to avoid nasty traps.  He's being run through that module with a new PC and his party, all of whom had never even heard of the place before they arrived, and when he gets to that corridor has his PC walk exactly as required to avoid the traps.  That's metagaming.  The PC is acting on information it does not possess.

A PC wizard who knows that certain spells are very good in a general way and selects those, is not acting on any knowledge it does not possess, so no metagaming is happening.


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> Spellcasters are a case where they would very definitely recognize individual skill plateaus, because (at least in The Forgotten Realms) spell slots are a real thing. Whether a given person can or cannot cast Fireball is a thing that they talk about. For wizards, in particular, they have to physically perform the action of preparing the spell ahead of time, which is a process that they discuss with each other. "Do you have any third level spell slots?" is an in-character thing that one wizard might ask another wizard.




The problem is, no level is required for that.  At all.  For all the wizard knows, spellcasting is based on a skill percentage.  His spellcasting skill starts at 1%, and at 5% he gains the ability to cast a second first level spell.  When he gets to 10%, he gets strong enough to cast a second level spell.  At 15% he gets strong enough to cast a second second level spell.  When he hits 20% he can cast three first, two second, and gets strong enough for the glorious fireball.  And so on.  

That's my point.  Nothing in the game world ties the increase in power to the same level progression as the PHB, or even to level at all.



> My career doesn't have such equivalent milestones, but if you want to switch it to a different skill, a good equivalent would be Dance Dance Revolution. Each song is rated on a scale from 1-9 (or so), based on its complexity, and I know that I'm good enough to pass a 4 (generally speaking). When I started out, I could only pass a 2. At my best, I could pass most fives and a handful of sixes.




Because you the player can see those numbers.  If they were not available for you to see, you would be like the PCs in D&D who only know that they are gradually getting better.


----------



## Ted Serious

Elfcrusher said:


> I have observed that when people just simply don't like certain aspects/rules/behaviors in an RPG they will concoct elaborate...and sometimes impressively sophisticated...theories to explain why this is not just their opinion, but that these things are objectively bad.  In particular, people will latch onto arguments invoking "realism" and "metagaming" to prove why they are right.
> 
> I remember Emerikol from the old WotC forums.  IIRC, he hated..._hated_...any non-magical power that wasn't at will.  Effectively, "If a fighter knows how to do something, why can't he do it twice?"  He's ok with the sheer improbability of a "whirlwind" attack allowing a Fighter to attack all targets within reach in one attack; what he can't abide by is that the number of uses is somehow restricted.  In other words, it's the "at-will martial abilities" sinkhole.
> 
> And it's a fair question, philosophically: "If I know how to do it, why can I only do it once per day?"  I would have thought a satisfactory answer would be "because if all non-magical abilities were at-will, all non-magical abilities would have to be relatively weaker, for game balance, and you wouldn't get cool moves like Whirlwind attacks" (a.k.a. "this is why we can't have nice things").
> 
> But given all the ways we have to metagame to play these games, it strikes me as somewhat odd to latch onto this argument to justify the aesthetic preference.  You don't have to justify it: you don't like it.  That's cool.
> 
> Personally, I'm fine with the "narrativist" answer: circumstances rarely align in which you get to do this cool thing, both for game balance and storytelling reasons (cool things are only cool if they are relatively uncommon).  You, the player, are given narrative control to decide when that occurs.  Yes, your character would do it every "round" (omg metagame construct warning!) if he could, but he can't.  You are hereby empowered to narrate the reason why not.




 Thanks for putting that into perspective.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Saelorn said:


> Except you don't _have to_ metagame at all, in order to play. You have actions that are _entirely_ out-of-character, like making a character. You have actions that are _entirely_ in-character, like preparing spells and drinking heal potions. There's no point where you're _required_ to make an in-character decision, based on out-of-game factors, or vice versa.




I disagree.  I don't think it's possible, in a practical sense, to suspend your knowledge of game mechanics when you make decisions.  Our knowledge about probability and bonuses and movement rates and penalties and advantage/disadvantage and whatever else applies to the specific RPG you are talking about all influence our decisions.  Sure, you can always rationalize the use of this knowledge as "in-character", for example, "My fighter is experienced enough to know about how far away he has to move to be safe" but that's really _post facto_ roleplaying, after the metagaming (which I'm totally fine with).

And even if one _could_ make decisions without factoring in knowledge of game mechanics, I don't understand why you would want to.  It doesn't inhibit roleplaying to do it, and it's part of the fun.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Emerikol, let me pose you a question.
> 
> I'm not sure you've ever GMed or played under the following paradigm, so let me lay it out.  Try to conceive of simply switching out the HP model from your current game for a low overhead system that handles it in fictional terms that also intersect with action resolution (what action declarations might be permissible, what may be penalized).
> 
> It looks like this.  Instead of HP ablation, when you're physically imposed upon by the world, you roll some kind of Saving Throw.  If you fail, you receive some kind of Harm.  Harm has 5 boxes and comes in 4 stages.
> 
> Harm 1 has two boxes.
> Harm 2 has two boxes
> Harm 3 has one box
> Harm 4 is death
> 
> Harm 1 might be Confused, Demoralized, Distracted
> Harm 2 might be Concussed, Sprained Ankle, Panick-ridden
> Harm 3 might be Nervous Breakdown, Broken Hand, Impaled Shoulder
> 
> You could have multiple Harm spanning multiple boxes.  But if you fill up Harm 1's two boxes, any further Harm 1 you get automatically becomes Harm 2 (and so on, until you're dead).
> 
> Each Harm level and condition comes with an codified impact on action resolution and fictional adjudication (eg Confused carries action resolution consequence
> x when you attempt declaration y or z...and it also arises that some things become non-permissible - how are you running the rooftops with that sprained ankle?).
> 
> Each Harm level and condition comes with a codified means of removal (duration and care/therapy required to remove).
> 
> Something like this is pretty trivially integrated into D&D (especially given the fiddly, not-well-integrated or conceived, and unwieldy subsystems that I've seen folks try to hack onto various D&D substrate).
> 
> So my question is:
> 
> How do you think supplanting HP ablation for such a system would impact your play?




I'm not sure but at low levels probably not a lot but at higher levels it would keep you more cautious.  I'm guessing.  Assuming various powers that attack Harm 3 or Harm 4 come into play more at high levels, and the boxes don't change, then of course the threat of death would be high at any level.  Perhaps unmanageably high but again I'd have to see an entire system to know for sure.

I am happy enough with a moderately unrealistic system like hit points for a high fantasy super heroic game.  I might also enjoy a less super heroic game.  In such cases maybe WOIN or GURPS or even RQ would work.  This is a totally different axis from metagame.  I wouldn't want a metagame mechanic in any of those games if I had a choice.  I think I could enjoy any of those games otherwise but I'd still favor the high fantasy game of D&D style the most.


----------



## Emerikol

Ratskinner said:


> Just for clarity's sake. I'm not seeking simulation, either. I'm just seeking a coherent, interesting narrative (preferably with a light mechanical overhead as well). I haven't played in your games, but in every other D&D game I've played in, DMs will casually describe a hit...and then that description is quickly abandoned in the face of the HP total. I think the dissonance that it causes is why so many DMs abandon describing the hits with any detail beyond...you guessed it, a HP total. (Although perhaps time to resolve combat rounds is a bigger factor there.)
> 
> Best of luck with your games.




Same to you.  I continue to describe the hits in descriptive terms followed by the number.  Thanks.  The best to you.  I appreciate it when we can have a respectful conversation without having to try to prove the others playstyle as bad.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> That's why I allow the players if they want to choose two stats to roll at 5d6 drop 2, two stats at 4d6 drop 1, and two stats at 3d6.  They have to choose which rolls go into which stats before they start rolling.  The 3d6 are the "dump" stats, but I've seen rolls there that are higher than the 5d6 rolls.  Now, I also allow the swapping of one pair of stats, because I want them to be able to play the PC they want, but you don't have to if you don't want to.  That method will still allow you to get decent scores in prime stats, while rolling "dump" stats separately.




Yes, I've actually considered exactly this approach and proposed it myself to various people.  I think it's a great idea.  I think players are often way too entitled about attributes anyway.

Another idea I've had is having an advantage system where you take the best rolls in the party and everyone else gets advantages worth the difference between their scores and the top person's scores.  If you feel the entire party rolled terrible then maybe use some minimum number which if it turns out to be the max, is what everyone compares against.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Have you even been paying attention to our conversation?
> 
> IMHO, this is the metagame that the player does as part of the "strategic play" of the game. If you want to say that Vancian casting is 'magic,' then we may as well call Fate points 'fate.'




Well if the fate point really existed in the game such that CHARACTERS (not players) knew about them, then they wouldn't be metagame.  It is why magic, psionics, etc... are a lot easier to get setup without it being metagame.  

In my game world, Wizards discuss the spells in their spell books.  They know the levels of those spells (or at least what level signifies if not the literal word level).  In one campaign, I had nine scrolls in the great library and wizards used the term "I have a spell that is on the fifth scroll" to symbolize fifth level spells.  I'm okay though with level being a known word.  

I could contrive a certain type of Fate game where fate points were a real part of the game world.  Most Fate games this is not true.  The player is acting as director and fate points are not part of the mental state of characters.  In general, a mundane character would find it hard to explain fate points.  You could though contrive a different sort of world where everyone knows about these fate points (I might use a different name which would be fine) and is trying to accumulate them intentionally.

I think when playing fate though that many of us want to play traditional swords and sorcery, or sci-fi, etc...


----------



## Emerikol

Nytmare said:


> Like I said before, they wouldn't have used the term at the time, but their complaint would have most certainly been that it was metagaming.  What stuck in their craw was that it didn't emulate "real life" and a person didn't decide, after they were born, what their charisma or intelligence was.  This was a choice that the player was making outside of the world that they thought the rules were trying to imitate.
> 
> More to the point, I think that what I was trying to illustrate was that maybe the concept of what metagaming "is" has more to do with what the person writing the definition is used to, and what the new version of the game is doing differently.




That would be what one side seems desperately intent on proving for some reason.  I have said prior to the start of the campaign it is all metagaming.  The character doesn't exist yet.  What I don't like is while I'm actually being my character, roleplaying if you will, that I as the player start making decisions that the character could not make.  For example, when I cast a spell and it disappears in game from my prepared spells, my character knows that without a doubt.  If though I am a fighter in 4e, and I use a daily power, there is no real in game explanation for why my character is expending this valuable resource.  The player knows and tracks it but the character is oblivious.

And sure, metagaming is a broad term and perhaps different people use it different ways.  That is why I defined it for the purposes of this discussion.  I saw confusion was occurring so I tried to nail down what I meant.  Whatever it is that I don't like, whatever name you want to give it, it is a real thing and it bothers real people (to varying degrees of course).  It doesn't bother other people and those people seem the hardest to explain the concept to.  I believe there is a correlation there.  

Other names for the concept include
Dissociative Mechanics - this is so loaded due to the blog post that set all sides into a practically shouting war over the concept.  I avoided this term mainly to try to keep us on topic.  Let's have some ideas on how to fix this issue for THOSE that think it is an issue.  For those that don't think it is an issue, who are not wanting to be condescending or snarky, we welcome your advice to us to help us.  Those who can't avoid being disruptive or deny the very existence of the problem should just avoid this thread.

Dissonant Mechanics
Metagame Mechanics
Director / Author mode games 

etc..
Again the mere mention of some of those other terms may prove inflammatory which is not my intent.  I disagree with the author of the blog post about what roleplaying actually is.  His point perhaps should have been that this approach diverges from traditional roleplaying in ways he doesn't like.  Again play what you want.  That is not my intent.  If someone started a blog about running a game in author mode, I'd either try and think of an idea that was really helpful or I'd just skip that thread.  I don't need to fill it up with posts about how something that bothers me doesn't really exist and I should just get over it.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> Another idea I've had is having an advantage system where you take the best rolls in the party and everyone else gets advantages worth the difference between their scores and the top person's scores.  If you feel the entire party rolled terrible then maybe use some minimum number which if it turns out to be the max, is what everyone compares against.




This sounds interesting, but I don't understand it completely.  What are the advantages?  How would you rate them?(i.e. if the max is 17, what does an 11 score get vs. a 15)


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Because there is a player awareness of most effective spells that are often best or most useful in the meta of D&D play, and that player awareness will form part of the strategy of "character choices." You can justify it as "character knowledge," but it still fundamentally operates as part of the metagame of D&D. Also, the entire spell organization of spell slots and spell levels is pretty darn metagame.




I think you are wrong here.  This is just character skill.  Your character knows his spells and their capabilities.  He knows their relative power.  

I think you are not understanding metagame.  You definitely aren't understanding it as I've defined it above.  

In D&D, a world exists where spell slots exist.  It may not sit well with you realistically or even as a fantasy trope.  That maybe true and is inarguable if you feel that way.  It is though a conceit of the D&D game universe.  Wizards know all about those things.  If the group has any reason to know they face undead, then prepping anti-undead spells is smart.

Lanefan, I love preparation of spells because I want to reward good preparation.  Choosing the right equipment is another form of preparation because I don't allow the PCs to pack everything under the sun.  Right?  My players pack all sorts of things especially at lower levels to give them an edge in the dungeon.  Chalk, string, a candle, oil, iron spikes, etc... If they don't pack it they don't have it.  The wizard is figuring out his spells.


----------



## Emerikol

Lanefan said:


> When I played/ran games using pre-mem I saw it just about every time casters did their prep while in the field.  Players would use info they had as players (e.g. knowing the DM's preferred monsters, seeing the module cover, etc.).
> 
> But, this is to me a minor issue compared to this: with pre-mem a caster is often stuck with spells she can't use and a party is often stuck because the spell they need to continue wasn't memorized.  It's these things that eventually led me to drop pre-mem entirely.




Oh that would be very bad news in my campaign.  As a DM, not being predictable comes with the territory.  As a DM, not divulging any information that is not character information also comes with the territory.  So perhaps this is an issue for some groups and not other groups.  Mine doesn't have this problem.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> The character can know about lots of things that would still nevertheless constitute metagaming. The character can "know" that they still have a single Second Wind available. The character can "know" that they have one level-one spell left. The character can "know" the placement of allies and foes in combat despite the fact that the character is operating from the players have a tactical advantage via miniatures.
> 
> I disagree, as you're just putting lipstick on the metagame pig.
> 
> It can be, but I don't think it inherently is. Like others have mentioned before, it's basis for not being metagaming seems more strongly rooted in familiarity and tradition than any real legit analysis.




You are going hard core on this.  First if Second Wind is anything remotely like real second winds, you don't activate them so they are metagame.  If they are some power, that humans in the D&D world have but humans in the real world don't have then they should have mentioned that.  I prefer to start with baseline humans.  

No you just don't know what metagaming is and you are starting to embarass yourself by using examples that completely don't fit the concept.  It's the people who don't undestand that keep claiming it's just a preference for old mechanics.  If it was just a preference for old mechanics then I'd be happy with all of them and be playing 1e right now.  I don't like THAC0.  I like feats better than random class powers.  I like lots of new mechanics some of which run counter to old school gaming.  I don't like metagame mechanics though.  So it's far more than just a preference for old mechanics.

You should really try harder to understand the concept.   Let me help you again.

1. It is making decisions that cause things to happen in game that only the player knows about and the character could not know about.
2. It is not abstract concepts like HP/AC which are in game concepts.  How close to death am I?  How good an I at avoiding getting hit?  They are abstractions.  Abstractions may not be realistic (these aren't) but they are not metagame.  The character knows about them.
3. It is the character who should be making decisions for that character as that character.  When you as the player are truly being that character then make decisions.  When you are not being that character do not.
4. Magical/Psionic constructs are, at least in D&D, a part of the game world.  It's like you say warp drive is metagame because it doesn't exist in the real world.  Wrong!  It is not metagame.  It is not realistic by what we know today.  It is not metagame.  The crew of the Starship Enterprise know all about warp drive.  It's a real thing in their universe.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> It corresponds to an in-game reality, but the PC can't know that it has 18000xp, or that he's level 3 vs. level 5.  Those numbers are representative of metagame ideas.  The PC has them and uses them, but doesn't really have a basis for knowing them.  He can just know that he's capable of doing more now and has learned a bunch of stuff since he started.




They are abstract concepts but they are not metagame.  For one they don't really come into play during game time but that is an aside.  A player doesn't know about levels per se but he knows how good a fighter he is relative to others around him.  I agree x.p. is unrealistic or metagame and in this case I side with metagame in my campaign because x.p. is never a concept discussed in game.  The character has been "turned off" and it is only the player when x.p. is being handed out.  Since x.p. doesn't come into play during the game at all it doesn't cause problems for someone like me.  Losing a level though is something different.  The ingame reality is that you've had your life essence drawn out in some way that makes you weaker.


----------



## Emerikol

Shasarak said:


> I dont see it as any more or less meta.  Infact I had a discussion with [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] regarding planning out 20 levels of your character progression in advance, is that not what a multiclass Cleric/Ranger has done?  It effectively does not matter what they do to earn their XP because you know that you are going to level up in Cleric first irregardless of how much Rangering that you have done.  And then you have an adventure where you are Clericing your heart out and get enough XP to level up in Ranger.




If you don't care about metagaming though then that doesn't matter to you anyway right?  I do think the mechanics of multiclassing planning can be metagaming.  Even choosing a feat can be metagame in the fact it is happening in an instant when the reality is it would have been chosen as you lived out your life.  All these things though do happen during down time or not at all.  Not everyone plans out their character in advance.  During game play, these issues don't come into play.


----------



## Emerikol

DMMike said:


> The complaint, if I'm reading it right, is that characters are all but required to act on metagame elements.
> 
> I think that's a problem shared by every game that uses character sheets to record anything other than character backstory.
> 
> Since rules are metagame elements, is it really possible to write a rule that fixes the problem?




Try thinking about it some more.  I'm obviously not talking about character sheets.  That is just information the player knows that the character also knows.  We aren't talking about something that helps the player do a better job of being the character.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> I get all of that.  My point is that to the wizard, fireball might happen at level 2, 6, 12 or 18 for all he knows.  All he is aware of are those changes as he gradually grows stronger.  In fact, to the wizard there probably are no levels at all.  He just gradually gets stronger and more knowledgeable.  Think of yourself in your career.  If you have been in it for any length of time, you are very much better at it than when you started, but you couldn't truly name me a level that you were at.
> 
> The levels themselves are metagame.




But they are not.  If a world existed with magic.  The second you could cast a second level spell you would know you'd reach a new level of experience.  You can do things you couldn't do before.  Getting that second second level spell might be viewed as a more gradual advance but all these things are really happening in game.  For a wizard it's likely something they would all know very well.  In my one campaign, I'd say things like "such and such wizard is known to have cast a spell that is on the seventh scroll".  My characters then could surmise he can cast seventh level spells.  Wizards would know these spells are harder than these other ones.  

For the fighter it is a bit harder conceptually but you really could measure it in world if you really wanted to do that.  For example as a fighter you can now hit 5% better than you did.  So while sparring you suddenly are able to land blows on enemies a little better.


----------



## Emerikol

Elfcrusher said:


> I have observed that when people just simply don't like certain aspects/rules/behaviors in an RPG they will concoct elaborate...and sometimes impressively sophisticated...theories to explain why this is not just their opinion, but that these things are objectively bad.  In particular, people will latch onto arguments invoking "realism" and "metagaming" to prove why they are right.




I'm not claiming that it is not a preference.  I'm not claiming it is objectively bad.  Never have.  Even on the old WOTC forums.  I do claim that it is bad for me.  I also claim that there is consistent way of viewing a set of rules that makes them bad for me. I have used numerous terms because I don't really care about the term.  

What I reject and object to is people who tell me there is no consistent way of viewing a set of rules that makes them bad for me.  I believe there are many people (perhaps a small percentage of the gamer population but still numerous) who would designate metagame rules in a consistent way.  If not with absolute perfection at least with a high degree of correlation.

So this post was not intending to resurrect the debate about the various merits of play.  The people who don't care about metagame mechanics won the day and 5e is rife with them.  Not 4e levels of metagame but still a lot of metagame and it's baked in pretty hard core.  The champion fighter existing as it does while still having Second Wind is clear evidence to me that WOTC never understood the concept to begin with or didn't care.  If they had given one single iteration of the fighter that had no metagame mechanics as one single option I would have bought the game on day one.  I still haven't bought the game.  I did come on here and see if anyone had any ideas on how the game could be fixed for people like myself.

So forget about trying to convince us that our views are arbitrary.  Please stop trying to convince us to just join the crowd and get over it.  I won't.  I'd rather quit roleplaying entirely than play a game with metagame mechanics.  At that point watching another tv show is preferable.  I will definitely NEVER try to convince you that you should play my way.  I do consider overall that it is just a preference.  I am not denying that.  I am only denying that these mechanics are a random assortment of unrelated mechanics that have little in common besides being old.  I will argue that that is not true.

The real question is -- why do so many on here fight so hard to try and prove there is not a mechanical pattern that undergirds metagame mechanics.  It would not mean they can't play with those mechanics.  It only means some people don't want to play with them.  It's really like chocolate and vanilla.  You don't have to deny the existence of vanilla to choose chocolate.


ELFCRUSHER:  Don't take this as all directed at you.  This is just where it all spewed out.  It can be frustrating.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> This sounds interesting, but I don't understand it completely.  What are the advantages?  How would you rate them?(i.e. if the max is 17, what does an 11 score get vs. a 15)




Well suppose your score total is 60 which would be an average of 10.  Suppose the guy who rolled the best had 84 which is an average of 14.  

So the lower player would get 24 points.  With these points he would then be able to purchase special advantages which have costs.  Gurps has an advantage system but D&D does not so you'd have to invent one.  In D&D it could be an extra feat for every two points.  I'd prefer a better list than the feats though.  I'd have a specific advantages list that you'd take as if you had these advantage since birth.

Here are some examples.

Eidactic Memory - you remember everything you see or hear.
Fast Healing - maybe you get an extra HD or two.
Hard to Kill - you get favorable rolls when checking for death, etc..
Psionic power - you get a standalone psionic power of some sort like telepathy.

Again, I having used this approach.  I just thought it would be a neat idea.  So if I were going to use it I'd need to develop a good advantages list.  You'd assign a point value to each of the advantages and then the PC would "spend" their points. 

This then makes rolling low kinda good in a way.  It makes all sorts of characters possible.


----------



## Ratskinner

Saelorn said:


> Why does that cause dissonance for you? Why do you see the HP total as being at odds with the narrative description, rather than reinforcing it? They're supposed to be two different languages for conveying the exact same information.




This is very hard to describe, because I feel like we've all been trained really well to ignore/accept it or we're just really accustomed to it. it (take your pick.) I remember introducing new players way back in the late 70's and 80's and HP were always one of those things that gave people trouble (not nearly so much as spell _memorization_, but I'll not digress). It took a lot of convincing, and then people would eventually let it ride. Let it ride long enough and you stop paying attention to how its not really working very well from a fiction/narrative perspective, because its working so well from a game perspective. Nowadays the resistance isn't there, I believe its because so many people have played computer rpgs and already "get it".

And, for a long time, I thought, there's just no other way that makes practical sense at the table. Then I played a few other games...precursors to Fate,  later some Apocalypse world games. And I found out that, in fact, that isn't the case. There are relatively simple systems (sometimes even simpler than the accounting for HP) that make more narrative sense at the table. Since then, HP increasingly grate on me. Its difficult to go through D&D without seeing everyone with little color-changing bars over their heads.



Saelorn said:


> If you have 40hp, and the giant drives its maul into your chest and you can hear ribs cracking, then why does it hurt for the DM to tell you that it was 36 damage?




In specific, it doesn't. But both of them together make for trouble. If you tell me my ribs are cracked...or any other description of injury, then the injury should have an impact. Cracked ribs, broken arm, etc. all should have different impact on the fiction, or why bother describing them? The HP mechanic basically forces _all_ injuries to be a collection of minor scrapes and bruises up until the point of the _last HP. Which... is weird. It kinda makes the D&D world (well, and most of the rest of them, too) into a Disney version of fantasy.

Maybe it would help to ask it in reverse? You just lost 36/40 HP. What is okay for the DM to describe? Could you be knocked back against a wall? Could you lose a limb? (For a game with so much swordfighting, there is a remarkable lack of amputation.)  Could your leg be crushed and useless? Could you have "rolled with it" and sustained a small injury but used up all your luck, skill (not sure how that gets used up), and Divine Favor for today? (And if so, how does the DM narrate that in a way that is character-facing?) Could you be temporarily blinded by dust, blood, etc.? By rule, you don't lose any movement, so your leg is probably okay. You don't lose your shield, or offhand weapon so, the arm is okay, too. Depending on the edition, getting knocked back might be okay as simple narrative flavor, or it might step on the toes of powers and feats, etc. So, basically, all injury except the last is cosmetic.

Now, somebody earlier said something like "Wounds don't disappear in my game without magic!" And that's a common sentiment from Old-schoolers. However, I deny it. You tell me on the one hand that I have just had my ribs broken, but I really don't have any reason to believe you or care. So what happened? Where is the injury?

Now, that doesn't mean that I want total simulationism. It means that I want narrative to matter. If I have shrugged it off, then let's know that I shrugged off the blow. If I haven't, then let's know that, too. And the problem gets worse when we consider things like Healing Magic (even old school), poison, spells, falling, etc. All of these things have ways of making narrative nonsense out of HP, or creating it in conjunction with them.



Saelorn said:



			Or to the next point, if you know that you have 40hp, why can't you infer how badly you are hurt in the narrative, based on the damage number?
		
Click to expand...



Because HP don't tell you how badly you are hurt, they only tell you how close you are to dying. Which, sounds odd, I know. But remember all that Divine favor stuff? They are a clock or countdown timer, more than an indicator of condition. 

I mean, maybe I got "broken" again by playing other systems, but that's the way I see it. I hope that helps clarify my experience and position._


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> You didn't.  Not really.  Those titles were for the player to have fun with.  That's why, if you read the DMG, 9th level fighters are not really lords.  They have no noble status unless born with it, in which case they were a lord from level 1, regardless of "class title."  People didn't play the game and have their character walk up and say, "Hey, I'm Poopy Thunderpants the Superhero.  Pleased to meet you."




Well thats what the rules said but I am sure you did not have to follow every rule.



> And I bet that I can find people with better titles that aren't as skilled or knowledgeable as others lower down the title totem pole.
> 
> And yet you will still find the above in the medical profession.  Rank =/= equal skill.




Yes and I bet that I can find a 5th level Wizard who can not cast Fireball.  Same level titled people can have different skills.


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> If you don't care about metagaming though then that doesn't matter to you anyway right?  I do think the mechanics of multiclassing planning can be metagaming.  Even choosing a feat can be metagame in the fact it is happening in an instant when the reality is it would have been chosen as you lived out your life.  All these things though do happen during down time or not at all.  Not everyone plans out their character in advance.  During game play, these issues don't come into play.




I love the metagame and on the other hand in ADnD the rules for multiclassing just dont even make a lick of sense.

and dont even get me started about being locked into planning out every character in advance from level 1. :shake fist:


----------



## Ted Serious

Emerikol said:


> You are going hard core on this.  First if Second Wind is anything remotely like real second winds, you don't activate them so they are metagame.  If they are some power, that humans in the D&D world have but humans in the real world don't have then they should have mentioned that.  I prefer to start with baseline humans.
> 
> No you just don't know what metagaming is and you are starting to embarass yourself by using examples that completely don't fit the concept.  It's the people who don't undestand that keep claiming it's just a preference for old mechanics.  If it was just a preference for old mechanics then I'd be happy with all of them and be playing 1e right now.  I don't like THAC0.  I like feats better than random class powers.  I like lots of new mechanics some of which run counter to old school gaming.  I don't like metagame mechanics though.  So it's far more than just a preference for old mechanics.
> 
> You should really try harder to understand the concept.   Let me help you again.
> 
> 1. It is making decisions that cause things to happen in game that only the player knows about and the character could not know about.
> 2. It is not abstract concepts like HP/AC which are in game concepts.  How close to death am I?  How good an I at avoiding getting hit?  They are abstractions.  Abstractions may not be realistic (these aren't) but they are not metagame.  The character knows about them.
> 3. It is the character who should be making decisions for that character as that character.  When you as the player are truly being that character then make decisions.  When you are not being that character do not.
> 4. Magical/Psionic constructs are, at least in D&D, a part of the game world.  It's like you say warp drive is metagame because it doesn't exist in the real world.  Wrong!  It is not metagame.  It is not realistic by what we know today.  It is not metagame.  The crew of the Starship Enterprise know all about warp drive.  It's a real thing in their universe.




Your odd numbered points seem like conventional explanations of metagaming.

You say you don't like metagaming and want to discuss eliminating it from 5e.

The even numbered points sound like special pleading to exempt any metagaming you do like.

That makes it very hard to discuss solutions, since we have no way of knowing what might or might not be acceptable.

Now your old friend Elfcrusher has let us know this is a crusade you have been on for years.   Older than 5e. 
Older than Pathfinder. 
Older  than  4e that set so many people off.

You had a problem with whirlwind attack?
 In 3.0?

I do not understand.  It's like you've defined and analyzed yourself down a rabbit hole.  Do you even remember why started you digging it?

Whatever it is, it sounds like you've been doing fine with it for longer than I've been gaming.  Or without it.  I can't tell for sure.
I can't help you.  

And, I see nothing to be gained by chasing down the same or similar rabbitholes opening up in this thread.

You all have fun exploring them, though.  Say hi to Bugs or the White Rabbit for me if you bump into them down there.

 I just can't take this seriously anymore.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> But they are not.  If a world existed with magic.  The second you could cast a second level spell you would know you'd reach a new level of experience.  You can do things you couldn't do before.  Getting that second second level spell might be viewed as a more gradual advance but all these things are really happening in game.  For a wizard it's likely something they would all know very well.  In my one campaign, I'd say things like "such and such wizard is known to have cast a spell that is on the seventh scroll".  My characters then could surmise he can cast seventh level spells.  Wizards would know these spells are harder than these other ones.




But what makes that more likely than there being 3 levels?  Low level, which begins with level 1 spells, hits level 2 spells midway, and ends with level 3 spells.  Mid level, which is levels 4-6, and high level, which would be 7-9.  Or some other method of tracking than 1 new level every time you get more spells?  

That's my point.  Level as listed in the PHB is for the players only.  Characters are not privy to that information, so if they refer to it, metagaming is happening.



> For the fighter it is a bit harder conceptually but you really could measure it in world if you really wanted to do that.  For example as a fighter you can now hit 5% better than you did.  So while sparring you suddenly are able to land blows on enemies a little better.



That would be hard to track, though.  You are only landing an additional one hit for every 20 swings on average, but since probability isn't nice and neat,  you really can't know if you are doing better because of random luck, or because you got better.  You might even do worse when testing to see if you got better.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> Well suppose your score total is 60 which would be an average of 10.  Suppose the guy who rolled the best had 84 which is an average of 14.
> 
> So the lower player would get 24 points.  With these points he would then be able to purchase special advantages which have costs.  Gurps has an advantage system but D&D does not so you'd have to invent one.  In D&D it could be an extra feat for every two points.  I'd prefer a better list than the feats though.  I'd have a specific advantages list that you'd take as if you had these advantage since birth.
> 
> Here are some examples.
> 
> Eidactic Memory - you remember everything you see or hear.
> Fast Healing - maybe you get an extra HD or two.
> Hard to Kill - you get favorable rolls when checking for death, etc..
> Psionic power - you get a standalone psionic power of some sort like telepathy.
> 
> Again, I having used this approach.  I just thought it would be a neat idea.  So if I were going to use it I'd need to develop a good advantages list.  You'd assign a point value to each of the advantages and then the PC would "spend" their points.
> 
> This then makes rolling low kinda good in a way.  It makes all sorts of characters possible.




Huh!  See, I totally got that wrong.  I didn't realize you were talking about total score and thought it was in reference to the individual stat rolls. 

You'd have to be careful with those advantages, though.  I could see the potential for players to be shouting, "C'mon 8!  Gimme an 8!", rather than 18 like I usually hear.


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> Well thats what the rules said but I am sure you did not have to follow every rule.




The rules didn't say anything about them.  They only listed them after levels, and mentioned them a few times with regard to the "name levels."  Nothing was said that I ever saw about how to use them.



> Yes and I bet that I can find a 5th level Wizard who can not cast Fireball.  Same level titled people can have different skills.




False Equivalence.  You know very well I'm talking about people who are not only not as good, but are significantly worse.  How many sons of owners got positions as CEO or some other chief and wasn't half as good as some managers or directors?  The answer is lots.  Titles are almost meaningless to tell just how skilled someone is at a job.


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> That's my point.  Level as listed in the PHB is for the players only.  Characters are not privy to that information, so if they refer to it, metagaming is happening.




It is not an absolute.  Obviously if level is completely unknown in your world as a concept then it is metagame.  In my games it is known.  I may use different terms but that knowledge is in game knowledge.  So characters know level.  So in my games thinking about levels isn't metagame.  You find that unrealistic and I don't.  Since I could absolutely determine level from knowledge that I absolutely have in game, I don't find it incredible that it hasn't been figured out.  

I readily admit that any metagame mechanic can be made whole by turning them into magic.  My willingness to turn something into magic varies.  I generally want my martials to be non-magical innately though they can use magic items all they want.  On that point YMMV.


----------



## Emerikol

So let me try to give a more precise definition....

When a player decides something for his character that his character could not know about because it is not an in world concept, it is a metagame mechanic.  When the player does it during the play session while the character is in action, then it creates dissonance for some people.

In a D&D style sword and sorcery game, I expect the martial characters such as fighter and rogue to have no innate magical abilities.  Beyond those two characters I really don't care because I probably wouldn't see the others get played anyway.  So in D&D, I don't want fighters/rogues with powers they choose to use when they like that recharge.  Without magic, those types of decisions have to be metagame decisions.  

Abstractions that convey information rapidly from DM to player and back are not metagame if they have a real world analog.  Hit points in D&D reflect your distance from death.  In my campaigns, my PCs know that fact.  It may be totally unrealistic but it is not metagame if the characters have that knowledge.  The same for AC and Attributes.  It's numerical quantization of data that is known by the characters.

I readily admit that other games with other flavors may take a looser stance on what is the reality of the world and who has magic.  So what would be metagame in those styles of games would vary.  

None of the above is what this thread is about.  This thread is about coming up with ideas for dealing with the issue for people who care about the issue.  If you don't care or can't wrap your head around the problem to even provide constructive feedback then why are you here?  You just want to attack anyone who tries to understand their own preferences in gaming and try to claim that any "systemic" way of thinking they may profess is an illusion?  I think at this trollishness needs to stop.

If you don't believe my preferences can be systematized then just leave.  I am certain you can't contribute to the discussion productively.


----------



## Emerikol

Shasarak said:


> I love the metagame and on the other hand in ADnD the rules for multiclassing just dont even make a lick of sense.
> 
> and dont even get me started about being locked into planning out every character in advance from level 1. :shake fist:




Really?  I thought 1e made a lot more sense than 3e.  In 1e, you are for all intents and purposes inventing a new class.  You are not a fighter or a magic user.  You are a fighter/magic-user.  You are advancing both capabilities at the exact same time.  You are using them both at the same time.   Dual classing made no sense to me but multiclassing made a lot of sense.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Ratskinner said:


> Now, that doesn't mean that I want total simulationism. It means that I want narrative to matter.



What 'matters' in a game is very much an issue of preference and perception. A lot of people seem to want the narrative of injury to matter elsewhere within the mechanics, to make it harder for someone to jump or swing a sword or whatever.

Personally, I see the narration as the goal, rather than the process. Basically, the whole point of game mechanics (to me) is to translate a world into a mathematical language, so it can be easily manipulated, and then translated back into narrative. If the end result of combat is that you have a fractured sternum, then I'm fine with that as the end of the narrative (until it's healed). If having a fractured sternum doesn't affect your ability to jump, then that seems like a reasonable compromise in a system that measures the entire range of human strength on a scale from 4 to 20. You don't need that level of detailed interaction, if the thing that matters is just how you narrate it.


Ratskinner said:


> Because HP don't tell you how badly you are hurt, they only tell you how close you are to dying. Which, sounds odd, I know. But remember all that Divine favor stuff? They are a clock or countdown timer, more than an indicator of condition.



You could certainly run it that way, if you wanted to, but there are drawbacks associated with that model. The question of how any character would know how far their cosmic clock has counted down, and therefore which grade of healing potion to drink, is an important one. I don't know that it's possible to solve that problem, short of giving characters an in-game doom-meter that they can use to see how close to death they are.

If you instead use HP damage as a measure of how beaten up someone is, then that problem is solved, because it's something that every character can observe.


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> The HP mechanic basically forces _all_ injuries to be a collection of minor scrapes and bruises up until the point of the _last HP. Which... is weird. It kinda makes the D&D world (well, and most of the rest of them, too) into a Disney version of fantasy._



_Or JRRT, who is about as sentimental as Disney.

I think one solution to this is one that Gygax at least gestures towards in his DMG: narrate it one way (Disney-esque) for PCs, but otherwise for monsters and NPCs who won't be coming back.

You probably won't be surprised that I regard 4e as the most coherent presentation of hp-as-sentimentality-towards-the-heroes: that's why they can be roused by a reassuring word from a charismatic friend!_


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Maxperson said:


> But what makes that more likely than there being 3 levels?  Low level, which begins with level 1 spells, hits level 2 spells midway, and ends with level 3 spells.  Mid level, which is levels 4-6, and high level, which would be 7-9.  Or some other method of tracking than 1 new level every time you get more spells?



There are wizards within the game world who can cast spells that we (out of game) would label as first level, but cannot cast spells that we would call second level. There are wizards in the game world who can cast spells that we would call first level or second level, but cannot cast spells that we could call third level. And so on, all the way up to wizards who can cast spells that we would call first-through-eighth level, but cannot cast spells that we would call ninth level. There are nine distinct plateaus, where some wizards can cast spells of this complexity and every lower complexity, and others cannot (or ten plateaus, if you assume that apprentices can only cast cantrips).

Wizards know that there are not just three levels of spells, because _they_ can observe a wizard who can learn Magic Missile but cannot learn Levitate or Fireball. If there were only three levels of spells, as you describe, then anyone who could learn Magic Missile would also be capable of learning Levitate and Fireball. Therefore, they would be aware that those are three distinct levels of power, if they're paying attention - which they probably are, because they're wizards, and they study magic professionally.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Yes, the fighter would feel himself get the second wind.  The fighter would not have control over when that happens.



Why not? An AD&D monk can control when s/he goes into a cataleptic trance that feigns death, ro when s/he recovers lost hit points by way of self-healing. A 3E or 5e barbarian can control when s/he gets really angry. Why can't a 5e fighter control when s/he gets his/her second wind?



Emerikol said:


> I readily admit that any metagame mechanic can be made whole by turning them into magic.





Emerikol said:


> First if Second Wind is anything remotely like real second winds, you don't activate them so they are metagame.  If they are some power, that humans in the D&D world have but humans in the real world don't have then they should have mentioned that.  I prefer to start with baseline humans.





Emerikol said:


> I am happy enough with a moderately unrealistic system like hit points for a high fantasy super heroic game. I might also enjoy a less super heroic game. In such cases maybe WOIN or GURPS or even RQ would work.  This is a totally different axis from metagame.



I think there is some tension here. You don't seem to regard "moderately unrealistic" hit points as magic, yet you deny they're metagame. I don't understand on what basis you are insisting that second wind must be something different.



Emerikol said:


> In my one campaign, I'd say things like "such and such wizard is known to have cast a spell that is on the seventh scroll".  My characters then could surmise he can cast seventh level spells.



I think you mean "players" in that last sentence - the character isn't surmising anything beyond what s/he already knows, that the NPC in question can cast spells on the seventh scroll.



Emerikol said:


> If a world existed with magic. The second you could cast a second level spell you would know you'd reach a new level of experience. You can do things you couldn't do before. Getting that second second level spell might be viewed as a more gradual advance but all these things are really happening in game.





Maxperson said:


> There are no in game class levels to correlate it with.  The gradual increase which you just described, and I described to you in my post, could just as easily happen without any levels at all as far as the wizard in the game world is concerned.





Maxperson said:


> But what makes that more likely than there being 3 levels?  Low level, which begins with level 1 spells, hits level 2 spells midway, and ends with level 3 spells.  Mid level, which is levels 4-6, and high level, which would be 7-9.  Or some other method of tracking than 1 new level every time you get more spells?



On this point I think that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] is obviously right. Why would anyone use a grading system that can't distinguish between the character who can cast only Magic Missile, and the character who can cast Fireball? Especially when the ranking of capabilities is a repeated and rigid phenomenon across all the wizards in the land?

As soon as you treat spell levels and slots as real, ingame phenomena, then the wizards in their schools will be able to establish a ranking system that every wizard (at least until 9th level) sits within, and that correlates exactly to the levels set out in the PHB.



Emerikol said:


> They are abstract concepts but they are not metagame.  For one they don't really come into play during game time but that is an aside.  A player doesn't know about levels per se but he knows how good a fighter he is relative to others around him.  I agree x.p. is unrealistic or metagame and in this case I side with metagame in my campaign because x.p. is never a concept discussed in game.



How do you handle wights, wraiths and other level-draining undead, then? Or magic item creation in 3E?



Emerikol said:


> I think you are wrong here.  This is just character skill.  Your character knows his spells and their capabilities.  He knows their relative power.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I love preparation of spells because I want to reward good preparation.  Choosing the right equipment is another form of preparation because I don't allow the PCs to pack everything under the sun.  Right?  My players pack all sorts of things especially at lower levels to give them an edge in the dungeon.  Chalk, string, a candle, oil, iron spikes, etc... If they don't pack it they don't have it.  The wizard is figuring out his spells.





Maxperson said:


> There's no metagame involved with picking generally good spells.  The wizard knows which spells are generally good.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A PC wizard who knows that certain spells are very good in a general way and selects those, is not acting on any knowledge it does not possess, so no metagaming is happening.



Following [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s reasoning, choosing equipment in D&D also has a strong metagame aspect to it: iron spikes, 10' poles, Find Traps, etc - the logic of all these is established by the D&D dungeoneering framework. Again, layering a veneer of infiction rationale over this doesn't change the underlying logic.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Why not? An AD&D monk can control when s/he goes into a cataleptic trance that feigns death, ro when s/he recovers lost hit points by way of self-healing. A 3E or 5e barbarian can control when s/he gets really angry. Why can't a 5e fighter control when s/he gets his/her second wind?



I considered it magic.  Chi or Ki or whatever.  I never had a Barbarian ever and one monk.  We really do tend for the big four with paladin popular.



pemerton said:


> I think there is some tension here. You don't seem to regard "moderately unrealistic" hit points as magic, yet you deny they're metagame. I don't understand on what basis you are insisting that second wind must be something different.



It's a good question.  Second wind is an action you take as a character.  Hit points are an abstract way of conveying information.  I accept abstractions as a means of conveying complex ideas.  Face it, well being or closeness to death would be hard to describe without some abstract representation.   Whereas, second wind is for all intents a power.  The player is choose for the character and having his second wind kick in.  The character never chose.  



pemerton said:


> I think you mean "players" in that last sentence - the character isn't surmising anything beyond what s/he already knows, that the NPC in question can cast spells on the seventh scroll.



Yes but level is another one of those abstract concepts.  When I know a someone can cast spells on the seventh scroll, I know something about them power wise as well.  The more powerful a wizard the higher the scroll he can cast from.  I may flavor up all this with different words but if I just said level it wouldn't be that draconian.  For me it is very much in game knowledge.



pemerton said:


> On this point I think that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] is obviously right. Why would anyone use a grading system that can't distinguish between the character who can cast only Magic Missile, and the character who can cast Fireball? Especially when the ranking of capabilities is a repeated and rigid phenomenon across all the wizards in the land?



This kind of supports my point above as well.  




pemerton said:


> As soon as you treat spell levels and slots as real, ingame phenomena, then the wizards in their schools will be able to establish a ranking system that every wizard (at least until 9th level) sits within, and that correlates exactly to the levels set out in the PHB.






pemerton said:


> How do you handle wights, wraiths and other level-draining undead, then? Or magic item creation in 3E?



I handle it by level loss not x.p. loss.  So a character hit by undead feels a definite weakening.  He can no longer do what he could do before.  It is likely shocking the first time it happens.  But I play it straight up that way.



pemerton said:


> Following [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s reasoning, choosing equipment in D&D also has a strong metagame aspect to it: iron spikes, 10' poles, Find Traps, etc - the logic of all these is established by the D&D dungeoneering framework. Again, layering a veneer of infiction rationale over this doesn't change the underlying logic.




I don't agree.  If a world is filled with dungeons for whatever reason, then all those things make sense.  Adventurers would adapt to the world as it is.  A D&D world is filled with dungeons (or many are).  

A lot of the conflict over this stuff is how we played 1e.  I played it straight in a way where almost everything was in world knowledge and the game worked.  I think Gygax designed it that way intentionally.  It by no means required you to view it that way though.  That was the beauty of his system.  It was flexible enough to bear multiple interpretations.   We lost that in recent editions.


----------



## Ratskinner

Saelorn said:


> What 'matters' in a game is very much an issue of preference and perception. A lot of people seem to want the narrative of injury to matter elsewhere within the mechanics, to make it harder for someone to jump or swing a sword or whatever.




Oh I agree that what matter is subjective. I'm just trying to answer your question about why I find HP bothersome.



Saelorn said:


> Personally, I see the narration as the goal, rather than the process. Basically, the whole point of game mechanics (to me) is to translate a world into a mathematical language, so it can be easily manipulated, and then translated back into narrative.




I get that. I've played/run a lot of oddball games, and that has lost a lot of shine for me because:

a) Whatever "mathematical" language you use will inevitably create a pseudo-physics model for that universe. (HP are an example of a bad version of this for me.)
b) I've regularly found that, for my purposes, traditional rpg models are often more headache than they are worth.



Saelorn said:


> You could certainly run it that way, if you wanted to, but there are drawbacks associated with that model. The question of how any character would know how far their cosmic clock has counted down, and therefore which grade of healing potion to drink, is an important one. I don't know that it's possible to solve that problem, short of giving characters an in-game doom-meter that they can use to see how close to death they are.
> 
> If you instead use HP damage as a measure of how beaten up someone is, then that problem is solved, because it's something that every character can observe.




For me its not "run it that way" its "thats how it runs". Your last sentence makes no sense to my experience because the character is in no observable/measurable way "beaten up", but they do have an observable/measurable "doom clock". This whole conversation started as a response to the idea that players shouldn't use "metagame" information/mechanics to inform their decisions. Well, If HP loss has no implications for the character's physical performance...then it can't be having physical effects that the character can notice, can it? The "injuries" exist solely on the meta-level of that "doom-meter". So, effectively, for me, everyone in a D&D world is wallking around with a little bar floating over their heads, which gets shorter the more you attack them. Its why HP are "metagame" mechanic.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> So let me try to give a more precise definition....
> 
> When a player decides something for his character that his character could not know about because it is not an in world concept, it is a metagame mechanic.  When the player does it during the play session while the character is in action, then it creates dissonance for some people.




The definition that I've seen used pretty reliably is not a player deciding something for his character that the character could not know about because it is not an in world concept.  The definition is when a player decides something for his character that the character does not know.  For example, a PC who has never heard of vampires preparing a stake to stab it in the heart, trying push it into the sun, or drown it in running water.  That's metagaming, regardless of the fact that those things are in world concepts.


----------



## Maxperson

Saelorn said:


> There are wizards within the game world who can cast spells that we (out of game) would label as first level, but cannot cast spells that we would call second level. There are wizards in the game world who can cast spells that we would call first level or second level, but cannot cast spells that we could call third level. And so on, all the way up to wizards who can cast spells that we would call first-through-eighth level, but cannot cast spells that we would call ninth level. There are nine distinct plateaus, where some wizards can cast spells of this complexity and every lower complexity, and others cannot (or ten plateaus, if you assume that apprentices can only cast cantrips).
> 
> Wizards know that there are not just three levels of spells, because _they_ can observe a wizard who can learn Magic Missile but cannot learn Levitate or Fireball. If there were only three levels of spells, as you describe, then anyone who could learn Magic Missile would also be capable of learning Levitate and Fireball. Therefore, they would be aware that those are three distinct levels of power, if they're paying attention - which they probably are, because they're wizards, and they study magic professionally.




If that's your response to me, then you clearly did not understand what I was saying.  What I said takes that all into consideration.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Why not? An AD&D monk can control when s/he goes into a cataleptic trance that feigns death, ro when s/he recovers lost hit points by way of self-healing. A 3E or 5e barbarian can control when s/he gets really angry. Why can't a 5e fighter control when s/he gets his/her second wind?




For the same reason a PC can't control when he has to go to the bathroom.  Some things are not controllable.  A second wind comes to a person unbidden.  It just happens without the person causing it to be.  That's different than psyching yourself into being upset, or training yourself to slow down your heart rate.


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> The rules didn't say anything about them.  They only listed them after levels, and mentioned them a few times with regard to the "name levels."  Nothing was said that I ever saw about how to use them.
> 
> 
> 
> False Equivalence.  You know very well I'm talking about people who are not only not as good, but are significantly worse.  How many sons of owners got positions as CEO or some other chief and wasn't half as good as some managers or directors?  The answer is lots.  Titles are almost meaningless to tell just how skilled someone is at a job.




Of course it is a false equivalence, no Doctors can cast spells!  And although your dad can make you CEO of his company he cant get you that Doctorate qualification that you wanted, only an honourary one.


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> Really?  I thought 1e made a lot more sense than 3e.  In 1e, you are for all intents and purposes inventing a new class.  You are not a fighter or a magic user.  You are a fighter/magic-user.  You are advancing both capabilities at the exact same time.  You are using them both at the same time.   Dual classing made no sense to me but multiclassing made a lot of sense.




Well ADnD locked you into a fixed class progression which you said that you did not like.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Why not? An AD&D monk can control when s/he goes into a cataleptic trance that feigns death, ro when s/he recovers lost hit points by way of self-healing.



Both of these take some time and concentration, I think.  I haven't looked at 1e RAW for Monks in forever but I think the self-heal in particular takes a bit of time and isn't something done under duress.



> A 3E or 5e barbarian can control when s/he gets really angry.



I'm not a huge fan of this, personally.  I'd rather see it that if the Barb takes any damage there's a risk she rages then and there, and if she goes below half h.p. it's automatic rage if she hasn't already gone off; but she can only rage a couple of times per day (at least an hour apart) in total because it's just too exhausting, and then can't rage again until she's had a good long overnight sleep.



> Why can't a 5e fighter control when s/he gets his/her second wind?



 ::shrug:: 

Second wind isn't a mechanic I'd ever use anyway.



> On this point I think that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] is obviously right. Why would anyone use a grading system that can't distinguish between the character who can cast only Magic Missile, and the character who can cast Fireball? Especially when the ranking of capabilities is a repeated and rigid phenomenon across all the wizards in the land?
> 
> As soon as you treat spell levels and slots as real, ingame phenomena, then the wizards in their schools will be able to establish a ranking system that every wizard (at least until 9th level) sits within, and that correlates exactly to the levels set out in the PHB.



Agreed.  Same goes for Clerics, Bards and Monks...and maybe Rangers and Paladins too, once they get to high enough level to start casting spells.



> How do you handle wights, wraiths and other level-draining undead, then?



If one kind of sees xp as a form of memory, where you've taken in and processed your lived experiences into learning and knowledge and skill, then a level drain can be seen and even narrated as a memory-weakening or memory-loss effect; with the loss of knowledge and skills a direct corollary effect of this.

It's not the best rationalization, perhaps, but it's a try. 



> Or magic item creation in 3E?



Dumb mechanic, that, as written.  I'd handle it by changing it.  A lot.



> Following [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s reasoning, choosing equipment in D&D also has a strong metagame aspect to it: iron spikes, 10' poles, Find Traps, etc - the logic of all these is established by the D&D dungeoneering framework. Again, layering a veneer of infiction rationale over this doesn't change the underlying logic.



I think this is a bit harsh.

There's two ways a neophyte adventurer or party can learn these sort of things in character:

1. Spend an afternoon in the local pub with someone who's done some adventuring and get some tips and pointers.
2. Trial and error.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Ratskinner said:


> For me its not "run it that way" its "thats how it runs". Your last sentence makes no sense to my experience because the character is in no observable/measurable way "beaten up", but they do have an observable/measurable "doom clock". This whole conversation started as a response to the idea that players shouldn't use "metagame" information/mechanics to inform their decisions. Well, If HP loss has no implications for the character's physical performance...then it can't be having physical effects that the character can notice, can it? The "injuries" exist solely on the meta-level of that "doom-meter". So, effectively, for me, everyone in a D&D world is wallking around with a little bar floating over their heads, which gets shorter the more you attack them. Its why HP are "metagame" mechanic.



There's all kinds of minor injuries one can sustain without significantly affecting one's ability to do whatever.  Scratches, bruises, minor cuts, a tooth knocked out: these are the clues that tell the other PCs (and the party healer, one hopes!) that you're getting kicked around a bit and could use some patching up, even as you keep on fighting.

D&D as written certainly does need a *lot* more space between fully functional (1 h.p.) and unconscious/dead (0 h.p.), I won't argue that for a second.  

In our games we've waved at this a bit - you die at -10 but if you're at or below 0 your abilities are impaired and you risk falling unconscious; we also added "body points" of which most PCs have between about 2 to 5, locked in during char-gen and never* changing; these sit under your "fatigue points" (i.e. the h.p. you roll as normal) and are much harder to cure or rest up. (any points below 0 are also considered bodies for purposes of curing etc.)

* - unless something permanently damaging happens e.g. you lose a limb.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> For the same reason a PC can't control when he has to go to the bathroom.  Some things are not controllable.  A second wind comes to a person unbidden.  It just happens without the person causing it to be.  That's different than psyching yourself into being upset, or training yourself to slow down your heart rate.



This is all just assertion. Even the bit about not being able to control when you urinate.


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> If HP loss has no implications for the character's physical performance...then it can't be having physical effects that the character can notice, can it? The "injuries" exist solely on the meta-level of that "doom-meter". So, effectively, for me, everyone in a D&D world is wallking around with a little bar floating over their heads, which gets shorter the more you attack them. Its why HP are "metagame" mechanic.





Lanefan said:


> There's all kinds of minor injuries one can sustain without significantly affecting one's ability to do whatever.  Scratches, bruises, minor cuts, a tooth knocked out: these are the clues that tell the other PCs (and the party healer, one hopes!) that you're getting kicked around a bit and could use some patching up, even as you keep on fighting.



But why do you need "patching up", if they're not being impeded in their performance?

In my experience, the actual _play_ of hit points and healing is all about making sure no one drops below zero; but how do the PCs know that any given PC is close to dying, if all they can see as some random assortment of minor wounds?

To give a concrete example. A PC has 30 hp. Scenario 1: s/he takes four 7-hp wounds from orcs, and has 2 hp left. Scenario 2: s/he takes 28 hp from a fireball and has 2 hp left. The former has 4 minor, non-debilitating injuries. The latter has 1 of these. But both need the same amount of healing and are equally close to death. How do the PCs know all this?


----------



## Manbearcat

Emerikol said:


> I'm not sure but at low levels probably not a lot but at higher levels it would keep you more cautious.  I'm guessing.  Assuming various powers that attack Harm 3 or Harm 4 come into play more at high levels, and the boxes don't change, then of course the threat of death would be high at any level.  Perhaps unmanageably high but again I'd have to see an entire system to know for sure.
> 
> I am happy enough with a moderately unrealistic system like hit points for a high fantasy super heroic game.  I might also enjoy a less super heroic game.  In such cases maybe WOIN or GURPS or even RQ would work.  This is a totally different axis from metagame.  I wouldn't want a metagame mechanic in any of those games if I had a choice.  I think I could enjoy any of those games otherwise but I'd still favor the high fantasy game of D&D style the most.




 [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] (and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and perhaps [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] ), you (and Lanefan) answered my question with a response about the implications on the gameplay paradigm; eg “it would make it more lethal.”

This thread is about “metagame mechanics” and players making decisions based exclusively on (what you perceive as) observable phenomenon (biological, physical) from the character’s perspective.

I’m looking for your response in relation to that. So let me go a bit further and perhaps you can comment on this.

A 10th level Fighter is challenging a trio of Stone Giants on the edge of their plateau which sits 70 feet above the ground.

Situation 1:  

a) He has 100 HPs and the only chance the fall has to kill him is if he’s been significantly worn down in combat by interaction with the Stone Giants and their clubs (that are as big and weighty as him) and thrown boulders.

b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Cheieftan; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size. However, because of his HP pool relative to their attacks, he knows (for sure) it will take a large number of interactions with these mighty creatures before he is then under immediate threat of death and he’ll never be under threat of a collapsed lung, a crushed pelvis, or even a concussion.

Situation 2:

a) A fall from that height is almost surely going to kill him (Harm 4) unless his God spares him (a difficult chance for a Saving Throw). Even then, he’s going to come away from the fall with something grave that will stick with him for a long while (at best a couple of broken ribs and a concussion; both Harm 2 boxes filled which will cause x and y mechanical interactions for z duration of care/recovery).

b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Cheieftan; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size.  He’s certain that his heavy armor will deflect the worst of it for an impact or two (say Heavy Armor can reduce Harm from those blows by 2 until it becomes useless), but after that, he can rely solely on his training, footwork, guile, grit, and the favor of the gods so that he doesn’t become pasted (Saving Throw vs Harm 2 for every attack, success outright mitigating it and a few times per combat he can knock Harm down one step due to his prowess).


I’m looking for a response about the juxtaposition of the above two paradigms that engages with the thread topic.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> I’m looking for a response about the juxtaposition of the above two paradigms that engages with the thread topic.



It's an interesting juxtaposition.

Obviously 4e, BW and Cortex+ Heroic (the three systems I work with at the moment) handle this very differently. 4e is closest to your (1), BW to your (2). Cortex+ Heroic is intermediate.


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> Of course it is a false equivalence, no Doctors can cast spells!  And although your dad can make you CEO of his company he cant get you that Doctorate qualification that you wanted, only an honourary one.




Okay.  I'm done.   You've dodged my argument sufficiently to show people that you know I am correct here.  Peace!


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is all just assertion. Even the bit about not being able to control when you urinate.




Strawman.  I didn't say you couldn't control when you go, only that you can't control when you have to go.  The urge strikes when the urge strikes and you can only hold it or go.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Strawman.  I didn't say you couldn't control when you go, only that you can't control when you have to go.  The urge strikes when the urge strikes and you can only hold it or go.



And if you can control when you rage, why can't you control when you summon upon your reserves for a Second Wind? This mechanic reminds me of athletes who pace themselves and who know that they have reserves that they can draw upon for bursts of short-term energy.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> And if you can control when you rage, why can't you control when you summon upon your reserves for a Second Wind? This mechanic reminds me of athletes who pace themselves and who know that they have reserves that they can draw upon for bursts of short-term energy.




Those runners aren't engaging second wind when they do that.  They have paced themselves and have not exhausted themselves to the point where second wind kicks in.  That pacing leaves them a reserve to call on when they need it.  They aren't getting renewed energy(the definition of second wind), they are engaging energy that is still there from their pacing.

If second wind is like an athlete pacing himself, then they should have named it something else.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> *Those runners aren't engaging second wind when they do that. * They have paced themselves and have not exhausted themselves to the point where second wind kicks in.  That pacing leaves them a reserve to call on when they need it.  They aren't getting renewed energy(the definition of second wind), they are engaging energy that is still there from their pacing.
> 
> If second wind is like an athlete pacing himself, then they should have named it something else.



As it turns out, such pacing is called getting your "second wind."


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> As it turns out, such pacing is called getting your "second wind."




And it also appears that they don't do it on purpose.  It just happens.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> And it also appears that they don't do it on purpose.  It just happens.



Just like raging.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Just like raging.




Depends.  Sometimes rages are triggered by something happening to you.  Sometimes, though, you can psych yourself into a rage.  It generally takes longer than 6 seconds, though.


----------



## Emerikol

Shasarak said:


> Well ADnD locked you into a fixed class progression which you said that you did not like.




Maybe you misunderstood. I do prefer a system mechanism for powers like the feat concept.  I am only talking about the multiclassing in 1e.  The idea you advance every class you multiclass at the same time and the same rate xp wise.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> This thread is about “metagame mechanics” and players making decisions based exclusively on (what you perceive as) observable phenomenon (biological, physical) from the character’s perspective.
> 
> I’m looking for your response in relation to that. So let me go a bit further and perhaps you can comment on this.
> 
> A 10th level Fighter is challenging a trio of Stone Giants on the edge of their plateau which sits 70 feet above the ground.
> 
> Situation 1:
> <snip: D&D style example>
> 
> Situation 2:
> <snip: More deadly system>
> 
> I’m looking for a response about the juxtaposition of the above two paradigms that engages with the thread topic.




I know falling damage is unrealistic and can lead to metagame decisions.  It's why everyone coming and going has always houseruled falling.  So we can all agree that falling isn't handled well in D&D.   But that is a corner case and a houserule can fix it.

For the combat example, in a super heroic game the fighter really does believe that the Stone giants will not land a significant blow on him.  He may fear getting worn down over time but he believes his skill will enable him to fend off the giants.  It's as simple as that.  High hit points is skill at turning serious wounds into far less serious wounds.  The fighter knows that.  Is it realistic?  No.  It is high heroic fantasy.  But it is in game knowledge.  The fighter knows he is a mighty warrior and can handle combat with these giants for a while.  

You have to set the paradigms of your campaign and the level of realism.  The level of realism though has little to do with whether it is metagame or not.  It's a lot more about what you define as the world view of your game.  I try to have a cinematic heroic view which I believe is where D&D is at.  I could definitely enjoy a more realistic game but probably would prefer a different genre.  I am currently working on a WOIN N.E.W. campaign set in the far future.  So that game I am happy to have it be a bit less high fantasy.


----------



## Emerikol

Personally Barbarian rage seems metagame to me for many of the reasons given.  Maybe it's just the name they gave it not indicating what is really happening.  I know barbarian armies did work themselves up but again not in six seconds and not when alone.

I pretty much hate Barbarians anyway.  So it's not a issue for me.  The beauty of a modular system is you just don't play with stuff you don't like.  It's why I was so hopeful about 5e.  They could have sliced and diced it in a way that made everyone happy on these issues.  

In my perfect world, barbarian, ranger, and rogue would all be variations of either a strength or agile fighter.  They'd all fight really good.  They would then have their speciality skill set.  Fighters perhaps would get some special abilities to make them unique. 

All of the above is off topic.  Anybody care about the thread anymore? LOL.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> But why do you need "patching up", if they're not being impeded in their performance?
> 
> In my experience, the actual _play_ of hit points and healing is all about making sure no one drops below zero; but how do the PCs know that any given PC is close to dying, if all they can see as some random assortment of minor wounds?
> 
> To give a concrete example. A PC has 30 hp. Scenario 1: s/he takes four 7-hp wounds from orcs, and has 2 hp left. Scenario 2: s/he takes 28 hp from a fireball and has 2 hp left. The former has 4 minor, non-debilitating injuries. The latter has 1 of these. But both need the same amount of healing and are equally close to death. How do the PCs know all this?




That would be my question as well considering that both of the PCs are mechanically "fine" and able to do everything that they would have been able to do at 30hp?


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> But why do you need "patching up", if they're not being impeded in their performance?



Because while still functional they've clearly taken enough abuse that one more good wallop from anything is probably going to put them down.  



> In my experience, the actual _play_ of hit points and healing is all about making sure no one drops below zero; but how do the PCs know that any given PC is close to dying, if all they can see as some random assortment of minor wounds?



If a healer-type is paying attention she also might have seen how said minor wounds were delivered and by what, and how many there's been; and realize there's only so much a person can endure and that it's time to pull that person out of combat and do some healing. (I'm intentionally ignoring in-combat remote healing e.g. from a 4e Warlord as that's a mechanic I despise).



> To give a concrete example. A PC has 30 hp. Scenario 1: s/he takes four 7-hp wounds from orcs, and has 2 hp left. Scenario 2: s/he takes 28 hp from a fireball and has 2 hp left. The former has 4 minor, non-debilitating injuries. The latter has 1 of these. But both need the same amount of healing and are equally close to death. How do the PCs know all this?



The fireball one is easy: yes the victim is still standing and still fighting but she's obviously burnt and might be cursing the loss of some of her gear and equipment (if it can burn through leather what did it do to skin?).

The other example: after each blow the victim is just that little bit slower to respond and recover her stance etc. - not enough to affect any game mechanics but easily observable otherwise.  And the foe might also notice this, and go for the killing blow; so better get in there quick! 

In both cases there might also be (non-mechanics-reflected) observable changes to the fighting style and mannerisms - someone at her full h.p. of 30 might have been smiling and even mocking her foe during the battle thus far, for example, but after eating a 28-point fireball she's all business and maybe fighting a little more desperately.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> All of the above is off topic.  Anybody care about the thread anymore? LOL.



Haven't your issues been mostly addressed already by Bawylie? Haven't others and I not already provided you with other possible alternative systems to look into for your purposes? I'll admit that it is difficult for me to find much gusto for the original thread topic anymore when you speak rudely and insultingly to me for disagreeing with your definition of metagaming. It zaps a lot of good will out of any desire for continued discussion.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] (and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and perhaps [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] ), you (and Lanefan) answered my question with a response about the implications on the gameplay paradigm; eg “it would make it more lethal.”
> 
> This thread is about “metagame mechanics” and players making decisions based exclusively on (what you perceive as) observable phenomenon (biological, physical) from the character’s perspective.
> 
> I’m looking for your response in relation to that. So let me go a bit further and perhaps you can comment on this.
> 
> A 10th level Fighter is challenging a trio of Stone Giants on the edge of their plateau which sits 70 feet above the ground.
> 
> Situation 1:
> 
> a) He has 100 HPs and the only chance the fall has to kill him is if he’s been significantly worn down in combat by interaction with the Stone Giants and their clubs (that are as big and weighty as him) and thrown boulders.
> 
> b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Cheieftan; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size. However, because of his HP pool relative to their attacks, he knows (for sure) it will take a large number of interactions with these mighty creatures before he is then under immediate threat of death and he’ll never be under threat of a collapsed lung, a crushed pelvis, or even a concussion.
> 
> Situation 2:
> 
> a) A fall from that height is almost surely going to kill him (Harm 4) unless his God spares him (a difficult chance for a Saving Throw). Even then, he’s going to come away from the fall with something grave that will stick with him for a long while (at best a couple of broken ribs and a concussion; both Harm 2 boxes filled which will cause x and y mechanical interactions for z duration of care/recovery).
> 
> b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Cheieftan; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size.  He’s certain that his heavy armor will deflect the worst of it for an impact or two (say Heavy Armor can reduce Harm from those blows by 2 until it becomes useless), but after that, he can rely solely on his training, footwork, guile, grit, and the favor of the gods so that he doesn’t become pasted (Saving Throw vs Harm 2 for every attack, success outright mitigating it and a few times per combat he can knock Harm down one step due to his prowess).
> 
> I’m looking for a response about the juxtaposition of the above two paradigms that engages with the thread topic.



The Harm model is obviously going to be much better at providing (mostly) clear information to the player through the in-character observable effects of being hit.

What this means is the player decisions will be based on simple observation...which could even be inaccurate at times: what if the chieftain goes to show off his strength but the rock formation makes its save? 

In that regards I see it as providing more accurate (usually) information to the player, while at the same time being more immersive in that you're not in numbers mode as much.  You're going to take far more notice of where the cliff is, for example, as getting punted off it is likely gonna kill you; where in the h.p. model it'll only kill you if you've already taken a pounding (ignoring massive-damage rules for the moment) and the player will meta-know that (even if the character doesn't) and likely use that info as part of her decision-making.

In short, with the exception of your idea of the PC being able to reduce Harm due to prowess/level/whatever, it's way less meta.

Is that more the sort of response you were after?

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> And if you can control when you rage, why can't you control when you summon upon your reserves for a Second Wind? This mechanic reminds me of athletes who pace themselves and who know that they have reserves that they can draw upon for bursts of short-term energy.



Depends on whether one assumes a combatant is going all-out the whole time.  I do assume this, and were someone to tell me their PC was intentionally not going all-out (pacing itself) I'd probably apply some sort of mechanical penalty e.g. -1 or -2 to hit.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> Haven't your issues been mostly addressed already by Bawylie? Haven't others and I not already provided you with other possible alternative systems to look into for your purposes? I'll admit that it is difficult for me to find much gusto for the original thread topic anymore when you speak rudely and insultingly to me for disagreeing with your definition of metagaming. It zaps a lot of good will out of any desire for continued discussion.



Just an aside, but you are aware you're often dismissive and curt, yeah?


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Haven't your issues been mostly addressed already by Bawylie? Haven't others and I not already provided you with other possible alternative systems to look into for your purposes? I'll admit that it is difficult for me to find much gusto for the original thread topic anymore when you speak rudely and insultingly to me for disagreeing with your definition of metagaming. It zaps a lot of good will out of any desire for continued discussion.




I apologize for offending you.  It perhaps is just my frustration seeping through when I feel someone is not listening to my points and just falling back to a standard response.  

Yes Bawylie gave some good ideas.  I was hoping we all could discuss and compare a variety of ideas thus a discussion thread.  It was not my intent to hear one response and then say "I'm done see you all" and just leave.   I wanted the discussion to be about SOLVING these problems instead of a debate about the existence of the problems or the nature of the problems.

I find certain people seem triggered whenever the subject comes up no matter how inoffensive the question.  It's like they have to prove I'm just biased towards new games and that all of my concerns have no real merit for anyone.  They are just old fashioned tropes I'm clinging too.  Now, it would be easy to get angry at such attitudes.  I am trying to have a discussion though so I bite my tongue and keep trying.  With some it really does seem futile and I've even went so far as to suggest this thread may not be for them.  

If you want to dispute about the very existence of these mechanics, then start a thread on that topic.  But this thread is supposed to be about solving the problem for THOSE who view it as a problem.  For those not viewing it as a problem, your genuine advice is welcome but constant nattering about how our views have no underlying systematic thought is not welcome. For those who can't seem to break from that train of thought I recommend other threads besides this one.

And for the record, I believe Bawylie does not find anything offensive about metagame mechanics (as I defined them above).  He may of course not like player metagaming which is a different topic.  I think a lot of us would agree that is bad.  He was able though to propose a reasonable solution.  So I know it's possible.


----------



## Emerikol

So I captured some text from a blog at
http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-stance-theory-part1.html

_Actor Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.

Author Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character’s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

Director Stance: The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.
_

So I have gotten Director and Author mixed up at times.  I want the Actor Stance and I do not ever want the Author or Director stance.   Maybe another's words will help.

Edit: italicized the quote


----------



## heretic888

Maxperson said:


> And it also appears that they don't do it on purpose.  It just happens.






Lanefan said:


> Depends on whether one assumes a combatant is going all-out the whole time.  I do assume this, and were someone to tell me their PC was intentionally not going all-out (pacing itself) I'd probably apply some sort of mechanical penalty e.g. -1 or -2 to hit.




While I can't claim to be any kind of expert, I do have several years' experience training in wrestling, martial arts, and weightlifting. What I can claim, however, is that I categorically disagree with both of these statements and they do not mirror my real-life experiences in any way, shape, or form. I can also claim that other gamers I have spoken to who have similar background in martial arts or other athletic disciplines tend to share my perspective on the matter.

In weightlifting in particular, being able to fire yourself up and draw upon deep reserves of stamina and willpower is very, very, very important and pretty much critical to success. In martial arts, going all-out 100% of the time isn't going to do anything other than tiring yourself out. 

Limited-use martial maneuvers or athletic exploits are an abstraction to be sure, but its abstraction that rings true to reality in my experience.


----------



## Emerikol

heretic888 said:


> While I can't claim to be any kind of expert, I do have several years' experience training in wrestling, martial arts, and weightlifting. What I can claim, however, is that I categorically disagree with both of these statements and they do not mirror my real-life experiences in any way, shape, or form. I can also claim that other gamers I have spoken to who have similar background in martial arts or other athletic disciplines tend to share my perspective on the matter.
> 
> In weightlifting in particular, being able to fire yourself up and draw upon deep reserves of stamina and willpower is very, very, very important and pretty much critical to success. In martial arts, going all-out 100% of the time isn't going to do anything other than tiring yourself out.
> 
> Limited-use martial maneuvers or athletic exploits are an abstraction to be sure, but its abstraction that rings true to reality in my experience.




I think when it's said someone is going all out in this context they mean they are striving to kill the enemy in the optimal way. That doesn't mean you are physically exerting yourself to the max every second.  It does mean you have an eye for potential exploits and when your enemy gives you that opening you take it.  Realize also we are mostly talking about life and death blows.  Driving a sword into an enemies chest.  Not sparring.  

So the idea that you can suddenly by choice have a greater chance of success than you normally do does not sit well with me.  It seems you'd want to do whatever it is you did again if it was effective.  Now if it does strain you, you might not do it again immediately but the arbitrary ten minutes or one day limitations do not reflect reality.  If you are a well trained warrior and you can do your best move once per turn then you aren't a great warrior.

Now if instead you said that whenever an enemy's AC was exceeded by some large number, the fighter could perform a special manuever that would make sense.  The enemy has done poorly defensively and left open just the sort of opening that the fighter can exploit.


----------



## Maxperson

heretic888 said:


> In weightlifting in particular, being able to fire yourself up and draw upon deep reserves of stamina and willpower is very, very, very important and pretty much critical to success. In martial arts, going all-out 100% of the time isn't going to do anything other than tiring yourself out.




That's not a second wind, though.  Read the link above.  There are different methods you use when being physical.  Focusing willpower to go beyond your normal stamina limit is not the same as a second wind kicking in.


----------



## heretic888

Emerikol said:


> I think when it's said someone is going all out in this context they mean they are striving to kill the enemy in the optimal way. That doesn't mean you are physically exerting yourself to the max every second.  It does mean you have an eye for potential exploits and when your enemy gives you that opening you take it.  Realize also we are mostly talking about life and death blows.  Driving a sword into an enemies chest.  Not sparring.
> 
> So the idea that you can suddenly by choice have a greater chance of success than you normally do does not sit well with me.  It seems you'd want to do whatever it is you did again if it was effective.  Now if it does strain you, you might not do it again immediately but the arbitrary ten minutes or one day limitations do not reflect reality.  If you are a well trained warrior and you can do your best move once per turn then you aren't a great warrior.
> 
> Now if instead you said that whenever an enemy's AC was exceeded by some large number, the fighter could perform a special manuever that would make sense.  The enemy has done poorly defensively and left open just the sort of opening that the fighter can exploit.




I'm sorry, Emerikol, but there are low-impact maneuvers that can only be used in specific circumstances but are highly effective when pulled off. This is what limited use martial exploits represent. Now, yes, you could represent these maneuvers by making a melee combat system that is incredibly detailed and complicated and give specific fictional triggers for when to pull these off. However, at that point you are asking for way more cognitive load than even complicated systems like Pathfinder are typically willing to adhere to.

Just as you have previously argued for in this thread in regards to Armor Class and hit points, its an abstraction. I mean, seriously, I could nitpick why armor doesn't reduce damage from received blows to argue why Armor Class doesn't "make sense" --- and I would have just as much standing as your position on limited use martial abilities. The only difference between Armor Class and Martial Exploits is one is an abstraction that you have internalized and familiarized yourself to such a degree that it doesn't register as "metagame" to you while the other one does.

Abstractions always sacrifice verisimilitude for simplicity and ease-of-use. Its a trade off you accept when you use them.


----------



## heretic888

Maxperson said:


> That's not a second wind, though.  Read the link above.  There are different methods you use when being physical.  Focusing willpower to go beyond your normal stamina limit is not the same as a second wind kicking in.




It sounds like your issue is less with the concept than the name, then.


----------



## Maxperson

heretic888 said:


> It sounds like your issue is less with the concept than the name, then.




Name is concept, though.  If a game calls a long distance run over several miles a sprint, rather than a marathon, either the name or concept is wrong.  The name sprint evokes one concept, a short, fast race, and the name marathon evokes a completely different concept.  The name has to match the concept or the game has failed in that instance.


----------



## heretic888

Maxperson said:


> Name is concept, though.  If a game calls a long distance run over several miles a sprint, rather than a marathon, either the name or concept is wrong.  The name sprint evokes one concept, a short, fast race, and the name marathon evokes a completely different concept.  The name has to match the concept or the game has failed in that instance.




That's fine, I'm certainly not attached to the name. I can only speak from my own personal experiences, where drawing upon one's willpower to do something intensely physically demanding is a) definitely a thing, b) something human beings can do of their own volition with practice and experience, and c) not something you can do as often as you want to (i.e., its a "limited use" ability we might say).

I have no problem abstracting such athletic or martial exploits as "encounter powers" or "short rest abilities" or whatever. It 100% matches my experience in sports and martial arts.


----------



## Maxperson

heretic888 said:


> That's fine, I'm certainly not attached to the name. I can only speak from my own personal experiences, where drawing upon one's willpower to do something intensely physically demanding is a) definitely a thing, b) something human beings can do of their own volition with practice and experience, and c) not something you can do as often as you want to (i.e., its a "limited use" ability we might say).
> 
> I have no problem abstracting such athletic or martial exploits as "encounter powers" or "short rest abilities" or whatever. It 100% matches my experience in sports and martial arts.




It's not my thing and I didn't enjoy 4e, but I'm all for everyone playing the type of game that they enjoy, and 4e had its place.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Name is concept, though.



So how come, then, a Cure Light Wounds spell can heal most ordinary people (in classic D&D, B/X, AD&D and 3E) from dying or on their last legs, to full health?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> So how come, then, a Cure Light Wounds spell can heal most ordinary people (in classic D&D, B/X, AD&D and 3E) from dying or on their last legs, to full health?




It's a bad name for the spell.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> It's a bad name for the spell.



What would be a good name that was consistent with hp not being metagame?


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> It's a bad name for the spell.




That is true, especially if characters dont take wounds!  ;0)


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> What would be a good name that was consistent with hp not being metagame?




The name is fine.  The mechanic is flawed.  Change it to a percentage of max hit points, minimum of 1, or something similar.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Manbearcat said:


> I’m looking for a response about the juxtaposition of the above two paradigms that engages with the thread topic.



Both scenarios are fine, and neither requires meta-gaming. They just assume different things about how the world works. If the world doesn't actually work as described, and the character doesn't know those things, then the player would be meta-gaming by acting on that knowledge.


Manbearcat said:


> A 10th level Fighter is challenging a trio of Stone Giants on the edge of their plateau which sits 70 feet above the ground.
> 
> Situation 1:
> 
> a) He has 100 HPs and the only chance the fall has to kill him is if he’s been significantly worn down in combat by interaction with the Stone Giants and their clubs (that are as big and weighty as him) and thrown boulders.
> 
> b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Chieftain; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size. However, because of his HP pool relative to their attacks, he knows (for sure) it will take a large number of interactions with these mighty creatures before he is then under immediate threat of death and he’ll never be under threat of a collapsed lung, a crushed pelvis, or even a concussion.



Hit Points are observable to the character. He knows how tough he is, and can approximate how hard he'll hit the ground, so he can make a reasonable guess as to how much it will hurt when he lands.

The description of HP damage varies between DMs. The fighter doesn't necessarily know that he won't break any bones during the fall, but he can be relatively certain that any injury he sustains will be non-crippling. Continuing to fight while injured is basic hero stuff. He can guess with reasonable certainty at what fraction of further attacks will be stopped by his armor, and he can guess how many of those successful attacks he will be able to endure before dropping.

If the DM describes ~20 damage from a giant's strike as being sufficient to shatter a boulder, and the superhero fighter knows that he can survive ~25 damage from falling, then he knows that he's more physically resilient than the boulder is. This is all based on in-game observations. If the world doesn't actually work that way, and the fighter isn't actually more durable than the boulder, then the DM needs to do a better job of describing things more consistently.


Manbearcat said:


> Situation 2:
> 
> a) A fall from that height is almost surely going to kill him (Harm 4) unless his God spares him (a difficult chance for a Saving Throw). Even then, he’s going to come away from the fall with something grave that will stick with him for a long while (at best a couple of broken ribs and a concussion; both Harm 2 boxes filled which will cause x and y mechanical interactions for z duration of care/recovery).
> 
> b) As he waded in he sees a show of strength by the Stone Giant Chieftain; the impact of one of these clubs and/or thrown boulders utterly ruins a rock formation of approximately his size.  He’s certain that his heavy armor will deflect the worst of it for an impact or two (say Heavy Armor can reduce Harm from those blows by 2 until it becomes useless), but after that, he can rely solely on his training, footwork, guile, grit, and the favor of the gods so that he doesn’t become pasted (Saving Throw vs Harm 2 for every attack, success outright mitigating it and a few times per combat he can knock Harm down one step due to his prowess).



Harm boxes are observable to the character. He knows how tough he is, and can guess how hard he might hit the ground, but his guess is unreliable because he knows that divine intervention is a factor here that he can't account for. He's probably going to choose not to jump down, because he doesn't actually have faith that his god will protect him, even though he knows with absolute certainty that his god exists.

As he moves to engage the giants by ground, he estimates how hard their strikes are, and he compares that to what he knows about his armor. He knows with reasonable certainty that those strikes will pulverize his armor within the first few blows, but he doesn't know how long his skill will be able to save him after that point. He has a reasonable estimate of a worst-case scenario, where his skill is generally unable to cope with the assault, but even that estimate includes some benefit from his special mitigation technique. (That is to say, even if all of the attacks hit home, he _knows_ that this special technique will work a few times during the combat.)

So the question is, where do you draw the line? Which of the following things are you _least_ comfortable with allowing the character to know:


How badly he'll be hurt after a long fall.
That he can keep fighting effectively through any injury that isn't immediately fatal.
The he is physically tougher than stone, and how many hits he can actually take from a giant.
That his god exists, and actively intervenes with his life.
How many hits his armor can absorb before failing.
That his special mitigation technique is perfectly reliable, but only a couple of times per encounter.

If any of those first three sound ridiculous to you, and you can't imagine a character actually having that knowledge, then it might seem like you're meta-gaming when you play through this scenario in D&D. If any of the second three sound ridiculous to you, and you can't imagine a character actually having that knowledge, then it might seem like you're meta-gaming when you play through this scenario in the other game.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Ratskinner said:


> Well, If HP loss has no implications for the character's physical performance...then it can't be having physical effects that the character can notice, can it?



It can. It's just slightly more cosmetic than you might expect. If you paint someone's left hand red, then they can see that their left hand is red, even if it doesn't affect their performance in any way.

It's the same thing, just applied to physical injury. If you give someone a small cut on their arm, then you wouldn't necessarily expect that to affect their combat performance at all, but they can still see it. And since DMs describe damage in different ways, I'm saying that at my table, you might get a fractured sternum and it wouldn't affect your combat performance; or rather, that it might affect your combat performance, but not to such a degree that it would warrant modeling mechanically. 

The strawman exaggeration is that you could be impaled with a spear going through your head, and it wouldn't affect your performance enough to model. Nobody who actually uses the physical model for HP is going to describe damage in such a way - it's all just mild scratches and bruises, or maybe deeper cuts and broken bones - but either way it's physical (and thus observable to the characters).


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> So I captured some text from a blog at
> http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-stance-theory-part1.html
> 
> _Actor Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.
> 
> Author Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character’s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.
> 
> Director Stance: The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.
> _
> 
> So I have gotten Director and Author mixed up at times.  I want the Actor Stance and I do not ever want the Author or Director stance.   Maybe another's words will help.



Sure, but the problem IMHO is that I think that 100 percent pure Actor Stance is an inherent impossibility. In the context of theatrical drama, the Actor is a also a part-time Author and Director. The Actor is interpreting the character, but that interpretation will be guided by their own Authorial sense. And we may take "Authorial sense" here as a conglomeration of the Actor's understanding of the author's intent, the director's intent, and their own reading of this character. And I think that when roleplaying, Author stance becomes even more prominent while Acting than in a theatrical production. Because the person will be forcing the character to do things that may align more closely to the social contract that actually may deviate from sense of character: e.g., follow the GM's adventure, don't be a dick to the party, follow along with the party, gold/killing monsters helps you level-up, etc. 

Edit: The author of the blog post you quoted even has a similar position: 


> Finally, the last common mistake I want to highlight is the assumption that people do or at least should maintain a consistent stance throughout play. As if idealized play is when everyone is operating in Actor Stance or in Director Stance. This is rubbish. Players are constantly moving from one stance to another as the needs of the situation arise, and I can see no benefit (or at least, very little) from rigidly maintaining only a single stance. I’ve played in campaigns where the Social Contract strictly enforced Actor Stance (talking in character, using only character knowledge, following the character’s alignment to a T). Anyone who broke Actor Stance was immediately penalized socially if not mechanically. Play devolved into a game of “Gotchya!” and those sorts of campaigns never lasted long for me.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Maxperson said:


> If that's your response to me, then you clearly did not understand what I was saying.  What I said takes that all into consideration.



Alright, I'll take your word for it, that I'm just not getting what you're saying.

In any case, I've hit my limit on the number of conversations I can follow within this thread, and I _think_ that this is more an issue of semantics than principle. Of course, given that I'm not sure what you're trying to say, I could be wrong about that.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but the problem IMHO is that I think that 100 percent pure Actor Stance is an inherent impossibility. In the context of theatrical drama, the Actor is a also a part-time Author and Director. The Actor is interpreting the character, but that interpretation will be guided by their own Authorial sense. And we may take "Authorial sense" here as a conglomeration of the Actor's understanding of the author's intent, the director's intent, and their own reading of this character. And I think that when roleplaying, Author stance becomes even more prominent while Acting than in a theatrical production. Because the person will be forcing the character to do things that may align more closely to the social contract that actually may deviate from sense of character: e.g., follow the GM's adventure, don't be a dick to the party, follow along with the party, gold/killing monsters helps you level-up, etc.



Unless the social contract is "play your character as it would act were it a real person" (my preference) and let the chips fall where they may.



> Edit: The author of the blog post you quoted even has a similar position:



The two parts of the blog you quoted are a bit contradictory in how they view Actor Stance.  In the definition it says this stacne "does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue" yet in the example it indicates Actor Stance does incude talking in character, among other things.

Personally, I think Actor Stance does include thinking like the character, identifying with the character, and in-character dialogue...if only because none of the other stances include these things and they need to be included somewhere as they are an important part of playing a role (or, you guessed it, role-playing).

100% Actor Stance is probably impossible, but that doesn't mean we can't take whatever opportunities present themselves to make that %-age as high as we can: character knowledge = player knowledge, play the character true to itself, speak in character rather than out of character if there's an option, and so forth.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Unless the social contract is "play your character as it would act were it a real person" (my preference) and let the chips fall where they may.



Which you could also do from an Authorial or Directorial stance. These are not necessarily contradictory stances, as it were, when it comes to the expectation of "acting like a real person." But my point was that the social contract of expected play (e.g., "please go along with the GM's adventure that they put work into," or "my character is being too disruptive to the enjoyment of other players") may also guide how one performs the character. 



> The two parts of the blog you quoted are a bit contradictory in how they view Actor Stance.



I'm not sure why you are replying as if I was the person who supplied the blog post in question. 



> In the definition it says this stacne "*does not necessarily include* identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," *nor does it require* in-character dialogue" yet in the example it indicates Actor Stance does incude talking in character, among other things.
> 
> Personally, I think Actor Stance does include thinking like the character, identifying with the character, and in-character dialogue...if only because none of the other stances include these things and they need to be included somewhere as they are an important part of playing a role (or, you guessed it, role-playing).



I'm not sure how this is a categorical contradiction. The bold seems to indicate that this stance _may include_ these things but does _not necessarily_ include them. _May_ and _can_ does not mean that it doesn't include, just that it's not necessarily included. As he writes, "It is also sometimes treated as the same thing as talking in-character or “Immersion.” But Actor Stance is SO much more." So here he does appear to make a distinction between simply talking in-character and Actor Stance. 

A hamburger may and often does include a meat patty, but not all burgers are meat patties (e.g., veggie burgers). Keeping in mind here the obvious point that 'hamburger' does not etymologically designate a "burger composed of ham" but derives from the German city of "Hamburg."



> 100% Actor Stance is probably impossible, but that doesn't mean we can't take whatever opportunities present themselves to make that %-age as high as we can: character knowledge = player knowledge, play the character true to itself, speak in character rather than out of character if there's an option, and so forth.



I don't know. You seem to presume that this should be the goal of all roleplay. But I don't think that it should, particularly when it comes to different styles of play and levels of comfort that players have when approaching the game. I also dislike the implied presumption here of putting this stance on a pedastal or hierarchical supremacy for preferred play stance. I know many players who are not comfortable speaking in-character, and I would object to the idea that those who speak in-character roleplay better than those who don't.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Shasarak said:


> I dont see it as any more or less meta.  Infact I had a discussion with @_*Kobold Boots*_ regarding planning out 20 levels of your character progression in advance, is that not what a multiclass Cleric/Ranger has done?  It effectively does not matter what they do to earn their XP because you know that you are going to level up in Cleric first irregardless of how much Rangering that you have done.  And then you have an adventure where you are Clericing your heart out and get enough XP to level up in Ranger.




Hi Shasarak - 

Dropping in due to the mention.  I think that there's a different definition of metagaming that I subscribe to which is ever so slightly different than the definition of the OP.  Additionally, I've not read the first 28 pages aside from the OP, so there's a good chance this is going to go tangentially to the original reason for your post.

Definition of metagaming for me is: Player makes a decision that his or her character could not reasonably make because it requires player knowledge of the rules that the character could not logically make due to lack of similar knowledge in game.

So a player building his character out for 20 levels in advance with all bells and whistles before game start is definitely metagaming.
The same player making plans for his character five levels out because the character has developed his or her relationships with their guilds or trainers and knows more or less where they want to spend their time is not metagaming.

The difference is obvious, but it's not likely to come up unless you've got an older school DM that bakes that stuff in due to habit from the old days.  I've some players in my contacts list that prefer it, and many more who would look at me funny if I suggested it.

Be well
KB

Edit note for detail only.

When playing 1e there were optional rules in the DMG for requiring training before fully leveling up.  Additionally, the XP totals for some classes to level were higher than others (I remember it taking more XP to level as a mage, but there were other examples).

So sometimes a player would meta level because they knew they passed a XP mark for fighter and didn't want to wait to level as the other class.  Other times, the player would need to make a contact that could train them for their next level and it got harder as they advanced beyond what they could get regionally.  

This all goes back to the kinds of things that we discussed in the other thread and why the behaviors you find problematic in DMs I likely wouldn't.  Coming up as a 1e player with a "to yearn for it is to earn it" DM, is way different than coming up with a 3e DM that didn't have Gary's advice to rummage through.  (Assuming that's the case, you could be way earlier and I'd never know.)


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> Which you could also do from an Authorial or Directorial stance. These are not necessarily contradictory stances, as it were, when it comes to the expectation of "acting like a real person." But my point was that the social contract of expected play (e.g., "please go along with the GM's adventure that they put work into," or "my character is being too disruptive to the enjoyment of other players") may also guide how one performs the character.



I got your point; but Author and Director stance point away from playing the character as a person and more towards playing it as a pawn...which while fine for playing the game as a game doesn't meet my definition of playing a role.



> I'm not sure why you are replying as if I was the person who supplied the blog post in question.



You didn't write the blog, but as you're who quoted it in here who else am I supposed to reply to?



> I'm not sure how this is a categorical contradiction. The bold seems to indicate that this stance _may include_ these things but does _not necessarily_ include them. _May_ and _can_ does not mean that it doesn't include, just that it's not necessarily included. As he writes, "It is also sometimes treated as the same thing as talking in-character or “Immersion.” But Actor Stance is SO much more." So here he does appear to make a distinction between simply talking in-character and Actor Stance.
> 
> A hamburger may and often does include a meat patty, but not all burgers are meat patties (e.g., veggie burgers). Keeping in mind here the obvious point that 'hamburger' does not etymologically designate a "burger composed of ham" but derives from the German city of "Hamburg."



Yes; and in my opinion a veggie-burger isn't a real hamburger, it's a fake.



> I don't know. You seem to presume that this should be the goal of all roleplay.



Well, yes.


> But I don't think that it should, particularly when it comes to different styles of play and levels of comfort that players have when approaching the game. I also dislike the implied presumption here of putting this stance on a pedastal or hierarchical supremacy for preferred play stance. I know many players who are not comfortable speaking in-character, and I would object to the idea that those who speak in-character roleplay better than those who don't.



First off, note than when I say "speaking in character" I'm not referring to using a different voice or accent or whatever, I'm referring to simply saying the actual words that your character would say rather than using player-speak.

I'm playing Jocinda in a combat situation, Falstaffe is one of my fellow party members.  The DM has just informed me that I've noticed an enemy sneaking up on unaware Falstaffe...

1. "Falstaffe, look out on your left!" 
2. "I warn Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."
3. "Jocinda warns Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."

See the difference?  The first puts me in the action - I'm playing the role of Jocinda and saying what she would say.  The other two leave me remote from Jocinda the character, the third a bit more so than the second, and in some situations (probably not this specific example) both might even bog things down if the DM or another player for whatever reason needs to know exactly what words I'm using.

The first is role-playing.  The third is game-playing.  The second is somewhere in between.

Lanefan

p.s. Another aspect to this: at times in the past a hard-line enforcement of "if you say it, your character says it" has been the only way to shut down all the disruptive side-chatter and table talk.


----------



## Lanefan

Kobold Boots said:


> Definition of metagaming for me is: Player makes a decision that his or her character could not reasonably make because it requires player knowledge of the rules that the character could not logically make due to lack of similar knowledge in game.



Fine as far as it goes, but it also applies to situational knowledge disconnects as well as rules, hm?

Ignored in all these defninitions (not just picking on yours here  ) is the type of metagaming where a player knows something about the non-rules-related in-game situation that the character doesn't, and acts on that.  Example: party Thief scouts ahead alone and gets ambushed and slaughtered by some Ogres well out of sight and hearing of the party.  Other players then act on their knowledge of the ambush even though their PCs have no idea it's there = metagaming = bad bad bad.

Lanefan


----------



## Shasarak

Kobold Boots said:


> Hi Shasarak -
> 
> Dropping in due to the mention.  I think that there's a different definition of metagaming that I subscribe to which is ever so slightly different than the definition of the OP.  Additionally, I've not read the first 28 pages aside from the OP, so there's a good chance this is going to go tangentially to the original reason for your post.
> 
> Definition of metagaming for me is: Player makes a decision that his or her character could not reasonably make because it requires player knowledge of the rules that the character could not logically make due to lack of similar knowledge in game.
> 
> So a player building his character out for 20 levels in advance with all bells and whistles before game start is definitely metagaming.
> The same player making plans for his character five levels out because the character has developed his or her relationships with their guilds or trainers and knows more or less where they want to spend their time is not metagaming.
> 
> The difference is obvious, but it's not likely to come up unless you've got an older school DM that bakes that stuff in due to habit from the old days.  I've some players in my contacts list that prefer it, and many more who would look at me funny if I suggested it.
> 
> Be well
> KB




If you are looking at ADnD classes then there is no effective difference in metagaming between playing any class and playing a character class that you have designed yourself.  In either case it does not matter what happens during the actual campaign.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> I got your point; but Author and Director stance point away from playing the character as a person and more towards playing it as a pawn...which while fine for playing the game as a game doesn't meet my definition of playing a role.
> 
> You didn't write the blog, but as you're who quoted it in here who else am I supposed to reply to?
> 
> Yes; and in my opinion a veggie-burger isn't a real hamburger, it's a fake.
> 
> Well, yes.
> First off, note than when I say "speaking in character" I'm not referring to using a different voice or accent or whatever, I'm referring to simply saying the actual words that your character would say rather than using player-speak.
> 
> I'm playing Jocinda in a combat situation, Falstaffe is one of my fellow party members.  The DM has just informed me that I've noticed an enemy sneaking up on unaware Falstaffe...
> 
> 1. "Falstaffe, look out on your left!"
> 2. "I warn Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."
> 3. "Jocinda warns Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."
> 
> See the difference?  The first puts me in the action - I'm playing the role of Jocinda and saying what she would say.  The other two leave me remote from Jocinda the character, the third a bit more so than the second, and in some situations (probably not this specific example) both might even bog things down if the DM or another player for whatever reason needs to know exactly what words I'm using.
> 
> The first is role-playing.  The third is game-playing.  The second is somewhere in between.
> 
> Lanefan
> 
> p.s. Another aspect to this: at times in the past a hard-line enforcement of "if you say it, your character says it" has been the only way to shut down all the disruptive side-chatter and table talk.



All three are roleplaying.


----------



## Emerikol

heretic888 said:


> I'm sorry, Emerikol, but there are low-impact maneuvers that can only be used in specific circumstances but are highly effective when pulled off.



The debate is who controls those circumstances.  The player?  If so then it is unlike the real world.  Such circumstances in the real world are presented as opportunities.  This is why I actually like the Pathfinder concept of any roll exceeding the to hit score required is a critical.  It reveals talent beating inferior talent without going metagame.  

The problem with a fixed number of encounter powers is that these powers come into play regardless of the skill of your adversary.  The reality is that against really bad enemies you'd pull of special manuevers a lot more often and against someone super skilled you would not.




heretic888 said:


> This is what limited use martial exploits represent. Now, yes, you could represent these maneuvers by making a melee combat system that is incredibly detailed and complicated and give specific fictional triggers for when to pull these off. However, at that point you are asking for way more cognitive load than even complicated systems like Pathfinder are typically willing to adhere to.



Actually my idea of "triggered" effects is exactly what they seem to be doing in Pf2e.  




heretic888 said:


> Just as you have previously argued for in this thread in regards to Armor Class and hit points, its an abstraction. I mean, seriously, I could nitpick why armor doesn't reduce damage from received blows to argue why Armor Class doesn't "make sense" --- and I would have just as much standing as your position on limited use martial abilities. The only difference between Armor Class and Martial Exploits is one is an abstraction that you have internalized and familiarized yourself to such a degree that it doesn't register as "metagame" to you while the other one does.
> 
> Abstractions always sacrifice verisimilitude for simplicity and ease-of-use. Its a trade off you accept when you use them.



Again, it's not about realism.  Every time you make a realism argument you are not understanding the point.  It's play mode.  Actor, Author, Director are stances that players take.  I don't want to be in any mode other than Actor.  I hoped that page would make that clear.   I know D&D is not realistic.  It's high fantasy and that isn't realistic.  I've said that a half dozen times on this thread but people keep making the same arguments.  

It's starting to feel like I'm dealing with color blind people.  I keep talking about red and green colors and some of you look at me with a blank stare uncomprehending that they are different to me.  They are and if you are only seeing gray that is fine.  For some of us the red and green are definitely there.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but the problem IMHO is that I think that 100 percent pure Actor Stance is an inherent impossibility. In the context of theatrical drama, the Actor is a also a part-time Author and Director. The Actor is interpreting the character, but that interpretation will be guided by their own Authorial sense. And we may take "Authorial sense" here as a conglomeration of the Actor's understanding of the author's intent, the director's intent, and their own reading of this character. And I think that when roleplaying, Author stance becomes even more prominent while Acting than in a theatrical production. Because the person will be forcing the character to do things that may align more closely to the social contract that actually may deviate from sense of character: e.g., follow the GM's adventure, don't be a dick to the party, follow along with the party, gold/killing monsters helps you level-up, etc.
> 
> Edit: The author of the blog post you quoted even has a similar position:




I don't want mechanics that force me out of actor stance.  To me roleplaying games are pretty poor games without that immersive actor stance.  If you are playing it like a board game where you are just moving pieces around that is perfectly fine but in those cases I'd prefer to just play something else.  RPG's have so much more potential to me and I don't want to ruin the fun my group has with mechanics that are constantly bothering them.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> I got your point; but Author and Director stance point away from playing the character as a person and more towards playing it as a pawn...which while fine for playing the game as a game doesn't meet my definition of playing a role.



(1) Pawn is a separate stance that the blog author details. (2) Playing a role when acting often does involve role switching as the actor is an interlocutor of the character. The director has a sense of character. The author has a sense of character. The actor has a sense of character. Neither director, author, nor actor inherently has a sense of character as pawn. This is why I find such arbitrary categories unhelpful. As the blog writer says, we often switch as players between these stances seamlessly and unconsciously. 

Saying that we should stay in Actor stance does not seem like a useful ethic for roleplay. It seems instead like an enforcement of "onetruefun." Roleplay of a character "as a real person" involves far more depth than merely what the Actor role in itself would suggest. I think that Actor stance seeks to impose an incredibly rigid and unrealistic stance on what roleplay should be that seems naively unaware of the complexity of the human agent. It's not that the Actor stance is wrong or badwrongfun, but, rather, that we should embrace the complexity of human agent as a roleplayer who engages in all stances. I would personally appreciate a system that embraces such forthright honesty of this layered complexity more than one that demands a dogmatic adherence to one mode or stance. It's why I have come to embrace systems like PbtA and Fate. When a player has great authority to be both author and actor, they paradoxically possess a greater sense of embracing their role as actor. 



> You didn't write the blog, but as you're who quoted it in here who else am I supposed to reply to?



How about the guy who originally both posted and quoted it in this thread? 



> Yes; and in my opinion a veggie-burger isn't a real hamburger, it's a fake.



Nah. Because as cognitive linguistics also tells us, "burger" has also developed into its own metonymic unit of cognitive meaning even though it the word derives from Hamburg. And 'hamburger' has taken on its own sort of Platonic ideal separate from its origin. I say this as a "flexitarian" dating a vegetarian so my perspective is weighted. 



> Well, yes.



More "nah." That's far too snobbish and impractical for my tastes. IMHO, the goal of roleplay should be fun and developing a grasp of character within the experienced world. A roleplay game is also a game ideally played with friends. 



> First off, note than when I say "speaking in character" I'm not referring to using a different voice or accent or whatever, I'm referring to simply saying the actual words that your character would say rather than using player-speak.



Yes, I recognized that, but I still disagree. Some people are more comfortable with player-speak over character-speak, and I refuse to dismiss their roleplaying capabilities or give preferential treatment to others, especially after some of the horribad character-speak I have experienced. Some players are simply more comfortable roleplying from a position of player-speak than character-speak, but in this position, I have seen some better roleplay than character-speak. This is a clear-cut case of correlation does not equate to causation. 



> p.s. Another aspect to this: at times in the past a hard-line enforcement of "if you say it, your character says it" has been the only way to shut down all the disruptive side-chatter and table talk.



Which says more about your law enforcement on extraneous chatter than what should be the goals or means of roleplay.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Saying that we should stay in Actor stance does not seem like a useful ethic for roleplay. It seems instead like an enforcement of "onetruefun."



Is insisting chess players at a tournament all play chess a form of "onetruefun"?  Even if a checkers tournament is being put on by a different group just down the hall?  

No one on this thread as far as I know is saying EVERYONE has to play THEIR way.  I posted the thread to begin with to seek advice on playing my way.  Instead I am getting a running attack on my style of play and how I shouldn't embrace it.  It's kind of obnoxious.  I've probably been playing roleplaying games longer than a lot of you have been alive.  I know what works for me and my groups.  I could care less what other groups do.  And yes if you play in my campaign you will play my way or you will be bounced out of the group and on your way.  

Advocating for a style for one group is in no way imposing a playstyle on any other group.  I am assuming there are all kinds of groups out there with a whole bunch of different playstyles.  It doesn't bother me at all.  In fact I'm happy our hobby can attract so many different and innovative ideas for having fun.  But taste is hard to dispute as the philosophers say.  My taste is actor stance (and a host of other things but for this thread that is the one we are discussing).



Aldarc said:


> Roleplay of a character "as a real person" involves far more depth than merely what the Actor role in itself would suggest. I think that Actor stance seeks to impose an incredibly rigid and unrealistic stance on what roleplay should be that seems naively unaware of the complexity of the human agent. It's not that the Actor stance is wrong or badwrongfun, but, rather, that we should embrace the complexity of human agent as a roleplayer who engages in all stances. I would personally appreciate a system that embraces such forthright honesty of this layered complexity more than one that demands a dogmatic adherence to one mode or stance. It's why I have come to embrace systems like PbtA and Fate. When a player has great authority to be both author and actor, they paradoxically possess a greater sense of embracing their role as actor.



That is why they make different games and in some cases games that can be played in a variety of different ways.  But I think your use of the term "should" goes a bit far.  We "should" do one thing with a game.  Have fun.  




Aldarc said:


> More "nah." That's far too snobbish and impractical for my tastes. IMHO, the goal of roleplay should be fun and developing a grasp of character within the experienced world. A roleplay game is also a game ideally played with friends.



There is nothing snobbish about desiring a certain type of game.  It's only snobbish to assert that we "should" not play the way we do.  That is snobbish.




Aldarc said:


> Yes, I recognized that, but I still disagree. Some people are more comfortable with player-speak over character-speak, and I refuse to dismiss their roleplaying capabilities or give preferential treatment to others, especially after some of the horribad character-speak I have experienced. Some players are simply more comfortable roleplying from a position of player-speak than character-speak, but in this position, I have seen some better roleplay than character-speak. This is a clear-cut case of correlation does not equate to causation.
> 
> Which says more about your law enforcement on extraneous chatter than what should be the goals or means of roleplay.



But if his group, guided by his principles, is having a lot of fun and deriving satisfaction from their play experience who are you to question him?  I'm not questioning you or any of the other players on this thread.  I'm not saying any playstyle is inferior in an absolute sense.  Those who enjoy all three stances should play with all three.  I just don't prefer all three.  I prefer one.  

If there is any one true wayism going on in this thread it is those trying to say that some playstyles are bad and should be avoided or that they are invalid in some way.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> (1) Pawn is a separate stance that the blog author details. (2) Playing a role when acting often does involve role switching as the actor is an interlocutor of the character. The director has a sense of character. The author has a sense of character. The actor has a sense of character. Neither director, author, nor actor inherently has a sense of character as pawn. This is why I find such arbitrary categories unhelpful. As the blog writer says, we often switch as players between these stances seamlessly and unconsciously.



Agreed that the pigeonholes are a bit too much hole and not enough pigeon.  That said, most players are going to kind of default (vaguely) to one stance, use that as a base to drift from, and then return.

I guess I see the difference as being while both the author and director have a sense of character in that they've (usually) got a clear idea of what their characters are all about, what motivates them, etc.; only the actor has a sense of character in terms of actually *being* the character, inhabiting its personality and looking through its eyes.  That's (ideally) what I'm after.



> Saying that we should stay in Actor stance does not seem like a useful ethic for roleplay. It seems instead like an enforcement of "onetruefun." Roleplay of a character "as a real person" involves far more depth than merely what the Actor role in itself would suggest. I think that Actor stance seeks to impose an incredibly rigid and unrealistic stance on what roleplay should be that seems naively unaware of the complexity of the human agent. It's not that the Actor stance is wrong or badwrongfun, but, rather, that we should embrace the complexity of human agent as a roleplayer who engages in all stances. I would personally appreciate a system that embraces such forthright honesty of this layered complexity more than one that demands a dogmatic adherence to one mode or stance. It's why I have come to embrace systems like PbtA and Fate. When a player has great authority to be both author and actor, they paradoxically possess a greater sense of embracing their role as actor.



Simple game mechanics dictate we can't stay in actor all the time - no character ever says "I rolled a 6, plus 2 for strength and three for magic weapon - did I hit?" to her opponent!   But barring these considerations, I'd far rather say what my character says and have others do likewise than play in the third person.



> How about the guy who originally both posted and quoted it in this thread?



Someone else already hit it?  Must have missed that - sorry.  First I noticed it was in your post.



> Nah. Because as cognitive linguistics also tells us, "burger" has also developed into its own metonymic unit of cognitive meaning even though it the word derives from Hamburg. And 'hamburger' has taken on its own sort of Platonic ideal separate from its origin. I say this as a "flexitarian" dating a vegetarian so my perspective is weighted.



If I walk up to a food truck and ask for a hamburger it's only natural for me to expect to get handed a bun with some ground beef in it, along with some optional extras (sauce, lettuce, cheese, etc.); and if I get handed something else e.g. a fishburger or tofuburger or whatever I'm within reason to ask "What the hell is this?".  Right?



> IMHO, the goal of roleplay should be fun and developing a grasp of character within the experienced world.



Agreed.  And the quickest way to develop said grasp of character is to become that character, to the extent that game mechanics and other considerations allow.


> A roleplay game is also a game ideally played with friends.



Again agreed, and preferably all in the same physical place.



> Yes, I recognized that, but I still disagree. Some people are more comfortable with player-speak over character-speak, and I refuse to dismiss their roleplaying capabilities or give preferential treatment to others, especially after some of the horribad character-speak I have experienced.



I'll take horribad character-speak over player-speak any day; as at least the horribad character-speaker is trying, and the results are almost always amusing and-or entertaining.

I'm also more than capable of giving back horribad character-speak, as many who have gamed with me can attest. 



> Some players are simply more comfortable roleplying from a position of player-speak than character-speak, but in this position, I have seen some better roleplay than character-speak.






			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> All three are roleplaying.



And here's where I disagree with both of you: player-speak can give some excellent game play but in the end that's all it is - a player playing a game.  The player isn't even trying* to inhabit the character, think what it thinks, speak the character's words, etc.  LARPs have it right - you become the character whose role you're playing.  A tabletop game ideally is the same sort of thing, only without the costumes and active movement.

* - at least, not to an observer.  Internally to herself the player might be quite actively doing all of these things, but if it's not reflected in her actual play then what's the point?

Lan-"speaking from an idealist point of view here, well knowing reality always blunts ideals"-efan


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> And here's where I disagree with both of you: player-speak can give some excellent game play but in the end that's all it is - a player playing a game.  The player isn't even trying* to inhabit the character, think what it thinks, speak the character's words, etc.  LARPs have it right - you become the character whose role you're playing.  A tabletop game ideally is the same sort of thing, only without the costumes and active movement.
> 
> * - at least, not to an observer.  Internally to herself the player might be quite actively doing all of these things, but if it's not reflected in her actual play then what's the point?
> 
> Lan-"speaking from an idealist point of view here, well knowing reality always blunts ideals"-efan




Ah, you've mistaken one kind of role-playing (acting/inhabitation) with the general case of roleplaying.  If I always refer to my character in the third person, that's still roleplaying -- I'm playing the role of the character in the game.  Acting isn't required, although you may prefer it.  Nothing wrong with that, but acting isn't the end-all-be-all of roleplaying.  Defining roleplaying so narrowly is engaging in stealth one-true-wayism.  Don't do that.  Advocate for your preferences, sure, but don't define terms so that they only fit your preferences.  We can all play roles in different ways and have fun.  

If I was at your table, I'd expect my play to be judged according to your table's preferences, but don't mistake your preferences for the best or only way to play -- they're the best way for _you _to play, but maybe not the next table over.

There's a few posters in this thread that should heed this.  Tell us how your play is awesome, but don't denigrate other's play to do that.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, you've mistaken one kind of role-playing (acting/inhabitation) with the general case of roleplaying.  If I always refer to my character in the third person, that's still roleplaying -- I'm playing the role of the character in the game.



Where my definition of playing a role is that an actor on a stage plays a role - the lines he speaks, his facial expressions, the movements he makes (subject to the spatial restrictions of the stage) are those of the character he's portraying in the stage play.  The actors on stage don't speak in the third person (unless it's a really unusual play; Im sure someone's tried it).

Playing the role of a PC at a game table is, IMO, the same thing; and it's where the "role-playing" side of the game comes from.

I agree that one can play the game perfectly well while referring to one's character in the third person but I don't see it as meeting the definition of role-playing.



> Acting isn't required, although you may prefer it.  Nothing wrong with that, but acting isn't the end-all-be-all of roleplaying.



Acting is role-playing, by its very definition: an actor plays a role.



> Defining roleplaying so narrowly is engaging in stealth one-true-wayism.  Don't do that.  Advocate for your preferences, sure, but don't define terms so that they only fit your preferences.  We can all play roles in different ways and have fun.



We can all play *the game* in different ways and have fun, but some of those different ways simply don't involve playing a role.

"Jocinda will find some way of courteously telling Falstaffe to mind his own business if he asks her about her date last night."  If that's how I-as-player describe Jocinda's participation in a conversation then in this instance I'm giving stage directions to a remote game piece.  We can all imagine hearing her say something, and the story gets told the same as it otherwise would, but no role actually gets played - Jocinda's "lines", as it were, never get spoken.

Compare with LARPing, which almost always involves playing a role in the actor-on-stage sense.



> If I was at your table, I'd expect my play to be judged according to your table's preferences, but don't mistake your preferences for the best or only way to play -- they're the best way for _you _to play, but maybe not the next table over.
> 
> There's a few posters in this thread that should heed this.  Tell us how your play is awesome, but don't denigrate other's play to do that.



Much of the time my play isn't all that awesome. 

I'm just trying to point out that the term "role-playing" doesn't necessarily mean what some might think it means.

Lan-"sometimes I pick the strangest hills to die on"-efan


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Where my definition of playing a role is that an actor on a stage plays a role - the lines he speaks, his facial expressions, the movements he makes (subject to the spatial restrictions of the stage) are those of the character he's portraying in the stage play.  The actors on stage don't speak in the third person (unless it's a really unusual play; Im sure someone's tried it).
> 
> Playing the role of a PC at a game table is, IMO, the same thing; and it's where the "role-playing" side of the game comes from.




I have to side with everyone else on this one.  Your way(which is also my way) is just one way to roleplay.  It's the only style where I can immerse myself into the game, so I enjoy it much more than the other methods.



> I agree that one can play the game perfectly well while referring to one's character in the third person but I don't see it as meeting the definition of role-playing.
> 
> Acting is role-playing, by its very definition: an actor plays a role.




So does a narrator.  It's just a different role.  Heck, I've seen actors play roles where the character talks in third person.  Are they not acting or playing a role?


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> Where my definition of playing a role is that an actor on a stage plays a role - the lines he speaks, his facial expressions, the movements he makes (subject to the spatial restrictions of the stage) are those of the character he's portraying in the stage play.  The actors on stage don't speak in the third person (unless it's a really unusual play; Im sure someone's tried it).
> 
> Playing the role of a PC at a game table is, IMO, the same thing; and it's where the "role-playing" side of the game comes from.
> 
> I agree that one can play the game perfectly well while referring to one's character in the third person but I don't see it as meeting the definition of role-playing.
> 
> Acting is role-playing, by its very definition: an actor plays a role.




Personally I love me some third person Wrestler roleplaying.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> Is insisting chess players at a tournament all play chess a form of "onetruefun"?  Even if a checkers tournament is being put on by a different group just down the hall?



This is just false equivalence. 



> No one on this thread as far as I know is saying EVERYONE has to play THEIR way.  I posted the thread to begin with to seek advice on playing my way.  Instead I am getting a running attack on my style of play and how I shouldn't embrace it.  It's kind of obnoxious.  I've probably been playing roleplaying games longer than a lot of you have been alive.  I know what works for me and my groups.  I could care less what other groups do.  And yes if you play in my campaign you will play my way or you will be bounced out of the group and on your way.
> 
> Advocating for a style for one group is in no way imposing a playstyle on any other group.  I am assuming there are all kinds of groups out there with a whole bunch of different playstyles.  It doesn't bother me at all.  In fact I'm happy our hobby can attract so many different and innovative ideas for having fun.  But taste is hard to dispute as the philosophers say.  My taste is actor stance (and a host of other things but for this thread that is the one we are discussing).



It is fine and great to have a preferred taste for Actor stance. Where I take issue here is in the pragmatics of saying that you want 100 percent Actor stance to the exclusion of Author and Director. (Well that and the idea that in-character-speak roleplay should be preferred.) Though I disagree with Lanefan's position on in-character roleplay as the one-true-way, his position about attempting to maximize Actor stance did show practical awareness of the inherent impossibility of fully escaping other stances in play. 

You asked for advice, and you have received advice; however, the thread topic you opened for public discussion moved on to a variety of other topics. So on that front, I am sympathetic to your frustration that you are getting the full feedback you were hoping for in this thread, but divergence is often the nature of public forums. And apart from voicing frustration about how the thread is not going to plan, I have not seen too much effort to return to form. Is there something more in particular you would like to get back out of this thread? 



> There is nothing snobbish about desiring a certain type of game.  It's only snobbish to assert that we "should" not play the way we do.  That is snobbish.



Desiring one type of game for yourself and your group is again fine, but believing that it should be the goal of all roleplay for everyone does cross that line, no? Is that not OneTrueWay? 



> If there is any one true wayism going on in this thread it is those trying to say that some playstyles are bad and should be avoided or that they are invalid in some way.



You mean like people who badmouth games with "metagame mechanics"?  



Emerikol said:


> And yes if you play in my campaign you will play my way or you will be bounced out of the group and on your way.



And if you play in my campaign you can play your way, and I will not bounce you out of the group, unless you are an arse to others at the table about their preferred way of play as badwrongfun or inferiorfun.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> So does a narrator.  It's just a different role.



Except I don't see a narrator as actually having a character role in the show itself, with the exception of when the narration is done in character by a character who legitimately-within-the-show's-fiction could do it - example: Galadhriel, in character, narrating over the beginning of the first LotR movie.



> Heck, I've seen actors play roles where the character talks in third person.  Are they not acting or playing a role?



I mentioned this as an unusual possibility that somebody's likely tried.  And there you've got an odd situation: yes they are acting, but they're playing the role of a speaker or narrator who is in turn telling the audience what a character does and-or says.  They're not directly portraying the character itself.  This three-tier process (actor-speaker-character) can't happen in a typical RPG because the actor and speaker are always the same person - the player at the table.

Look at Deadpool.  When he breaks the fourth wall (which happens in about every other scene!) Ryan Reynolds is not in those moments playing the role of Deadpool the character.  Instead, he's set himself apart from the character and has become either a narrator or a detached analyst, depending how you want to look at it.  Instead of Ryan Reynolds playing Deadpool, in those moments you've got Ryan Reynolds playing the role of somebody who is talking about Deadpool and-or narrating stuff.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> This is just false equivalence.
> It is fine and great to have a preferred taste for Actor stance. Where I take issue here is in the pragmatics of saying that you want 100 percent Actor stance to the exclusion of Author and Director. (Well that and the idea that in-character-speak roleplay should be preferred.) Though I disagree with Lanefan's position on in-character roleplay as the one-true-way, his position about attempting to maximize Actor stance did show practical awareness of the inherent impossibility of fully escaping other stances in play.



I prefer in character speaking but I don't enforce it in a draconian way but if I did because that was my preferred playstyle what would be wrong with that?  You see setting up a game with a set of preconditions is not wrong.  




Aldarc said:


> You asked for advice, and you have received advice; however, the thread topic you opened for public discussion moved on to a variety of other topics. So on that front, I am sympathetic to your frustration that you are getting the full feedback you were hoping for in this thread, but divergence is often the nature of public forums. And apart from voicing frustration about how the thread is not going to plan, I have not seen too much effort to return to form. Is there something more in particular you would like to get back out of this thread?



I got perhaps two people offering genuine advice.  The rest are just bent out of shape that I dare play in a way that doesn't suit their model of good right fun.




Aldarc said:


> Desiring one type of game for yourself and your group is again fine, but believing that it should be the goal of all roleplay for everyone does cross that line, no? Is that not OneTrueWay?



Yes and no one has said that on this thread.  No one is trying to force everyone else in every other group to play their way.  They are talking about what they prefer in THEIR games only.  That is not onetruewayism.  Not sure how anyone could possibly enforce such an idea anyway.



Aldarc said:


> You mean like people who badmouth games with "metagame mechanics"?



No.  I have not badmouthed metagame mechanics.  I have said that I don't want them in my game.  I am not trying to extinguish them from the universe.  In fact they are useful because players who really love them are likely a poor fit in other more nebulous areas of my game so it makes a nice way to identify players for my group.




Aldarc said:


> And if you play in my campaign you can play your way, and I will not bounce you out of the group, unless you are an arse to others at the table about their preferred way of play as badwrongfun or inferiorfun.



So?  That doesn't make you morally superior.  If I was ruining everyone else at the tables fun I would want to be bounced out of the group.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Except I don't see a narrator as actually having a character role in the show itself, with the exception of when the narration is done in character by a character who legitimately-within-the-show's-fiction could do it - example: Galadhriel, in character, narrating over the beginning of the first LotR movie.




In How I Met Your Mother, Ted often starts to narrate a bit.  He's telling the stories to his kids.  There are a few other shows and movies where the actors stop in the middle, turn to you and narrate a bit.  It's not common, but it happens.



> I mentioned this as an unusual possibility that somebody's likely tried.  And there you've got an odd situation: yes they are acting, but they're playing the role of a speaker or narrator who is in turn telling the audience what a character does and-or says.  They're not directly portraying the character itself.  This three-tier process (actor-speaker-character) can't happen in a typical RPG because the actor and speaker are always the same person - the player at the table.




Ted above does.  He's himself in the show narrating what is happening in the stories he is telling.  At all times he's still portraying the character Ted.  He wasn't the first to do that, either.


----------



## Maxperson

Emerikol said:


> Yes and no one has said that on this thread.  No one is trying to force everyone else in every other group to play their way.  They are talking about what they prefer in THEIR games only.  That is not onetruewayism.  Not sure how anyone could possibly enforce such an idea anyway.



 @_*Lanefan*_ has said straight out that his way is the only way to roleplay, and he's said it more than once.  That's One True Wayism.  You're either playing it his way if you want to roleplay, or you aren't roleplaying.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> I prefer in character speaking but I don't enforce it in a draconian way but if I did because that was my preferred playstyle *what would be wrong with that*?  You see setting up a game with a set of preconditions is not wrong.



Probably the adjective "draconian." 



> I got perhaps two people offering genuine advice.  The rest are just bent out of shape that I dare play in a way that doesn't suit their model of good right fun.



It's more complicated than that. At the outset, you asserted that certain mechanics of the fighter were metagame mechanics. Those were controversial claims. People naturally disputed that they were as they do rationalize these mechanics from in-character perspectives. It does not constitute metagame for them even from your provided definition. But you also phrased a lot of these claims a questions that people naturally used as opportunities to push back on these mechanics as metagame. And a lot of the subsequent discussion spurred from that disagreement pertained to what constitutes metagame mechanics and when they are acceptable or, as per  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s wording, "necessary evils." 



> Yes and no one has said that on this thread.  No one is trying to force everyone else in every other group to play their way.  They are talking about what they prefer in THEIR games only.  That is not onetruewayism.  Not sure how anyone could possibly enforce such an idea anyway.



I'm sorry, but when someone says that only one particular playstyle constitutes roleplay while excluding others, that constitutes onetruewayism in these forums regardless of their ability to enforce it at other tables. 



> No.  I have not badmouthed metagame mechanics.  I have said that I don't want them in my game.  I am not trying to extinguish them from the universe.  In fact they are useful because players who really love them are likely a poor fit in other more nebulous areas of my game so it makes a nice way to identify players for my group.



If you say so... 



> So?  That doesn't make you morally superior.  If I was ruining everyone else at the tables fun I would want to be bounced out of the group.



I'm saying that you would have a welcome spot at my table. 

But let us take a step back from all of this for a second. Let's start over. How can I help you reach your goals in this thread? What more in particular would you like to accomplish in this thread? 

It seems that if these mechanics are not to your liking, then the obvious solution would be to houserule them in ways that make sense from an in-character perspective or substitute them with other mechanics that are more suitable to your idiomatic sensibilities. 

It seems that if you can rationalize the Vancian magical casting and spell tier system as existing in-character, then one could feasibly do this for fighter abilities as well. This becomes simply how fighters are, and fighters have learned to harness this power. It is a truth of the universe. Second Wind becomes something akin to a subtle ki power that monks use but much cruder. The fighter is essentially tapping into the same power as monks but without much awareness or finesse. The fighter only really knows how to harness this as a burst of stamina. And an action surge becomes something akin to a crude flurry of blows. Monks can use these abilities as long as they have ki, but that is because they understand the intricacies of ki and know how and when to manipulate it, so they have finer control over it. Fighters mostly have a notion that they can push themselves a bit harder and achieve a desired burst of stamina or extra effort. If this explanation works for you, you could even consider giving fighters a much more limited ki pool so they can exercise greater control over these abilities. So that would answer the question: why can't they do this more often and not again? Because they ran out of ki.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> I'm sorry, but when someone says that only one particular playstyle constitutes roleplay while excluding others, that constitutes onetruewayism in these forums regardless of their ability to enforce it at other tables.



He is playing semantic games anyway.  What are you doing if not roleplaying? Whatever it is you are doing it is fun so keep doing it and who cares about a silly definition anyway.  I sure don't.  




Aldarc said:


> I'm saying that you would have a welcome spot at my table.



I think welcoming anyone with any ideas is a surefire way to get an antagonistic table that doesn't play well together.  Of course, if the game did not allow for metagame mechanics then perhaps someone who enjoys those mechanics could play without them and still have fun.  Who knows.  



Aldarc said:


> But let us take a step back from all of this for a second. Let's start over. How can I help you reach your goals in this thread? What more in particular would you like to accomplish in this thread?
> 
> It seems that if these mechanics are not to your liking, then the obvious solution would be to houserule them in ways that make sense from an in-character perspective or substitute them with other mechanics that are more suitable to your idiomatic sensibilities.
> 
> It seems that if you can rationalize the Vancian magical casting and spell tier system as existing in-character, then one could feasibly do this for fighter abilities as well. This becomes simply how fighters are, and fighters have learned to harness this power. It is a truth of the universe. Second Wind becomes something akin to a subtle ki power that monks use but much cruder. The fighter is essentially tapping into the same power as monks but without much awareness or finesse. The fighter only really knows how to harness this as a burst of stamina. And an action surge becomes something akin to a crude flurry of blows. Monks can use these abilities as long as they have ki, but that is because they understand the intricacies of ki and know how and when to manipulate it, so they have finer control over it. Fighters mostly have a notion that they can push themselves a bit harder and achieve a desired burst of stamina or extra effort. If this explanation works for you, you could even consider giving fighters a much more limited ki pool so they can exercise greater control over these abilities. So that would answer the question: why can't they do this more often and not again? Because they ran out of ki.




What I expected this thread to produce, is a series of suggestions on how to fix the problem.  Just saying houserule it, isn't really all that useful.  I would be more forgiving if people were making suggestions that didn't work for me.  I'd just say that what they did doesn't get rid of the problem for me.  At least they'd be trying.  I got one suggestion from a couple people.  I was hoping I'd get a variety of different suggestions.  Then I could think about those suggestions and perhaps use them.  

I could brainstorm myself.  But I've found that getting other input and then making a decision can actually lead to a better result sometimes.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> It seems that if you can rationalize the Vancian magical casting and spell tier system as existing in-character, then one could feasibly do this for fighter abilities as well. This becomes simply how fighters are, and fighters have learned to harness this power. It is a truth of the universe. Second Wind becomes something akin to a subtle ki power that monks use but much cruder. The fighter is essentially tapping into the same power as monks but without much awareness or finesse. The fighter only really knows how to harness this as a burst of stamina. And an action surge becomes something akin to a crude flurry of blows. Monks can use these abilities as long as they have ki, but that is because they understand the intricacies of ki and know how and when to manipulate it, so they have finer control over it. Fighters mostly have a notion that they can push themselves a bit harder and achieve a desired burst of stamina or extra effort.




While those suggestions do solve the metagame problem, I am attached to the idea of the non-magical fighter.  That is I admit just a preference.  For the monk though I could definitely go with many of these kinds of ideas.


----------



## Ratskinner

Saelorn said:


> The strawman exaggeration is that you could be impaled with a spear going through your head, and it wouldn't affect your performance enough to model. Nobody who actually uses the physical model for HP is going to describe damage in such a way - it's all just mild scratches and bruises, or maybe deeper cuts and broken bones - but either way it's physical (and thus observable to the characters).




Which is precisely what I pointed out several posts back*, its all "Disney damage" to coin a phrase. Even worse, no critical wounds, no dramatically interesting injuries whatsoever (even Disney occasionally has the occasional limping character in need of help)....no damage, just cosmetics....oh and that pesky totally metagame doom clock. Certainly nothing about "how bad a shape you're in", but maybe a "how bad does your makeup look".

The characters might be observing it, but they must also be observing that (unlike IRL) these injuries have no impact on their performance. So...if you want to call cosmetics "physical" then I guess go nuts, but then there's this big "no-go" zone of injury in between "Just another scratch" and "Whoops, I'm dying!" In D&D land, no one ever needs an eyepatch**, or crutches, or loses a limb, or limps. Even if you're Dying***, none of those things can have happened, 'cause you might recover a few HP and then "Presto", you'll need all your capabilities back. (Makes me wonder what purpose _regeneration_ serves.) I mean, "an arrow to the knee" might put some people out of the adventurer game, but not in D&D!

*although broken bones stretches it. What bones are you breaking that don't affect your performance? I've broken some pretty "minor" bones in my life and been amazed at how much it degrades performance/capacity.

**possible exception for Pirates, if your DM has watched Mythbusters.

***results may vary by edition.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Ratskinner said:


> Which is precisely what I pointed out several posts back*, its all "Disney damage" to coin a phrase.



At sufficiently low resolution, dramatic physical injury is indistinguishable from Disney Damage.


Ratskinner said:


> Even worse, no critical wounds, no dramatically interesting injuries whatsoever (even Disney occasionally has the occasional limping character in need of help)....no damage, just cosmetics....oh and that pesky totally metagame doom clock. Certainly nothing about "how bad a shape you're in", but maybe a "how bad does your makeup look".



There's nothing meta-game about it. The character can observe the physical injury; they simply observe that it's not immediately fatal, in and of itself. They might very well have a limp! All that the mechanics say on the matter is that any limp isn't _so_ incredibly extreme as to warrant modeling under typical combat conditions. Which is perfectly reasonable, given how simplistic the model is.


Ratskinner said:


> The characters might be observing it, but they must also be observing that (unlike IRL) these injuries have no impact on their performance.



They can certainly observe that the impact is not sufficient to prevent them from fighting. I don't know that any of them are inclined to test things more thoroughly than that. If you wanted to hold a triathlon between characters in various stages of injury, the degree of injury might be worth modeling at that point, at which point the DM will figure it out. That's exactly the reason why the DM exists in the first place.

The map isn't the territory. Just because there's no injury represented in the mechanics, that doesn't mean there's no injury within the reality. As it stands, at certain tables, physical injury _is_ represented on the map - as HP damage.


Ratskinner said:


> So...if you want to call cosmetics "physical" then I guess go nuts, but then there's this big "no-go" zone of injury in between "Just another scratch" and "Whoops, I'm dying!"



As contrasted with the "doom clock" model, where the no-go zone includes any amount of physical injury whatsoever. A model that can only reflect shallow physical injury is still better than one that _can't_ reflect physical injury.


Ratskinner said:


> *although broken bones stretches it. What bones are you breaking that don't affect your performance? I've broken some pretty "minor" bones in my life and been amazed at how much it degrades performance/capacity.



My typical example is a fractured sternum. Have you fractured your sternum? And if so, how much did it degrade your combat performance in your next swordfight-to-the-death against orcs? Over the course of two minutes, what fraction of your swings do you feel _would have_ landed, were it not for your injury?


----------



## Arilyn

In all my years playing DnD, I have never heard a player say, "My arm is busted up from that last fight, and I'm feeling really woozy, maybe a cure spell please?" I hear, " Ahhh, I have only 4 hp left. Heal me up." 

HP are very meta. I mean if you were really immersed in your role, wouldn't you be screaming in pain from being hit by a fireball or Dragon breath attack, not calmly changing your hp total and fighting on?Surely even the stoutest warrior feels the agony of burns.

This is fine. It works for DnD because of the constant fighting and peril typical groups face. Meta for sure, though, because hp have no bearing in any kind of reality, even high fantasy. No bleeding, sprains, broken limbs, internal injuries, infection, punctured organs, concussions....Just a nice clean bar that steadily drops, having no effect on your performance, until it's gone, and then you're dying.


----------



## Shasarak

Arilyn said:


> In all my years playing DnD, I have never heard a player say, "My arm is busted up from that last fight, and I'm feeling really woozy, maybe a cure spell please?" I hear, " Ahhh, I have only 4 hp left. Heal me up."
> 
> HP are very meta. I mean if you were really immersed in your role, wouldn't you be screaming in pain from being hit by a fireball or Dragon breath attack, not calmly changing your hp total and fighting on?Surely even the stoutest warrior feels the agony of burns.
> 
> This is fine. It works for DnD because of the constant fighting and peril typical groups face. Meta for sure, though, because hp have no bearing in any kind of reality, even high fantasy. No bleeding, sprains, broken limbs, internal injuries, infection, punctured organs, concussions....Just a nice clean bar that steadily drops, having no effect on your performance, until it's gone, and then you're dying.




Ah do, do we need to scream out the pain of being hit with a fireball?  It reminds me of a story of a DM that used an air gum to shoot his players when their characters got damaged.  Is that something we want in an RPG or can we just leave that to the LARPers?


----------



## Arilyn

Shasarak said:


> Ah do, do we need to scream out the pain of being hit with a fireball?  It reminds me of a story of a DM that used an air gum to shoot his players when their characters got damaged.  Is that something we want in an RPG or can we just leave that to the LARPers?




I didn't mean literally scream. I mean, narrating the results. "I drop to the ground, writhing and screaming from the burns." In DnD, our characters feel nothing from the most horrific things thrown their way, like fire, acid, axe blows...

And that's fine for the game. We don't need all those graphic results, but it's pure meta.


----------



## Shasarak

Arilyn said:


> I didn't mean literally scream. I mean, narrating the results. "I drop to the ground, writhing and screaming from the burns." In DnD, our characters feel nothing from the most horrific things thrown their way, like fire, acid, axe blows...




I have one player that always narrates those type of effects on his character and one player that never shows any concern for his character.

Come to think of it none of my characters have ever had to go to the toilet and yet they are always eating and drinking.  I wonder how that is supposed to work?  Seems like an oversight there. ;0)


----------



## Ratskinner

Shasarak said:


> I have one player that always narrates those type of effects on his character and one player that never shows any concern for his character.
> 
> Come to think of it none of my characters have ever had to go to the toilet and yet they are always eating and drinking.  I wonder how that is supposed to work?  Seems like an oversight there. ;0)




That, at least, is an oversight that is reasonably consistent with the fiction.


----------



## Jhaelen

Shasarak said:


> Come to think of it none of my characters have ever had to go to the toilet and yet they are always eating and drinking.



Curious indeed! I tend to mention it from time to time, especially when I'm bored.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Arilyn said:


> In all my years playing DnD, I have never heard a player say, "My arm is busted up from that last fight, and I'm feeling really woozy, maybe a cure spell please?" I hear, " Ahhh, I have only 4 hp left. Heal me up."



Describing damage is a job for the DM, and different DMs describe damage differently. If the players don't understand how badly their characters are hurt, then the DM isn't describing the injury very well (or they are describing it as distinctly non-physical).

For contrast, though, I'm currently playing in a game with a DM who has never played or run before. Every single attack that beats armor class, he has described as the blade getting past armor and striking flesh. Every single time someone has failed a save against Fireball, he describes the intense pain of how their skin is burning. Because that's the obvious interpretation of damage, if you read the rule book, and nobody on the internet has tried to convince him otherwise.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> While those suggestions do solve the metagame problem, I am attached to the idea of the non-magical fighter.  That is I admit just a preference.  For the monk though I could definitely go with many of these kinds of ideas.



(1) It was an example of a potential solution, but I have no doubt that you could create such a solution that was more appropriate to your sensibilities. 

(2) I don't think that this interpretation necessarily needs to be understood as "magic." Ki, for me, is simply some form of latent energy (e.g., life? psionic? etc.) that permeates the world or life therein. The fighter may be "non-magical" and mundane but that does not necessarily mean that any mundane person living in such a fantastical world is completely removed from the surrounding cosmological forces that infuse it, such as life energy. In fact, this edge fighters have may be what separates them from common guards and warriors. As a comparison, just because you are not a Jedi does not mean that you are not connected to the Force or potentially subjected to its influence or possibly benefit from it.


----------



## Arilyn

Saelorn said:


> Describing damage is a job for the DM, and different DMs describe damage differently. If the players don't understand how badly their characters are hurt, then the DM isn't describing the injury very well (or they are describing it as distinctly non-physical).
> 
> For contrast, though, I'm currently playing in a game with a DM who has never played or run before. Every single attack that beats armor class, he has described as the blade getting past armor and striking flesh. Every single time someone has failed a save against Fireball, he describes the intense pain of how their skin is burning. Because that's the obvious interpretation of damage, if you read the rule book, and nobody on the internet has tried to convince him otherwise.




And is this having a mechanical effect? While experiencing the searing pain of a fireball are the characters getting any disadvantages? After the sword slices through flesh, is there bleeding, which will continue to weaken the character until treated? Probably not, because fights in DnD have to be meta because of the sheer number of them. It's abstracted out of necessity. And once again, not a problem, but certainly meta. The loss of hp mean very little until they start creeping toward 0, therefore, I'm not in my character's shoes, experiencing the world through her eyes.  FATE is criticized for its meta mechanics, but having a fate point slide my way is just as meta, to me, as those vanishing hp, from weapon blows, fire, acid, exploding traps, that don't actually have consequences until I'm dying.

But then all rpgs have meta elements. They don't bother me, or break my immersion.


----------



## Aldarc

Arilyn said:


> FATE is criticized for its meta mechanics, but having a fate point slide my way is just as meta, to me, as those vanishing hp, from weapon blows, fire, acid, exploding traps, that don't actually have consequences until I'm dying.
> 
> But then all rpgs have meta elements. They don't bother me, or break my immersion.



But what I appreciate about Fate in this regard is Stress and Consequences. Stress is not a traditional HP system, but is, instead, a more transparent about being a pacing mechanism representing your ability to remain in the action or scene. But you can potentially stay in the action longer if you choose to take Consequences that follow from the fiction: e.g., sprained ankle, publicly humiliated, bloodied up, etc. These are aspects that the players and GM can also then invoke against the player. "You find yourself unable to effectively pursue the thief because you have a 'Sprained Ankle' from earlier that impairs your progress." Or alternatively, the "bloodied up" aspect could be used by a blood hound-type bounty hunter who is tracking down the player. Or maybe the "bloodied up" is invoked against the player in a social scene because being bloodied-up does not create a good impression in this crucial moment. So this works into simulating the consequences and disadvantages from the narrative fiction in play.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Arilyn said:


> And is this having a mechanical effect? While experiencing the searing pain of a fireball are the characters getting any disadvantages? After the sword slices through flesh, is there bleeding, which will continue to weaken the character until treated? Probably not, because fights in DnD have to be meta because of the sheer number of them. It's abstracted out of necessity. And once again, not a problem, but certainly meta. The loss of hp mean very little until they start creeping toward 0, therefore, I'm not in my character's shoes, experiencing the world through her eyes.  FATE is criticized for its meta mechanics, but having a fate point slide my way is just as meta, to me, as those vanishing hp, from weapon blows, fire, acid, exploding traps, that don't actually have consequences until I'm dying.
> 
> But then all rpgs have meta elements. They don't bother me, or break my immersion.



I think you're confusing abstract with meta.  Hitpoints and damage in D&D is abstracted, yes, but not metagame.  

As a hane mechanic, death spirals may appeal to a sense of realism, but they aren't fun to play.  Abstracting injury to hitpoints may not appeal to realism, but it's much more fun to play.

The harm levels in BitD, which [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was coyly referring to with his posts, work better from a realism stance and fit the narrative intent of those rules, but they quickly act like a death spiral.  A L2 harm is seriously imparing in a range of situations while L3 is crippling.  L4 harm is pretty much one last desperate effort before being done.  L5 is death (mbc fudged the levels a bit).  And that's allowing for BitD's mechanics of pushing to ignore or reduce the harm for an action.  I love BitD, but I'm always careful with using harm as a consequence because of it's death spiral effects. That's not much fun.


----------



## Arilyn

Aldarc said:


> But what I appreciate about Fate in this regard is Stress and Consequences. Stress is not a traditional HP system, but is, instead, a more transparent about being a pacing mechanism representing your ability to remain in the action or scene. But you can potentially stay in the action longer if you choose to take Consequences that follow from the fiction: e.g., sprained ankle, publicly humiliated, bloodied up, etc. These are aspects that the players and GM can also then invoke against the player. "You find yourself unable to effectively pursue the thief because you have a 'Sprained Ankle' from earlier that impairs your progress." Or alternatively, the "bloodied up" aspect could be used by a blood hound-type bounty hunter who is tracking down the player. Or maybe the "bloodied up" is invoked against the player in a social scene because being bloodied-up does not create a good impression in this crucial moment. So this works into simulating the consequences and disadvantages from the narrative fiction in play.




Yes, this is what I love about Fate as well. Aspects and consequences work so well. I buy new games, think this is cool, but would work even better in Fate.....

And the Fate community have really great ideas for stretching the game into all kinds of genres and styles.


----------



## chaochou

Ovinomancer said:


> I think you're confusing abstract with meta.  Hitpoints and damage in D&D is abstracted, yes, but not metagame.
> 
> Abstracting injury to hitpoints may not appeal to realism, but it's much more fun to play.




'Fun to play' is a metagame consideration. The characters are not deciding whether they are 'fun to play'.

Having fun is metagame.


----------



## Kobold Boots

chaochou said:


> 'Fun to play' is a metagame consideration. The characters are not deciding whether they are 'fun to play'.
> 
> Having fun is metagame.




Metagame = making decisions that affect gameplay with knowledge that would not be gleaned from gameplay.  
Not Metagame = making decisions that affect gameplay with knowledge that a character could glean from gameplay.
Fun = the whole point of playing the game in the first place.

So fun itself is outside the scope of the metagame discussion but enables the game such that the discussion could happen.  By itself it is not metagame.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## chaochou

Kobold Boots said:


> So fun itself is outside the scope of the metagame discussion but enables the game such that the discussion could happen.  By itself it is not metagame.
> 
> Thanks,
> KB




No it isn't.

And none of your = signs amount to an argument. It's just empty gainsaying.

Having fun playing a game is part of playing a game. it is not a decision made by a character. It is therefore both part of the game and explicitly metagame.

To say hitpoints are designed the way they are because 'it is fun' means they have been designed based on metagame considerations.

It's self-evidently true.


----------



## Kobold Boots

chaochou said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> And none of your = signs amount to an argument. It's just empty gainsaying.
> 
> Having fun playing a game is part of playing a game. it is not a decision made by a character. It is therefore both part of the game and explicitly metagame.
> 
> To say hitpoints are designed the way they are because 'it is fun' means they have been designed based on metagame considerations.
> 
> It's self-evidently true.




Abstraction = not metagaming
Your opinion = your opinion
My opinion = my opinion, so as far as I'm concerned = I'm right.

With Love
KB


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Arilyn said:


> And is this having a mechanical effect? While experiencing the searing pain of a fireball are the characters getting any disadvantages? After the sword slices through flesh, is there bleeding, which will continue to weaken the character until treated? Probably not, because fights in DnD have to be meta because of the sheer number of them. It's abstracted out of necessity. And once again, not a problem, but certainly meta.



Abstracted does not mean meta. Simplified does not mean meta. It's not _meta_ to describe HP loss as a physical injury, but not apply penalties to ability checks or track blood loss; it's _just_ an abstract simplification.

_Nothing_ in D&D gameplay is necessarily meta. The closest thing to meta-gaming in D&D is the suggestion that DMs contrive encounters toward what the party is capable of handling. Everything else can be handled either in-character or out-of-character, without cross-contaminating the information involved.


----------



## Manbearcat

Sorry [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] (yes, that is the sort of reply I was looking for) and @ Emerikol . I’ll get back to your guys’ responses as soon as I can. Pretty tied up.



Ovinomancer said:


> I think you're confusing abstract with meta.  Hitpoints and damage in D&D is abstracted, yes, but not metagame.
> 
> As a hane mechanic, death spirals may appeal to a sense of realism, but they aren't fun to play.  Abstracting injury to hitpoints may not appeal to realism, but it's much more fun to play.
> 
> The harm levels in BitD, which [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was coyly referring to with his posts, work better from a realism stance and fit the narrative intent of those rules, but they quickly act like a death spiral.  A L2 harm is seriously imparing in a range of situations while L3 is crippling.  L4 harm is pretty much one last desperate effort before being done.  L5 is death (mbc fudged the levels a bit).  And that's allowing for BitD's mechanics of pushing to ignore or reduce the harm for an action.  I love BitD, but I'm always careful with using harm as a consequence because of it's death spiral effects. That's not much fun.




Yup, I was referring to Blades (also, I think you may have a different copy than mine because mine is H1 -H4; Lesser, Moderate, Severe, Fatal...no H5!)!

Death Spiral is certainly a concern (because it’s not fun and not genre coherent). However, I think a Harm model could pretty deftly hook into D&D’s mechanics, allowing for these looming threats, but also allowing for interesting decision-points and archetypal realization.

For instance, with 5e:

1) Imagine a Fighter’s Second Wind allowing them to shrug of H1 outright or turn H2 into H1.

2) Imagine a Cleric’s Cure line being able to grant a new Saving Throw to move (say) H2 to H1, with higher Cures able to mitigate higher Harm levels or provide Advantage to the Saving Throw.

3) Imagine Armor being a limited use active defense in that you can use it at your discretion to mitigate Harm or provide Advantage on a Saving Throw. It “recharges” once repaired (giving Fighter-types a crafting niche).

Stuff like this should alleviate the Death Spiral. You’d just have to sort out the Saving Throw DCs (that and the severity of Harm could be tailored to genre tastes).


----------



## Ovinomancer

chaochou said:


> 'Fun to play' is a metagame consideration. The characters are not deciding whether they are 'fun to play'.
> 
> Having fun is metagame.



Yes, game design is, by definition, meta.  The resulting design may just be an abstraction.  Our decision to play a hame because we find its mechanics fun is meta.  The mechanics aren't meta because of our having fun with them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Manbearcat said:


> Sorry [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] (yes, that is the sort of reply I was looking for) and @ Emerikol . I’ll get back to your guys’ responses as soon as I can. Pretty tied up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I was referring to Blades (also, I think you may have a different copy than mine because mine is H1 -H4; Lesser, Moderate, Severe, Fatal...no H5!)!
> 
> Death Spiral is certainly a concern (because it’s not fun and not genre coherent). However, I think a Harm model could pretty deftly hook into D&D’s mechanics, allowing for these looming threats, but also allowing for interesting decision-points and archetypal realization.
> 
> For instance, with 5e:
> 
> 1) Imagine a Fighter’s Second Wind allowing them to shrug of H1 outright or turn H2 into H1.
> 
> 2) Imagine a Cleric’s Cure line being able to grant a new Saving Throw to move (say) H2 to H1, with higher Cures able to mitigate higher Harm levels or provide Advantage to the Saving Throw.
> 
> 3) Imagine Armor being a limited use active defense in that you can use it at your discretion to mitigate Harm or provide Advantage on a Saving Throw. It “recharges” once repaired (giving Fighter-types a crafting niche).
> 
> Stuff like this should alleviate the Death Spiral. You’d just have to sort out the Saving Throw DCs (that and the severity of Harm could be tailored to genre tastes).



Sure, but that would require a major overhaul of the combat engine -- its not an easy swap.

As for harm, L4 is out of action, yes, but not necessarily dead.  L5 is straight dead, don't pass go.  Trying to leap through the Lightning fences by timing the bolts would be a desperate enhanced roll with the explicit caveat that failure is a L5 harm -- you vaporize.  The player could then spend edge to deny that outcome and maybe get L4, really cooked but alive, out of it.  I'd probably require removing an equipment box or two or a L3 harm on a partial, but that's open.  Regardless, trying to jump through lightning fences is a bad idea.


----------



## chaochou

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, game design is, by definition, meta.  The resulting design may just be an abstraction.  Our decision to play a hame because we find its mechanics fun is meta.  The mechanics aren't meta because of our having fun with them.




The trouble with D&D hitpoints is that they're such nonsensical rubbish - far beyond 'abstraction' and into the realms of gibberish - that they're not fun.


----------



## Kobold Boots

chaochou said:


> The trouble with D&D hitpoints is that they're such nonsensical rubbish - far beyond 'abstraction' and into the realms of gibberish - that they're not fun.




What would you suggest in replacement that would be?


----------



## chaochou

Kobold Boots said:


> What would you suggest in replacement that would be?




I'm not wasting my time. You've already announced your head is firmly in the sand.



			
				Kobold Boots said:
			
		

> My opinion = my opinion, so as far as I'm concerned = I'm right.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

chaochou said:


> The trouble with D&D hitpoints is that they're such nonsensical rubbish - far beyond 'abstraction' and into the realms of gibberish - that they're not fun.



I dunno, they seem pretty realistic to me. If you hit someone with a baseball bat, then they're going to be pretty messed up, and if you keep hitting them then eventually they will die.


----------



## Ovinomancer

chaochou said:


> The trouble with D&D hitpoints is that they're such nonsensical rubbish - far beyond 'abstraction' and into the realms of gibberish - that they're not fun.



I have no problems with your preference on this matter and am happy you have non-hp outlets to enjoy.  I don't mind hitpoints -- they enable a certain kind of play that I enjoy -- and I don't have a lot of problems conceptualizing them in the play space as near misses, grazes, scratches, and bruises.  I can easily see how others can have a problem, esoecially if they consider hitpoints a meat (a valid opinion). 

None of this, however, addresses the meta vs abstraction discussion we were having.  Are we done with that?


----------



## chaochou

Saelorn said:


> I dunno, they seem pretty realistic to me. If you hit someone with a baseball bat, then they're going to be pretty messed up.




And how does being 'messed up' translate into D&Ds hit points? 

Well, let's see now: No pain, no shock, no keeling over winded, no fractures or breaks or sprains, punctures, no internal bleeding, no external bleeding, no concussion, no muscles tears or ligament damage, no fatigue, or loss of strength or balance, no change in perception.

Get someone to smash you around with a baseball bat for a bit and see if none of those thing happen to you - then get back to me on the claims of 'realism'.

It's an utterly anodyne representation of combat as a mathematical exercise in reducing a the enemy to zero HP before yours reach zero. A total fail to describe any possible realities of combat attrition. DYD HP couldn't be _less _realistic.


----------



## Kobold Boots

chaochou said:


> I'm not wasting my time. You've already announced your head is firmly in the sand.




That's a fair but illogical assessment on your part considering my head is in the sand on a completely different topic than the one I asked you to elaborate on.

Therefore I will assess that you have nothing of worth to contribute other than a poor attitude on the subject at hand and are simply venting.

Be well,
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots

chaochou said:


> And how does being 'messed up' translate into D&Ds hit points?
> 
> Well, let's see now: No pain, no shock, no keeling over winded, no fractures or breaks or sprains, punctures, no internal bleeding, no external bleeding, no concussion, no muscles tears or ligament damage, no fatigue, or loss of strength or balance, no change in perception.
> 
> Get someone to smash you around with a baseball bat for a bit and see if none of those thing happen to you - then get back to me on the claims of 'realism'.
> 
> It's an utterly anodyne representation of combat as a mathematical exercise in reducing a the enemy to zero HP before yours reach zero. A total fail to describe any possible realities of combat attrition. DYD HP couldn't be _less _realistic.




I fall into a few categories that are semi-relevant.

- Former SCA Heavy List (Go Weresheep!)
- Martial artist
- Tech guy that's good with numbers

So I can tell you with some experience that games that heavily model combat to take into account such events tend to cater to a certain demograph who love that kind of stuff or take longer to run or at the least take a lot interest in accounting for things that many gamers can't stand worrying about in their escapism.. (Uncle Mort had an arrow go through his spleen.. now he's got a flaw that says he can't eat dairy.. good thing we're not fighting the ice cream beast)

Now I, actually would love it if there was a system that made better sense than hit points, which is why I asked you what your solution might be.  Still open to discussing that as it might be more productive than witty banter back and forth about what people don't like.

Be well
KB


----------



## Shasarak

chaochou said:


> Get someone to smash you around with a baseball bat for a bit and see if none of those thing happen to you - then get back to me on the claims of 'realism'.




I only have 1d6 Hps and the baseball bat is going to do 1d6+Str damage to me, so why would I want them to have even one swing at me?


----------



## Emerikol

Most of the times in these discussions my use of the term magic comprises any special force that a skeptical rationalist in this world would not believe exists.  So Psionics, Ki, Mutations, etc... are all forms of "magic" for the discussion.  Magic is changes to the universes ruleset.

I think we are splitting on agency vs perception.  Obviously unless you have VR glasses from 2150, you aren't seeing, smelling, and touching exactly what your character is.  The Dungeon Master is describing what is happening.  And whether that game is realistic or not is beside the point as far as this thread is concerned.  We all know D&D is super heroic.

My issue is players making changes to the game state that their characters could not possibly make given the world they are playing in.  So let's just say the implied D&D world prior to 4e.  In that world, fighters are not innately magical.  They use magic of all sorts and that is part of their power for sure.  So such a fighter could not possibly have a once per day "power".  So my choices in that situation were to either rewrite the world to make fighters magical or to leave behind actor stance and go into some kind of author stance.  Neither appealed to me all that much.

Fate points, I assume are outside the purview of the PC.  They are 100% player tokens and the player is authoring events around to character to create a story.  It is a valid style and I hope no one doubts me when I say that.  I hope you all enjoy it.  I wish you well.  I personally just don't prefer that style of game.  That alone is not me casting aspersions.  That is me stating a preference.

I think pure actor stance is an incredible rich and rewarding style of play.  I wouldn't say it's the only form of roleplaying.  I would say though that those moments in any game where you are "being" the character is WHEN you are roleplaying.  So if you drop out occasionally to be the player that is fine.  You aren't really playing your character at that point.  You are modifying the game around your character so that when you return to character the game will be more interesting.


----------



## Emerikol

chaochou said:


> The trouble with D&D hitpoints is that they're such nonsensical rubbish - far beyond 'abstraction' and into the realms of gibberish - that they're not fun.




When I play a over the board wargame, I move a counter into a hex and attack an enemy counter.  When that battle is over one side retreats.  Nothing else is measurable about the state of the counter.  I can in special circumstances with enough counters destroy that counter that I attack.  It's an abstraction.  And it's not that bad of an abstraction.

In a super heroic fantasy game, (it sounds like you don't like the super heroic part), you have heroes who just keep on fighting while wounded.  They are just that tough.  Normal people are screaming when hit by a fireball but these guys are gritting their teeth and moving in for the kills.  Now this is pretty cinematic.  It's not real world.  The game doesn't purport to be a simulation of real life.  

But given, the abstraction, I've noticed my players tend to behave as if they are wounded.  If they are down to 10% of their points they are often looking to be healed or to fall back behind someone less wounded.  Hit points leads to realistic behavior without having to keep tracking of all the details.  If you like the details then I suggest you play a grittier game.  Nothing wrong with your preferences.  We though are talking about a super heroic fantasy game where a person with a metal sword really could kill a dragon.  

All of this lack of realism though has nothing to do with whether your character is played in actor stance or some other stance.


----------



## chaochou

Ovinomancer said:


> None of this, however, addresses the meta vs abstraction discussion we were having.  Are we done with that?




Not really. You said that hitpoints are abstract. Which is a pretty worthless statement. Stats, classes, armour class, spell slots, hit points, fate points, stress levels, moves, aspects - they're all abstract. RPG mechanics used for resolution purposes are always abstract.

Since all game mechanics used for resolution are abstract, it follows that your argument ('You're confusing abstract with meta') is worthless. It falls apart as a false dichotomy. Otherwise, describe a game mechanic used for in-game resolution which is not abstract.

So now we've got that error out the way, what's left that you actually said? An assertion that HP are not metagame. If that's true, then this test will be easy:

We've just sat down at the table and I've given you a character to play, but not handed over the character sheet - and I describe your situation like this:

_You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand._

How many hit points do you have?

For that matter... what class are you?

Your in-character knowledge should be more than enough to realise those things instinctively and immediately... assuming, of course, that they're not metagame...


----------



## The Crimson Binome

chaochou said:


> And how does being 'messed up' translate into D&Ds hit points?
> 
> Well, let's see now: No pain, no shock, no keeling over winded, no fractures or breaks or sprains, punctures, no internal bleeding, no external bleeding, no concussion, no muscles tears or ligament damage, no fatigue, or loss of strength or balance, no change in perception.



Most of my experience with combat comes from watching movies, so that's what seems realistic to me. If you hit someone with a bat, then they can keep fighting back until they're unconscious. Pain, shock, and fractures don't seem to matter much _during_ the fight.

From what I've seen of professional boxing, they do become a bit less precise over the course of a match, but not necessarily to the degree that it would warrant representation in such a simplistic model.


chaochou said:


> It's an utterly anodyne representation of combat as a mathematical exercise in reducing a the enemy to zero HP before yours reach zero. A total fail to describe any possible realities of combat attrition. D&D HP couldn't be _less _realistic.



They're realistic in every way that matters. They let you know what happens, as a result of getting hit; and they do so in an efficient way which doesn't bog down in gratuitous details. Knowing that you're 'messed up' because you've sustained 42 damage is sufficient information to paint a picture, so you don't have to describe the specific fractures and blood loss.


----------



## Ovinomancer

chaochou said:


> Not really. You said that hitpoints are abstract. Which is a pretty worthless statement. Stats, classes, armour class, spell slots, hit points, fate points, stress levels, moves, aspects - they're all abstract. RPG mechanics used for resolution purposes are always abstract.
> 
> Since all game mechanics used for resolution are abstract, it follows that your argument ('You're confusing abstract with meta') is worthless. It falls apart as a false dichotomy. Otherwise, describe a game mechanic used for in-game resolution which is not abstract.



Huh.  So worthless it's worth three posts from you?  Interesting.

Your actual argument here is a strawman.  The statement I was responding to about the difference between an abstraction and meta was listing problems with hitpoints that were all part and parcel of being an abstraction and not those associated with being meta.  Hence my statement that there was confusion there between abstraction and meta.  Never did I say that no game mechanics are abstractions -- that's a trivially true statement and not a surprise to me at all.  Nor did I claim that some of those mechanical abstractions couldn't be meta.  Again, not something I contest at all.  


> So now we've got that error out the way, what's left that you actually said? An assertion that HP are not metagame. If that's true, then this test will be easy:
> 
> We've just sat down at the table and I've given you a character to play, but not handed over the character sheet - and I describe your situation like this:
> 
> _You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand._
> 
> How many hit points do you have?
> 
> For that matter... what class are you?
> 
> Your in-character knowledge should be more than enough to realise those things instinctively and immediately... assuming, of course, that they're not metagame...



Again, interesting.  You seem to think that a short scene frame should provide the player with information not included in the scene frame or that, if they have that information from another source, then that information is metagame because you can't derive it from a single, short scene framing?  And you tell me _I'm_ being illogical.

Character sheets are (as you've noted, so helpfully) an abstraction not just of game mechanics, but also of pre-requisite fiction so that the scene framings have operational context in a fictional setting.  You've confused that abstraction for the metagame.  Ironic, I know.


----------



## chaochou

Kobold Boots said:


> Now I, actually would love it if there was a system that made better sense than hit points, which is why I asked you what your solution might be.




Apologies, I misread your question, or its intent, or both.

There certainly isn't a system that I'm aware of that captures all the things I described. But there are certainly systems that have a more convincing model than attrite to zero.

Runequest and Rolemaster are good traditional examples of good sim systems. Runequest has hit locations with individual armour and hit points that can fail independently of each other. So you can lose the use of your shield arm, or be on the floor with a leg given way and greatly disadvantaged. It also has system shock, bleeding out, loss of limbs. Damage makes attacking harder. And HP are based almost entirely on your size and constitution. You might have 14 HP and stay there all game, while a sword might be doing 1D8+1+1D4 damage. It's a proper HP as meat model.

Rolemaster uses a wide range of critical tables to inflict descriptive and mechanical conditions on combatants. So while you might have 241 HP, you can be losing 11 a turn from a cut artery, take stuns, negatives to your next attack or attacks, defensive penalties, broken weapons, dislocations. I didn't play it that much, but it was also the basis of ICEs Middle Earth game in the 80s so I know it from there.

Riddle of Steel is a hard to find Indie game now out of print. It was a poster child for sword combat, authored by a practiced HEMA swordfighter. Characters have fighting styles based on their weapons, and those in turn give them sets of moves. They also have a dice pool which you split between attack and defense and then each side chooses their attacks and defenses and dice off. If you get hit it ranges from the nasty to incapacitated to fatal. No cheap magic healing, neither. The combat system was good for duels, but not polished, difficult, downright impenetrable in places. But still an eye opener for just what a totally different game you get when combat is to be avoided except in the absolute last resort.

Others in the thread have talked about Fate. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] alluded to Blades in the Dark, which gives  a small harm clock, plus the opportunity for flexible conditions / descriptors for wounds, impairments or conditions.

The original Hero Wars gave you a pool of 'Hit Points' in any contest based on your skill score. So if you were trying to kill someone and they were trying to scare you away and you had a skill of 28 in Vicious Swordplay and they had 24 in Get Back You Cur, you'd start with 'pools' of 28 and 24 respectively. Like D&D what mattered was getting someone to zero. But the stakes shifted depending on what intents and action declarations were made. You can use free descriptors as appropriate to add conditions, wounds, injuries, ailments to characters (they essentially become skills that then act as hindrances when appropriate) as the action unfolds.

These are just a handful. I liked the first edition of WHFRP as well, but I've run out of mojo for typing.


----------



## Emerikol

chaochou said:


> Not really. You said that hitpoints are abstract. Which is a pretty worthless statement. Stats, classes, armour class, spell slots, hit points, fate points, stress levels, moves, aspects - they're all abstract. RPG mechanics used for resolution purposes are always abstract.



Your entire line of argument is pretty worthless.  These things are different and they matter.  So if all you want to do is act obnoxious and claim everything is the same then move along.  




chaochou said:


> Since all game mechanics used for resolution are abstract, it follows that your argument ('You're confusing abstract with meta') is worthless. It falls apart as a false dichotomy. Otherwise, describe a game mechanic used for in-game resolution which is not abstract.



ditto to my above comment.




chaochou said:


> So now we've got that error out the way, what's left that you actually said? An assertion that HP are not metagame. If that's true, then this test will be easy:



No.  Mr. Pronouncement from on high. It's not out of the way and you've proven nothing.  You spouting something isn't proof.  You've not offered arguments.  You offered pontification.  



chaochou said:


> We've just sat down at the table and I've given you a character to play, but not handed over the character sheet - and I describe your situation like this:
> 
> _You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand._



Hit points are an abstract way of the DM conveying a boatload of information in a short statement.  This is a complete strawman.  




chaochou said:


> How many hit points do you have?
> 
> For that matter... what class are you?
> 
> Your in-character knowledge should be more than enough to realise those things instinctively and immediately... assuming, of course, that they're not metagame...



You can't differentiate between abstractions used to convey information rapidly and as a player leaving actor stance to manipulate the game as the player and not as the character.  That is what this thread is about.  So maybe you should read the posts first before you spout off.

We are trying to have a civil discussion.  About mechanical differences that matter to us.  You coming in and telling us they are all the same makes you look foolish and obnoxious.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Death Spiral is certainly a concern (because it’s not fun and not genre coherent). However, I think a Harm model could pretty deftly hook into D&D’s mechanics, allowing for these looming threats, but also allowing for interesting decision-points and archetypal realization.



Spitballin' here, but could some of the death-spiral concerns (not all, as death spirals can be very suspenseful and tension-filled when they work right) be mitigated by having Harm work like this:

1. Someone gets hit by something hard enough to potentially inflict Harm (of whatever level except the death level)
2. The victim gets a save - success means no Harm done, stop here; failure means Harm is taken (and failing at the death level means you die, stop here)
3. If Harm is taken, a second save is given to determine if this Harm is short-term (on success) or long-term (on failure)
4a. If the Harm turns out to be short-term, the effects are temporary (1-4 rounds?  2-5 rounds? a little longer?) after which you shrug them off and move up a Harm level.  Cures always remove at least one level of temporary Harm
4b. If the Harm turns out to be long-term, a minor cure (e.g. CLW, Potion of Healing) will make it short-term and a major cure (e.g. CSW, Potion of Extra Healing) will remove one or more Harm levels entirely.
5. On moving up a Harm level, go to step 3 and repeat, unless of course you are moving up from Harm 1 to unharmed.

I'd also have these saves not necessarily improve with level, but be based on the (highest?  lowest? average?) of your Constitution (hardiness) and Charisma (willpower).  I suggest this because using Con by itself will make the stat overpowered.  Hell, the "saves" could even be roll-under, for all that; with the level of Harm you're trying to shrug off applied against your roll:

Con 13 trying to shrug off Harm 3 needs to roll 10 or less.

This also allows for easy application of a grittiness dial by simply putting a blanket bonus (more Harm becomes temporary) or penalty (more likely to be permanent) on these rolls.  It's also a bit more system-neutral, provided the system has an equivalent to a Con and-or Cha score.

Thoughts?

Lanefan


----------



## Kobold Boots

chaochou said:


> Apologies, I misread your question, or its intent, or both.
> ... abbreviating for length... KB
> 
> These are just a handful. I liked the first edition of WHFRP as well, but I've run out of mojo for typing.




Thanks for your consideration and no worries.

I'm familiar with all of those systems.  Most that have detailed combat get bastardized by the table due to the default results not being the exact level of detail that satisfies those who aren't happy with D&D abstraction level.

For me, I've always seen fighting as the constant balance between fatigue, position and actual physical injury.  The implements used to cause injury to an opponent always require effective positioning and cause fatigue to the attacker.  Therefore there's a constant amount of "damage" being applied to both parties in a conflict and not all damage by the example above caused to a combatant is caused by his or her opponent.  (as an example, if I put my foot down in the wrong place and I twist an ankle or have to exert on an awkward swing - I just messed myself up)

As a result to me, this is where D&D both succeeds and fails.  The abstraction allows you to say that damage can come from anywhere, but also fails to adequately apply damage to both opponents beyond a simple hit and damage roll.  Honestly most of these systems we're talking about fail to take into account proper fighting holistic beyond taking the western medical approach of treating a symptom (a critical obviously only happens on a hit.. so roll on a chart.  a fumble is obviously only because you rolled badly on a hit, so roll on a chart.)  so when you scale to include flavor, you make the combat process unwieldy.

I'm still plotting my own system that only requires two contested rolls to figure all of this out in combat, but the wall I'm running in to is that the more you layer into a scripted combat system with few variables, the less likely that folks are going to see a fast resolution to a round of combat.  Still figuring out the sweet spot.


----------



## chaochou

Ovinomancer said:


> Your actual argument here is a strawman.




No it's not. You accused someone of confusing meta with abstract. If all things are abstract then this is a worthless observation.

The correct observation would be 'All things are abstract. There are subsets of abstract which are meta and not meta.'

But you didn't. You drew a distinction between meta and abstract and then proceeded from that distinction to make your wholly unsupported assertion that in fact D&D HP are abstract but not metagame, as if the abstraction removes the possibility of both abstract and metagame being present.

You now concede that this is not the case.



Ovinomancer said:


> Gibbering attempt to avoid the question.




Given the same description, I could get very close to estimating that character's HP in Runequest 2.

So why are you struggling so hard to avoid the question when it's D&D HP?

You claim D&D HP are not metagame, but in-character knowledge. So use your in-character knowledge to tell me. I can do it for RQ2. Why can't you for D&D?

I'll tell you why, of course. It's because D&D HP are pure metagame. Some people then choose to pretend they aren't. But that doesn't make it not metagame in any analytical sense, it means they gain their enjoyment from a self-deception regarding the design of the game.

Which is fine, but it doesn't mean I've confused anything. I've simply revealed the emptiness at the centre of your misleading and completely false assertion that D&D HP are not metagame. They are.


----------



## Ovinomancer

chaochou said:


> No it's not. You accused someone of confusing meta with abstract. If all things are abstract then this is a worthless observation.
> 
> The correct observation would be 'All things are abstract. There are subsets of abstract which are meta and not meta.'
> 
> But you didn't. You drew a distinction between meta and abstract and then proceeded from that distinction to make your wholly unsupported assertion that in fact D&D HP are abstract but not metagame, as if the abstraction removes the possibility of both abstract and metagame being present.
> 
> You now concede that this is not the case.



I see that you couldn't be bothered to read what I posted, as I made that exact observation that you're telling me I didn't do above.  In the original post, all I said is that the poster was confusing abstractions with meta, which they did -- hitpoints are an abstraction but they aren't meta.  The complaints made were about the abstract nature of hitpoints and didn't have any meta features.  Strangely, you're here now telling me I am wrong for making the argument you just made.  




> Gibbering attempt to avoid the question.



Wow.  You need to dial it back.  Saying that vice replacing my quote with that is slightly less offensive, but you're crossing the line.  


> Given the same description, I could get very close to estimating that character's HP in Runequest 2.
> 
> So why are you struggling so hard to avoid the question when it's D&D HP?
> 
> You claim D&D HP are not metagame, but in-character knowledge. So use your in-character knowledge to tell me. I can do it for RQ2. Why can't you for D&D?
> 
> I'll tell you why, of course. It's because D&D HP are pure metagame. Some people then choose to pretend they aren't. But that doesn't make it not metagame in any analytical sense, it means they gain their enjoyment from a self-deception regarding the design of the game.
> 
> Which is fine, but it doesn't mean I've confused anything. I've simply revealed the emptiness at the centre of your misleading and completely false assertion that D&D HP are not metagame. They are.



I answered your question -- I cannot determine things about my character's current state based on a short scene description.  I also said that knowing my character's recent and past history isn't metagame.  Knowing my character's story in the fiction of the game -- that I trained as a fighter and that I've recently begun adventuring and that, just a few minutes ago, I was pressed hard by some goblins but won through are all in fiction things that inform me, the player, to the answers to your questions.  The abstract mechanic of hp, which would provide me the player with more information about how hard those goblins pressed me is still just the abstract representation of the information my character, if alive in the world, would have but cannot be otherwise represented to me, the player.  That's not meta -- in any sense (and I disagree with most of the definitions of meta in this thread, some are confusing stance and/or limited authorial agency with metagame mechanics).  It's abstraction.  

D&D hitpoints aren't meta.  They don't represent information not available in game.  The don't represent mechanics that exist outside the framework of the game.  They just aren't meta. They're just an abstraction of the game's fictional process of combat.


As for you being able to guess about where the HP in Runequest 2 is from the information in your scene frame, that's entirely because Runequest 2 has descriptions for damage based on HP level baked into the system.  You're using information from outside of your scene framing to make that determination -- information you deny other systems.  "Dirty pool, old man."


----------



## 5ekyu

more and more i come to the conclusion that the meaning of metagame is "whatever i need it to be to fusss about something i dislike."

i am so very very glad that my experience at the table has so infinitely small if ever mentions of "metagame" compared to the frequency with which it blazes across forums.


----------



## Arilyn

5ekyu said:


> more and more i come to the conclusion that the meaning of metagame is "whatever i need it to be to fusss about something i dislike."
> 
> i am so very very glad that my experience at the table has so infinitely small if ever mentions of "metagame" compared to the frequency with which it blazes across forums.




Yep. Take your meta-gaming characters, stick them on a railroad, throw in some GNS theory, and then stand way back.


----------



## 5ekyu

Arilyn said:


> Yep. Take your meta-gaming characters, stick them on a railroad, throw in some GNS theory, and then stand way back.



Hang on... You forgot to set the steaks too. Steaks are critical and i gi for good solid medium on my steaks but am flexible.


----------



## Maxperson

[MENTION=6682826]CH[/MENTION]aochou 



> Having fun playing a game is part of playing a game. it is not a decision made by a character. It is therefore both part of the game and explicitly metagame.




This is untrue.  Having fun is the result of playing the game.  It's not part of playing the game.  There are no rules that say you have fun at X time, but not Y time.


----------



## Maxperson

Kobold Boots said:


> What would you suggest in replacement that would be?




I've seen games where you just have statuses, such as unhurt, lightly hurt, moderately hurt, severely hurt, unconscious, dead.  You'd of course have different combat mechanics to determine how you reach those statuses.


----------



## chaochou

Ovinomancer said:


> You're using information from outside of your scene framing to make that determination -- information you deny other systems.




No. It's simply illustrative that HP in D&D are metagame information.

The OP defined metagame information and asked for games which may or may not use it to a greater or lesser degree. Metagame was defined as making decisions as a character without the information that character would have.

I provided the information a player has:
_
You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand.
_

A player can make a reasoned and well-informed decision about the health and wellbeing of this character with just this information in Runequest 2. In Runequest 3. In Apocalypse World. In FATE. In Call of Cthulhu. In Traveller. In Pendragon. In Dogs in the Vineyard. In Sorcerer. In the Riddle of Steel. In Warhammer FRP. In game after game after game.

Why not in D&D? Simple. Because Hit Points are a meaningless, amorphous metagame ball of pacing mechanic and plot protection.

You need to know your character history to figure it out? Sorry, bud, your character got amnesia. Makes no odds to accurately playing their health in all the systems above. But how many D&D hit points do you have now? How do you feel right now? Or does your amnesiac character forget their hitpoints?


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> Most of the times in these discussions my use of the term magic comprises any special force that a skeptical rationalist in this world would not believe exists.  So Psionics, Ki, Mutations, etc... are all forms of "magic" for the discussion.  Magic is changes to the universes ruleset.



That entire world in D&D is presumed magical. You are trying to apply a modernist mindset that distinguishes between the mundane and the magical to a world that presumes a premodern worldview wherein the supernatural, magical, and irrational are infused into everything of the cosmos. Everything. In such a worldview, whether you are playing 0E-5E, there is no "just a mundane person" in this world. The supernatural infuses every fiber of the world, and this is abundantly evident in the Great Wheel and D&D's other various cosmologies. 



> My issue is players making changes to the game state that their characters could not possibly make given the world they are playing in.  So let's just say the implied D&D world prior to 4e.  In that world, fighters are not innately magical.  They use magic of all sorts and that is part of their power for sure.  So such a fighter could not possibly have a once per day "power".  So my choices in that situation were to either rewrite the world to make fighters magical or to leave behind actor stance and go into some kind of author stance.  Neither appealed to me all that much.



And therein is my problem. Others and I have a different vision and conception of "the world they are playing in," wherein abilities like Second Wind and Action Surge are plausible from the perspective of in-character choice and their worldview. I suspect that you are thinking like a modernist playing this game. You believe there to be distinction between natural and supernatural as opposed to simply The World as Imagined. You are possibly failing to live up to your own self-professed Actor stance. You are not imagining _their_ world. A world with a different set of presumptions. A world that lacks any distinction between the natural and supernatural, between magical and mundane. You are not imagining what it would be like in the world that D&D presumes because you are too busy presuming that you are playing with this world in mind from a modernist perspective. This is something that I have even advised newplayers to fantasy roleplaying and modern Euro-American students when looking at the pre-modern world. There is no distinction between natural and supernatural. (Actually Runequest gets this pre-modern worldview remarkably well.) 



> Fate points, I assume are outside the purview of the PC.  They are 100% player tokens and the player is authoring events around to character to create a story.  It is a valid style and I hope no one doubts me when I say that.  I hope you all enjoy it.  I wish you well.  I personally just don't prefer that style of game.  That alone is not me casting aspersions.  That is me stating a preference.



Of course. 

Fate points are outside of the purview of the character, though one could rework them in-character, which could be potentially interesting as a reskin. Fate points are not primarily used for authoring though, but for acting. More often than not, Fate points are used when the Actor wants to embrace or lean into their role at important, key moments. And yes, Fate points may also be used in occurrences when the Actor may desire to provide more "authorship" over the setting in ways that are applicable to the setting. Because just like in the context of D&D: all actors are authors. They have created their characters and they have a sense of their character's identity and not everything of that sort needs to be done outside of gameplay. In Fate, this may entail points where the PC declares that "they know a guy who can help" or some other story detail (e.g., "I pull out anti-shark repellent out of my bat utility belt."). In this role, they are both Actor and Author; it is neither an either/or situation, as the Actor is developing their sense of character and roleplaying who that character is. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, inherently forces the Actor out of Actor stance when they spend a Fate point. I have watched entire games of Fate done entirely from 1st person, in-character speak and roleplaying as character. The decisions were made, rejected, and formulated from in-character perspectives. 

Fate points are a metacurrency that exist as "a measure of how much influence you have to make the story go in your character’s favor," as per the Fate rules, but I have a slightly different additional take. Fate points also exist as a metacurrency possessed by the GM and Players that serves to reinforce and negotiate the Social Contract between all roleplay game participants through a means of checks and balances during, through, and within gameplay. Fate points give players more control over their sense of character. They give players opportunities to veto the narrative that the GM may impose on their characters. But they also give a way for the GM to tacitly check against the acting of players for points where there is a discrepancy of character and the acting (e.g., you are playing your LG character as CE, why isn't your hydrophobic character acting afraid of water, etc.). 



> I think pure actor stance is an incredible rich and rewarding style of play.  I wouldn't say it's the only form of roleplaying.  I would say though that those moments in any game where you are "being" the character is WHEN you are roleplaying.  So if you drop out occasionally to be the player that is fine.  You aren't really playing your character at that point.  You are modifying the game around your character so that when you return to character the game will be more interesting.



Again, I contend that there is no "Pure Actor Stance," much as there is no Pure Scotsman. It is an inherent impossibility within the presumed framework of its very own theory and in praxis. You can say that you aspire to maximize the Actor's stance and minimize the Director and Author stances of players, but please stop talking about Pure Actor Stance as if it was something that you have achieved and was even plausible. 



5ekyu said:


> more and more i come to the conclusion that the meaning of metagame is "whatever i need it to be to fusss about something i dislike."
> 
> i am so very very glad that my experience at the table has so infinitely small if ever mentions of "metagame" compared to the frequency with which it blazes across forums.



I don't know. I think that there are a lot of metagame elements to D&D and other games that get overlooked or a free pass because of familiarity. It says nothing about whether or not I like those elements. But I also don't necessarily mind metagame mechanics, so it is not a case of making a "fuss about something I dislike," though that criticism would certainly apply to others. 

As I said before, the metagame is often about the gameplay. Fouls are a part of basketball's meta in how the game is played even though by nature they represent inappropriate or "foul" gameplay. Likewise, we may hate excessive diving in Fußball, but it's undoubtedly part of the meta.



chaochou said:


> Why not in D&D? Simple. Because Hit Points are a meaningless, amorphous metagame ball of pacing mechanic and plot protection.



That is how Stress works in Fate too. Consequences can put more "meat" on the character, but Stress boxes are functionally as you describe here.


----------



## Ovinomancer

chaochou said:


> No. It's simply illustrative that HP in D&D are metagame information.
> 
> The OP defined metagame information and asked for games which may or may not use it to a greater or lesser degree. Metagame was defined as making decisions as a character without the information that character would have.
> 
> I provided the information a player has:
> _
> You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand.
> _
> 
> A player can make a reasoned and well-informed decision about the health and wellbeing of this character with just this information in Runequest 2. In Runequest 3. In Apocalypse World. In FATE. In Call of Cthulhu. In Traveller. In Pendragon. In Dogs in the Vineyard. In Sorcerer. In the Riddle of Steel. In Warhammer FRP. In game after game after game.
> 
> Why not in D&D? Simple. Because Hit Points are a meaningless, amorphous metagame ball of pacing mechanic and plot protection.
> 
> You need to know your character history to figure it out? Sorry, bud, your character got amnesia. Makes no odds to accurately playing their health in all the systems above. But how many D&D hit points do you have now? How do you feel right now? Or does your amnesiac character forget their hitpoints?



Ah, you've confused abstract for meta 

You're still playing games with your scene framing.  You're  pretending that's all the information you have.  But, you actually are using more information than what's in your frame by choosing game systems that hapoen to have more precise definitions of injury.  That doesn't make hitpoints meta -- hitpoints don't becone meta because other systems use more precise quantization of harm.  That's not how meta works.  Hitponts are just more abstract than thise other systems.  You've confused a more abstract system for being meta.

And, the real silliness of this is that it's an attempt to prove that D&D incorporates meta play as a baseline.  There are lots of good options to show this, but you've locked down on insisting on hitponts to prove the point.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> That entire world in D&D is presumed magical. You are trying to apply a modernist mindset that distinguishes between the mundane and the magical to a world that presumes a premodern worldview wherein the supernatural, magical, and irrational are infused into everything of the cosmos. Everything. In such a worldview, whether you are playing 0E-5E, there is no "just a mundane person" in this world. The supernatural infuses every fiber of the world, and this is abundantly evident in the Great Wheel and D&D's other various cosmologies.




That's not true.  In D&D a rock is just a rock, but an earth elemental is magical.  A tree is just a tree, but a treant is magical.  A person is just a normal mundane person, but a wizard uses magic.  And so on.  There's lots of magic in the D&D world, but the world itself is not magical as a whole.  This holds true even with the other planes.  If your PC went to Hell and encountered a river of lava, that lava would be mundane lava, not magical lava.



> And therein is my problem. Others and I have a different vision and conception of "the world they are playing in," wherein abilities like Second Wind and Action Surge are plausible from the perspective of in-character choice and their worldview.




Clearly!  You've added magic to everything, where the game itself doesn't have it.


----------



## Sadras

_Detect Magic_ should be renamed _Detect Everything_


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> That's not true.  In D&D a rock is just a rock, but an earth elemental is magical.  A tree is just a tree, but a treant is magical.  A person is just a normal mundane person, but a wizard uses magic.  And so on.  There's lots of magic in the D&D world, but the world itself is not magical as a whole.  This holds true even with the other planes.  If your PC went to Hell and encountered a river of lava, that lava would be mundane lava, not magical lava.



Ah, but it is true. The world of D&D presumes that said world _is_ inherently magical. Some things may have more magic than others, but that does not mean that everything is mundane and devoid of magic by our sensibilities. It is a world influenced by other planes of existence and you can use portals in the world to traverse them. The stars may have a bearing on the fate of mortals. The world may follow a magical destiny foretold from before. Magic is an inherent part of the physics of the world. For us it is metaphyics, but for D&D characters, it is physics. Magical energy infuses the entirety of D&D's world. A treant is just as natural in D&D as a tree. Bat fur is not just mundane fur off a bat; it has magical properties that can be used for spells.  A wizard may use and manipulate magic, but a mundane person is no more removed from the magical physics of the world than the wizard is. Just because you are not splitting the atom does not mean that you aren't composed of atoms, so to speak. 



> Clearly!  You've added magic to everything, where the game itself doesn't have it.



The game already added magic to everything; we are only debating how much.  



Sadras said:


> _Detect Magic_ should be renamed _Detect Everything_



I would say that Detect Magic is meant to detect comparatively sizable quantities or concentrations of magic that are worthy of note. Think of magic like radiation and Detect Magic as a geiger counter. Human beings are not devoid of radiation. Radioactive processes happen naturally within the human body all the time but it only becomes an issue when it exceeds certain thresholds of safety. So geiger counters are meant to detect and measure if radiation, or certain forms thereof, exceed those thresholds. And the way that Detect Magic works in 5e is that the spell creates a faint, visible aura on creatures or objects. I would say that it's not a matter of detecting whether you are magical or not, but how much of a glow you produce.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> Ah, but it is true. The world of D&D presumes that said world _is_ inherently magical. Some things may have more magic than others, but that does not mean that everything is mundane and devoid of magic by our sensibilities. It is a world influenced by other planes of existence and you can use portals in the world to traverse them. The stars may have a bearing on the fate of mortals. The world may follow a magical destiny foretold from before. Magic is an inherent part of the physics of the world. For us it is metaphyics, but for D&D characters, it is physics. Magical energy infuses the entirety of D&D's world. A treant is just as natural in D&D as a tree. Bat fur is not just mundane fur off a bat; it has magical properties that can be used for spells.  A wizard may use and manipulate magic, but a mundane person is no more removed from the magical physics of the world than the wizard is. Just because you are not splitting the atom does not mean that you aren't composed of atoms, so to speak.
> 
> The game already added magic to everything; we are only debating how much.
> 
> I would say that Detect Magic is meant to detect comparatively sizable quantities or concentrations of magic that are worthy of note. Think of magic like radiation and Detect Magic as a geiger counter. Human beings are not devoid of radiation. Radioactive processes happen naturally within the human body all the time but it only becomes an issue when it exceeds certain thresholds of safety. So geiger counters are meant to detect and measure if radiation, or certain forms thereof, exceed those thresholds. And the way that Detect Magic works in 5e is that the spell creates a faint, visible aura on creatures or objects. I would say that it's not a matter of detecting whether you are magical or not, but how much of a glow you produce.



That's a neat setting concept, but it's by no means baseline.  D&D has as much or as little magic as needed by whichever setting you're using.


----------



## Ratskinner

Arilyn said:


> And is this having a mechanical effect? While experiencing the searing pain of a fireball are the characters getting any disadvantages? After the sword slices through flesh, is there bleeding, which will continue to weaken the character until treated? Probably not, because fights in DnD have to be meta because of the sheer number of them. It's abstracted out of necessity. And once again, not a problem, but certainly meta. The loss of hp mean very little until they start creeping toward 0, therefore, I'm not in my character's shoes, experiencing the world through her eyes.  FATE is criticized for its meta mechanics, but having a fate point slide my way is just as meta, to me, as those vanishing hp, from weapon blows, fire, acid, exploding traps, that don't actually have consequences until I'm dying.
> 
> But then all rpgs have meta elements. They don't bother me, or break my immersion.




Getting a Fate Point is far _less_ meta for me. Its directly connected with the Fiction AND the Mechanics, the very antithesis of "meta". Similarly, Fate's system of consequences (or conditions) is much more reflective of the fiction than HP even have the possibility of being. _Spending_ a Fate point might be slightly more "meta", but when you consider what you are doing when you spend it, once again we find that (usually) spending a Fate point is directly tied to the fiction and mechanics. Spend a Fate point to invoke an aspect and you are simply pointing out or utilizing some aspect of the fiction in play (whether the aspect is yours or otherwise.) A re-roll might be the only time that spending a Fate point is "meta", but those don't come up nearly as much, IME.

Once again, the idea of HP being somehow non-meta is simply a matter of familiarity, and not reflective of their actual nature.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

Embrace the meta, love the meta, become one with the meta.


----------



## Ratskinner

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Embrace the meta, love the meta, become one with the meta.




Wait....are we talking about _Red vs Blue_ now?


----------



## TwoSix

chaochou said:


> You need to know your character history to figure it out? Sorry, bud, your character got amnesia. Makes no odds to accurately playing their health in all the systems above. But how many D&D hit points do you have now? How do you feel right now? Or does your amnesiac character forget their hitpoints?



Considering hit points are a function of level, and level is a function of lived experience, I could certainly see an argument for amnesia depleting your hit points in a D&D setting.


----------



## Ratskinner

Aldarc said:


> That is how Stress works in Fate too. Consequences can put more "meat" on the character, but Stress boxes are functionally as you describe here.




I would say this is correct because Stress boxes are intentionally and openly a meta-game pacing mechanic (within a scene), just like HP. If a character has persistent/lasting issues (some folks nowadays call them "sticky"), then those translate into Consequences (or Conditions).

I would also point out that the number of Stress boxes, and even number, value, types and spectra of Stress, Conditions, and Consequences is one way that different incarnations of Fate really play with how this kind of thing works in different genres. A Fate game could easily be tweaked from default to gritty and deadly and then to "Disney Damage" just by fiddling with these knobs a bit.

Heck, you could recreate a D&D-style system in Fate. You have a great pile of Stress boxes, and one (possibly three) Condition box(es) called "Dying".  


Just to bring up an Old-school Game that gets less credit for this than it deserves (probably because the rest of the game was fairly limited) _Boot Hill_ had an interesting combination system. You rolled percentile dice (and the table varied with gun and other factors) and got both a wound location, and a wound severity. The location and severity could both have impact on play separately. Additionally, each level of severity came with a number of HP, which acted as a separate "doom clock" that had its own impact on play. 

On a distinct track from the meta/not argument about HP. I must say that the supposedly wondrous saving of bookkeeping that HP are reputed to have simply is mythical. IME, the bigger and more tedious numbers often slow things down more than the additional flexibility of many of the systems mentioned in this thread. The Boot Hill system, for example, sounds like a nightmare. However, in play, it didn't seem to be much worse than straight HP. (The biggest bookkeeping problem, AFAICT, is keeping track of whose HP/health are whose, so systems that can group minions and the like seem to have massive at-table gains vs. straight HP.


----------



## Guest 6801328

5ekyu said:


> more and more i come to the conclusion that the meaning of metagame is "whatever i need it to be to fusss about something i dislike."




Exactly.  You can take literally any mechanic and make arguments about how it is or is not meta, as you like.  That's all Emerikol is doing.  He has preferences...logically consistent preferences, I will grant...for the kinds of mechanics he likes, which is cool (if a bit quixotic, given his specific flavor of zealotry).  The rest is just an attempt to persuade others, despite protestations to the contrary, that he's "right".  Whatever that means.

This discussion is an amusing diversion in between actual game sessions, but it's pointless.  Like the vast, overwhelming majority of gamers, I'm perfectly happy to blend roleplaying, powergaming, and metagaming in equal measure.  I just want to be immersed in a good story while killing monsters and taking their stuff.  I don't need anybody at the table to be "in character" for that to happen.


----------



## 5ekyu

Elfcrusher said:


> Exactly.  You can take literally any mechanic and make arguments about how it is or is not meta, as you like.  That's all Emerikol is doing.  He has preferences...logically consistent preferences, I will grant...for the kinds of mechanics he likes, which is cool (if a bit quixotic, given his specific flavor of zealotry).  The rest is just an attempt to persuade others, despite protestations to the contrary, that he's "right".  Whatever that means.
> 
> This discussion is an amusing diversion in between actual game sessions, but it's pointless.  Like the vast, overwhelming majority of gamers, I'm perfectly happy to blend roleplaying, powergaming, and metagaming in equal measure.  I just want to be immersed in a good story while killing monsters and taking their stuff.  I don't need anybody at the table to be "in character" for that to happen.



"Like the vast, overwhelming majority of gamers, I'm perfectly happy to blend roleplaying, powergaming, and metagaming in equal measure. "

And steaks... for me definitely add steaks.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> That entire world in D&D is presumed magical. You are trying to apply a modernist mindset that distinguishes between the mundane and the magical to a world that presumes a premodern worldview wherein the supernatural, magical, and irrational are infused into everything of the cosmos. Everything. In such a worldview, whether you are playing 0E-5E, there is no "just a mundane person" in this world. The supernatural infuses every fiber of the world, and this is abundantly evident in the Great Wheel and D&D's other various cosmologies.



As if this thread doesn't already have enough worms crawling around in it, you just had to go and open up another can of 'em. 

What you say here is the spark for what could become another thread, regarding mundane v magic.  Me, I do look at it from what you're calling a modernist viewpoint but I don't think doing so messes up my actor stance.  Reason for this: I long ago came up with an underlying rationale* for how our own mundane real world - or something just like it - could exist in a D&D universe; and this rationale eventually leads to some people being able to access magic directly (i.e. casters), others indirectly (e.g. a non-caster using a device), and others pretty much not at all (i.e. people like us on a non-magic world).

* - in short: it involves some arbitrary alterations to universal physics and how those physics interact in the presence or absence of one or more particular atomic elements.  I'd explain it more fully but it'd be long and probably quite boring...but it's all meta, all the time. 



> I suspect that you are thinking like a modernist playing this game. You believe there to be distinction between natural and supernatural as opposed to simply The World as Imagined.



For me, I see that distinction as just a natural part of The World as Imagined, and go from there. 

That said, you're right in that an inhabitant of a magical world would see magic as a) much more of a common fact of life, and b) might see it even in places where it isn't.

Lanefan


----------



## Emerikol

Elfcrusher said:


> Exactly.  You can take literally any mechanic and make arguments about how it is or is not meta, as you like.  That's all Emerikol is doing.  He has preferences...logically consistent preferences, I will grant...for the kinds of mechanics he likes, which is cool (if a bit quixotic, given his specific flavor of zealotry).  The rest is just an attempt to persuade others, despite protestations to the contrary, that he's "right".  Whatever that means.
> 
> This discussion is an amusing diversion in between actual game sessions, but it's pointless.  Like the vast, overwhelming majority of gamers, I'm perfectly happy to blend roleplaying, powergaming, and metagaming in equal measure.  I just want to be immersed in a good story while killing monsters and taking their stuff.  I don't need anybody at the table to be "in character" for that to happen.




Okay.  I have to intervene here because you are making me angry.  STOP INPUTING THOUGHTS YOU CAN'T PROVE.

When it comes to game mechanics, they are fun or not for whoever uses them.  Is there an inherent superior?  Maybe.  On this thread though I have not ventured into saying anything about the inherent superiority of anything.  I am consistently talked about what is fun and works for me.  My preferences.  I have said more than once that the precise term is likely ill served by the more general metagame.  Other terms though in the past have offended people so I was trying to avoid those.  Terms like dissociative mechanics or dissonant mechanics.


----------



## Emerikol

The D&D world is the DM's creation so you can do anything you want with it.  But... The implied D&D setting is a medieval world where most people and most things are not magical.  Magical beings and things are the exception not the rule.

So in my conception of my world and the real world for that matter, people don't have second wind powers that they can activate a limited number of times per day.  If you want to play a magical character then play one but many people prefer to play a non-magical character.  Someone who is cinematically heroic but is not actually working magic.

I'm getting really sick of the goal posts moving constantly, the terms getting redefined constantly.  What are you guys afraid of?  That someone like me will enjoy roleplaying games?  That someone out there who would likely not play otherwise will join one of my games and have fun.  

The only time I see this level of outright willful ignorance is during political debates and those people have an agenda.  What is your agenda?

My ONLY agenda is to have a fun game.  This thread was about picking up some tips on making the game fun for ME and MY GROUP.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Emerikol said:


> Okay.  I have to intervene here because you are making me angry.




It's not "intervening" it's participating.  At least, I don't feel like the victim/target of an intervention.  Should I?



> STOP INPUTING THOUGHTS YOU CAN'T PROVE.




Oh, please.  There's nothing to "prove", but it's obvious from the language you use: you _clearly_ think your version is superior.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  I've got my own lines of death in the gaming sand as well, and I think think my version is superior, and when I argue about it on the forums one of my goals is to persuade others.  That's why we're here; we all do it.  Stop pretending to do otherwise.  



> When it comes to game mechanics, they are fun or not for whoever uses them.  Is there an inherent superior?  Maybe.  On this thread though I have not ventured into saying anything about the inherent superiority of anything.  I am consistently talked about what is fun and works for me.  My preferences.  I have said more than once that the precise term is likely ill served by the more general metagame.  Other terms though in the past have offended people so I was trying to avoid those.  Terms like dissociative mechanics or dissonant mechanics.




Oh, yeah, and effectively accusing everybody else of "metagaming"...a word that for many people is akin to cheating...isn't loaded at all.

This is entertaining.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Ah, but it is true. The world of D&D presumes that said world _is_ inherently magical. Some things may have more magic than others, but that does not mean that everything is mundane and devoid of magic by our sensibilities. It is a world influenced by other planes of existence and you can use portals in the world to traverse them. The stars may have a bearing on the fate of mortals. The world may follow a magical destiny foretold from before. Magic is an inherent part of the physics of the world. For us it is metaphyics, but for D&D characters, it is physics. Magical energy infuses the entirety of D&D's world. A treant is just as natural in D&D as a tree. Bat fur is not just mundane fur off a bat; it has magical properties that can be used for spells.  A wizard may use and manipulate magic, but a mundane person is no more removed from the magical physics of the world than the wizard is. Just because you are not splitting the atom does not mean that you aren't composed of atoms, so to speak.




No, it's not.  Yes, magic is a force that is all over.  No, it doesn't permeate all matter.  The completely mundane rock falls with D&D physics, and flies upward when D&D magic acts on it as an outside force, but is not itself magic.  Most of the D&D universe isn't inherently magic.


----------



## Shasarak

My impression is that the worlds of DnD can not be completely mundane.  There must be some kind of background magical potential.

Some people may call it the Weave, some the Force, some Magical Space-Time Continuum.


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> My impression is that the worlds of DnD can not be completely mundane.  There must be some kind of background magical potential.
> 
> Some people may call it the Weave, some the Force, some Magical Space-Time Continuum.




Yeah.  It's like gravity.  It exists and exerts force on the mundane, but it doesn't turn the mundane into magic, at least not without a spell/ability specifically aimed at the piece of mundane to be enchanted.


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  It's like gravity.  It exists and exerts force on the mundane, but it doesn't turn the mundane into magic, at least not without a spell/ability specifically aimed at the piece of mundane to be enchanted.




Thats my point, if magic is like gravity then even the most "mundane" of items has it.


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> Thats my point, if magic is like gravity then even the most "mundane" of items has it.




It's more like gravity affecting OTHER things, not that each thing with mass has a minuscule amount of gravity in it.  When the game rules talk about magic, they talk about spells, and magical creature, and magical items.  They don't say anything at all about magic being in every single atom, or even every creature or object.  The reason for that is that it isn't in all of that.  That's how you can make low magic campaigns.  If it was baked into everything, there would be no such thing as low magic.


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> It's more like gravity affecting OTHER things, not that each thing with mass has a minuscule amount of gravity in it.  When the game rules talk about magic, they talk about spells, and magical creature, and magical items.  They don't say anything at all about magic being in every single atom, or even every creature or object.




How would you go about explaining what an atom was to someone in a DnD world?  Not sure that they would necessarily believe that to be true when everyone already knows that the world is made out of the four Elements.

Take Dark Sun as example of what happens when you use too much magic.



> The reason for that is that it isn't in all of that.  That's how you can make low magic campaigns.  If it was baked into everything, there would be no such thing as low magic.




If you were in a low magic setting then how would you know that the background magic levels were lower then a normal DnD campaign world?


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> How would you go about explaining what an atom was to someone in a DnD world?  Not sure that they would necessarily believe that to be true when everyone already knows that the world is made out of the four Elements.
> 
> Take Dark Sun as example of what happens when you use too much magic.




Sure, but again that was external magic used recklessly and it destroyed a good portion of the world.  It didn't make the world magical.



> If you were in a low magic setting then how would you know that the background magic levels were lower then a normal DnD campaign world?



Obviously because every little thing is magical.  See that kitten over there?  It's a magic kitten!  That pebble in the horses hoof?  Must be a magic pebble of horse laming.  The air is invisible!  Must be magic.


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but again that was external magic used recklessly and it destroyed a good portion of the world.  It didn't make the world magical.




It does not make the world magical.  Casting spells literally is draining the world of magic, defiling it so to speak.  Why would you take damage from someone just drawing the magic to cast a spell if they were not taking the magic from you?



> Obviously because every little thing is magical.  See that kitten over there?  It's a magic kitten!  That pebble in the horses hoof?  Must be a magic pebble of horse laming.  The air is invisible!  Must be magic.




Eureka, you are understanding it! And you did not even need to have a magic apple drop on your head either.


----------



## Jhaelen

Maxperson said:


> That's not true.  In D&D a rock is just a rock, but an earth elemental is magical.  A tree is just a tree, but a treant is magical.



Ah, I think shamans and druids would disagree with you


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> No, it's not.  Yes, magic is a force that is all over.  No, it doesn't permeate all matter.  The completely mundane rock falls with D&D physics, and flies upward when D&D magic acts on it as an outside force, but is not itself magic.  Most of the D&D universe isn't inherently magic.



Yes, it is, and have a nice day.  



Ovinomancer said:


> That's a neat setting concept, but it's by no means baseline.  D&D has as much or as little magic as needed by whichever setting you're using.



I'm glad you like it, since I would say that "neat setting concept" is the implied, baseline default setting of D&D.  



Emerikol said:


> The D&D world is the DM's creation so you can do anything you want with it.  But... The implied D&D setting is a medieval world where most people and most things are not magical.  Magical beings and things are the exception not the rule.



When you look at the rules and nature of the implied world, I would say that the world and everything it is naturally magical, but not to equally significant degrees. 



> So in my conception of my world and the real world for that matter, people don't have second wind powers that they can activate a limited number of times per day.  If you want to play a magical character then play one but many people prefer to play a non-magical character.  Someone who is cinematically heroic but is not actually working magic.



And so that would represent your conception of your world as opposed to 5e's implied default setting. Nothing is stopping you from that interpretation or set of houserules. I hope that you do have fun with it. 



> I'm getting really sick of the goal posts moving constantly, the terms getting redefined constantly.  What are you guys afraid of?  That someone like me will enjoy roleplaying games?  That someone out there who would likely not play otherwise will join one of my games and have fun.
> 
> The only time I see this level of outright willful ignorance is during political debates and those people have an agenda.  What is your agenda?
> 
> My ONLY agenda is to have a fun game.  This thread was about picking up some tips on making the game fun for ME and MY GROUP.



You were doing so well until this part. What part of your rational judgment thought posting this was a good and productive idea? So I will tell you something. I'm getting really sick of your strawmen, tantrums, and passive aggressive jabs at others. Not every conversation in this thread is about people trying to dictate your fun. Not every point of disagreement is about you. This is not shifting goal posts. And depicting others who disagree with you as engaging in willful ignorance or having some sort of ulterior agenda? Seriously. You are the one being a Rude Gus in your own thread. It's not cool. Cut it out. 



Shasarak said:


> Thats my point, if magic is like gravity then even the most "mundane" of items has it.



I would say that it is less like gravity and more like radiation. We may not think of everything mundane as "radioactive," only reserving the term possessing a level of radiation that defies our sense of norm or danger, but radioactive forces are nevertheless there. 



Elfcrusher said:


> Exactly.  You can take literally any mechanic and make arguments about how it is or is not meta, as you like.  That's all Emerikol is doing.  He has preferences...logically consistent preferences, I will grant...for the kinds of mechanics he likes, which is cool (if a bit quixotic, given his specific flavor of zealotry).  The rest is just an attempt to persuade others, despite protestations to the contrary, that he's "right".  Whatever that means.



I don't think that metagame mechanics, however, represents accurate terminology. Hence why it's odd for some to have "metagame" and "metagame mechanics" being used to refer to a person's "bogeyman mechanics." And so perhaps the more accurate terms should have been established much earlier in the thread, though I think that @Morrus;


----------



## Shasarak

Aldarc said:


> I would say that it is less like gravity and more like radiation. We may not think of everything mundane as "radioactive," only reserving the term possessing a level of radiation that defies our sense of norm or danger, but radioactive forces are nevertheless there.




Well there was Glantri City which was built over the magic reactor.


----------



## Sadras

Shasarak said:


> Well there was Glantri City which was built over the magic reactor.




Just to note in Mystara, magic and the supernatural existed long before the crash of the F.S.S. Beagle.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> That entire world in D&D is presumed magical. You are trying to apply a modernist mindset that distinguishes between the mundane and the magical to a world that presumes a premodern worldview wherein the supernatural, magical, and irrational are infused into everything of the cosmos. Everything. In such a worldview, whether you are playing 0E-5E, there is no "just a mundane person" in this world. The supernatural infuses every fiber of the world, and this is abundantly evident in the Great Wheel and D&D's other various cosmologies.




Your last line here - is this similar to the idea where if God creates everything hence we are all God or God-infused?


----------



## pemerton

chaochou said:


> No. It's simply illustrative that HP in D&D are metagame information.
> 
> The OP defined metagame information and asked for games which may or may not use it to a greater or lesser degree. Metagame was defined as making decisions as a character without the information that character would have.
> 
> I provided the information a player has:
> _
> You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand._
> 
> A player can make a reasoned and well-informed decision about the health and wellbeing of this character with just this information in Runequest 2. In Runequest 3. In Apocalypse World. In FATE. In Call of Cthulhu. In Traveller. In Pendragon. In Dogs in the Vineyard. In Sorcerer. In the Riddle of Steel. In Warhammer FRP. In game after game after game.



Just for fun:

In Rolemaster, the tiredeness and sore back from sleeping on the ground sounds like a -10 penalty or thereabouts; the vivid bruise sounds like -5; and the scraped knuckles are not a penalty. Given that the knuckles are still scraped that means that there has been no recent healing of concussion hits, so the character is probably down 5 or so hits from the knuckles. From the description, it's hard to tell whether or not the hp that were lost to the bruise (probably 10 or so) have been recovered - because they might be recovered magically yet the bruise linger on (if they have been recovered by resting, the bruise would have healed up also, to some extent if not fully).

In Burning Wheel, the tiredness and sore back is probably a 1 or 2 die penalty to Forte from a failed roll to avoid tax from sleeping rough; the bruise is a light injury, so a 1 die wound penalty; and the scraped knuckes are probably just colour.

In 4e, that character is down 1 healing surge from the failed skill challenge to get a good night's rest, possibly some further number of HS that we can't tell from the description, and otherwise is at full hp. The bruise and scraped knuckles are just colour. (It might be different if the character was in combat, but the descriptions seems to imply that a short rest has taken place leading up to the bridge scene. But if the PC was down hp, or at zero surges, the narration would have to include exhaustion, stress etc from more than just the bad sleep.)

In Cortex+ Heroic, it's hard to say but it sounds like 1d6 or 1d8 physical stress (enough to matter, not enough to take the character down).​
The BW example is maybe the most interesting, because it shows how you can be abstract without being meta.


----------



## Aldarc

Sadras said:


> Your last line here - is this similar to the idea where if God creates everything hence we are all God or God-infused?



Maybe. Possibly to an extent. For me, it comes from how saturated with magic everything in D&D's worldview is and how the cosmology of the world have implications and effects in the Prime. Our norm is simply not their norm. Sure we cannot understand it and we inescapably think from modernist perspectives, but nothing about their world is "mundane" or free from magic. You can't be free from magic anymore than you can be free from radioactive forces. It happens to you and within you all the time. The game even presumes that you are infused with magic. We see this idea of the pervasiveness of magic in the wizard flavor text: 


> Drawing on the subtle *weave of magic that permeates the cosmos,* wizards cast spells of explosive fire, arcing lightning, subtle deception, and brute-force mind control.



Or with spellcasting: 


> Magic permeates the worlds of D&D and most often appears in the form of a spell.





> A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of *the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse* into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of *raw magic suffusing the world,* pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect--in most cases, all in the span of seconds.



Not everyone may be a spell-caster, but everyone is presumed quintessentially magical in D&D. 

In contrast to the stark scientific materialism of our Modernist worldview, _D&D unequivocally asserts that all creatures have souls_! See the spell description for Resurrection and Magic Jar. And I would say that, yes, the presence of souls would be indicative of magical forces that are an innate part of D&D's anthropology. And likewise see the description of "ki" from monks: 


> Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most monastic traditions call ki. This energy is an element of the magic that *suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies.*



Though monks are the only ones who may call this energy ki and harness in ways particular to their class, the text here indicates that this magical ki energy flows naturally through all living bodies. This would naturally include creatures who take up the mantle of "fighter" or that Level 0 Joe Dirt Farmer. 

And we see that the world is innately supernatural and magic in the Ranger and Druid description as well: 


> Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does.





> Druids revere nature above all, *gaining their spells and other magical powers either from the force of nature itself *or from a nature deity.





> For druids, nature exists in a precarious balance. The four elements that make up a world—air, earth, fire, and water—must remain in equilibrium. If one element were to gain power over the others, the world could be destroyed, drawn into one of the elemental planes and broken apart into its component elements.



D&D presupposes an incredibly different composition of human beings and the natural world. The world operates by a different set of physics and metaphysics. This presents the idea that nature - by which we should not distinguish between humans and everything else - has an inherent magical power. 

There is not even a concept of mundane words and music in D&D! The bard description, for example, asserts this about "the worlds of D&D": 


> In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain.




But why stop there? Let me drop this 5E PHB piece as well: 


> The Weave of Magic
> 
> *The worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places. All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.*
> 
> Mortals can’t directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface. By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible; the most powerful archmage can’t light a candle with magic in an area where the Weave has been torn. But surrounded by the Weave, a spellcaster can shape lightning to blast foes, transport hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye, or even reverse death itself.
> 
> All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding—learned or intuitive—of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power—gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.
> 
> Whenever a magic effect is created, the threads of the Weave intertwine, twist, and fold to make the effect possible. When characters use divination spells such as detect magic or identify, they glimpse the Weave. A spell such as dispel magic smooths the Weave. Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell. And in places where the Weave is damaged or torn, magic works in unpredictable ways—or not at all.



So, yes,  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], D&D does indeed have a baseline presumption about magic that amounts to more than a "neat setting idea." Also, I just noticed [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], that 5e established that this includes "every rock" in D&D as well. 

/mic drop


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> I'll take horribad character-speak over player-speak any day; as at least the horribad character-speaker is trying, and the results are almost always amusing and-or entertaining.



This has nothing to do with stance. _Stance _is an attempt to describe the relatoinship between _player establishment of fiction_ and _player motivation_ having regard to the player's special connection to the PC. It's not about talking in first or third person.

Whether you prefer first-person or third person narration by players to establish action declarations and shared fiction is a completely separate thing.

For instance, the following bit of narration (which also, in some systems, involves action declaration), is first person - but director stance:

Player (speaking in character): I hook up with the local dealers in contraband to get hold of some XYZ.​
In Classic Traveller that's a prelude to a Streetwise check; in Burning Wheel to a Circles check; in a typical D&D game there is no associated action declaration, but a GM might still accept it - "Sure, you're pretty sure you'll find someone fiting that descrition at any divy tavern in the Thieves' Quarter."

Despite being first person, it's director stance because it establishes some element of the shared fiction - namely, local contraband dealers the PC might hook up with - without that fiction itself being produced by the actions/choices of the PC.



Lanefan said:


> Simple game mechanics dictate we can't stay in actor all the time - no character ever says "I rolled a 6, plus 2 for strength and three for magic weapon - did I hit?" to her opponent!



This has nothing to do with Stance either: a player saying those things is not trying to establish any shared fiction.



Lanefan said:


> the quickest way to develop said grasp of character is to become that character, to the extent that game mechanics and other considerations allow.



This doesn't make sense. I can't _literally _become a character. I can decide to _establish_ or _author_ a character. Until that is done, there is nothing for me to "become" or to "grasp".



Lanefan said:


> I'm playing Jocinda in a combat situation, Falstaffe is one of my fellow party members.  The DM has just informed me that I've noticed an enemy sneaking up on unaware Falstaffe...
> 
> 1. "Falstaffe, look out on your left!"
> 2. "I warn Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."
> 3. "Jocinda warns Falstaffe that he's got an enemy sneaking up on him."
> 
> See the difference?  The first puts me in the action - I'm playing the role of Jocinda and saying what she would say.  The other two leave me remote from Jocinda the character





Lanefan said:


> player-speak can give some excellent game play but in the end that's all it is - a player playing a game.  The player isn't even trying* to inhabit the character, think what it thinks, speak the character's words, etc.





Lanefan said:


> Author and Director stance point away from playing the character as a person and more towards playing it as a pawn





Lanefan said:


> Where my definition of playing a role is that an actor on a stage plays a role - the lines he speaks, his facial expressions, the movements he makes (subject to the spatial restrictions of the stage) are those of the character he's portraying in the stage play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Playing the role of a PC at a game table is, IMO, the same thing; and it's where the "role-playing" side of the game comes from.





Lanefan said:


> while both the author and director have a sense of character in that they've (usually) got a clear idea of what their characters are all about, what motivates them, etc.; only the actor has a sense of character in terms of actually *being* the character, inhabiting its personality and looking through its eyes.  That's (ideally) what I'm after.



This likewise all seems confused.

For instance, actual actors aren't being motivated by what motivates the character. They are being motivated by things like the desire to give a good performance, the desire to present the character authentically, the desire to please the director, the desire to get paid, etc, etc.

As far as inhabitation is concerned, the notion that some forms of narration at the table are more apt to produce "inhabitation" than others is an empirical conjecture, and I don't think there's any real evidence of it. (The opposite I've seen be true: ie when a player is in an especially inhabiting mood, s/he is more likely to narrate in first person - but the narration is the effect, not the cause, of the inhabitation.)

And the idea that author or director stance is treating the character as a pawn is not plausible at all. In the case of director stance, consider the example I just gave - that's not treating the PC as a pawn at all. I'm going to give more examples not far below that make the same point for author stance.



Lanefan said:


> most players are going to kind of default (vaguely) to one stance, use that as a base to drift from, and then return.



Huh? How does a player in (say) Moldvay Basic drfit to "director stance"? Or stay (vaguely or otherwise) in that stance?

And why would a player default to one stance, in games that invite players to inhabit multiple stances? There's no reason to think this is true at all. Eg in Burning Wheel, a player might quickly move from director stance (making a Circles check) to author stance (wondering whether to change a Belief) to actor stance (declaring an action for a PC having regard to established Beliefs - that's how the game works. In Classic Traveller a player might quickly move from actor stance (declaring an action for his/her PC because s/he is imaginging to what the PC would want, like say an Admin check to persuade an official to look the other way) to author stance (lending an item from his/her PC sheet to another player's PC, because that will help optimise the party for their mission) back to actor stance (griping that the borrowing PC is a bludger!).

There's a reason that every commentator who has written about player stances has concluded that they're highly fluid in play.

And these examples also shows us that there's no connection between author stance and treating the character as a pawn. Nor between stance and first/third person - all the stuff I just described could be narrated in first person.



Aldarc said:


> Fate points are not primarily used for authoring though, but for acting. More often than not, Fate points are used when the Actor wants to embrace or lean into their role at important, key moments. And yes, Fate points may also be used in occurrences when the Actor may desire to provide more "authorship" over the setting in ways that are applicable to the setting. Because just like in the context of D&D: all actors are authors. They have created their characters and they have a sense of their character's identity and not everything of that sort needs to be done outside of gameplay. In Fate, this may entail points where the PC declares that "they know a guy who can help" or some other story detail (e.g., "I pull out anti-shark repellent out of my bat utility belt."). In this role, they are both Actor and Author; it is neither an either/or situation, as the Actor is developing their sense of character and roleplaying who that character is. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, inherently forces the Actor out of Actor stance when they spend a Fate point. I have watched entire games of Fate done entirely from 1st person, in-character speak and roleplaying as character. The decisions were made, rejected, and formulated from in-character perspectives.



This further illustrates the complete independence of Stance and "inhabitation" and "first person".

A player who "leans into" their role, deciding that _this_ is the moment eg to reveal something profound about the character, is playing in author stance at that moment, but certainly need not cease to inhabit the character, nor drop out of first person narration.

Likewise a player who establishes (necessarily in director stance) that "I know a guy who can help", as per my example at the top of this post.

And for completeness, here's a repost of the definitions of stance:



Emerikol said:


> Actor Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.
> 
> Author Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character’s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.
> 
> Director Stance: The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.




Much the same can be found at The Forge, where (as far as I know) the notion was first systematically developed. As far as I can see the blog that has been linked to has mostly copy-pasted Edwards 2001 text.


----------



## Sadras

So @_*Aldarc*_ I guess for me it is interesting they use the words suffuse and permeate a lot in the texts you quoted from the books. One could possibly argue does that make mundane items/beings magical because of this invisible magical force which weaves through everything.
You equated the magical essence to radiation - so you could say everything has been _radiated _but is that the same as saying everything is radiation? I'm not entirely convinced on this line of thought.

However, if you go with the idea that whatever God creates is Godly then I don't have a counter argument. Nothing springs to mind. 

In any event interesting chat. 

PS: One of my high level campaigns is touching on philosophical and cosmological topics in-game as the characters are trying understand the multiverse/setting, this would be a great additional subject to incorporate in their investigation. So thanks.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> Maybe. Possibly to an extent. For me, it comes from how saturated with magic everything in D&D's worldview is and how the cosmology of the world have implications and effects in the Prime. Our norm is simply not their norm. Sure we cannot understand it and we inescapably think from modernist perspectives, but nothing about their world is "mundane" or free from magic. You can't be free from magic anymore than you can be free from radioactive forces. It happens to you and within you all the time. The game even presumes that you are infused with magic. We see this idea of the pervasiveness of magic in the wizard flavor text:
> Or with spellcasting:
> 
> Not everyone may be a spell-caster, but everyone is presumed quintessentially magical in D&D.
> 
> In contrast to the stark scientific materialism of our Modernist worldview, _D&D unequivocally asserts that all creatures have souls_! See the spell description for Resurrection and Magic Jar. And I would say that, yes, the presence of souls would be indicative of magical forces that are an innate part of D&D's anthropology. And likewise see the description of "ki" from monks:
> Though monks are the only ones who may call this energy ki and harness in ways particular to their class, the text here indicates that this magical ki energy flows naturally through all living bodies. This would naturally include creatures who take up the mantle of "fighter" or that Level 0 Joe Dirt Farmer.
> 
> And we see that the world is innately supernatural and magic in the Ranger and Druid description as well:
> D&D presupposes an incredibly different composition of human beings and the natural world. The world operates by a different set of physics and metaphysics. This presents the idea that nature - by which we should not distinguish between humans and everything else - has an inherent magical power.
> 
> There is not even a concept of mundane words and music in D&D! The bard description, for example, asserts this about "the worlds of D&D":
> 
> 
> But why stop there? Let me drop this 5E PHB piece as well:
> So, yes,  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], D&D does indeed have a baseline presumption about magic that amounts to more than a "neat setting idea." Also, I just noticed [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], that 5e established that this includes "every rock" in D&D as well.
> 
> /mic drop



I'm happy that you feel you got in a burn on your setting idea.  For the record, I agree D&D has a high level of magic assumed, but still think your claims go past that.  Still a neat setting idea.

/picks up the mic [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] accidently dropped and hands it back


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> but still think your claims go past that.  Still a neat setting idea.



The 5e PHB backs up my position and then goes several steps further. It's time to admit that you were wrong, learn from your mistakes, and move on. 



> /picks up the mic [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] accidently dropped and hands it back



And you accuse me of being dismissive and curt?  



Sadras said:


> You equated the magical essence to radiation - so you could say everything has been _radiated _but is that the same as saying everything is radiation? I'm not entirely convinced on this line of thought.



This would get us into a debate of analogies and semantics. So again for example, the humanoid soul in D&D is magical. It is part of the humanoid person. Is the humanoid person magical? I would say "yes."


----------



## pemerton

Dragons in D&D can fly, although that would not be possible in the real world.

Fighters in 5e can choose when to push themselves extra hard, knowing that if they burn their reserves now they won't get them back without a rest, which is not too different from how people in the real world can do that.

But fighters in 5e are magical while dragon flight is not?

I don't get it.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> But fighters in 5e are magical while dragon flight is not?
> 
> I don't get it.




 @_*Aldarc*_'s position is that both the Fighter and the Dragon are magical.
Your comparison above compares a noun with an action.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> This would get us into a debate of analogies and semantics. So again for example, the humanoid soul in D&D is magical. It is part of the humanoid person. Is the humanoid person magical? I would say "yes."




Okay so a humanoid soul, essence of life, is a source of power which is valuable in the Nine Hells and elsewhere. A rock less so, because it doesn't have a soul, and therefore no source of power. But going back to the humanoid soul example, this reverts to whatever God creates (including life) is Godly (magical), hence the value in a humanoid soul.

Therefore this position is creation is an exercise in magic and therefore whatever springs forth from this creation would carry a semblance of magic. That seems like a reasonable position to have. 

Touching on something you mentioned earlier about us viewing things in a _modernist mindset:_

I don't know if the in-game NPC farmer in the medieval fantasy world would believe himself to be magical or have an essence of magic about him. My impression is that generally magic would be something feared and something alien to him. So to call our view on the D&D world as being _modernistic_ is not essentially true, since your typical medieval farmer would have a similar view as ours.


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> It does not make the world magical.  Casting spells literally is draining the world of magic, defiling it so to speak.




Except explicitly not.  Darksun defiles use the life force of plants, not magic from anywhere.  It takes the life essence and then converts it to magic.  It doesn't steal magic from plants and then use it.



> Why would you take damage from someone just drawing the magic to cast a spell if they were not taking the magic from you?




Having your life force taken hurts.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let's assume that life force = magic.  It would only do so for Darksun, as that world is the only one where the use of life force to power magic is true.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> But why stop there? Let me drop this 5E PHB piece as well:
> So, yes,  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], D&D does indeed have a baseline presumption about magic that amounts to more than a "neat setting idea." Also, I just noticed [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], that 5e established that this includes "every rock" in D&D as well.
> 
> /mic drop




So they made it like the force, where magic flows through everything.  They did not make everything into magic.  You pick up that rock and throw it at a creature weak to magic and it's not going to have any increased effect.  That rock is mundane.  The force flowing through it is not.  You can draw magic from the rock, but the rock is not magical.  Suffused with magical energy is not the same as being magical.

/hands the mic back


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Your comparison above compares a noun with an action.



OK:

in D&D can fly, although that would not be possible in the real world.

Fighters in 5e can choose when to push themselves extra hard, knowing that if they burn their reserves now they won't get them back without a rest, which is not too different from how people in the real world can do that.

But fighters' second wind and action surge in 5e are magical, while dragon flight is not?

I still don't get it.


----------



## pemerton

Also, _life force_ - whatever the hell that is - isn't a magical phenomon, but a fighter choosing to draw on his/her reserves so as to push him-/herself hard _is_?

I don't get that either.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Also, _life force_ - whatever the hell that is - isn't a magical phenomon, but a fighter choosing to draw on his/her reserves so as to push him-/herself hard _is_?




The wizards used that life force and converted it to magical power.  1) Fighters don't convert anything to magic, and 2) a fighter drawing on reserves in a reasonable manner to push himself isn't something anyone here has objected to.


----------



## TwoSix

Sadras said:


> Your last line here - is this similar to the idea where if God creates everything hence we are all God or God-infused?



Basically, I have trouble reconciling the idea that things like atoms and electromagnetic forces exist in the same universe where the building blocks of the universe are air, earth, fire, and water.  Either a universe is mechanistic or it's supernatural, it can't be both.

We just use Newtonian mechanics to understand basic interactions in a fantasy universe because it's easier for us to imagine.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> But fighters' second wind and action surge in 5e are magical, while dragon flight is not?
> 
> I still don't get it.




Better. As I said @_*Aldarc*_'s position defines everything (animate or inanimate) as magical and given his interpretation of the core rule books (at least of 5e) it is fair. It is not something I adopt for my table but it is certainly an interesting idea, IMO.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> Except explicitly not.  Darksun defiles use the life force of plants, not magic from anywhere.  It takes the life essence and then converts it to magic.  It doesn't steal magic from plants and then use it.



But the idea of a "life essence", that can be transferred by will and symbolism, is inherently a magical one.  Magic is a worldview, not an attribute.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The wizards used that life force and converted it to magical power.



As I said, what the hell is "life force", and how is it not magical? It's certainly not a real or mundane thing!



Maxperson said:


> a fighter drawing on reserves in a reasonable manner to push himself isn't something anyone here has objected to.



Multiple posterson this thread (you as one) have argued that action surge and/or second wind are metagame, because they are decisions taken by a player that do not correlate to decisions taken by that player's character.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Better. As I said @_*Aldarc*_'s position defines everything (animate or inanimate) as magical and given his interpretation of the core rule books (at least of 5e) it is fair. It is not something I adopt for my table but it is certainly an interesting idea, IMO.



It's not [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s position that I don't get!

It's the position advocated by [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] and others.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> We just use Newtonian mechanics to understand basic interactions in a fantasy universe because it's easier for us to imagine.



I wouldn't even go this far. I think that most of the physical events/interactions in a fantasy game happen at a sufficiently high level of abstraction and granularity that common sense tropes are enough to sort them out.

But do carts come to a halt because of friction, or because Newton's first law doesn't hold, or because the air impedes the motion of the earth?

The D&D rules certainly don't answer this question. I don't know of any FRPG that does.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

TwoSix said:


> Basically, I have trouble reconciling the idea that things like atoms and electromagnetic forces exist in the same universe where the building blocks of the universe are air, earth, fire, and water.  Either a universe is mechanistic or it's supernatural, it can't be both.
> 
> We just use Newtonian mechanics to understand basic interactions in a fantasy universe because it's easier for us to imagine.




Yep.  I always viewed it as fire is an element, not a chemical reaction, etc.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> The 5e PHB backs up my position and then goes several steps further. It's time to admit that you were wrong, learn from your mistakes, and move on.



No, the PHB hints that magic is pervasive, not that everything is magical.  That's a neat setting idea though, sounds like something I did in a 4e campaign -- people used minor rituals for mundane tasks, eg swweping the floor.



> And you accuse me of being dismissive and curt?



Well, you did do the original /mic drop, yes?  Or are you implying my comment wasn't i response to yours?  And, as I said to you when you questioned ne via message, I've never denied I can occasionally be caustic.  I don't, however, become incensed when others point it out.



> This would get us into a debate of analogies and semantics. So again for example, the humanoid soul in D&D is magical. It is part of the humanoid person. Is the humanoid person magical? I would say "yes."



Sorry, you've begged the question.  Where does it say the humanoid soul is magical?


----------



## TwoSix

pemerton said:


> I wouldn't even go this far. I think that most of the physical events/interactions in a fantasy game happen at a sufficiently high level of abstraction and granularity that common sense tropes are enough to sort them out.
> 
> But do carts come to a halt because of friction, or because Newton's first law doesn't hold, or because the air impedes the motion of the earth?
> 
> The D&D rules certainly don't answer this question. I don't know of any FRPG that does.



Sorry, I tend to think of "common sense" and "Newtonian mechanics" as pretty much synonymous.


----------



## TwoSix

Ovinomancer said:


> No, the PHB hints that magic is pervasive, not that everything is magical.  That's a neat setting idea though, sounds like something I did in a 4e campaign -- people used minor rituals for mundane tasks, eg swweping the floor.



But that isn't the point.  The point is that if someone became capable of casting even the simplest cantrip in the real world, it means that our materialistic, mechanistic view of the universe is wrong, and our entire universe is actually something different than we think it is.  That's the point [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is making.


----------



## Arilyn

This is a really geeky argument
The default worlds of DnD make no sense physically, magically, economically, socially...


----------



## Kobold Boots

Arilyn said:


> This is a really geeky argument
> The default worlds of DnD make no sense physically, magically, economically, socially...




1. Geeky - agreed.  The conversation has legs though because if you go back through the list of threads that end up with hundreds of posts before they die, it's always the meta conversations and by the end, it's always the same people continuing and posting in it.  Self included, though I tend to be on the "seriously?" bench.

2. How "metaphysics" work in a game world is left open and allows every DM to come up with their own solution that works for them.  Some groups don't care about it at all.  Some groups have a player or DM that are into figuring it out and it sort of flavors the campaign.

I have one player who loves magical research and creating new spells (items when possible).  For RP reasons it pretty much forced me to create internally consistent "rules" of metaphysics for the game we were playing.  Longer the game runs, the more it mushrooms because I happen to be a DM that believes in predictable reality.  Next thing you know I've got players suddenly interested in alchemy and siege warfare and over time the world's version of physics shapes up.  (and I cry myself to sleep sometimes.. not all the time.. just sometimes.)

It's not for everyone, but it's why these conversations have legs.  Everyone who has done it has different opinions.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TwoSix said:


> But that isn't the point.  The point is that if someone became capable of casting even the simplest cantrip in the real world, it means that our materialistic, mechanistic view of the universe is wrong, and our entire universe is actually something different than we think it is.  That's the point  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is making.



That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts.  It seems that he's still saying what he started with:  everything is magical in D&D land; there is no mundane.  He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as "it's magic."  

This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play.  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is on record as saying that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] stating Emerikol's preferences in play is really an attempt to say the those preferences are better than others in general and must therefore be countered.  So, we end up with "everthing is magic because there's a weave or a statement about magic permearing things."  

I really have no problem with a looser statement that magic is, by default, common in D&D, or even a argument that mechanics can be explained as magic. It's the "everything is magic" bit that's silly, esoecially when then used as a rhetorical club against other arguments to say that those arguments are invalid "because magic."  But, then, I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme.


----------



## TwoSix

Ovinomancer said:


> That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts.  It seems that he's still saying what he started with:  everything is magical in D&D land; there is no mundane.  He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as "it's magic."



It's pretty much the same idea, phrased differently.  If magic is possible, it's a magical universe.  There's no way for magic to exist as some sort of "plug-and-play" extension that attaches to an otherwise mundane universe in a way that makes sense, despite genre conceits.  (I'd allow that exceptions exist if the magic is actually some sort of highly advanced science, like in Mark Lawrence's Broken Empire trilogy.)



Ovinomancer said:


> This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play.   [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is on record as saying that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] stating Emerikol's preferences in play is really an attempt to say the those preferences are better than others in general and must therefore be countered.  So, we end up with "everthing is magic because there's a weave or a statement about magic permearing things."



I would agree with your interpretation of [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s intent, and also state that my own opinions are a close mirror to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s.



Ovinomancer said:


> I really have no problem with a looser statement that magic is, by default, common in D&D, or even a argument that mechanics can be explained as magic. It's the "everything is magic" bit that's silly, esoecially when then used as a rhetorical club against other arguments to say that those arguments are invalid "because magic."  But, then, I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme.



If someone wants to argue that there's a specific kind of "magic" that's used by wizards, clerics, etc., powered by words, symbols, materials, and interdimensional connections, and that it has a fundamental distinction from the background magic that sustains a D&D-style universe, I have no problem with that.  That's a super-common genre conceit!  I mean, it's the reason that spells like _dispel magic_ work the way they do.    It's the idea that non-spellcasters don't exhibit preternatural powers because of the background magic that suffuses a D&D setting that I find to be a bit of a stretch.  (Although again, I fully support houseruling if mundane medieval Europe + casting is the genre concept you want to emulate.)


----------



## Aldarc

Sadras said:


> Okay so a humanoid soul, essence of life, is a source of power which is valuable in the Nine Hells and elsewhere. A rock less so, because it doesn't have a soul, and therefore no source of power. But going back to the humanoid soul example, this reverts to whatever God creates (including life) is Godly (magical), hence the value in a humanoid soul.
> 
> Therefore this position is creation is an exercise in magic and therefore whatever springs forth from this creation would carry a semblance of magic. That seems like a reasonable position to have.



The rock does not necessarily have "no source of power," as the PHB does say that every rock has the untapped potential energy of magic. We could speculate why souls are more valuable to devils than the magic potential of rocks - maybe in that new Mordenkainen book - but this seems beside the point. 



> I don't know if *the in-game NPC farmer in the medieval fantasy world would believe himself to be magical *or have an essence of magic about him. My impression is that generally magic would be something feared and something alien to him. So to call our view on the D&D world as being _modernistic_ is not essentially true, since your typical medieval farmer would have a similar view as ours.



Probably not. Most people would not consider themselves being "electric" or producers of electricity. But our body generates and conducts electric currents constantly. Likewise, most people would not consider themselves radioactive, because we colloquially reserve its use in common parlance to a degree of radioactivity that breaks our sense of norms. Likewise the world of D&D presumes a different normative baseline. 



Maxperson said:


> So they made it like the force, where magic flows through everything.  They did not make everything into magic.  *You pick up that rock and throw it at a creature weak to magic and it's not going to have any increased effect.*  That rock is mundane.  The force flowing through it is not.  You can draw magic from the rock, but the rock is not magical.  Suffused with magical energy is not the same as being magical.



Of course not, because you did not tap into the rock's latent magical power appropriately to achieve the desired effect. We may as well say that a magical sword is not actually magical, because it also is made of iron, carbon, leather, and wood. It is infused with _enough_ magic that it constitutes a significant enough deviation from the norm and can be used as a countermeasure against other magically significant things.  

But your point speaks to what I have been saying. Ki energy exists within all people. We are told as much by the monk flavor text in the PHB. This would categorically include fighters, as fighters are people. As such, fighters can hypothetically draw on this energy. We are only told that monks have named this energy and that they learn to manipulate it in ways particular to them. That does not somehow erase the existence of said energy within fighters or other creatures. And the point being is that this life energy that exists within fighters is likely the "reserve power" that they use for their action surges and second winds. They are not performing magical healing or haste in the same manner as clerics or wizards, but they are still likely drawing upon the magical energy that flows through their own being.


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> No, the PHB hints that magic is pervasive, not that everything is magical.



Now I get it. You are misunderstanding me. Or perhaps arguing with me out of force of habit, but I will assume that you are arguing in good faith. Let's work with another example: water. 

Me: Human beings are composed of water. 

You and Max: Humans are not water, nor would we count as water. 

OR 

Me: Human bodies are naturally radioactive. 

You and Max: Humans are not radiation. 

Your counterpoint strikes me as an absolutely absurd argument to make that would be beside the point that seems to make a semantic leap from what is meant by "are magical." 



> Sorry, you've begged the question.  Where does it say the humanoid soul is magical?



At the point where Emerikol defined 'magic' as "changes to the universes ruleset." From the perspective of our modernist scientific materialism, the humanoid soul would be and is classified as a supernatural or magical conception that lies outside of any non-magical physics. 



Ovinomancer said:


> That someone in the real casting a cantrip would mean we have serious misunderstandings about the nature of our universe is totally not what I get from [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts.  It seems that he's still saying what he started with:  everything is magical in D&D land; *there is no mundane. * He says thus to support the argumebt that every nechanic can be narratively supported in fiction as "it's magic."



There is no "mundane" in the sense that objects in D&D are devoid of magic. You and Max appear to be using "magical" in a mechanical game sense, as in being counted as "magical" for the purposes of overcoming magical resistance or equating to "spell-caster." My sense is aesthetic, as my initial conversation with Emerikol was about ways to rationalize the in-universe aesthetics of fighters using Heroic Surge and Second Wind via the Ki energy that D&D presumes exists within living creatures. 

In the worldview of _D&D 5e_, there is an inherent magic to everything. Both you and Max seemingly agree with me on this point, as you both admit that magic is pervasive through every and all matter, energy, and existence in world that D&D 5e presumes as its baseline. And this would include the Fighter who happens to have the life energy known as "ki." The universe that D&D presumes is not a Euro-American Modernist one; it is a decidedly Pre-Modern one that sees magic and supernatural forces as pervasive realities in the cosmos. And they are. You can't say that the Fighter is on the one hand "just mundane" (with the sense of a strictly materialist person in our world) while also saying, 


> All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.





> [Ki energy] is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies.



A strictly "mundane fighter" and the "pervasiveness of magic in all creation" are fundamentally contradictory positions. There be magic in that fighter. And if Emerikol goes to Pathfinder 2, I suspect that he will be faced with a similar set of assumptions about the Fighter when it comes to Magical Resonance. 



> This argument is nade to counter [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION]'s statements as to Emerikol's preferences in play.



Not quite. I have said nothing about whether his preferences are valid or not in regards to the fighter. His play preference desire to have a fighter devoid of any and all magic is of course valid. I will repeat myself for you and Emerikol just in case: I think that Emerikol's desire to have a completely mundane, non-magical fighter is valid. 

My argument was originally made, however, to help provide Emerikol assistance with a rationale for using these fighter abilities in a manner that makes sense in-universe from what D&D 5e, in particular, presumes about its universe, much in a similar manner as he does with rationalizing the mechanics of Vancian casting from an in-universe perspective. In other words, if the mechanics seem disassociated from the fiction, how can we associate these mechanics with the fiction? 

But I also believe that the universe that D&D 5e presupposes as its baseline has already invalidated Emerikol's play preferences, not in terms of their validity, but in terms of what is presumed as the norm of the fiction. I hope that Emerikol does indeed find a way to play the fighter with his given play preferences. But I think that we have to recognize that this will require an aesthetic or mechanical departure from D&D 5e's baseline set of presumptions on some level or another. And though Emerikol may not be satisfied with 5e because of what he regards as disassociative mechanics - that naturally stem from his valid play and aesthetic preferences about the presumed norms - in his opening post, he signaled awareness that he likely would need to make changes at some point: whether through mechanical house rules or aesthetic work-around explanations. I attempted the latter with my whole fighters draw bluntly and crudely on their "ki" proposal.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> Now I get it. You are misunderstanding me. Or perhaps arguing with me out of force of habit, but I will assume that you are arguing in good . Let's work with another example: water.
> 
> Me: Human beings are composed of water.
> 
> You and Max: Humans are not water, nor would we count as water.
> 
> OR
> 
> Me: Human bodies are naturally radioactive.
> 
> You and Max: Humans are not radiation.



Hm.  If you're intent is to say that humans have water in them, then you're making an error by saying humans are composed of water.  If this is the case, the issue is on your conveyance, not our taking you at your word.

However, what you are saying is that everything is magical because there's a background pervasive field of magic.  This could be true but it also can not be true.  To touch above, humans having wayer in them doesn't mean diamonds do, too.  Magic can be pervasive yet the mundane can also exist.


> Your counterpoint strikes me as an absolutely absurd argument to make that would be beside the point that seems to make a semantic leap from what is meant by "are magical."
> 
> At the point where Emerikol defined 'magic' as "changes to the universes ruleset." From the perspective of our modernist scientific materialism, the humanoid soul would be and is classified as a supernatural or magical conception that lies outside of any non-magical physics.



Yes, from a specific philosophical viewpoint, souls are akin to magic.  Note I say philosophy, because actual science is mum on the issue. 



> There is no "mundane" in the sense that objects in D&D are devoid of magic. You and Max appear to be using "magical" in a mechanical game sense, as in being counted as "magical" for the purposes of overcoming magical resistance or equating to "spell-caster." My sense is aesthetic, as my initial conversation with Emerikol was about ways to rationalize the in-universe aesthetics of fighters using Heroic Surge and Second Wind via the Ki energy that D&D presumes exists within living creatures.



You're begging the question on everything being magical, again.  Further, this whole thing started by you introducing the "everything is magic" argument to refute a statement about mechanics.  You're switching back and forth depending on the adgument and haven't yet firmly established that tge mundane doesn't exist either aesthetically or mechanically.

Again, because it seems to be being ignored, everything is magic is a fine interpretation, a fine setting (I've done it), and a reasonable suggestion to Emerikol (although he doesn't have to accept it).  I object to the absolute statement and to the rheyorical use of that absolute.



> In the worldview of _D&D 5e_, there is an inherent magic to everything. Both you and Max seemingly agree with me on this point, as you both admit that magic is pervasive through every and all matter, energy, and existence in world that D&D 5e presumes as its baseline. And this would include the Fighter who happens to have the life energy known as "ki." The universe that D&D presumes is not a Euro-American Modernist one; it is a decidedly Pre-Modern one that sees magic and supernatural forces as pervasive realities in the cosmos. And they are. You can't say that the Fighter is on the one hand "just mundane" (with the sense of a strictly materialist person in our world) while also saying,



I don't agree, though.  I interpret those selections as saying magic is nearly always reachable, but isn't part of things.  There's a number of fictional settings that fit that bill, so it's not uncommon.  It means I'm not struggling to explain dead magic zones and/or other planes where pervasive magic function differently, or in a limited manner, or not at all.



> A strictly "mundane fighter" and the "pervasiveness of magic in all creation" are fundamentally contradictory positions. There be magic in that fighter. And if Emerikol goes to Pathfinder 2, I suspect that he will be faced with a similar set of assumptions about the Fighter when it comes to Magical Resonance.



They are not contradictory.  Pervasive means often present.  The presence of a thing does not give it causal power.



> Not quite. I have said nothing about whether his preferences are valid or not in regards to the fighter. His play preference desire to have a fighter devoid of any and all magic is of course valid. I will repeat myself for you and Emerikol just in case: I think that Emerikol's desire to have a completely mundane, non-magical fighter is valid.
> 
> My argument was originally made, however, to help provide Emerikol assistance with a rationale for using these fighter abilities in a manner that makes sense in-universe from what D&D 5e, in particular, presumes about its universe, much in a similar manner as he does with rationalizing the mechanics of Vancian casting from an in-universe perspective. In other words, if the mechanics seem disassociated the fiction, how can we associate these mechanics with the fiction?
> 
> But I also believe that the universe that D&D 5e presupposes as its baseline has already invalidated Emerikol's play preferences, not in terms of their validity, but in terms of what is presumed as the norm of the fiction. I hope that Emerikol does indeed find a way to play the fighter with his given play preferences. But I think that we have to recognize that this will require an aesthetic or mechanical departure from D&D 5e's baseline set of presumptions on some level or another. And though Emerikol may not be satisfied with 5e because of what he regards as disassociative mechanics - that naturally stem from his valid play and aesthetic preferences about the presumed norms - in his opening post, he signaled awareness that he likely would need to make changes at some point: whether through mechanical house rules or aesthetic work-around explanations. I attempted the latter with my whole fighters draw bluntly and crudely on their "ki" proposal.




Right, doing well there until the last para.  "I was just trying to provide a possible justification to help the poster, but also that possibility is unavoidable and true and also shows the poster is wrong."  Nope.


----------



## chaochou

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, you've confused abstract for meta




Yet again you trot out this laughable lie.

I've already established that HP are abstract _and _meta. So I haven't confused anything.

You, on the other hand, don't have a single argument. You've established, quite literally, nothing which demonstrates that D&D HP are not a metagame device. You simply assert it, completely without justification, over and over again.

Here it is again, so even you can follow along:

HP cannot be determined from the 'in-character' perspective. I've demonstrated this is true. It follows that HP cannot be used to make decisions from an 'in-character' perspective. This follows as true. Therefore they are metagame.

There is no confusion. You've contested literally nothing in this argument.

You've been challenged to show otherwise and couldn't run away fast enough, blubbing and crying about how it isn't fair to compare D&D to systems which don't use a metagame currency to describe the health of characters.

I've named a dozen systems which allow you to make decisions about your character's health from an in-character description of their health. The ability to make decisions from within character means you don't have to metagame.

You want to claim it's the granularity of the abstraction, but that's an empty and failed rhetorical device. All that means is that the granularity of the abstraction can determine whether something is metagame or not, based on whether such granularity allows in-character decision-making, which is the litmus test in the thread.

So very clearly, I haven't confused anything.

You're reduced to cowering behind the word 'abstraction' to try and deny D&D HPs metagame property, when in fact they are both abstract and metagame. I explained it in my first post to you.

Go on, blert out 'You've confused abstract for meta' again. It's making me laugh.


----------



## Arilyn

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. Geeky - agreed.  The conversation has legs though because if you go back through the list of threads that end up with hundreds of posts before they die, it's always the meta conversations and by the end, it's always the same people continuing and posting in it.  Self included, though I tend to be on the "seriously?" bench.
> 
> 2. How "metaphysics" work in a game world is left open and allows every DM to come up with their own solution that works for them.  Some groups don't care about it at all.  Some groups have a player or DM that are into figuring it out and it sort of flavors the campaign.
> 
> I have one player who loves magical research and creating new spells (items when possible).  For RP reasons it pretty much forced me to create internally consistent "rules" of metaphysics for the game we were playing.  Longer the game runs, the more it mushrooms because I happen to be a DM that believes in predictable reality.  Next thing you know I've got players suddenly interested in alchemy and siege warfare and over time the world's version of physics shapes up.  (and I cry myself to sleep sometimes.. not all the time.. just sometimes.)
> 
> It's not for everyone, but it's why these conversations have legs.  Everyone who has done it has different opinions.




Oh, I love conversations like these too. It's just most DnD worlds are mooshy, contradictory places, with realities that make little sense, even from a fantasy point of view. DnD is too weirdly surreal to have arguments about the nature of reality, even magical ones.


----------



## Arilyn

chaochou said:


> Yet again you trot out this laughable lie.
> 
> I've already established that HP are abstract _and _meta. So I haven't confused anything.
> 
> You, on the other hand, don't have a single argument. You've established, quite literally, nothing which demonstrates that D&D HP are not a metagame device. You simply assert it, completely without justification, over and over again.
> 
> Here it is again, so even you can follow along:
> 
> HP cannot be determined from the 'in-character' perspective. I've demonstrated this is true. It follows that HP cannot be used to make decisions from an 'in-character' perspective. This follows as true. Therefore they are metagame.
> 
> There is no confusion. You've contested literally nothing in this argument.
> 
> You've been challenged to show otherwise and couldn't run away fast enough, blubbing and crying about how it isn't fair to compare D&D to systems which don't use a metagame currency to describe the health of characters.
> 
> I've named a dozen systems which allow you to make decisions about your character's health from an in-character description of their health. The ability to make decisions from within character means you don't have to metagame.
> 
> You want to claim it's the granularity of the abstraction, but that's an empty and failed rhetorical device. All that means is that the granularity of the abstraction can determine whether something is metagame or not, based on whether such granularity allows in-character decision-making, which is the litmus test in the thread.
> 
> So very clearly, I haven't confused anything.
> 
> You're reduced to cowering behind the word 'abstraction' to try and deny D&D HPs metagame property, when in fact they are both abstract and metagame. I explained it in my first post to you.
> 
> Go on, blert out 'You've confused abstract for meta' again. It's making me laugh.




Although, I am in agreement with many of your points, your delivery has been so rude, that I am cringing, and feeling that I don't really want to be on your side of this debate.
Maybe, cool down a bit. Not an earth shaking argument, surely....


----------



## Aldarc

Are you genuinely arguing in any good faith or from any desire for nuance when you write this stuff, Ovinomancer? Or are you being argumentative just for the sake of it? 



Ovinomancer said:


> Hm.  If you're intent is to say that humans have water in them, then you're making an error by saying humans are composed of water.  If this is the case, the issue is on your conveyance, not our taking you at your word.



No, it is not an error. It is true that "human beings have water in them" and that "human beings are composed of water," though not in our entirety as the human person consists of a variety of elements and compounds. There is no need for you to be obtuse in misconstruing basic parlance of the latter though. 



> However, what you are saying is that everything is magical because there's a background pervasive field of magic.



It would be inaccurate to characterize magic as a background field in D&D 5e; it suffuses, infuses, permeates, pervades all matter and energy of existence. We are told that on a fundamental level, everything has a magical or supernatural character, albeit to differing degrees and expressions. 



> To touch above, humans having wayer in them doesn't mean diamonds do, too.  Magic can be pervasive yet the mundane can also exist.



My example about humans and water presented a closed system: the composition of the human person. I am not arguing that because humans are composed of water, therefore diamonds have water in them. The matter of "water" pertained to humans alone. I thought that point was obvious. 



> You're begging the question on everything being magical, again. Further, this whole thing started by you introducing the *"everything is magic" argument* to refute a statement about mechanics.  You're switching back and forth depending on the adgument and haven't yet firmly established that tge mundane doesn't exist either aesthetically or mechanically.



Sure, in the same way that you are intentionally misconstruing my argument. But I suspect that I have found what may be the root of the problem in our disagreement here: you. I have not said or made the argument "everything is magic." I said that "everything is magical." But your misconstrual of my argument does appear eerily similar to my earlier analogy, where you equate my statement "humans are composed of water" to the ridiculous reading of my argument to mean that "humans are water." 



> Again, because it seems to be being ignored, *everything is magic is a fine interpretation, a fine setting *(I've done it), and a reasonable suggestion to Emerikol (although he doesn't have to accept it).  I object to the absolute statement and to the rheyorical use of that absolute.



Could you please stop repeating this mantra as a condescending means to dismiss me and the argument? There is no good faith to be found with that. 



> I don't agree, though.  I interpret those selections as saying magic is nearly always reachable, but isn't part of things.  There's a number of fictional settings that fit that bill, so it's not uncommon.  It means I'm not struggling to explain dead magic zones and/or other planes where pervasive magic function differently, or in a limited manner, or not at all.



But it is a part of things, and we are told at repeated points that it is. To be a part of something does not mean composed entirely of the thing, but it is a fundamental building block of all matter and energy in D&D's cosmos. 



> Right, doing well there until the last para.  "I was just trying to provide a possible justification to help the poster, but also that possibility is unavoidable and true and also shows the poster is wrong."  Nope.



You know what you are doing here? This: 







> I usually find myself arguing for nuance and being construed as either failing to understand the argument or strawmanned into an extreme.



You are misreading me, and you seem hellbent for some undetermined to be doing it on purpose, especially since you came into this thread guns blazing, not about any real thread topic but about my person. So please go with what my words say rather than what you want them to say for your agenda.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

chaochou said:


> HP cannot be determined from the 'in-character' perspective. I've demonstrated this is true. It follows that HP cannot be used to make decisions from an 'in-character' perspective. This follows as true. Therefore they are metagame.



You have failed to demonstrate such a thing, and your argument demonstrates a severe misunderstanding about the nature of rules and the role of the DM.

Hit Points _can_ seem like a meta-game construct, when handled by a DM as incompetent as the one in your example.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Arilyn said:


> Although, I am in agreement with many of your points, your delivery has been so rude, that I am cringing, and feeling that I don't really want to be on your side of this debate.
> Maybe, cool down a bit. Not an earth shaking argument, surely....




I agree with this.  There's a certain line beyond which people stop reading points and start responding to tone.  At that point, the conversation suffers; if not everyone in it.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> Basically, I have trouble reconciling the idea that things like atoms and electromagnetic forces exist in the same universe where the building blocks of the universe are air, earth, fire, and water.  Either a universe is mechanistic or it's supernatural, it can't be both.
> 
> We just use Newtonian mechanics to understand basic interactions in a fantasy universe because it's easier for us to imagine.




There is nothing prohibiting from being both.  I can very easily see that the universe is made of from the basic building blocks of air, earth, fire and water, which are in turn made up of atoms held together by physics.  It can in fact be both, even if you don't like.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> As I said, what the hell is "life force", and how is it not magical? It's certainly not a real or mundane thing!




Not everything that is supernatural has to be magic



> Multiple posterson this thread (you as one) have argued that action surge and/or second wind are metagame, because they are decisions taken by a player that do not correlate to decisions taken by that player's character.




From my first post on the topic.  #28 by my reckoning.

"There have been many times in my life when I'm in the middle of playing sports, or wrestling or arm wresting, when I've been very tired and running out of energy. During those times, while actively participating, I can focus myself and over a bit of time, gather some energy together for a burst of strength and speed. Then it fades and sometimes I can't do it a second time(and sometimes I can). *That burst can be #'s 2-4. #1 is the only one you mentioned that I would view as metagaming.* The rest just quantify what I've done and make mechanics out of it."

I include Second Wind as not being metagame, because it's not the PC deciding to engage it, so the PC is not acting on anything it has no way of acting on, but rather it's 100% the player.


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> Basically, I have trouble reconciling the idea that things like atoms and electromagnetic forces exist in the same universe where the building blocks of the universe are air, earth, fire, and water.  Either a universe is mechanistic or it's supernatural, it can't be both.



Sure it can!

Just make "magic" a fifth universal force (to go with gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong) that some lifeforms in some places can access and shape and you're good to rock!

My entire D&D physics concept is based on this simple premise.

Lanefan


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The D&D rules certainly don't answer this question. I don't know of any FRPG that does.




Because they don't have to answer that question.  It's self-evident.  It would be ludicrous for a game like D&D to have objects fall unless acted on in a different way, require cutting objects to be sharp, require creatures to eat and sleep, have thrown objects go a much shorter distance than ones projected by a mechanical instrument, have blunt objects smash, and so on without it being Newtonian physics.  If it were anything else that was simulating our physics, they would have explained it to us in the rule books like they do with everything else that is different.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> But your point speaks to what I have been saying. Ki energy exists within all people. We are told as much by the monk flavor text in the PHB. This would categorically include fighters, as fighters are people. As such, fighters can hypothetically draw on this energy. We are only told that monks have named this energy and that they learn to manipulate it in ways particular to them. That does not somehow erase the existence of said energy within fighters or other creatures. And the point being is that this life energy that exists within fighters is likely the "reserve power" that they use for their action surges and second winds. They are not performing magical healing or haste in the same manner as clerics or wizards, but they are still likely drawing upon the magical energy that flows through their own being.




Your interpretation is A way it can be explained, but there's nothing saying that the latent energy in the rock isn't from the outside magical force that flows through it, or even sits inside of it, yet is still a separate thing.  The PHB doesn't say that Ki energy exists within all people.  What it says is that it FLOWS THROUGH all people.  That could easily translate into Monks being Jedi and using the force.  It could as easily be an outside energy that flows through the body as one that is generated by it.  Monks just learn how to magically harness the energy.  And it does say that they magically harness the energy, not that they harness the magical energy.  Below is from the paragraph immediately above the section on Ki.

"Whatever their discipline, monks are united in their ability to *magically harness the energy* that flows in their bodies."



> This would categorically include fighters, as fighters are people.




You should try talking to a few wizards.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Now I get it. You are misunderstanding me. Or perhaps arguing with me out of force of habit, but I will assume that you are arguing in good faith. Let's work with another example: water.
> 
> Me: Human beings are composed of water.
> 
> You and Max: Humans are not water, nor would we count as water.
> 
> OR
> 
> Me: Human bodies are naturally radioactive.
> 
> You and Max: Humans are not radiation.
> 
> Your counterpoint strikes me as an absolutely absurd argument to make that would be beside the point that seems to make a semantic leap from what is meant by "are magical."




The issue is that in game terms, saying something is magical has specific meaning, and it doesn't mean a rock, though it might mean a Roc.  Some of us like to not have terms muddled into uselessness, and a claim that the entire D&D universe is magical does just that.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> But fighters in 5e are magical while dragon flight is not?
> 
> I don't get it.




That does sound pretty strange when you say it like that.


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> The issue is that in game terms, saying something is magical has specific meaning, and it doesn't mean a rock, though it might mean a Roc.  Some of us like to not have terms muddled into uselessness, and a claim that the entire D&D universe is magical does just that.




Yes, I would agree that the game term for magical has a specific meaning.

However nothing in a DnD game makes sense if there is not an intrinsic magic to the world.  It would be like arguing that there is no energy in a rock even though Einstein already proved that there is.


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> Yes, I would agree that the game term for magical has a specific meaning.
> 
> However nothing in a DnD game makes sense if there is not an intrinsic magic to the world.  It would be like arguing that there is no energy in a rock even though Einstein already proved that there is.




That energy doesn't have to be magic, though.  I'm fine with there being "The Force" and calling that magic.  It flows through everything and binds it, without making what it flows through and binds magical.  Luke did just fine levitating inanimate objects and bending minds of mundane people.  You can have lots of magic present pretty much everywhere, and things that are magic, without the entire universe being magic.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> Not everything that is supernatural has to be magic



Yea, if you're using "magic" to mean a subset of supernatural effects, then we're talking right past each other.  It feels more like you're talking about a "mana" or "quintessence" concept.


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> Sure it can!
> 
> Just make "magic" a fifth universal force (to go with gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong) that some lifeforms in some places can access and shape and you're good to rock!
> 
> My entire D&D physics concept is based on this simple premise.
> 
> Lanefan



I have a difficulty picturing a universal force that's also localized, but more power to you if it makes your cosmology feel cohesive.


----------



## Sadras

chaochou said:


> _You're standing on a bridge leaning on your spear. You're tired and got a sore back from having slept badly on rough ground. You've got a vivid bruise on your right arm and scraped knuckles on that hand._
> 
> How many hit points do you have?




20 hit points. 
Prove me wrong.


----------



## Sadras

TwoSix said:


> Basically, I have trouble reconciling the idea that things like atoms and electromagnetic forces exist in the same universe where the building blocks of the universe are air, earth, fire, and water.  Either a universe is mechanistic or it's supernatural, it can't be both.
> 
> We just use Newtonian mechanics to understand basic interactions in a fantasy universe because it's easier for us to imagine.




That makes absolutely no sense to me why someone would take such a hard line.

Somehow building blocks (earth, wind, air and fire) in a world of magic  are devoid of any Newtonian science because hey supernatural world. I guess the use of gunpowder is supernatural too?


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> 20 hit points.
> Prove me wrong.




That mosquito that bit you this morning took 1 away.  You only have 19.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> That makes absolutely no sense to me why someone would take such a hard line.
> 
> Somehow building blocks (earth, wind, air and fire) in a world of magic  are devoid of any Newtonian science because hey supernatural world. I guess the use of gunpowder is supernatural too?




Let's not forget those "magical" space ships and androids from the Barrier Peaks.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Sadras said:


> 20 hit points.
> Prove me wrong.




Let me see if I can kill you in one hit with a longsword.  There's no way my strength is 18, so even on a crit I can't do 20 points.

 If you live, I'll accept your claim.


----------



## Maxperson

Elfcrusher said:


> Let me see if I can kill you in one hit with a longsword.  There's no way my strength is 18, so even on a crit I can't do 20 points.
> 
> If you live, I'll accept your claim.




Nope.  That doesn't work.  Hit points are also a measure of skill, luck, divine protection, etc.  That means that when you swing, if he dives out of the way and you just barely nick him physically, it could still be a 16 point crit.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> Let's not forget those "magical" space ships and androids from the Barrier Peaks.



Of course they are.  The fact that they existed in a universe in which it was possible to open a magic portal to another dimension means they existed in a supernatural universe, and everything in a supernatural universe is supernatural.  Since I'm using supernatural and magical as synonymous, that makes them magical.

You're welcome to use "magic", the term, as some ritualistic subset of supernatural effects, but 5e doesn't support that usage of the term in its text.


----------



## TwoSix

Sadras said:


> That makes absolutely no sense to me why someone would take such a hard line.
> 
> Somehow building blocks (earth, wind, air and fire) in a world of magic  are devoid of any Newtonian science because hey supernatural world. I guess the use of gunpowder is supernatural too?



Not sure why it's a "hard line", considering it doesn't affect the game one iota.  It's just a semantic discussion, like most of the threads that get long and involved around here.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Things got pretty bonkers in here, eh?


----------



## Shasarak

Maxperson said:


> That energy doesn't have to be magic, though.  I'm fine with there being "The Force" and calling that magic.  It flows through everything and binds it, without making what it flows through and binds magical.  Luke did just fine levitating inanimate objects and bending minds of mundane people.  You can have lots of magic present pretty much everywhere, and things that are magic, without the entire universe being magic.




Anakin could do it to Droids as well so that means the Force is not limited to living things.


----------



## Shasarak

TwoSix said:


> I have a difficulty picturing a universal force that's also localized, but more power to you if it makes your cosmology feel cohesive.




Gravity is kind of bonkers and on the other hand it certainly helps to keep the cosmology cohesive.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Not everything that is supernatural has to be magic



Would you care to elaborate on this? They seem to be synonyms to me, and when I Google a definition of magic I get "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." I don't know what dictionary that is from, but it is the sort of thing I would have expected.



Lanefan said:


> Just make "magic" a fifth universal force (to go with gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong) that some lifeforms in some places can access and shape and you're good to rock!
> 
> My entire D&D physics concept is based on this simple premise.



This doesn't seem very simple to me. I mean, I'm told that quantum gravity is quite hard (I haven't studied physics mysefl beyond high school); presumably it's no easier to explain how the notion of "lifeform" and "accessing a fifth universal force" are to be reconciled and integratd with existing knowledge of physics.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Because they don't have to answer that question.  It's self-evident.  It would be ludicrous for a game like D&D to have objects fall unless acted on in a different way, require cutting objects to be sharp, require creatures to eat and sleep, have thrown objects go a much shorter distance than ones projected by a mechanical instrument, have blunt objects smash, and so on without it being Newtonian physics.  If it were anything else that was simulating our physics, they would have explained it to us in the rule books like they do with everything else that is different.



I don't understand your point. The fact that certain beings (but not elves? who nevertheless can have children with humans) have to eat and sleep doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the _physics_ of that world, if by "physcsc" we mean that discipline taught in schools and universities.

Human being since time immemorial have known that dropped objects fall; likewise those in the gameworld. But that tells us nothing about whether or not the gameworld is governed by universal gravitation, let alone the strong and weak nuclear forces that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has referred  to. Newton's first law of motion is not self-evident. Einsteinian physics even moreso is not. And the existence of those nuclear forces is self-evidently not self-evident!


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> 20 hit points.
> Prove me wrong.



I think that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s point is that the answer could be 20 hp, or 3 hp, or 50 hp.

Or 90% of hp remaining, or 10%, or 1%.

In other words, there is no correlatoin between hp remaining (either absolutely or proportionately) and any particular state of the fiction. Which means that knowing the state of the fiction (which is what PCs know) doesn't settle any question about hp remaining. Which means that knowledge of hp remaining is metagame knowledge, and declaring actions on the basis of such knowledge is metagaming.



Sadras said:


> Somehow building blocks (earth, wind, air and fire) in a world of magic  are devoid of any Newtonian science because hey supernatural world. I guess the use of gunpowder is supernatural too?



If _fire_ is a fundamenal element, then it is not combustion by way of oxidation as it is in the real world. Hence, whatever gunpowder is in that world, it is not something with the chemical properties and associated behaviours of gunpowder in the real world.


----------



## Maxperson

Shasarak said:


> Anakin could do it to Droids as well so that means the Force is not limited to living things.




Was that in one of the cartoons or something?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Would you care to elaborate on this? They seem to be synonyms to me, and when I Google a definition of magic I get "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." I don't know what dictionary that is from, but it is the sort of thing I would have expected.




A synonym is just a word that is similar to another word, not a word that is exactly the same as another word.  Supernatural doesn't equate to magic.   Just the unknowable or beyond the current understanding of the laws of nature.  



> I don't understand your point. The fact that certain beings (but not elves? who nevertheless can have children with humans) have to eat and sleep doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the physics of that world, if by "physcsc" we mean that discipline taught in schools and universities.



I think the failure to understand is deliberate on your end.  It's pretty easy to see that falling is caused by gravity, and that the farther you fall, the faster your fall and you take more damage.  Then you hit terminal velocity at 20d6.  It doesn't have to mirror reality exactly to represent real world physics.


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> I have a difficulty picturing a universal force that's also localized, but more power to you if it makes your cosmology feel cohesive.



It's localized only in that the presence of (a) certain element(s)* suppresses it.  On a world where such are not present, and in (most of) outer space and the other planes, it works just fine. 

* - I've never quite nailed down exactly which one(s), though I've long thought uranium could be a good option.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> This doesn't seem very simple to me. I mean, I'm told that quantum gravity is quite hard (I haven't studied physics mysefl beyond high school); presumably it's no easier to explain how the notion of "lifeform" and "accessing a fifth universal force" are to be reconciled and integratd with existing knowledge of physics.



I'm not expecting this to pass the test of hard science, just the test of does it give me enough of a foundation on which to build a coherent universal fantasy-physics that includes magic and can, if needed, include and explain the real non-magical world we live on.  To that my answer is yes.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I don't understand your point. The fact that certain beings (but not elves? who nevertheless can have children with humans) have to eat and sleep doesn't tell us anything meaningful about the _physics_ of that world, if by "physcsc" we mean that discipline taught in schools and universities.
> 
> Human being since time immemorial have known that dropped objects fall; likewise those in the gameworld. But that tells us nothing about whether or not the gameworld is governed by universal gravitation, let alone the strong and weak nuclear forces that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has referred  to. Newton's first law of motion is not self-evident. Einsteinian physics even moreso is not. And the existence of those nuclear forces is self-evidently not self-evident!



Baseline assumption: real-world physics are the same as game-world physics except where it is noted they are not (e.g most magic effects, most non-prime-material planes, etc.).

Without this baseline assumption, the PH and-or DMG for any RPG system would be twice the size it is now with the added pagecount being a game-world physics textbook.  Why?  Because even for the simplest of things we need to know how (or if!) this stuff works, the most obvious example being gravity.

Lan-"founding member of the Friends of Gravity"-efan


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> It's pretty easy to see that falling is caused by gravity, and that the farther you fall, the faster your fall and you take more damage.  Then you hit terminal velocity at 20d6.  It doesn't have to mirror reality exactly to represent real world physics.



Huh?a

That falling is caused by _gravity_ - ie a universal force that all masses exert on all other masses - isn't easy to see at all. No human being knew it as recently as 400 years ago! It's hardly obvious that falling, in the gameworld, is an expression of universal gravitation.

And as far as terminal velocity is concerned: a 200' fall inflicts 20d6 damage in AD&D, but few falling persons will reach terminal velocity in a 200' fall. That's just a figure that someone settled on for some reason or other, and it's become tradttional.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Baseline assumption: real-world physics are the same as game-world physics except where it is noted they are not (e.g most magic effects, most non-prime-material planes, etc.).



What about flying dragons, giant arthropods, fireball spells that exert no pressure, etc?



Lanefan said:


> Without this baseline assumption, the PH and-or DMG for any RPG system would be twice the size it is now with the added pagecount being a game-world physics textbook.  Why?  Because even for the simplest of things we need to know how (or if!) this stuff works, the most obvious example being gravity.



Nonsense. You don't need to assume that actual physics is true in order to understand the basic physical behaviour of dropped objects, running people, etc. Most human beings have understood the basics of these things for most of human history without access to either real or imagined knowledge of physics.

As far as gravity is concerned, do planets in AD&D orbit the sun, or vice versa? What is the relatoinship between the earth and its moon, or the moon and the tides? In the real world, these are all manifestation of universal gravitation, but there is no reason to think this is so in D&D. Gygax suggests quite different possibilities in his DMG, and Spelljammer likewise does not describe a universe governed by universal gravitation.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Huh?a
> 
> That falling is caused by _gravity_ - ie a universal force that all masses exert on all other masses - isn't easy to see at all. No human being knew it as recently as 400 years ago! It's hardly obvious that falling, in the gameworld, is an expression of universal gravitation.
> 
> And as far as terminal velocity is concerned: a 200' fall inflicts 20d6 damage in AD&D, but few falling persons will reach terminal velocity in a 200' fall. That's just a figure that someone settled on for some reason or other, and it's become tradttional.




Again with the deliberate refusal to see that D&D is just engaging a loose approximation of real world physics.  So what if "terminal velocity" occurs at 200', rather than 450'.  It's a game.  It doesn't need to match real life exactly.  Simulating physics in a loose manner is just fine.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Again with the deliberate refusal to see that D&D is just engaging a loose approximation of real world physics.  So what if "terminal velocity" occurs at 200', rather than 450'.  It's a game.  It doesn't need to match real life exactly.  Simulating physics in a loose manner is just fine.



What does ".a loose approxiation . . .  simulating in a loose manner" mean? You and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] are saying that D&D uses real world physics. But it's measure of terminal velocity is different. So either G is different, or the way friction works is different, or . . . it's not physics at all, just common sense tropes!


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> What does ".a loose approxiation . . .  simulating in a loose manner" mean? You and @_*Lanefan*_ are saying that D&D uses real world physics. But it's measure of terminal velocity is different. So either G is different, or the way friction works is different, or . . . it's not physics at all, just common sense tropes!




OR it's D&D physics, which loosely approximates real world physics.  D&D physics loosely approximates real world physics all over the place.  Hell, during 1e Dragon put in articles on how to make D&D physics more like real world physics.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> What about flying dragons, giant arthropods, fireball spells that exert no pressure, etc?



 "Except where it is noted they are not", I wrote, under which all of these qualify.

As an extension of my magic-physics theory (which gets kinda detailed) creatures like raccoons and humans can live on a non-magic world but "fantastic" creatures cannot - they need magic in order to exist.  As an extension of this, magic-based creatures such as elves and dragons will weaken, sicken, and die if stuck too long in a null-magic zone.



> Nonsense. You don't need to assume that actual physics is true in order to understand the basic physical behaviour of dropped objects, running people, etc. Most human beings have understood the basics of these things for most of human history without access to either real or imagined knowledge of physics.



From the point of view of a PC or any other inhabitant of the game world, I agree.

From the point of view of the DM trying to design all this, however, I need to have it figured out.



> As far as gravity is concerned, do planets in AD&D orbit the sun, or vice versa? What is the relatoinship between the earth and its moon, or the moon and the tides? In the real world, these are all manifestation of universal gravitation, but there is no reason to think this is so in D&D.



One could, if one wanted, redesign gravity so it works differently than what we're used to - but one would need a serious grasp of the physics and interrelations one has in mind in order to do this and have it come out working consistently.  Far easier to just use what we already have, which already (for these purposes) works consistently and halfway predictably.

In other words, it's way easier to take what we already have and just bolt on what we don't have (magic, mostly) than it would be to start over from nothing.



> Gygax suggests quite different possibilities in his DMG, and Spelljammer likewise does not describe a universe governed by universal gravitation.



For some non-prime-material planes things do work differently, no doubt there (says he who just finished running an adventure in the Astral, where gravity is a near-myth and time runs on chaos theory!).  I'm 99% talking about the prime material with what I'm saying elsewhere in here, though.

Lan-"for some reason Spelljammer as a setting/system never appealed to me, even though the base concept is very interesting"-efan


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> And so that would represent your conception of your world as opposed to 5e's implied default setting. Nothing is stopping you from that interpretation or set of houserules. I hope that you do have fun with it..




Aldarc, I know you like to be "sensational" with your radical ideas.  Please just know that you are making yourself look like a fool by claiming that is the implied D&D setting.  You have no basis for it.  Your examples are lame.

So keep poking.  I'm starting to think you aren't really seriously discussing this issue.  You just keep making up extreme statements to try to get people upset.   It's common place for many on here to project back crazy ideas into old school D&D but you are talking it to a new height.  

The game has mundane characters.  Except where explicitly defined differently, we expect the world to work as ours does.  We don't expect a peasant farmer of which there are millions more than there are adventurers to suddenly whip out a magic power.  We don't expect horses to fly.  We expect them to be ridden on the ground.  The examples could go on forever but please stop wasting our time with this train of thought.  The old move the goal posts and claim the game never was the way it was is getting tiring.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> This has nothing to do with stance. _Stance _is an attempt to describe the relatoinship between _player establishment of fiction_ and _player motivation_ having regard to the player's special connection to the PC. It's not about talking in first or third person.
> 
> Whether you prefer first-person or third person narration by players to establish action declarations and shared fiction is a completely separate thing.
> 
> For instance, the following bit of narration (which also, in some systems, involves action declaration), is first person - but director stance:
> 
> Player (speaking in character): I hook up with the local dealers in contraband to get hold of some XYZ.​
> In Classic Traveller that's a prelude to a Streetwise check; in Burning Wheel to a Circles check; in a typical D&D game there is no associated action declaration, but a GM might still accept it - "Sure, you're pretty sure you'll find someone fiting that descrition at any divy tavern in the Thieves' Quarter."
> 
> Despite being first person, it's director stance because it establishes some element of the shared fiction - namely, local contraband dealers the PC might hook up with - without that fiction itself being produced by the actions/choices of the PC.
> 
> This has nothing to do with Stance either: a player saying those things is not trying to establish any shared fiction.
> 
> This doesn't make sense. I can't _literally _become a character. I can decide to _establish_ or _author_ a character. Until that is done, there is nothing for me to "become" or to "grasp".



So far I can go along.  I agree you can say what you are doing in third person and still be acting within the limits of actor stance.  There may though be an overlap between people who like actor stance and people who prefer first person as much as is practical.  Personally I'm not over the top on first person but I like it when done well.






pemerton said:


> For instance, actual actors aren't being motivated by what motivates the character. They are being motivated by things like the desire to give a good performance, the desire to present the character authentically, the desire to please the director, the desire to get paid, etc, etc.



This is more an imperfect naming of the stance than anything else.  The actor stance as opposed to the actor above that you described is about being the character.  It's about acting within the mental framework of that character.  It's explicitly avoiding the creation of the fiction.  



pemerton said:


> As far as inhabitation is concerned, the notion that some forms of narration at the table are more apt to produce "inhabitation" than others is an empirical conjecture, and I don't think there's any real evidence of it. (The opposite I've seen be true: ie when a player is in an especially inhabiting mood, s/he is more likely to narrate in first person - but the narration is the effect, not the cause, of the inhabitation.)



Yeah we should just drop the way people speak from this discussion.  Let's just say those interests often correlate but they are not absolute.



pemerton said:


> And the idea that author or director stance is treating the character as a pawn is not plausible at all. In the case of director stance, consider the example I just gave - that's not treating the PC as a pawn at all. I'm going to give more examples not far below that make the same point for author stance.
> 
> Huh? How does a player in (say) Moldvay Basic drfit to "director stance"? Or stay (vaguely or otherwise) in that stance?



Pawn seems pejorative but in this usage I don't think it is really.  It's more trying to show that the character has become something you are doing things to instead of living inside of.



pemerton said:


> And why would a player default to one stance, in games that invite players to inhabit multiple stances? There's no reason to think this is true at all. Eg in Burning Wheel, a player might quickly move from director stance (making a Circles check) to author stance (wondering whether to change a Belief) to actor stance (declaring an action for a PC having regard to established Beliefs - that's how the game works. In Classic Traveller a player might quickly move from actor stance (declaring an action for his/her PC because s/he is imaginging to what the PC would want, like say an Admin check to persuade an official to look the other way) to author stance (lending an item from his/her PC sheet to another player's PC, because that will help optimise the party for their mission) back to actor stance (griping that the borrowing PC is a bludger!).



Because actor stance is fun and author/director stance is not for me?  I don't think your lending example is very good for what you are trying to show.  In real life people, loan items back and forth all the time.  Yes the sheet is a player help to assist in being the character but like hit points it's more to aid in communication than to affect actions.




pemerton said:


> There's a reason that every commentator who has written about player stances has concluded that they're highly fluid in play.
> 
> And these examples also shows us that there's no connection between author stance and treating the character as a pawn. Nor between stance and first/third person - all the stuff I just described could be narrated in first person.
> 
> This further illustrates the complete independence of Stance and "inhabitation" and "first person".
> 
> A player who "leans into" their role, deciding that _this_ is the moment eg to reveal something profound about the character, is playing in author stance at that moment, but certainly need not cease to inhabit the character, nor drop out of first person narration.



I think he can't possibly at that moment be acting as the character.  Assuming the reveal is something new to the game and not something the character already knows.



pemerton said:


> Likewise a player who establishes (necessarily in director stance) that "I know a guy who can help", as per my example at the top of this post.
> 
> And for completeness, here's a repost of the definitions of stance:
> 
> Much the same can be found at The Forge, where (as far as I know) the notion was first systematically developed. As far as I can see the blog that has been linked to has mostly copy-pasted Edwards 2001 text.




I don't know whether you are trying to assert that actor only stance is impossible (I can assure you that you are wrong on that count if you are) or something else.   Not sure what you are getting at other than to maybe debunk the first person voice thing which again is a side road anyway.

I want the decisions you make to be based on information your character knows and be an action that your character could initiate.  Obviously, given it is a game, you have to state your actions to the DM.  As long as what you state is something your character could realistically do as the character, that is fine.  

So if I say to the DM "I am going to the thieves quarter and see if I can find out who murdered joe" that is fine.  I am doing something my character could do.  As long as joe being dead isn't being made up or the existence of the thieves quarter isn't getting made up at that very moment, things are fine.   

As a side note, I hate director mode even more than author mode but I dislike both of course.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Dragons in D&D can fly, although that would not be possible in the real world.
> 
> Fighters in 5e can choose when to push themselves extra hard, knowing that if they burn their reserves now they won't get them back without a rest, which is not too different from how people in the real world can do that.
> 
> But fighters in 5e are magical while dragon flight is not?
> 
> I don't get it.




Dragons are very magical beings through and through so I don't have a problem seeing their flight either way.  It could fall under the umbrella of cinematic though also.


----------



## Emerikol

TwoSix said:


> It's pretty much the same idea, phrased differently.  If magic is possible, it's a magical universe.  There's no way for magic to exist as some sort of "plug-and-play" extension that attaches to an otherwise mundane universe in a way that makes sense, despite genre conceits.  (I'd allow that exceptions exist if the magic is actually some sort of highly advanced science, like in Mark Lawrence's Broken Empire trilogy.)




Let's hypothesize.  Suppose a supreme being existed first.  That supreme being spoke all of the natural laws into existence as he was also creating the universe.  So gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak forces, etc.. all came into being at his command.  At any time, if he chose, he could command some part of the universe to break the rules.  If such happened, it would not mean the end of the rules of the universe except in that case.  

So sure, the D&D universe is no doubt different in many ways than our own.  The key for me is that where the game is silent I fill in a cinematic version of our universe by default.  That is the way I believe most people have played D&D through the years but without a doubt in the early days.

So without a specific magical rule, a person cannot do a second wind.  It would be easy to make up such a rule.  I won't for the fighter because I want a non-magical fighter and rogue.  The very use of the term second wind indicates it is non-magical. If it were a magical power it would have a more magical name.   If you had a sacred order of magical knights who drew upon the arcane forces of the universe to do magical things, I'd be fine with that.  I don't want that though for the basic fighter and rogue.  My players don't want it either.  I'd say the barbarian and monk are both those sorts of classes.  No one has played a barbarian in my games and the monk only once.


----------



## Emerikol

chaochou said:


> Yet again you trot out this laughable lie.
> 
> I've already established that HP are abstract _and _meta. So I haven't confused anything.
> 
> You, on the other hand, don't have a single argument. You've established, quite literally, nothing which demonstrates that D&D HP are not a metagame device. You simply assert it, completely without justification, over and over again.




Okay I'll be your huckleberry.

Hit points are a method of communicating in game state.  The DM says you were hit for 14 points of damage.  You deduct that from your total.  You are that much closer to death.  This is in game knowledge.  However you define hit points.  Whether they are wounds or stamina or whatever.  I've tried to keep it simple by saying they are just a measure of your closeness to death.

And it matters not even a tiny twit whether you can give me a description and I can reverse that out to some hit point total.  That is a strawman and matters not one iota.  It is a communication device.  It is abstract.  But the very fact that it references  in game state makes it non-metagame.  If you reach zero hit points, you really are dying in the game.  However you got there that is real.  

Most of the abstract concepts like Hit Points and AC are ways to quickly communicate ideas from DM to PC.  Yes the player hears the term and translates it down to the character who then acts.  The character though is acting on real knowledge.  When he falls back, from the fight due to low hit points he is acting on in game knowledge.

Whereas, a martial power that is daily and non-magical, is not something the character can ever conceive.  Right after he pulls off the manuever can he really know for a fact that he can't do this purely physical thing he just did a minute ago.  Can he know that by sleeping he can again have the option at any time during the day to perform a very specific manuever but only that one time.  The character knows none of this.  The player is making those decisions from the author stance.  The character is likely played as "noticing" an opening and getting an opportunity and that is the character knowledge.  The character also likely thinks for the rest of the day he could get another such chance even though the player knows he will not.

The same is true for encounter powers on a smaller scale.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> What does ".a loose approxiation . . .  simulating in a loose manner" mean? You and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] are saying that D&D uses real world physics. But it's measure of terminal velocity is different. So either G is different, or the way friction works is different, or . . . it's not physics at all, just common sense tropes!




Okay I think you are being deliberately obtuse.  Gravity has been known since man started walking.  The theory of gravity and the various detailed scientific hypothesis etc... were not known.   People knew though that when they throw a rock it comes down.  When they fire an arrow it eventually hits the ground.  So sure, I don't think we are talking about pointy headed theories and you are creating a strawman.   There are things that even primitive people know about the world and a lot of those things they knew are true for D&D worlds.  In some cases, the game being a game approximates our world and doesn't hit it dead on.  As long as you are reasonable, it's fine.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> This has nothing to do with stance. _Stance _is an attempt to describe the relatoinship between _player establishment of fiction_ and _player motivation_ having regard to the player's special connection to the PC. It's not about talking in first or third person.



It's about thinking in first or third person.  Player establishment of fiction has nothing to do with it, and is for these purposes just a distracting side-discussion.



> Whether you prefer first-person or third person narration by players to establish action declarations and shared fiction is a completely separate thing.
> 
> For instance, the following bit of narration (which also, in some systems, involves action declaration), is first person - but director stance:
> 
> Player (speaking in character): I hook up with the local dealers in contraband to get hold of some XYZ.​



Not sure how you see this as director stance.  Put it in third person "Jocinda hooks up with the local contraband dealers..." and it is, but in first person I see it as still being actor stance - there has to be a way to describe your movements and actions. 



> Despite being first person, it's director stance because it establishes some element of the shared fiction - namely, local contraband dealers the PC might hook up with - without that fiction itself being produced by the actions/choices of the PC.



Silly me, I was assuming those elements were already present in the fiction having been put there by prior in-game events and-or the DM's narration.  Players don't just get to declare stuff like that, whether speaking in or out of character.

If the existence of the contraband dealers hasn't been established then as Jocinda's player I might say something like "I need some <XYZ>, and I can't get it legally, so I'll keep my ear to the ground and make discreet inquiries as to where and how some might be obtained."  This puts the ball in the DM's court: she can tell me I find someone, or don't find someone, or need to look harder, or that my inquiries weren't as discreet as I hoped and I've run afoul of the law, or whatever.



> This doesn't make sense. I can't _literally _become a character. I can decide to _establish_ or _author_ a character. Until that is done, there is nothing for me to "become" or to "grasp".
> 
> For instance, actual actors aren't being motivated by what motivates the character. They are being motivated by things like the desire to give a good performance, the desire to present the character authentically, the desire to please the director, the desire to get paid, etc, etc.



Google "method acting" - you might learn some stuff. 

When deciding on whether to take on a role or part an actor's motivaitons are probably as you suggest.  But once on the stage, a good actor is fully in character and has left his own person (and his own motivations etc.) in the wings...particularly so in improv theatre where the actor doesn't also have to worry about remembering his lines (which is always what messed me up!).



> As far as inhabitation is concerned, the notion that some forms of narration at the table are more apt to produce "inhabitation" than others is an empirical conjecture, and I don't think there's any real evidence of it. (The opposite I've seen be true: ie when a player is in an especially inhabiting mood, s/he is more likely to narrate in first person - but the narration is the effect, not the cause, of the inhabitation.)



Either way, they're related...which means specifically trying to do one will by default enhance the other.



> And the idea that author or director stance is treating the character as a pawn is not plausible at all. In the case of director stance, consider the example I just gave - that's not treating the PC as a pawn at all. I'm going to give more examples not far below that make the same point for author stance.



Author and director stances move one away from the character.  As [MENTION=10638]Emirikol[/MENTION] points out above, in these stances you're doing things to the character rather than as the character - it can't be avoided in the run of play but it can be acknowledged and kept to a reasonable minimum.



> And why would a player default to one stance, in games that invite players to inhabit multiple stances? There's no reason to think this is true at all. Eg in Burning Wheel, a player might quickly move from director stance (making a Circles check) to author stance (wondering whether to change a Belief) to actor stance (declaring an action for a PC having regard to established Beliefs - that's how the game works. In Classic Traveller a player might quickly move from actor stance (declaring an action for his/her PC because s/he is imaginging to what the PC would want, like say an Admin check to persuade an official to look the other way) to author stance (lending an item from his/her PC sheet to another player's PC, because that will help optimise the party for their mission) back to actor stance (griping that the borrowing PC is a bludger!).



I don't see these as changes of stance so much as changes from in-game to meta and back.

Making a circles check: straight meta-engagement with the game mechanics, no role-play stance involved
Wondering whether to change a Belief: actor stance; the character is doubting her beliefs (and maybe even voicing these doubts out loud), and if she changes her belief then the player briefly engages with the meta-mechanics to note this change on her character sheet.
Declaring an action: a combination of actor stance (the character does something) and meta-mechanics engagement (the game has to respond to her declaration).

Declaring an action: again actor stance but maybe not with the attached meta-mechanics
Loaning an item to another PC: full-on actor stance; the loaning PC recognizes her item will be of more use in the borrower's hands than her own...even if she then turns around and complains about the borrower!



> And these examples also shows us that there's no connection between author stance and treating the character as a pawn. Nor between stance and first/third person - all the stuff I just described could be narrated in first person.



And would be, were it a player rather than a watching DM doing it.



> A player who "leans into" their role, deciding that _this_ is the moment eg to reveal something profound about the character, is playing in author stance at that moment, but certainly need not cease to inhabit the character, nor drop out of first person narration.



Assuming the "something profound" comes out of the character's backstory or history or from in-game events, it could easily be the player-as-PC deciding in actor stance that now's the time to reveal this <whatever> previously known only to her.

If it's something the player just made up on the fly...well, that's another thing entirely.  Author stance, certainly.  



> Likewise a player who establishes (necessarily in director stance) that "I know a guy who can help", as per my example at the top of this post.



In your game, where players are also authors and setting-writers, this may be the case.  But in mine a player can't just arbitrarily say something like this unless this knowledge has already been established earlier.

Lanefan


----------



## Emerikol

It is maddening to watch how far you guys will go to twist yourself into knots trying so very hard to "prove" that my preferences are purely arbitrary.  What are you afraid of?  The metagame police are not going to show up at your house and shut down your game if I'm allowed to play my game my way at my house.  This burning need, and believe me some of you are really making fools of yourself contorting in so many crazy ways, is something I'll never understand.

Let's just take some things as a given for my games,
1.  Fighters and Rogues live within the limits of a cinematic reality as it relates to their innate powers and abilities.
2.  While perhaps the universe is different on some fundamental level from our own, practically for most common people it appears to work the same way as a cinematic version of our world.
3.  That abstract concepts like HP, AC, etc.. are used to communicate game world information that really exists as knowledge in game.  If you can't accept this then just pretend for now that it is magical knowledge.  It's not that in my games and I do play it as known and no one questions that at my table but if you can't grok that then just pretend it's magic.
4.  Also realize that I am striving for an actor stance game.  I am a skilled DM at providing that sort of game.  Sure there are some colossally bad DMs who couldn't pull this off.  Take it as a given that I can do it and I have done it for many years.  Longer than many of you have been alive I don't doubt.

The POINT of this thread
1.  Find innovative ways to solve the metagame issue for those that care about it without resorting to magic or changing into other stances.  
2.  It would be enjoyable to compare and contrast those ideas and discuss the various merits of those ideas with people who at minimum understand my viewpoint.  You don't have to agree that you want that sort of game but if you can't even understand my viewpoint then honestly just go away.  Obviously for those that agree with my viewpoint, the discussion could be even richer.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> OR it's D&D physics, which loosely approximates real world physics.  D&D physics loosely approximates real world physics all over the place.  Hell, during 1e Dragon put in articles on how to make D&D physics more like real world physics.



Does "loosely approximates real world physics" mean anything more than _dropped objects fall, but dragons can fly without magical assistance_?



Lanefan said:


> "Except where it is noted they are not", I wrote, under which all of these qualify.



Physics, in the real world, isn't just a list of facts. The discipline is a set of interrelated principles stated in mathematical terms; the phenomena those principles describe are things that follow certain regularities in behaviour and causal interaction.

Asserting that _the physics is just like the real world, except dragons can fly_ is a contradiction, because there is no physics that resembles the real world's and yet in which creatures like dragons are able to fly as D&D dragons do.

That said, if sticking giant ants or flying dragons in the rules is enough to create, for you, an exception to your (or anyone else's) "real world physics" principle, then why don't second-winding fighters equally count? Why would that, in particular, have to be magical?



Maxperson said:


> One could, if one wanted, redesign gravity so it works differently than what we're used to - but one would need a serious grasp of the physics and interrelations one has in mind in order to do this and have it come out working consistently.



But the game already does this! Gravity doesn't bring dragons crashing to the ground, nor crush the legs of giants; so it already works differently from what we're used to! And you said as much yourself, in the passage I quoted just above.



Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to assume that actual physics is true in order to understand the basic physical behaviour of dropped objects, running people, etc. Most human beings have understood the basics of these things for most of human history without access to either real or imagined knowledge of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the point of view of the DM trying to design all this, however, I need to have it figured out.
Click to expand...


Really? Out of curiosity, when did you do anything in your gameworld design or adjudication that required applying universal gravitation, Maxwell's equations, thermodynamics, or nuclear physics?

Personally, I've never seen a gameworld (whether amateur or professional in design) that required more than a bit of understanding of geography.



Emerikol said:


> Except where explicitly defined differently, we expect the world to work as ours does.  We don't expect a peasant farmer of which there are millions more than there are adventurers to suddenly whip out a magic power.  We don't expect horses to fly.  We expect them to be ridden on the ground.



But we don't except the principles of gravity and/or fluid mechanics to work as they do in our world - because if they did, dragons couldn't fly. And nor do we expect the biochemistry and/or physics of respiration to work as they do in our world - because if they did, giant arthropods would be impossible.

Given this - and given that "surges" and "second winds" are things that actual athletes actually do in the real world, by drawing on their reserves - why would we be that shocked to see warriors who can perform surges and get their second wind, but then need a bit of a rest before they can do it again?

You may not like the aesthetic, just as some people don't like the aesthetic of flying dragons or Cloudkill spells or katanas or whatever - but I'm missing the argument that these things _must_ be metagame.



Emerikol said:


> Dragons are very magical beings through and through so I don't have a problem seeing their flight either way.  It could fall under the umbrella of cinematic though also.



I read this after writing the above. I think the above still stands in relation to giant arthropods. And the most recent quote also raises the question of why dragons don't fall to the ground under the effects of an Anti-Magic Shell or similar.

Even in this thread, as best I can tell there are many who regard a dragon's fight or a giant scorpion's respiration as non-magical.

To the extent that we talk about "cinematic", I don't see how that would fail to encompass surges and second winds without these having to be metagame.



Emerikol said:


> Suppose a supreme being existed first.  That supreme being spoke all of the natural laws into existence as he was also creating the universe.  So gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak forces, etc.. all came into being at his command.  At any time, if he chose, he could command some part of the universe to break the rules.  If such happened, it would not mean the end of the rules of the universe except in that case.
> 
> So sure, the D&D universe is no doubt different in many ways than our own.  The key for me is that where the game is silent I fill in a cinematic version of our universe by default.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> without a specific magical rule, a person cannot do a second wind.





Emerikol said:


> Gravity has been known since man started walking.  The theory of gravity and the various detailed scientific hypothesis etc... were not known.   People knew though that when they throw a rock it comes down.  When they fire an arrow it eventually hits the ground.  So sure, I don't think we are talking about pointy headed theories and you are creating a strawman.   There are things that even primitive people know about the world and a lot of those things they knew are true for D&D worlds.  In some cases, the game being a game approximates our world and doesn't hit it dead on.  As long as you are reasonable, it's fine.



Look, you and  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] are the ones who mentioned _nuclear forces_. Someone else upthread who is not me mentioned _atoms_. These are not things that "have been known since man started walking". They are "pointy headed theories".

My own view, clearly stated multiple times in this thread, is that D&D needs nothing more than common sense tropes. And choosing to surge, or getting one's second wind, is a common sense trope. I'm not much of an athlete, and even I have the capacity to push myself harder in a way that I can't keep up for very long.



Emerikol said:


> It is maddening to watch how far you guys will go to twist yourself into knots trying so very hard to "prove" that my preferences are purely arbitrary.



No one has said they are arbitrary. They have said that your professed reasoning seems underdeveloped.

For instance, how would the following lead anyone to conclude that you don't like action surge or second wind?



Emerikol said:


> Fighters and Rogues live within the limits of a cinematic reality as it relates to their innate powers and abilities.



Being able to draw on one's reserves to surge and/or get a second wind seems exactly the sort of thing that athletes in a "cinematic reality" would be able to do (given that athletes in the real world can do it, or stuff pretty much like it).


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> It's about thinking in first or third person.  Player establishment of fiction has nothing to do with it, and is for these purposes just a distracting side-discussion.



What does _it_ refer to? I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about _stances_, which is a notion that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] brought into the thread, that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] followed up on, and that absolutely is about establishing fiction. From the Ron Edwards essay that Emerikol's blog has copied and pasted:

*In *Actor* stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

* In *Author* stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called *Pawn* stance.)

* In *Director* stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.​
Each of these is about _what a player of the game determines_ - ie some element of the fiction that is in some way connected to a character, such as _a character's decision and actions_ or _some aspect of the environment relative to a character in some fashion_ and relates that determination to _ the character's knowledge, perception and ability to influence events_.

The analysis of action within stance is not confined to non-GM players. When a GM decides something about what a NPC does, or decides something related to a NPC, we can equally discuss what stance the GM was occupying in making that decision.

So a GM who muses  "What would Nerof Gasgal do in relation to that? Well, it poses a threat to Greyhawk, and protecting the safety of Greyhawk is his highest priority, so he would oppose it, even though doing so might hurt the Thieves' Guild" is determining how Nerof Gasgal thinks and acts _in actor stance_, even though all the reasoning happens in third person.

If you want to coin some other terminology to describe some feature of non-GM player RPGing that is important to you, go ahead! But _stance_ is an already-established notion that is talking about the things I called out.



Lanefan said:


> Google "method acting" - you might learn some stuff.



As best I can tell, I know as much about method acting as anyone else posting in this thread. Method acting is a device for inhabiting a character who is already scripted, and thereby delivering a performance of that character. It's not an orientation towards "determining a character's decisions and actions", which is what _actor stance_ is.

Here are a couple of passages from the Google entry on "method acting":

actors make use of experiences from their own lives to bring them closer to the experience of their characters. This technique, which Stanislavski came to call emotion memory (Strasberg tends to use the alternative formulation, "affective memory"), involves the recall of sensations involved in experiences that made a significant emotional impact on the actor. Without faking or forcing, actors allow those sensations to stimulate a response and try not to inhibit themselves. . . .

[Adler's] version of the method is based on the idea that actors should stimulate emotional experience by imagining the scene's "given circumstances", rather than recalling experiences from their own lives. Adler's approach also seeks to stimulate the actor's imagination through the use of "as ifs", which substitute more personally affecting imagined situations for the circumstances experienced by the character. Adler argued that "drawing on personal experience alone was too limited.​
The "method" is about using various techniques - memory, imagination, etc - to generate an authentic emotional expression. It has nothing to do with deciding what action the character takes - it presuppose that the character is already scripted (hence the actor's quest to identify a "motivation" for that scripted action).



Lanefan said:


> a good actor is fully in character and has left his own person (and his own motivations etc.) in the wings...particularly so in improv theatre where the actor doesn't also have to worry about remembering his lines (which is always what messed me up!).



I don't know a great deal about improv, but my understanding is that riffing off what your collaborators give you is an important part of it. Correlating that to RPG stances would map onto _Author Stance_ - ie the actor decides that (in character) s/he will do XYZ because that riffs well of what someone else just did - and then (whether using "the method" or some other device) establishes an (in character) motivation and rationale for doing XYZ.



Lanefan said:


> Author and director stances move one away from the character.



Again, this is nonsense.

Deciding that my enraged character will reach to the ground to pick up a rock to throw isn't _moving me away from my character_ - there are a whole range of circumstances in which that might be the most authentic thing I can declare for my character - but it involves director stance, because of the rock.

And author stance doesn't move one away from character either - as the improv example I just gave illustrates.

It may be true _for you_ that you can't think about or inhabit a character while also thinking about the environment that character inhabits (although to me that seems rather odd) or thinking about how your portrayal of the character fits with other things going on at the table or on the stage (although to me that would seem like an impediment to doing good improv). But those would be biographical facts about you. I've got no reason at all to think they generalise to other RPGers.



Lanefan said:


> Not sure how you see this as director stance.  Put it in third person "Jocinda hooks up with the local contraband dealers..." and it is, but in first person I see it as still being actor stance - there has to be a way to describe your movements and actions.



It's _director stance_ because the action declaration purport to establish an element of the environment that is "entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events", namely, the existence of contraband dealers in this urban locality.

Attempting to establish that element of the fiction in first or in third person doesn't change that fundamental fact about it.



Lanefan said:


> If the existence of the contraband dealers hasn't been established then as Jocinda's player I might say something like "I need some <XYZ>, and I can't get it legally, so I'll keep my ear to the ground and make discreet inquiries as to where and how some might be obtained."



OK, that's a biographical fact about you.

But I'm not speculating about what you would do. I am positing that the number of times, across the history of D&D play, when the GM has told the players "You arrive in a new town" and the players respond "OK, we look for the local <tavern, contraband dealers, fighter's guildhall, docks, temple, druid's grove, whatever else?" is well into the millions. And that was all director stance.

It's almost impossible to play an RPG in anything like a conventional fashion without the non-GM players from time-to-time entering director stance, because players think of things they want their PCs to do and engage with that haven't yet been established by GM narration _literally all the time_. You could try and play a game in which every single time the players waited on GM narration, or instead of saying "We head to the local tavern" asked "Is there a local tavern? If so, we head to it" - but I don't think that's realistic or practical, and I certainly don't see what the extra verbiage adds to the game. If, in fact, there is no local tavern, then when the players say "We head to the local tavern" the GM will quickly set them straight.



Lanefan said:


> As [MENTION=10638]Emirikol[/MENTION] points out above, in these stances you're doing things to the character rather than as the character



This is just wrong, and frankly shows you don't know what is meant by _stance_.

Deciding that my PC does _ this_ rather than _that_ because I don't want to violate my LG alignment is an instance of author stance. It's not doing something to the character.

Deciding that my PC, having arrived at a new town, heads to the local tavern is an instance of director stance. It's not doing something to the character. 

Your aesthetic preferences are what they are. I'm not trying to gainsay them. But the notion of _stance_ doesn't validate them.



Lanefan said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eg in Burning Wheel, a player might quickly move from director stance (making a Circles check) to author stance (wondering whether to change a Belief) to actor stance (declaring an action for a PC having regard to established Beliefs - that's how the game works. In Classic Traveller a player might quickly move from actor stance (declaring an action for his/her PC because s/he is imaginging to what the PC would want, like say an Admin check to persuade an official to look the other way) to author stance (lending an item from his/her PC sheet to another player's PC, because that will help optimise the party for their mission) back to actor stance (griping that the borrowing PC is a bludger!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see these as changes of stance so much as changes from in-game to meta and back.
Click to expand...


I don't know what this means. Are you coining some new notion of "stance" which is different from the one that Emerikol, Aldarc and I all referred to?



Lanefan said:


> Making a circles check: straight meta-engagement with the game mechanics, no role-play stance involved



What does that even mean? "As I ride along the river bank I keep my eyes peeled for signs that any fellow members of my order live here or have passed this way." That involves a "roleplaying stance" (actor stance, on the face of it) and is an action declaration (Circles) - not all Circles checks involve director stance, although there are GM-side subtleties which I won't bother going into it which could mean that the apparent actor stance is, in fact, director stance.



Lanefan said:


> Wondering whether to change a Belief: actor stance; the character is doubting her beliefs (and maybe even voicing these doubts out loud), and if she changes her belief then the player briefly engages with the meta-mechanics to note this change on her character sheet.



I was referring to the play of a particular system - Burning Wheel. Changing a Belief is author stance - it is a decision about the character's commitment or orientation or aspiration that is made having regard to real-world considerations (eg _how do I want the arc of my character to unfold_? _what do I think will best engage whatever it is that is up the GM's sleeve_? _what would be fun to do with this PC_?).



Lanefan said:


> Declaring an action: a combination of actor stance (the character does something) and meta-mechanics engagement (the game has to respond to her declaration).



Again, this depends on system. If the action is _I pick up a rock from the ground_ or _I head to the local tavern in this new town_ then the action declaration, implicating as it does _the environment separate from the character's ability to influence it_, takes place partly in director stance.

Whether mechanics are resorted to depends entirely on context and system, and has nothing to do with discussions of stance.



Lanefan said:


> Loaning an item to another PC: full-on actor stance; the loaning PC recognizes her item will be of more use in the borrower's hands than her own



You don't just get to change my stipulated example and therefore conclude that it never happens. I was describing a situation in which _the player decides that his/her PC loans the item to another PC because the player thinks this will help the mission_. That is author stance - making a decision about a character's action based on real world concerns (ie wanting to do well in the mission). The fact that the player then imputes such a desire to the character - ie engages in the "retroactive step" - doesn't stop it being author stance. It confirms it as author stance rather than pawn stance.

*TL;DR*: the notion of _stance_ doesn't bear on your RPGing preferences in the way you seem to think it does.

***************************************************



Emerikol said:


> I don't know whether you are trying to assert that actor only stance is impossible (I can assure you that you are wrong on that count if you are)



I think it's impractical and I doubt that many tables play that way.

For instance, every time someone makes a decision about his/her action declaration for his/her PC because _it would be fun_, or because _she is worried about where his/her PC will be on the GM's alignment graph_, or because _the session is going to finish in 5 minutes_, or because _everyone else at the table is sick of the banter between the elf PC and the dwarf PC_, or . . . . then we have _author stance_ roleplaying. And I frankly doubt that there are many tables where this sort of decision making by players never happens.



Emerikol said:


> I want the decisions you make to be based on information your character knows and be an action that your character could initiate.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As long as what you state is something your character could realistically do as the character, that is fine.



That incorporates actor stance, author stance and director stance.

All the examples I just gave are _actions the character could initiate_ and can be _based on information the character knows_ - that is the retroactive justification part of _author stance_.

There are _director stance_ examples that also fit that bill, such as the ones I have discussed with Lanefan.



Emerikol said:


> if I say to the DM "I am going to the thieves quarter and see if I can find out who murdered joe" that is fine.  I am doing something my character could do.  As long as joe being dead isn't being made up or the existence of the thieves quarter isn't getting made up at that very moment, things are fine.



But if the GM hasn't yet decided whether or not there is a thieves' quarter, then this is just like example I discussed with Lanefan. Maybe the GM vetoes it. But if s/he goes along with it - and some GMs will - we have director stance.

This is why I think that an all actor stance game is impractical. Because unless the gameworld is an _incredibly_ sparse environment then the players will be establishing all sorts of elements of the environment (however trivial these might seem) which are outside the influence of their PCs - _director stance_!

And to make another, related, point: it's just an error to equate _stance_ with _mechanics_. Games that have no metagame mechanics (eg RQ) can still have action declarations that involve director stance: eg the player declares, in character, "I pick up a rock and throw it at him!" in circumstances where it has not yet been established that the PC has a rock ready to hand on the ground. In RQ, _because of the lack of metagame mechanics_, the GM has full veto rights over that action declaration, because the GM has ultimate authority over whether or not there are rocks on the ground near the PC. But if the GM lets the action declaration go - and in my experience many GMs would, far more than would go along with the thieves' quarter - then the player _determined an aspect of environment relative to the character over which the character has no influence_, namely, the presence of a rock ready-to-hand. Hence _director stance_.


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> That abstract concepts like HP, AC, etc.. are used to communicate game world information that really exists as knowledge in game.





Emerikol said:


> Most of the abstract concepts like Hit Points and AC are ways to quickly communicate ideas from DM to PC.  Yes the player hears the term and translates it down to the character who then acts.  The character though is acting on real knowledge.  When he falls back, from the fight due to low hit points he is acting on in game knowledge.





Emerikol said:


> Hit points are a method of communicating in game state.  The DM says you were hit for 14 points of damage.  You deduct that from your total.  You are that much closer to death.  This is in game knowledge.  However you define hit points.  Whether they are wounds or stamina or whatever.  I've tried to keep it simple by saying they are just a measure of your closeness to death.



No one denies that, or is unclear how, hp are used to communicate ideas from DM to PC.

And no one denies that, or is unclear how, hp totals communicate a character's closeness to death. But this isn't what causes people to assert that hp are metagame.

Here are some things that do cause that assertion (I am reporting from my own experience, both as a RPGer who was one of those who dropped AD&D for RM as soon as I learned a metagame-free RPG existed, and from membership of the anti-metagame RQ and RM play communitiies):

* "Closeness to death", in terms of hp loss, is not something that affects a characer's physical capabilities or performance;

* It is easier to heal a commoner who is very close to death (suffered 4 hp of a 5 hp total), than a super-resilient lord who has barely a scratch or two (suffered 14 hp of a 70 hp total);

* Hence hp aren't tracking something physically observable, like injury or physical wellbeing, but something intangible and unobservable (much as Gygax describes);

* Yet most actual play proceeds on the assumption that all the party members can observe both how close they, and how close their fellows, are to death.​
So it's something unknowable and unobservable that nevertheless is used to make decisions all the time. Hence meta.

Suppose that someone says that in fact what is being observed is physical harm; and that we ignore the "death spiral" for reasons of "cinematic reality". Then why is it harder to heal a scratch on a lord than a severe bruise or break for a commoner? (Ironically, the only version of D&d to have proportionate healing, which actually addresses this issue, is 4e - which nevertheless, for reasons that escape me, has a reputation for _increasing_ the meta!)

In any event, what causes people to assert that hp are meta is that "closeness to death" is not _possibly_ something that the _character_, in the gameworld, can know, _given the properties of hp that I articulated just above_.

Classic Traveller has a simpler damage system than RM or RQ. It has only a very limited death spiral. But it doesn't have the properties that D&D hp do: healing is proportionate, and in any event (as in RQ) hp totals remain pretty constant across the course of play, so it's not harder to heal a scratch on someone who is good at dodging blows, than on an amateur who is hopeless at such stuff.



Emerikol said:


> a martial power that is daily and non-magical, is not something the character can ever conceive.



Here's a power I can conceive of that is not magical but is doable only once per day: mark 20 exams in 3 hours.

How do I know? Because I possess that power, but I can tell you that after doing it once in a day, you can't do it again.

(Of course, treating the recovery as on a strictly 1/day basis involves a bit of approximation and smoothing off of rough edges, but I don't see why that would be more objectionable in this case than any of the dozens of others where the game mechanics do that.) 



Emerikol said:


> Right after he pulls off the manuever can he really know for a fact that he can't do this purely physical thing he just did a minute ago.  Can he know that by sleeping he can again have the option at any time during the day to perform a very specific manuever but only that one time.



The last serious run I did was on a 30-something degree day in fairly hilly terrain. After running, and then swimming, I had to get back to base by a certain time. So at various points I pushed myself. At a certain point I knew I couldn't push myself any further.

Because I don't train seriously and don't have a coach, I don't know what my limits are in terms of pushing myself, but I know that I have them. If I was a serious athelete, I'm sure I would learn what those limits are.

(Whereas I do know what my limits for exam marking are, as that is something I do regularly and in respect of which I have coached myself hard.)


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> Aldarc, I know you like to be "sensational" with your radical ideas. Please just know that you are making yourself look like a fool by claiming that is the implied D&D setting.  You have no basis for it.  Your examples are lame.
> 
> So keep poking.  I'm starting to think you aren't really seriously discussing this issue.  You just keep making up extreme statements to try to get people upset.   It's common place for many on here to project back crazy ideas into old school D&D but you are talking it to a new height.



Your ad hominems and unsupported claims don't hold much weight here, Emerikol. 

I am not projecting onto "old school D&D." I hoped that would have been clear in reading my posts. I have only spoken for the worldview that D&D _5e_ presumes. I have even made that explicit on numerous points, as I have been clear to include "5e" to clarify that this pertains only to 5e. I have not looked into the flavor text of earlier editions, though there I'm not sure how different the 5E norms they would be. Who knows? I have kept with reading the 5e texts here, because you were concerned about playing in the context of the 5e ruleset. In particular, this tangent came about due to the matter of how fighters, as living creatures, would possess, in some fashion or another, the magical energy that "ki" describes. 

My basis for my argument is and has been the texts we have of D&D 5e. And as it turns out when talking about an implied setting of D&D 5E, a textual basis is a far stronger basis than a basis of your preferences. You are welcome to have those preferences, and I do sincerely believe they are valid. But I also disagree with your textless reading of 5e's implied world. If you disagree with my reading of these texts, then please use any 5E text at all in your analysis. That certainly means something more than claiming that I have no basis or that I am using "lame" examples and not elaborating why without devolving into puerile insults. When you do read the 5e texts, it should be evident where my ideas come from and that they are not radical, as they are within the presumed norm of the text. And I am hardly alone in sharing this reading of D&D 5e's worldview in this thread. Even if I disagree with his reading, I can respect [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] because he does engage the text.  

Furthermore, I did not even expect this particular conversation tangent to erupt as it did. My intention was not sensationalist by any means or stretch of the imagination. My intention and preference was to have a conversation with you and help you find an acceptable rationalization for the mechanics you find problematic that would move them from being disassociated from the fiction to associated with the fiction. In particular, I was hoping that we would be springing ideas back and forth as part of collaborative brainstorming. The idea that fighters are drawing on what monks refer to as "ki" for some of their abilities was part of that. This is not even my idea or something that I necessarily would adopt for my own games or settings. 



> The game has mundane characters.  Except where explicitly defined differently, we expect the world to work as ours does.  We don't expect a peasant farmer of which there are millions more than there are adventurers to suddenly whip out a magic power.  We don't expect horses to fly.  We expect them to be ridden on the ground.  The examples could go on forever but please stop wasting our time with this train of thought.  The old move the goal posts and claim the game never was the way it was is getting tiring.



There are several issues here. The mundaneness of D&D is relative to within its own idiomatic context. What is mundane for me in this world, is not necessarily what is mundane for them and vice versa. The characters that the game has are mundane in scope but not necessarily mundane in their objective quality of existence. If we follow 5e's flavor text, your most mundane of farmers in D&D, for example, has latent ki energy. 

Furthermore, your average real world farmer has an incredibly different worldview than your average farmer in D&D. There are supernatural forces at work in the world (and in themselves). Their crops are not just being with subjected to weather and climate conditions, animal pests, and microorganisms. There are gods, spirits, magic, and other supernatural forces constantly at work with the crops. An average farmer nowadays is not gonna consult a priest or a even shaman for good weather or blame a hag for a bad crop. In D&D, just like many places elsewhere outside of Euro-American modernism, they will and they do. In D&D, however, that cleric, druid, or shaman could make it rain or appease their gods/spirits to intercede. 

When we are sick, our minds go almost immediately to germs or the microbiology level. In the pre-modern world, your mind likely went to spirits, demons, or humours. We may think of the ancient Greeks as super-rationalists when it came to "inventing Western medicine" but they also believed that the body was composed of and afflicted by supernatural forces (e.g., gods, demons, spirits, etc.). We may scowl at this superstition from our Modernist scientific materialist perspective, but in D&D? This junk is for real. There is an incredibly real possibility that your ki energy is out of balance and affecting your health in D&D! Hope your local farmer knows a good Kiurgeon.  

Likewise, we may not expect that the farmer will whip out a magical power, but we are told that everything has a latent magical power in it. This would naturally include the farmer. They may not do anything with it, but it would still be present therein. And this likely would include the farmer's child who later discovers their draconic sorcery bloodline. 

This is because the anthropological metaphysics are different, our own modern anthropologies are not self-evident. I know through my own work, that the conceptions of the human body and its composition differs between the ancient Mesopotamians, the Greco-Romans, the Egyptians, and the Israelites. Though they were "natural" to their cultures, their conception of the human person was intimately tied to supernatural. This is why we frequently speak of _theological anthropology_ when discussing these conceptions of the human person. On some level or another, the imagined human person shares a fundamental nature with the supernatural forces of the world. D&D takes the magical imagination and worldview of our pre-modern world and makes it a reality. So that farmer and fighter are inherently magical by our standards but may be considered mundane relative to the rest of their world. Any given human in D&D cannot be completely devoid of magical energy anymore than any living person in our world can be completely devoid of water. That is really my main point. 



Emerikol said:


> Let's hypothesize.  Suppose a supreme being existed first.  That supreme being spoke all of the natural laws into existence as he was also creating the universe.  So gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak forces, etc.. all came into being at his command.  At any time, if he chose, he could command some part of the universe to break the rules.  If such happened, it would not mean the end of the rules of the universe except in that case.



It depends on what we mean by "break the rules," as this could get us into the sort of convoluted theological scholasticism that debated whether the Deity could create a square circle. 



> So sure, the D&D universe is no doubt different in many ways than our own.  The key for me is that where the game is silent I fill in a cinematic version of our universe by default.  That is the way I believe most people have played D&D through the years but without a doubt in the early days.



Sure, that is true where the game is silent. And if you are running your own campaign setting, then you can refluff the game to various levels of reasonable silence. But the issue of debate is that default game text (i.e., 5e) is far from silent on the issue of magic permeating* all existence, matter, and energy. We are told in no uncertain terms that latent magic exists within all things and that ki energy flows through all living things in D&D's worlds. So what monks call "ki" does not just exist in monks, but also in your mundane fighter, rogue, and villager. 

* Also including here other synonyms and related ideas that 5E uses. 



> So without a specific magical rule, a person cannot do a second wind.  It would be easy to make up such a rule.  I won't for the fighter because I want a non-magical fighter and rogue.  The very use of the term second wind indicates it is non-magical. If it were a magical power it would have a more magical name.   If you had a sacred order of magical knights who drew upon the arcane forces of the universe to do magical things, I'd be fine with that.  I don't want that though for the basic fighter and rogue.  My players don't want it either.  I'd say the barbarian and monk are both those sorts of classes.  No one has played a barbarian in my games and the monk only once.



I would say here that the rogue and fighter still remain relatively mundane, or proportionately mundane, in the context of D&D's presumed world even if one conceded that all people have latent magical energy, ki, and/or other magical forces.

So I do think that there is conceptual room for the fighter to be relatively "non-magical" while the fighter simultaneously taps into the latent magical forces of the world (i.e., ki) for performing their cinematic feats of martial prowess (e.g., Second Wind, Action Surge). To everyone else in the world of D&D, these things are pedestrian and prosaic, hardly worthy of being called "magic." And for them, it probably isn't considered magic, because D&D operates from a different set of baseline assumptions about the world they inhabit. Fighters remain fairly baseline. 

That said, I have stated before that I believe that these mechanics already constitute associative mechanics for me and therefore entirely plausible within the realm of in-character choices via their personal training, bodily physique, and martial prowess. But I am not attempting to dissuade you on this point or claiming that you are engaging in any badwrongfun for wanting mechanics that associative for your sense of the fiction.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Does "loosely approximates real world physics" mean anything more than _dropped objects fall, _



_

Yes.

_


> but dragons can fly without magical assistance




Do they?  This is from the 2e Monstrous Manual

"Dragon Flight: Despite their large size, dragons are graceful and competent fliers; most are maneuverability class C. This is due partially to their powerful wings, *and partially to the dragon's innate magic.* Dragons can climb at half speed and dive at double speed."

So it seems dragons do use magical assistance to fly.



> But the game already does this! Gravity doesn't bring dragons crashing to the ground, nor crush the legs of giants; so it already works differently from what we're used to! And you said as much yourself, in the passage I quoted just above.




Not sure who said that, but it wasn't me.

Edit:Apparently it was @_*Lanefan*_


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> This is from the 2e Monstrous Manual
> 
> "Dragon Flight: Despite their large size, dragons are graceful and competent fliers; most are maneuverability class C. This is due partially to their powerful wings, *and partially to the dragon's innate magic.* Dragons can climb at half speed and dive at double speed."
> 
> So it seems dragons do use magical assistance to fly.



Does the "innate magic" of a dragon mean it can be detected by means of Detect Magic? And does a flying dragon fall to the ground inside an anti-magic zone?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Does the "innate magic" of a dragon mean it can be detected by means of Detect Magic? And does a flying dragon fall to the ground inside an anti-magic zone?




You make the call.  What it does do, though, is help the dragon fly.


----------



## ccs

Wow, some of you considerably overthink this stuff.


----------



## Emerikol

CCS,  they over think it to avoid the basic questions I've asked.  All of this ridiculous navel gazing is all to avoid the questions I have asked.  It's pathetic really.

1.  Yes.  I find daily powers to not be something possible without magic.  These powers go off in seconds not hours or days.  So doing a lengthy test is kind of a ridiculous example.  There is nothing that a warrior would bother learning that he could do once per day.  

2.  I believe that most games in the 70's and 80's were entirely actor stance.  I will though guarantee you with absolute certainty that actor stance is used in my games.  But let's entertain that on rare occasions, some people desiring actor stance generally can't help but lapse into author mode.  Is that good if it were in my campaign?  No.  It's something to be avoided.  So don't add to an occasional mistake by institutionalizing it in the game with rules.

3.  And I don't care about your underlying assumptions about the nature of your campaign settings.  I really don't.  This whole line of discussion is a big fat red herring.  It's like I have to keep qualifying things that are pretty much givens in most people's campaigns just to get to the discussion.  But guess what, you aren't ever going to get to the real point of the discussion.  You are just going to keep splitting hairs all the way to infinity.  You are not trying to help or respond with honesty to the original post.

So.... once again
1.  Just take it as a given that in my campaign and according to my players, things like daily martial powers (even encounter ones for that matter) are not possible without some magical explanation.  If you think the world works differently you are welcome to your delusions but let's just assert this as truth for purposes of our discussion.

2.  Just take it for granted that except where magic is explicitly injected that the world at least from a perception point of view appears to work like our world.  So I don't care about scientific theory.  I'm saying that the world for whatever reason appears to work just like ours except where the rules indicate it does not.  



Remember...
The question is about new rules that will work better for those like myself who don't prefer playing in these other modes.  You seem to want to put a bunch of stuff I accept in the same box as stuff I object to.  Don't.  Realize.  I object to these rules and that isn't going to change.  You aren't going to make me starting playing your way.  So all the breath you waste on those arguments is wasted.  Instead lets focus on the point of the thread.  Figuring out how to houserule 5e to make it work for people who don't like the things I'm talking about.

If you are still too befuddled to understand then I will just make a list of objectionable mechanics and you can just accept that these are objectionable.
1.  For fighter/rogue classes, no powers activated a limited number of times per day or per period by the PC.  Of course this excepts the "every round" period.
2.  No special tokens like bennies, fate points, hero points, etc...
3.  No creation of in game content outside of your characters actions.
4.  No trading in some failure to gain some other advantage during play. (Just in case this isn't covered by #2)

So those of you who can't really understand why the above are objection on theoretical grounds don't bother.  I don't want you wasting your time arguing.  Just assume I dislike these and make suggestions on how to utilize new mechanics to replace them.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Does the "innate magic" of a dragon mean it can be detected by means of Detect Magic? And does a flying dragon fall to the ground inside an anti-magic zone?




In my campaign world, dragons would always radiate magic.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> But I'm not speculating about what you would do. I am positing that the number of times, across the history of D&D play, when the GM has told the players "You arrive in a new town" and the players respond "OK, we look for the local <tavern, contraband dealers, fighter's guildhall, docks, temple, druid's grove, whatever else?" is well into the millions. And that was all director stance.




No it's not.  If I am driving into a large city, and I start looking for a McDonalds because my knowledge of civilization is that there are McDonald's everywhere, I am absolutely in character stance.  Most cities have taverns and inns in the worlds I create.  Yours may vary.

My players do tend to say "Is there a tavern?"  If though they said "We are going to go to the tavern" there would be an implied "if one exists".   If one doesn't I will quickly tell them that they can't find one.  I would never allow the to invent it with their words which would be director stance.  My players have no expectation that if a tavern didn't exist that I'd make one come into existence just because they said it.  In fact when I told them people play this way, they were honestly amazed and incredulous.  They don't tend to get on blogs and forums all that much so they are oblivious of modern trends to a degree.

So one way to do this is to view it this way.  When it is possible to reasonable interpret a PC's actions as actor stance actions then there is no need to seek any other explanation.  If it could go either way, I interpret it as going in actor stance.  We are focused on actor stance so that is natural for us.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> CCS,  they over think it to avoid the basic questions I've asked.  All of this ridiculous navel gazing is all to avoid the questions I have asked.  It's pathetic really.





> If you are still too befuddled to understand





> you are welcome to your delusions





> So those of you who can't really understand



 You are certainly getting into the miserable habit of insulting others. 



> 1.  Yes.  I find daily powers to not be something possible without magic.  These powers go off in seconds not hours or days.  So doing a lengthy test is kind of a ridiculous example.  *There is nothing that a warrior wuld bother learning that he could do once per day.*



Second Wind and Action Surge are not on daily mechanics, but on short (and/or long) rest mechanics, which are not - to me at least - per encounter mechanics. Short rest mechanics simulate regaining energy from short bursts of exertion that can be potentially regained throughout the day with a modicum of rest. I think that the idea of short rests - for all their flaws in how they interact with daily rest powers - probably do a better job than encounter powers for associative mechanics. 

But just to throw out pretty big counter examples to the bold: setting up camp and how to do daylong marches. 



> 2.  I believe that most games in the 70's and 80's were entirely actor stance.  I will though guarantee you with absolute certainty that actor stance is used in my games.  But let's entertain that on rare occasions, some people desiring actor stance generally can't help but lapse into author mode.  Is that good if it were in my campaign?  No.  It's something to be avoided.  So don't add to an occasional mistake by institutionalizing it in the game with rules.



You may be looking through rose-colored glasses at the past or misunderstanding what is involved in stance theory. As per pemerton's discussion on stance theory with Lanefan, many common modes of play involve players slipping instinctively into author stance: e.g., "I go to the city's local thieves' guild" (that has not been previously declared to exist). Players can even rationalize "authorship" from an in-character perspective, but be motivated by player-centric knowledge, such as needing to find a reason to be friends with this new character their friend just rolled up. 



> So.... once again
> 1.  Just take it as a given that in my campaign and according to my players, things like daily martial powers (even encounter ones for that matter) are not possible without some magical explanation.  If you think the world works differently you are welcome to your delusions but let's just assert this as truth for purposes of our discussion.



You could have done without the last sentence here. 



> If you are still too befuddled to understand then I will just make a list of objectionable mechanics and you can just accept that these are objectionable.
> 1.  For fighter/rogue classes, no powers activated a limited number of times per day or per period by the PC.  Of course this excepts the "every round" period.
> 2.  No special tokens like bennies, fate points, hero points, etc...
> 3.  No creation of in game content outside of your characters actions.
> 4.  No trading in some failure to gain some other advantage during play. (Just in case this isn't covered by #2)
> 
> So those of you who can't really understand why the above are objection on theoretical grounds don't bother.  I don't want you wasting your time arguing.  Just assume I dislike these and make suggestions on how to utilize new mechanics to replace them.



If you object to Second Wind as a "per encounter" mechanic, but prefer actions that could be done "every round," then why not convert the mechanic to an every round thing? 

So just spitballing here, Second Wind could be something akin to the Fighter having the option to use a bonus action each round to regain 1d4 temporary hitpoints, which may scale with level. So they would be trading off of gaining temporary hitpoints in a round with their bonus attacks. It's not so much that you are choosing to heal yourself every round, but that you are using those moments to regain composure, resolve, or taking a hit. So every round the fighter can potentially buffer themselves with temporary HP because they may be readying themselves to take a hit. This would still work with the Champion's 18th level ability to regain HP every round.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> You are certainly getting into the miserable habit of insulting others.



I am tiring of the constant string of insults from you.  You are the worst except for the guy with the C in his name so my patience is straining.  I cannot believe you really think the thoughts you think as opposed to just saying what you say to get a reaction.




Aldarc said:


> Second Wind and Action Surge are not on daily mechanics, but on short (and/or long) rest mechanics, which are not - to me at least - per encounter mechanics. Short rest mechanics simulate regaining energy from short bursts of exertion that can be potentially regained throughout the day with a modicum of rest. I think that the idea of short rests - for all their flaws in how they interact with daily rest powers - probably do a better job than encounter powers for associative mechanics.



Well per period then.  



Aldarc said:


> But just to throw out pretty big counter examples to the bold: setting up camp and how to do daylong marches.



Again those are nothing like powers that warriors have.  There is no march all day power.  This is just another red herring so let's drop it.



Aldarc said:


> You may be looking through rose-colored glasses at the past or misunderstanding what is involved in stance theory. As per pemerton's discussion on stance theory with Lanefan, many common modes of play involve players slipping instinctively into author stance: e.g., "I go to the city's local thieves' guild" (that has not been previously declared to exist). Players can even rationalize "authorship" from an in-character perspective, but be motivated by player-centric knowledge, such as needing to find a reason to be friends with this new character their friend just rolled up.



It's totally rationalizable as actor stance.  I showed you how above.  In real life, where it is certain I am always in actor stance, I think stuff like this all the time.  Not thiefs guild specifically but other well known and expected to exist institutions.  Anyone in America could say "Let's stop at McDonalds to eat" without knowing a McDonalds exists.  If you are traveling let me assure you one will appear in an exit or two.





Aldarc said:


> If you object to Second Wind as a "per encounter" mechanic, but prefer actions that could be done "every round," then why not convert the mechanic to an every round thing?
> 
> So just spitballing here, Second Wind could be something akin to the Fighter having the option to use a bonus action each round to regain 1d4 temporary hitpoints, which may scale with level. So they would be trading off of gaining temporary hitpoints in a round with their bonus attacks. It's not so much that you are choosing to heal yourself every round, but that you are using those moments to regain composure, resolve, or taking a hit. So every round the fighter can potentially buffer themselves with temporary HP because they may be readying themselves to take a hit. This would still work with the Champion's 18th level ability to regain HP every round.




This probably runs into my views on hit points which is NOT a part of this thread so I want to congratulate and thank you on at least attempting to meet the requests of the thread.  I tend to be a slow natural healing guy.  Something like level per day.  So a 1st level character gets 1 back per day and a 20th level character gets 20 back per day.  This fits my views on hit points which are NOT a subject I care to indulge in on this thread.  If you really want to discuss that then start another thread.  I will warn you though to expect a long heated discussion over many pages which solves nothing for anybody.  We all have our views.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Does the "innate magic" of a dragon mean it can be detected by means of Detect Magic? And does a flying dragon fall to the ground inside an anti-magic zone?



In order, no - the dragon's magic blends into the background magic present everywhere which Detect Magic kind of ignores much like we ignore air most of the time even though it's all around us; and yes - a null-magic zone big enough to contain a dragon would impede its flight if aloft (and if the area was big enough that the dragon's momentum didn't carry it through, bring it down) and prevent it if on the ground (in fact, the dragon might not even be able to stand, and would soon become magic-sick in any case and then die).



			
				Emirikol said:
			
		

> CCS, they over think it to avoid the basic questions I've asked. All of this ridiculous navel gazing is all to avoid the questions I have asked. It's pathetic really.



Actually I overthink it so I can answer these questions you've asked, among many others, before they even get asked by anyone other than me asking myself; and then take those answers and build them in to how my game and settings function.

And other than discussions like this I don't have to think about it now very much at all; I did most of this thinking 25-30 years ago and as it's the sort of thing that only needs to be done once, I haven't often had to worry about it since. 

Lanefan


----------



## Guest 6801328

I have to defend Emerikol a little bit here.  Maybe I just empathize because I get attacked...viciously...for my player agency objection to Warlords, but I do think his philosophy about at will powers and magic, etc., is logical and internally consistent.

I mean, I think he's a little bit off his rocker for being so dogmatic and unyielding about it.  And I think limiting players to ONLY actor stance sucks much of the joy out of the game.  And I think that despite his protestations to the contrary he thinks his version is "better" and he is trying to persuade others of that.  And I think he's going to be a very lonely gamer if he continues to insist on his orthodoxy.

But it makes sense.  I think it's silly to try to convince him that the flaw in his reasoning has something to do with the the meaning of "magic" or the physics of the game world or whatever.  The flaw in his logic is just that almost nobody wants to play his way.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> But the game already does this! Gravity doesn't bring dragons crashing to the ground, nor crush the legs of giants; so it already works differently from what we're used to!




Except that Gravity does not work that way!  Otherwise how can Elephants walk around in Earth Gravity without having their legs crushed?



> But we don't except the principles of gravity and/or fluid mechanics to work as they do in our world - because if they did, dragons couldn't fly. And nor do we expect the biochemistry and/or physics of respiration to work as they do in our world - because if they did, giant arthropods would be impossible.




I could give you two possible reasons why Giant Arthropods would be possible in normal Earth conditions.

Infact if you look at the fossil records then you can see that Giant Arthropods actually did exist and, if you look at Australia, continue to exist.


----------



## Aldarc

Emerikol said:


> *I am tiring of the constant string of insults from you.*  You are the worst except for the guy with the C in his name so my patience is straining.  I cannot believe you really think the thoughts you think as opposed to just saying what you say to get a reaction.



What constant string? You are welcome to count up any ad hominems I may have said about you and then I would invite you to do the same regarding ad hominems you have said about me, include calling me "the worst" just now, and you may find yourself at the nasty end of a surprise that should spur some self-reflection. I'm not saying what I'm saying to get a reaction. The sooner you can get over that and stop assigning malign intent to me or resorting to calling me a fool, the better. You need to understand that I and others genuinely have different opinions and viewpoints than you, and I don't form them out of any desire to troll you. 



> It's totally rationalizable as actor stance.  I showed you how above.  In real life, where it is certain I am always in actor stance, I think stuff like this all the time.  Not thiefs guild specifically but other well known and expected to exist institutions.  Anyone in America could say "Let's stop at McDonalds to eat" without knowing a McDonalds exists.  If you are traveling let me assure you one will appear in an exit or two.



Sure, but (1) you are conflating terminology, as in your above example you mention, you talk of character stance rather than actor stance, which gets into the issue pemerton raised on the distinction of Actor Stance and being in-character. And (2) gameplay happens in a nebulous imagined space and not a cross-country drive of the American Midwest accessible with Google Maps. It is not an objective reality, but instead it is an imagined space that essentially being constantly _negotiated_ between the GM and the players. Within this negotiation of the game world, stances naturally and instinctively change. 

This example also does not touch upon the other common author stance example I mentioned, namely the whole "I need to find a reason for my character to get along with this new player character." That desire and drive comes author stance, even if one rationalizes it and subsequently performs it in-character. There are a lot of gameplay concerns that will drive the actions of players in ways that aren't from the position of an in-character actor: e.g., I want to get the game going, I want to finish this portion soon, I'm growing impatient with my fellow players, I'm in the mood for a fight scene, etc. 



> This probably runs into my views on hit points... I tend to be a slow natural healing guy.  Something like level per day.  So a 1st level character gets 1 back per day and a 20th level character gets 20 back per day.  This fits my views on hit points...



Sure, but I am not proposing that you change that. The proposal I made was for turning Second Wind into an ability that confers _temporary_ hit points, which are classified and operate differently than "real" HP. If you have problems with temporary HP, you are going to have a lot more problems in 5e than simply the fighter and rogue. 

I know that you are looking to find a way to make 5e work for you, but I'm sincerely having a hard time imagining that it would be worth the effort. Most of us are not game designers. It may be easier to find another system or hack a new system from 5e's skeleton framework. Because a lot of your views, aesthetics, and preferences are fundamentally unknown or undecipherable to many of us, even with your guidelines. So trying to provide you with any helpful feedback or suggestions often feels like trying to perform acupuncture on a wild bear in the pitch dark.


----------



## Emerikol

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but (1) you are conflating terminology, as in your above example you mention, you talk of character stance rather than actor stance, which gets into the issue pemerton raised on the distinction of Actor Stance and being in-character. And (2) gameplay happens in a nebulous imagined space and not a cross-country drive of the American Midwest accessible with Google Maps. It is not an objective reality, but instead it is an imagined space that essentially being constantly _negotiated_ between the GM and the players. Within this negotiation of the game world, stances naturally and instinctively change.



Okay in my campaign world, I detail things out a LOT.  So I will know if a tavern exists.  I don't make stuff up on the fly all that much.  I might make up a minor detail but not the existence of a business.  So the confusion may be on that point.




Aldarc said:


> This example also does not touch upon the other common author stance example I mentioned, namely the whole "I need to find a reason for my character to get along with this new player character." That desire and drive comes author stance, even if one rationalizes it and subsequently performs it in-character. There are a lot of gameplay concerns that will drive the actions of players in ways that aren't from the position of an in-character actor: e.g., I want to get the game going, I want to finish this portion soon, I'm growing impatient with my fellow players, I'm in the mood for a fight scene, etc.



I think many of those thoughts and feelings are actually entirely reasonable as character motivations.  I had a PC once who was bothering another PC because he was too slow a methodical.  To me that is as reasonable as a character motivation as it is a player motivation.





Aldarc said:


> Sure, but I am not proposing that you change that. The proposal I made was for turning Second Wind into an ability that confers _temporary_ hit points, which are classified and operate differently than "real" HP. If you have problems with temporary HP, you are going to have a lot more problems in 5e than simply the fighter and rogue.



Perhaps.  I don't own the game so I was hoping to ascertain whether it was worth getting or not.   Bawylie's DR idea works better than temporary hit points.  I just wanted to hear all ideas though because I believe I can pick from a list and pick well but I won't always think of all the possibilities so I didn't want to miss anything.



Aldarc said:


> I know that you are looking to find a way to make 5e work for you, but I'm sincerely having a hard time imagining that it would be worth the effort. Most of us are not game designers. It may be easier to find another system or hack a new system from 5e's skeleton framework. Because a lot of your views, aesthetics, and preferences are fundamentally unknown or undecipherable to many of us, even with your guidelines. So trying to provide you with any helpful feedback or suggestions often feels like trying to perform acupuncture on a wild bear in the pitch dark.




I'm looking at a lot of options and not just one.  I will look at pf2e.  It is probably closer to what I want at this point.  They aren't going to build in things that are openly metagame (as I define it).  Of course they may have feats or extension which very much are.  

It's funny because in the old days of D&D most DM's viewed themselves as armchair game designers.  Gygax once said the real secret is the DM's don't need us.  I believe that now.  I could write my own D&D game if I wanted.   It would likely look more like a retroclone with some 3e conceits.  Obviously, I am standing on the shoulders of giants and not inventing whole cloth which is a lot easier.  I also don't have to write it up to nearly the quality level of a finished product.


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> I think many of those thoughts and feelings are actually entirely reasonable as character motivations.  I had a PC once who was bothering another PC because he was too slow a methodical.  To me that is as reasonable as a character motivation as it is a player motivation.



I was going to say the same thing. 



> I'm looking at a lot of options and not just one.  I will look at pf2e.  It is probably closer to what I want at this point.  They aren't going to build in things that are openly metagame (as I define it).  Of course they may have feats or extension which very much are.



If PF2 doesn't have feats as a baked-in (i.e. non-optional) part of the game I'll be very surprised, as that would be a major course change from its 3e-3.5e-PF1 lineage.



> It's funny because in the old days of D&D most DM's viewed themselves as armchair game designers.  Gygax once said the real secret is the DM's don't need us.  I believe that now.  I could write my own D&D game if I wanted.   It would likely look more like a retroclone with some 3e conceits.  Obviously, I am standing on the shoulders of giants and not inventing whole cloth which is a lot easier.  I also don't have to write it up to nearly the quality level of a finished product.



Sometimes that's what it comes to - find a system* that kinda vaguely leans toward what you're after and just mash the hell out of it until you end up with something more or less resembling what you want.

* - given your tastes, as far as I can interpret them, you're probably looking at something like 1e D&D (or maybe early-era 2e) or an OSR retroclone as a jumping-off point.

And yes, the advantage of designing and writing for an audience of one table makes it way easier! 

Lanefan


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> And yes, the advantage of designing and writing for an audience of one table makes it way easier!
> 
> Lanefan




A Fantasy Heartbreaker, eh.  Seems like there must be hundreds of designers with a big pile o'books in their garage.


----------



## Emerikol

Elfcrusher said:


> I have to defend Emerikol a little bit here.  Maybe I just empathize because I get attacked...viciously...for my player agency objection to Warlords, but I do think his philosophy about at will powers and magic, etc., is logical and internally consistent.
> 
> I mean, I think he's a little bit off his rocker for being so dogmatic and unyielding about it.  And I think limiting players to ONLY actor stance sucks much of the joy out of the game.  And I think that despite his protestations to the contrary he thinks his version is "better" and he is trying to persuade others of that.  And I think he's going to be a very lonely gamer if he continues to insist on his orthodoxy.
> 
> But it makes sense.  I think it's silly to try to convince him that the flaw in his reasoning has something to do with the the meaning of "magic" or the physics of the game world or whatever.  The flaw in his logic is just that almost nobody wants to play his way.




First, I am not trying to convince anyone.  I was seeking advice.  And I could run as many games as I can handle at this point. So getting players is not an issue.   This way of playing has been pretty much the way I've played for thirty-five years.  

If motives can be interpreted as true character motives I don't try to differentiate.  I just take them as character motives.  So if a player in his own head decides to do something that perhaps someone out there might find out of character, it's unknown to me and the rest of the group.  That is just what is character did.   Mechanical choices though cannot be so easily hand waved.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> You are certainly getting into the miserable habit of insulting others.




Have you considered disengaging from the conversation?  Really, if he's insulting, stop talking to him!



Emerikol said:


> I am tiring of the constant string of insults from you.




And, if you hadn't been engaging in insulting others, your complaint might hold some merit.  But, since you're taking the position that in order to disagree with you, people must be "befuddled" have "delusions" or just generally not be capable of comprehension, I'd say your are standing on some pretty thin ice.  Have you forgotten the "Keep it civil," rule, perchance?  I am here to remind you of it.

Since neither one of you seems willing to walk away, I'll force the issue - *Both of you are hereby instructed to stop responding to each other.*  And if we see any sly attempts at passive-aggressive indirect commentary on each other, expect no warning before you are given a vacation.


----------



## Emerikol

Lanefan said:


> If PF2 doesn't have feats as a baked-in (i.e. non-optional) part of the game I'll be very surprised, as that would be a major course change from its 3e-3.5e-PF1 lineage.



Well I wouldn't ban feats.  I would ban select feats that violated my game design goals.  I doubt most of them will do so.  In fact I can imagine none will but that might be a little bit of a stretch.  




Lanefan said:


> Sometimes that's what it comes to - find a system* that kinda vaguely leans toward what you're after and just mash the hell out of it until you end up with something more or less resembling what you want.
> 
> * - given your tastes, as far as I can interpret them, you're probably looking at something like 1e D&D (or maybe early-era 2e) or an OSR retroclone as a jumping-off point.
> 
> And yes, the advantage of designing and writing for an audience of one table makes it way easier!
> 
> Lanefan




I like a simple system but I like lots of options.  That appears to be a rare combination.  I do think WOIN is great but it's not high fantasy enough to suit my fantasy gaming needs.  I am thinking my next campaign could be a sci-fi N.E.W. game.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Elfcrusher said:


> The flaw in his logic is just that almost nobody wants to play his way.



The overwhelming majority of the playerbase has no strong opinions on this issue, if they are even aware that such an issue exists. They'd be happy to play at his table, or your table, as long as they're having fun.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Saelorn said:


> The overwhelming majority of the playerbase has no strong opinions on this issue, if they are even aware that such an issue exists. They'd be happy to play at his table, or your table, as long as they're having fun.




I don't think our claims are mutually exclusive.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Elfcrusher said:


> I don't think our claims are mutually exclusive.



Maybe not. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that he would find himself short on players, since so few people would want to play in that type of game. I'm just saying that, as long as he's running a game and the players are having fun, it doesn't really matter what constraints they're playing under. (Also, as long as the DM is having fun, the players mostly won't notice whether they're staying in one stance or shifting back and forth. Most players don't notice stances at all.)


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> they over think it to avoid the basic questions I've asked.  All of this ridiculous navel gazing is all to avoid the questions I have asked.  It's pathetic really.



Seriously? I gave XP to your OP and replied to it.



Emerikol said:


> I believe that most games in the 70's and 80's were entirely actor stance.



Nonsense. Most classic D&D play is in either author or pawn stance - the player makes a decision for the PC because it will help beat the dungeon, and then there may be retroactive attribution of the relevant desire or motivation to the PC.

Actually read, or reread, pp 107-109 of Gygax's PHB. All the advice there, which is aimed at AD&D players c 1978, is about making choices that will help survive and beat the dungeon. There is absolutely nothing there about attributing a personality to the PC and then extrapolating actions and decisions from that personality (which is what actor stance involves).

Likwise with his comments about alignment, on p 35 of the PHB:

It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.​
In other words, the reason a player is given for caring about PC alignment is not because that is what is involved in being true to the PC, but because breaking alignment can bring consequences from the referee who tracks it on the graph! That is pure author stance.



Emerikol said:


> If I am driving into a large city, and I start looking for a McDonalds because my knowledge of civilization is that there are McDonald's everywhere, I am absolutely in character stance.  Most cities have taverns and inns in the worlds I create.  Yours may vary.



I don't know what "character stance" means.

But _director stance_ means a player establishing an element of the gameworld that is outside the influence of his/her PC. A player who says (in character) "I pick up a rock" without asking the GM "Is there a rock?" is declaring an action in director stance. That's the whole point: there is no correlation between stance and mechanics. If there was - eg if "director stance" just meant "metagame mechanics" than the terminology would be redundant and wouldn't have been invented.



Emerikol said:


> My players do tend to say "Is there a tavern?"  If though they said "We are going to go to the tavern" there would be an implied "if one exists".   If one doesn't I will quickly tell them that they can't find one.  I would never allow the to invent it with their words which would be director stance.



I already discussed this upthread.

If the GM vetoes, then the GM vetoes. But if the GM lets it pass, then the player declared an action in director stance.

Now maybe, in your game, that never happens in relation to taverns because you have every tavern in the gameworld specified ahead of time. But I would find that hard to believe for rocks.

Or if the PCs are on a wilderness expedition and a player declares "We catch a rabbit for our dinner." If the GM replies "OK, what's your hunting skill? 16, you say? OK, no worries, you catch a rabbit" - well, again, that player declared an action in director stance which brought it about that the fiction includes a rabbit being caught by the player.

I understand, in principle, your desire to avoid metagame mechanics, although I find your actual categorisation pretty weird (to me, as a long time RM player, hit points are a thousand times more metagame than second wind or action surge, which remind me  quite a bit of RM adrenal moves). But your stuff about stance just implies that you don't actually get what Ron Edwards and others who coined the terminology of stance were talking about. It's not helping you explain your preference.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Except that Gravity does not work that way!  Otherwise how can Elephants walk around in Earth Gravity without having their legs crushed?



Elephants aren't bipeds, and don't have legs with the proportions of giants' legs in most fantasy.



Shasarak said:


> I could give you two possible reasons why Giant Arthropods would be possible in normal Earth conditions.
> 
> Infact if you look at the fossil records then you can see that Giant Arthropods actually did exist and, if you look at Australia, continue to exist.



I live in Australi. If there are land arthropods in Australia the size of D&D giant scorpions, I've never heard of them.

Biology is not my strongest suit, but this webpage reads to me like it's pretty sensible, and it suggests that 4 kg is towards the upper size limit for a land arthropod.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Saelorn said:


> Maybe not. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that he would find himself short on players, since so few people would want to play in that type of game. I'm just saying that, as long as he's running a game and the players are having fun, it doesn't really matter what constraints they're playing under. (Also, as long as the DM is having fun, the players mostly won't notice whether they're staying in one stance or shifting back and forth. Most players don't notice stances at all.)




It's your last parenthetical point that is what I was getting at.  It's not that players would refuse to play with him once they know his philosophy; most of them probably just say "Whatever, man...".  I would be surprised if very many of them care whether or not they stay in actor stance, or worry if they are metagaming, etc.  I know I've had loads of fun with DMs with whom I strongly disagree on philosophy.  The differences very rarely have an impact on what happens at the table. 

On the other hand, if he actually tried to impose his playstyle, and made players defend their decisions as character-knowledge-driven, I suspect his tables wouldn't stay full.

Likewise, if he house-ruled away all the mechanics he dislikes, he might have trouble recruiting players.  Not necessarily because they disagree with him philosophically, but because they just want to play the game they know.  (Well, and because if you want martial powers to be at-will, you have to either trivialize them, or massively buff everybody else.  I don't think most people would enjoy the result as much as they enjoy more mainstream RPGs.)


----------



## Kobold Boots

@_*pemerton*_,* [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]*

The gravity conversation interests me if only for the two points that immediately come to mind.

1. Gravitational forces assuming 1G constant will not prevent really large things from flying given enough lift and thrust.  Similarly it will not prevent large bone and muscle mass creatures from evolving given the right circumstances.

2. Whether or not something is magical or not really depends on whether or not your sensibilities allow for something to exist in a conventional physics sense or not.  (e.g. This huge dragon isn't airflow optimized and his wings aren't large enough to provide lift or gliding control so it has to be magic.. )

Note that where physics ends and magic begins in any person's world is a personal thing and may actually vary depending on the subject.  The huge dragon may require magic to fly (and may have learned enough to do so) whereas the smaller one may not require it to fly (and as such may have developed its own tricks instead.)

Regardless, the physics/magic answer can be determined outside of the physical examples, much like modern science finds things that are outside the realm of newtonian basics.  The sky isn't blue because someone colors it in with crayons every morning.. 

2c
KB


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Seriously? I gave XP to your OP and replied to it.



There are several possibilities.  You aren't the target of my comment.  You are but it only progressed to that point and it started out okay.  When I make a general comment about the thread, I am saying something about the conversation in general.  I do believe in general this thread has degenerated due to way too much hair splitting and way to much ignoring of the original question.




pemerton said:


> Nonsense. Most classic D&D play is in either author or pawn stance - the player makes a decision for the PC because it will help beat the dungeon, and then there may be retroactive attribution of the relevant desire or motivation to the PC.



Is beating the dungeon not a character motive?? In old school D&D, the most common motive was exploration and ultimately treasure seeking.  My players fit that mold especially at lower levels.  I always considered those motives to be entirely actor stance.  They are greed adventurers seeking fame and fortune.




pemerton said:


> Actually read, or reread, pp 107-109 of Gygax's PHB. All the advice there, which is aimed at AD&D players c 1978, is about making choices that will help survive and beat the dungeon. There is absolutely nothing there about attributing a personality to the PC and then extrapolating actions and decisions from that personality (which is what actor stance involves).



Ahhh I think i see where you are going astray in all of this.  I do not try to read my players minds or establish some character identity that is separate from the player.  My players tended to play a braver more heroic version of themselves.  Advice on surviving the dungeon though is just the sort of in game knowledge any character would want to have so I don't see that as non-actor.   Ultimately it may again be the failure of existing terms and theories to fully describe my own groups style of play.  That is why I gave the list of objectionable mechanics so that you could just focus on those and not worry about the underlying theory.






pemerton said:


> Likwise with his comments about alignment, on p 35 of the PHB:
> 
> It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.​
> In other words, the reason a player is given for caring about PC alignment is not because that is what is involved in being true to the PC, but because breaking alignment can bring consequences from the referee who tracks it on the graph! That is pure author stance.



People care about their "changing alignment" in real life and many believe there are no consequences.  Surely it is not unheard of to have a world where people are worried about the favor of the Gods and where they stand morally.  Again alignment is just an abstract word for an in-world concept.




pemerton said:


> I don't know what "character stance" means.
> 
> But _director stance_ means a player establishing an element of the gameworld that is outside the influence of his/her PC. A player who says (in character) "I pick up a rock" without asking the GM "Is there a rock?" is declaring an action in director stance. That's the whole point: there is no correlation between stance and mechanics. If there was - eg if "director stance" just meant "metagame mechanics" than the terminology would be redundant and wouldn't have been invented.
> 
> I already discussed this upthread.



I think we all don't have much debate about director stance.  I don't like it and have never seen it actually played in a game so it's not a worry of mine.  The DM is the only world creator in my games.




pemerton said:


> If the GM vetoes, then the GM vetoes. But if the GM lets it pass, then the player declared an action in director stance.



No.  The DM checks to see if what the character said is possible.  If there is no tavern then the DM says, you don't find a tavern.  The DM just accepts a statement like "I go to the tavern" as "if possible or one exists then I go to the tavern" because in many instances the probability is high that one exists.   Even so, my players are pretty careful and don't make any assumptions.




pemerton said:


> Now maybe, in your game, that never happens in relation to taverns because you have every tavern in the gameworld specified ahead of time. But I would find that hard to believe for rocks.



Well for rocks, I would roll based on the probability a rock exists.   My players would say "can I find a rock" by the way.  In a situation where I was certain rocks exists thus the chance is 100% then I'd say okay you see and pick up a rock.




pemerton said:


> Or if the PCs are on a wilderness expedition and a player declares "We catch a rabbit for our dinner." If the GM replies "OK, what's your hunting skill? 16, you say? OK, no worries, you catch a rabbit" - well, again, that player declared an action in director stance which brought it about that the fiction includes a rabbit being caught by the player.



My players would say "We will hunt for our dinner, do we get anything?"  The only time it truly is director is if the GM allows a rabbit when otherwise he would not have.  



pemerton said:


> I understand, in principle, your desire to avoid metagame mechanics, although I find your actual categorisation pretty weird (to me, as a long time RM player, hit points are a thousand times more metagame than second wind or action surge, which remind me  quite a bit of RM adrenal moves). But your stuff about stance just implies that you don't actually get what Ron Edwards and others who coined the terminology of stance were talking about. It's not helping you explain your preference.



I think to be honest we are talking about entirely different things.  Whenever I try to use a particular word, I chose metagame mainly to avoid offending, someone takes it in a different direction.  The question is, do you at least know what I am talking about?  The particular mechanics I listed have a commonality whatever you want to call it.  Just make up a new name I don't care about terms.  I only care about avoiding these types of mechanics.  I don't care either to be pummeled because you think I'm inconsistent in what I like.  I believe I am consistent but if you don't that is okay.  I really only seek ideas for handling these sorts of mechanics.  Even if I do decide 5e isn't for me I'm sure the techniques suggested could be used for another other D&D style game I might pick or even for one I might write/hack.


----------



## Emerikol

Elfcrusher said:


> It's your last parenthetical point that is what I was getting at.  It's not that players would refuse to play with him once they know his philosophy; most of them probably just say "Whatever, man...".  I would be surprised if very many of them care whether or not they stay in actor stance, or worry if they are metagaming, etc.  I know I've had loads of fun with DMs with whom I strongly disagree on philosophy.  The differences very rarely have an impact on what happens at the table.
> 
> On the other hand, if he actually tried to impose his playstyle, and made players defend their decisions as character-knowledge-driven, I suspect his tables wouldn't stay full.



As a DM, I don't give the players any information that is unknown to their characters.  I keep everything very tight to the chest information wise.  The only conduit of information is through their characters senses and that ultimately is from the DM providing that input.




Elfcrusher said:


> Likewise, if he house-ruled away all the mechanics he dislikes, he might have trouble recruiting players.  Not necessarily because they disagree with him philosophically, but because they just want to play the game they know.  (Well, and because if you want martial powers to be at-will, you have to either trivialize them, or massively buff everybody else.  I don't think most people would enjoy the result as much as they enjoy more mainstream RPGs.)




Perhaps, if I were an unknown DM, I might suffer.  I am not.  I really put in the effort to create a deep and immersive world that is a sandbox with tons of plot lines.  The world is a living world practically.  So people I know have come to appreciate that effort and enjoy really well done campaigns.  As a result, they would accept a D&Desq game without question.   I mean I could just say 1e, 2e, or 3e (though if 1e/2e I'd choose a more updated retroclone of course).  Those games at their core (not all the splat books) are satisfactory.  

I've found once players start playing in a really deep and immersive world that other campaigns start feeling kind of artificial.  DMs that wing it all the time are unacceptable.  Now that is just my experience but it's a long time I've been playing.  I'm sure across the world there are people satisfied with entirely different styles of play.  Perhaps those in my area just can't do the other style as well as experts in that style can do it.  I'd definitely say the same thing about my style.  I hear a lot of complaints and most of the time it's inexperience and amateurism at being a good DM.

And no, I am not perfect, and no, I wasn't an "expert" at my style of play my whole life.  I've learned.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Elfcrusher said:


> On the other hand, if he actually tried to impose his playstyle, and made players defend their decisions as character-knowledge-driven, I suspect his tables wouldn't stay full.



Hence why he would want to house rule those issues out before the players get to them, so they aren't put into a position where they had to defend anything. Which, tangentially, is why it doesn't matter how you argue whether HP are observable in-game, since the DM has already decided that they are; and thus, the players won't need to justify acting on that information.

More generally, the whole "rules as physics" approach really works well to ensure that players are never forced to deal with meta-game mechanics. If your fighter was actually living in a world where _they_ knew that they could perform Come And Get It _exactly_ once per day, _and_ that it would always work that one time, _and_ everyone else in the world knew that, because that's how the world works and this experiment gives consistent results, then that absurd world could be played entirely in-character. The trade-off, of course, being that it produces an absurd narrative.


Elfcrusher said:


> Likewise, if he house-ruled away all the mechanics he dislikes, he might have trouble recruiting players.  Not necessarily because they disagree with him philosophically, but because they just want to play the game they know.  (Well, and because if you want martial powers to be at-will, you have to either trivialize them, or massively buff everybody else.  I don't think most people would enjoy the result as much as they enjoy more mainstream RPGs.)



Yes, for right or wrong, house rules have a severe stigma attached to them which are likely to turn away players. That's why it's such a betrayal that they would market this game as being for everyone, and then fail to support anything but a very middle-of-the-road audience of players who don't care. Anyone with a strong opinion on any topic - the kind of player who might actually care enough to change rules that they didn't like - is left without the framework or authority to do so, because other players are likely to see those changes as illegitimate.


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> It's your last parenthetical point that is what I was getting at.  It's not that players would refuse to play with him once they know his philosophy; most of them probably just say "Whatever, man...".  I would be surprised if very many of them care whether or not they stay in actor stance, or worry if they are metagaming, etc.  I know I've had loads of fun with DMs with whom I strongly disagree on philosophy.  The differences very rarely have an impact on what happens at the table.



Agreed.



> On the other hand, if he actually tried to impose his playstyle, and made players defend their decisions as character-knowledge-driven, I suspect his tables wouldn't stay full.



Disagreed.  Provided he's taking reasonable steps to ensure player knowledge = character knowledge (e.g. DMing the solo scout in another room so the rest of the players remain as unaware of its fate as their PCs are) I'd be surprised if this posed a problem at all.



> Likewise, if he house-ruled away all the mechanics he dislikes, he might have trouble recruiting players.  Not necessarily because they disagree with him philosophically, but because they just want to play the game they know.  (Well, and because if you want martial powers to be at-will, you have to either trivialize them, or massively buff everybody else.  I don't think most people would enjoy the result as much as they enjoy more mainstream RPGs.)



Maybe.

If the really big changes are made up front and presented as "here's my game, wanna play in it?" there will of course be some who are interested and some who are not, but those who are interested up front are likely to remain so throughout.

If the really big changes are made in mid-campaign then while the initial player uptake may be higher there'll be more drop-off as players decide one change or another is a deal-breaker, leading to a more fractured campaign.

Lan-"and given that he says he has no shortage of players I guess he's doing something right"-efan


----------



## Guest 6801328

Saelorn said:


> *That's why it's such a betrayal* that they would market this game as being for everyone, and then fail to support anything but a very middle-of-the-road audience of players who don't care.




Yeah...well...in general I don't give much credence to the whole "WotC promised me the moon and all I got was this t-shirt" complaint.  

I know some fans of previous editions (or parts of previous editions) feel like WotC "betrayed" them for various reasons, but it seems to me that people interpret their "promises" with unreasonable expectations, and then feel like promises were broken when those hopeful interpretations turn out to be incorrect.  

And in cases where they really did say, "We're going to do X" and then failed to do X, I would assume it was more that they realized X was untenable and regretfully changed their minds, as opposed to having intentionally misled people with marketing hyperbole.  Product development goes that way sometimes.

I mean, just look at the reactions to the Ravnica announcement.  You'd think the sky was falling.

Personally I'm glad they try to give updates and previews, rather than keep it all secret until launch in order avoid accusations of betrayal.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Elfcrusher said:


> Yeah...well...in general I don't give much credence to the whole "WotC promised me the moon and all I got was this t-shirt" complaint.
> 
> I know some fans of previous editions (or parts of previous editions) feel like WotC "betrayed" them for various reasons, but it seems to me that people interpret their "promises" with unreasonable expectations, and then feel like promises were broken when those hopeful interpretations turn out to be incorrect.
> 
> And in cases where they really did say, "We're going to do X" and then failed to do X, I would assume it was more that they realized X was untenable and regretfully changed their minds, as opposed to having intentionally misled people with marketing hyperbole.  Product development goes that way sometimes.
> 
> I mean, just look at the reactions to the Ravnica announcement.  You'd think the sky was falling.
> 
> Personally I'm glad they try to give updates and previews, rather than keep it all secret until launch in order avoid accusations of betrayal.




 [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] - Regarding your betrayal comment due to WoTC focusing on the middle.

I'd argue that your lack of acceptance (not the same as understanding - I think you understand very well) of how markets work is probably the cause of your strife and not WoTC.  Once you're running a business, you're doing statistics on the market.  Once you're doing statistics you're looking at the middle 50 and folks that are one standard deviation away from the middle 50 for whatever you're marketing because that's where you're going to make most of your money.  If you're not in that grouping then it's not the company that's the problem.  You need to find the product where you're in that middle 50 plus 1 stdev in order to be happy.

Of course, from any marketers viewpoint by aiming at what they're aiming at, they're marketing "to everyone".  

 [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] regarding the Ravnica thing.

I just don't get the folks that hate the idea of using M:tG settings as fodder for D&D.  While it's not my first choice of settings were I to select one to be done, I think it's a really good idea when two settings are going to be released to do one classic setting and one that's entirely new in order to expand the brand.  If they already have access to the IP and it increases awareness of M:tG all the better.

Personally, I've not touched a M:tG deck for about 10 years.  However, there were many times where the flavor text on the cards made me wish they did a tabletop setting book for a RPG.  It'll probably be great.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Kobold Boots said:


> I'd argue that your lack of acceptance (not the same as understanding - I think you understand very well) of how markets work is probably the cause of your strife and not WoTC.  Once you're running a business, you're doing statistics on the market.  Once you're doing statistics you're looking at the middle 50 and folks that are one standard deviation away from the middle 50 for whatever you're marketing because that's where you're going to make most of your money.  If you're not in that grouping then it's not the company that's the problem.  You need to find the product where you're in that middle 50 plus 1 stdev in order to be happy.
> 
> Of course, from any marketers viewpoint by aiming at what they're aiming at, they're marketing "to everyone".



Maybe they were malicious, or maybe they were just incompetent, but either way they failed to deliver on the promise. It wouldn't have been hard to design a game that would have been more inclusive. They should have just owned up to the fact that they were intentionally excluding certain groups.

Deceptive marketing counts as malicious practice, in my book.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> Elephants aren't bipeds, and don't have legs with the proportions of giants' legs in most fantasy.




A Bipedal T-Rex can get to be three times heavier then an Elephant.

And even accepting that a T-Rex does not look like a Fantasy Giant, that is still a lot of weight supported by two legs.



> I live in Australi. If there are land arthropods in Australia the size of D&D giant scorpions, I've never heard of them.
> 
> Biology is not my strongest suit, but this webpage reads to me like it's pretty sensible, and it suggests that 4 kg is towards the upper size limit for a land arthropod.




You should probably be aware that your "normal" sized arthropds are giant for the rest of the world.


----------



## pemerton

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. Gravitational forces assuming 1G constant will not prevent really large things from flying given enough lift and thrust.  Similarly it will not prevent large bone and muscle mass creatures from evolving given the right circumstances.
> 
> 2. Whether or not something is magical or not really depends on whether or not your sensibilities allow for something to exist in a conventional physics sense or not.  (e.g. This huge dragon isn't airflow optimized and his wings aren't large enough to provide lift or gliding control so it has to be magic.. )



I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not a biologist or a physicist, so I rely on what I read in the papers. From what I've read, a dragon in D&D - the depiction of which has been fairly constant for 40-odd years - does not have wings sufficient to generate the lift needed to get it off the ground. Yet we know that it can fly. Hence, either, (i) gravity is different or (ii) fluid mechanics is different or (iii) it doesn't really make sense to think of the world of D&D using such scientific categories as _gravity_ and _fluid mechanics_. I think that (iii) is the most obvious and straightforward answer.

On evolution: I can't think of any published D&D world where dragons evolved. They were created (whether by Tiamat and Bahamut, or in some other fashion) or perhaps came into being as primordial entities. More generally, nothing I've ever read in any D&D setting book or monster manual makes me assume that living things in D&D evolve, or have their nature and being determined by the biochemical processes that operate in the real world. Upthread someone ( [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]) referred to "life force". If such a thing exists in D&D worlds, that's enough to indicate that these are not worlds in which real world biology and biochemistry obrain.



Shasarak said:


> A Bipedal T-Rex can get to be three times heavier then an Elephant.
> 
> And even accepting that a T-Rex does not look like a Fantasy Giant, that is still a lot of weight supported by two legs.



So are you saying that D&D giants are biomechanically possible? The only form of giant I've ever heard that suggested of is fire giants because of their heavier build and thicker legs relative to their height.



Shasarak said:


> You should probably be aware that your "normal" sized arthropds are giant for the rest of the world.



Again, are you saying that giant scorpions of the D&D sort are possible? My undertanding is that land arthorpods in the real world of that size would have both exoskeleton issues and respiration issues.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I'm not a biologist or a physicist, so I rely on what I read in the papers. From what I've read, a dragon in D&D - the depiction of which has been fairly constant for 40-odd years - does not have wings sufficient to generate the lift needed to get it off the ground. Yet we know that it can fly. Hence, either, (i) gravity is different or (ii) fluid mechanics is different or (iii) it doesn't really make sense to think of the world of D&D using such scientific categories as _gravity_ and _fluid mechanics_. I think that (iii) is the most obvious and straightforward answer.




Why would you leave out the official quote I provided for you that a dragon being magical in combination with the wing strength is how it flies.  It makes it appear that you argue disingenuously when you do things like this.  Dragon flight, being possible only through magic, does not need to have different gravity, different fluid mechanics, or a need to think that D&D doesn't have an approximation of physics.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> So are you saying that D&D giants are biomechanically possible? The only form of giant I've ever heard that suggested of is fire giants because of their heavier build and thicker legs relative to their height.




Of course they are biomechanically possible.  That is what the physics says.



> Again, are you saying that giant scorpions of the D&D sort are possible? My undertanding is that land arthorpods in the real world of that size would have both exoskeleton issues and respiration issues.




What kind of respiratory system does a DnD Arthrod have?  Maybe you are imagining the wrong sort.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Saelorn said:


> Maybe they were malicious, or maybe they were just incompetent, but either way they failed to deliver on the promise. It wouldn't have been hard to design a game that would have been more inclusive. They should have just owned up to the fact that they were intentionally excluding certain groups.
> 
> Deceptive marketing counts as malicious practice, in my book.




or maybe, they were just targeting the 70% of the market that lies within 1 stdev of their market center and you were in the other 30%?

Sometimes the simplest answer isn't deception, it's perception.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Upthread someone ( [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]) referred to "life force".



Not guilty, y'r honour.

For once. 

Lanefan


----------



## Ted Serious

Elfcrusher said:


> On the other hand, if he actually tried to impose his playstyle, and made players defend their decisions as character-knowledge-driven, I suspect his tables wouldn't stay full.
> 
> Likewise, if he house-ruled away all the mechanics he dislikes, he might have trouble recruiting players.  Not necessarily because they disagree with him philosophically, but because they just want to play the game they know.




I've never known DMs to go begging for players.  Even DMs everyone knows are bad.

Playing is just so much easier and more fun.
You have 20 wanting  to play for every one actually wanting to run.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Saelorn said:


> Maybe they were malicious, or maybe they were just *incompetent*, but either way they failed to deliver on the promise. It wouldn't have been hard to design a game that would have been more inclusive. They should have just owned up to the fact that they were *intentionally excluding certain groups*.
> 
> *Deceptive marketing* counts as malicious practice, in my book.




Wow.

This is just not even rational.

I was logging in to add some more thoughts I had on the topic, but I guess there's no point.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Ted Serious said:


> I've never known DMs to go begging for players.  Even DMs everyone knows are bad.
> 
> Playing is just so much easier and more fun.
> You have 20 wanting  to play for every one actually wanting to run.




Really?  I've known (and/or known of) a couple of DMs who eventually find themselves with few or zero regulars at their tables.  Just the newcomers who don't know better, or the equally problematic players who aren't welcome at the other tables.

I guess it depends on your geography, though.  I've only seen it in areas with pretty vibrant gaming communities.


----------



## Ilbranteloth

Emerikol said:


> While I have a strong opinion on metagame design elements, I by no means intend to imply that those who enjoy such concepts are doing it wrong or should convert to my way of thinking.  This is about a preference.  It would be just as silly to try to convert everyone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  Vanilla is better in my opinion but philosophically "a matter of taste cannot be disputed"
> 
> So a short definition:  Metagaming.
> Metagaming is when a player makes a decision that the character the player is playing could never conceive of or know about.
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of metagame rules in 5e.
> 
> 1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?
> 
> 2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.
> 
> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.
> 
> 4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.
> 
> 
> I realize I'm picking on the fighter but the fighter is pretty egregious in these areas.  I'm sure may of the other classes have at least some issues like this though perhaps not to the same degree.
> 
> So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?
> 
> I've been thinking about Pathfinder 2e as another possibility.  Do you think it will do better in that particular area?  Worse?  I'm going to check out the pdf.
> 
> What about you old schoolers?  There is a lot to like in some of the old school games but I find them not systematic enough for me.  Heck 5e probably isn't as much as I'd like.  Everything is a special class rule.  I do think feats as a mechanic might be better ala Pf2e.  But I am also thinking they'll make some pretty awful feats as well.
> 
> Thoughts?




Sure. 

1) Healing. So it helps to define hit points a bit here. To us, your first level hit points are kind of your physical health. The remainder are a combination of luck, stamina, and skill. Primarily the last two. Why? Because you gain more as you gain a level. A higher level character is capable of turning a good hit to a glancing hit. In addition, they are able to outlast somebody lesser (of lower level). 

So the applying hit dice mechanic is a way of simulating how much you recover your stamina more than anything else in my mind. Sometimes you stop and wait until fully refreshed, sometimes you don’t. 

One tweak we made for a while is that you rolled your available Hit Dice at the beginning of the day. Then as you rested, you automatically topped off your hit points if you had enough remaining. 

2) Action Surge. The short answer is yes. It’s that extra burst of energy, maybe adrenaline, that you can put into things. Like a race horse pulling away. There isn’t a proper fatigue system in D&D, but requiring a rest between uses of abilities like this is a bit of one.

3) If you’re on board with 1 and 2, this answers itself. You’re using one of those bursts of energy to replenish your stamina. I would prefer something like a requirement to spend a round not attacking. For all three of these, look at short and long distance runners, boxers, and similar sports for real life examples.

4) Inspiration. In general I’m not a fan of disassociated mechanics like this one. As you point out, the fighter is full of them, especially their superiority dice and they way they are used in regards to maneuvers. They wanted to make sure things like trip aren’t overused, along with making more cool things for the fighter to do. Why didn’t people try to trip their opponent very much in real sword fights? They did, when the opportunity presented itself. I suspect the answer as to why it’s not used more is because it must be very risky. The reward for knocking somebody prone in a sword fight is huge. So it must be hard to do and risky.

But I digress. I do like Inspiration and the Superiority dice themselves. In our game Superiority is basically the same as bardic Inspiration, but used on yourself instead of somebody else. 

There are moments where luck is smiling or frowning at you more than usual. These mechanics give you a way to address that. They are super simple and non-intrusive when used as a simple modifier. I like them even better because they are a variable, not a fixed bonus or penalty.

I’m an old schooler in that I generally run my game to feel like it did based in Holmes basic/AD&D. For the most part, these particular things are not really problematic. We’ve made a ton of other alterations, though, in part because we don’t care for most disassociated mechanics, and we prefer the rules to help adjudicate the fiction, rather than define it. 5e is by far the easiest to to this, because to eliminate these sort of concerns it’s easier to do it with fewer rules, not more. 5e is quite streamlined, but you can tweak it to be even more so.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Kobold Boots said:


> or maybe, they were just targeting the 70% of the market that lies within 1 stdev of their market center and you were in the other 30%?
> 
> Sometimes the simplest answer isn't deception, it's perception.




Or misperception, from the audience.  WotC says, "We are going to appeal to players from all editions" and some people hear, "Oh, good, they just promised to include Feature X."

What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## ccs

Saelorn said:


> Yes, for right or wrong, house rules have a severe stigma attached to them which are likely to turn away players. That's why it's such a betrayal that they would market this game as being for everyone, and then fail to support anything but a very middle-of-the-road audience of players who don't care. Anyone with a strong opinion on any topic - the kind of player who might actually care enough to change rules that they didn't like - is left without the framework or authority to do so, because other players are likely to see those changes as illegitimate.




Boy did you ever take swig of that Marketing Cool-Aid back there in 2012/13....  What'd you do?  Roll in the negatives on your Wisdom save?  

D&D was, is, & always will, be as modular & mutable as any particular group chooses it to be.  How do you think we got to the point we're at today?  Untold #s of people tinkered with the game over the decades.  Some of that tinkering even finds it's way into the official books.
That said, it's not the designers fault if you can't persuade the other people at the table to change some rule...


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Not guilty, y'r honour.
> 
> For once.
> 
> Lanefan




I talked about life force in Dark Sun.  A term it used and equated with spirit, then applied it to all things including plants.


----------



## heretic888

Shasarak said:


> Of course [giants] are biomechanically possible.  That is what the physics says.




A little tangential here, but as a math teacher I wanted to address this point real quick...

Actually, "the physics" says precisely the opposite: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html

A giant with 3 times the proportional height, width, and length of a human being would not weigh 3 times as much. He or she would weigh 27 times as much (all other things being equal, volume is height cubed) as the human. The moment said giant stood up, most of the bones in his or her leg would collapse under the immense weight.

In other words, if a "human" averages 6 feet, 200 lbs then an 18 foot "giant" would weigh around 5400 lbs. You can't support that amount of weight without a deep structural change in the anatomical proportions of the organism: the result wouldn't be anything that remotely resembles a gigantic human, at least not in terms of musculature and skeletal structure. 

An elephant is not a bipedal primate, nor is a tyrannosaur. Their musculature, bone structure, and anatomical proportions are totally different from ours.  

There's a lot of stuff in D&D style games that is like this (dragons being able to fly with their listed weights and wingspans being an oft-cited example). D&D's world only obeys the laws of physics if by "physics" we mean, as pemerton suggested earlier, common sense tropes and not actual mathematics.


----------



## Shasarak

heretic888 said:


> A little tangential here, but as a math teacher I wanted to address this point real quick...
> 
> Actually, "the physics" says precisely the opposite: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html
> 
> A giant with 3 times the proportional height, width, and length of a human being would not weigh 3 times as much. He or she would weigh 27 times as much (all other things being equal, volume is height cubed) as the human. The moment said giant stood up, most of the bones in his or her leg would collapse under the immense weight.
> 
> In other words, if a "human" averages 6 feet, 200 lbs then an 18 foot "giant" would weigh around 5400 lbs. You can't support that amount of weight without a deep structural change in the anatomical proportions of the organism: the result wouldn't be anything that remotely resembles a gigantic human, at least not in terms of musculature and skeletal structure.
> 
> An elephant is not a bipedal primate, nor is a tyrannosaur. Their musculature, bone structure, and anatomical proportions are totally different from ours.
> 
> There's a lot of stuff in D&D style games that is like this (dragons being able to fly with their listed weights and wingspans being an oft-cited example). D&D's world only obeys the laws of physics if by "physics" we mean, as pemerton suggested earlier, common sense tropes and not actual mathematics.




Say you had a Human who weighs 100kg and made him a Giant who weighs 27x as much = 2,700kg.  A T-Rex can weigh up to 18,000 kg.  

So tell me again how physics proves that Giant (2,700kg) would collapse and at the same time a T-Rex (18,000kg) is fine?

I think the main incorrect asumption that you are making is that a Giant is the same as a Big Human.  Of course a Giant is going to have musculature, bone structure, and anatomical proportions totally different to a Humans.


----------



## heretic888

Shasarak said:


> Say you had a Human who weighs 100kg and made him a Giant who weighs 27x as much = 2,700kg.  A T-Rex can weigh up to 18,000 kg.
> 
> So tell me again how physics proves that Giant (2,700kg) would collapse and at the same time a T-Rex (18,000kg) is fine?




Because, as I stated in my previous post, a tyrannosaur is not a bipedal humanoid. I would suggest actually reading the link I provided: you have actual physicists and mathematicians (including Galileo) explaining *why* giant humans are a biological impossibility. There are, of course, other reasons too --- everything from human lung capacity to digestive traits --- but anatomy-to-cubic volume issue is the biggest one.

There is a reason humans with gigantism (who are nowhere near the size of mythical giants) have a host of well documented health problems. Our anatomical structure  only optimally supports a limited range of sizes.



> I think the main incorrect asumption that you are making is that a Giant is the same as a Big Human.  Of course a Giant is going to have musculature, bone structure, and anatomical proportions totally different to a Humans.




In what way? A simple perusal of D&D giant images on google reveals nothing but creatures with the exact same anatomical proportions as a human being.

EDIT: There is a similar discussion here as well: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/giant-bfg-shouldnt-just-look-like-giant-human/


----------



## Shasarak

heretic888 said:


> Because, as I stated in my previous post, a tyrannosaur is not a bipedal humanoid. I would suggest actually reading the link I provided: you have actual physicists and mathematicians (including Galileo) explaining *why* giant humans are a biological impossibility. There are, of course, other reasons too --- everything from human lung capacity to digestive traits --- but anatomy-to-cubic volume issue is the biggest one.
> 
> There is a reason humans with gigantism (who are nowhere near the size of mythical giants) have a host of well documented health problems. Our anatomical structure  only optimally supports a limited range of sizes.
> 
> 
> 
> In what way? A simple perusal of D&D giant images on google reveals nothing but creatures with the exact same anatomical proportions as a human being.




But we are not talking about big Humans, we are talking about DnD Giants.


----------



## heretic888

Shasarak said:


> But we are not talking about big Humans, we are talking about DnD Giants.




D&D giants are, anatomically speaking, indistinguishable from big Humans. See also the link I edited into my previous post: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/giant-bfg-shouldnt-just-look-like-giant-human/


----------



## Maxperson

heretic888 said:


> In what way? A simple perusal of D&D giant images on google reveals nothing but creatures with the exact same anatomical proportions as a human being.
> 
> EDIT: There is a similar discussion here as well: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/giant-bfg-shouldnt-just-look-like-giant-human/




You have no idea about the internal structure, though.  The bones, cartilage and more could be different enough to make the health issues vanish.  It's only a biologic impossibility for HUMANS with larger builds.  Nothing says that giants are just large humans.


----------



## Shasarak

heretic888 said:


> D&D giants are, anatomically speaking, indistinguishable from big Humans. See also the link I edited into my previous post: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/giant-bfg-shouldnt-just-look-like-giant-human/




That seems like a fine house rule for your game.


----------



## heretic888

Maxperson said:


> You have no idea about the internal structure, though.  The bones, cartilage and more could be different enough to make the health issues vanish.  It's only a biologic impossibility for HUMANS with larger builds.  Nothing says that giants are just large humans.




At that point, though, we're just speculating. From every appearance, giants are just scaled up humans.


----------



## heretic888

Shasarak said:


> That seems like a fine house rule for your game.




If by "fine house rule" you  mean "naturalistic observation informed by a working knowledge of mathematics and human physiology", then yes.


----------



## Shasarak

heretic888 said:


> If by "fine house rule" you  mean "naturalistic observation informed by a working knowledge of mathematics and human physiology", then yes.




Is it like how you can only ever make a house out of wood?  Because if it looks like a House thefore it must be made out of wood?


----------



## Maxperson

heretic888 said:


> At that point, though, we're just speculating. From every appearance, giants are just scaled up humans.




Except that they are incredibly obviously not just scaled up humans.  They predate humans, being almost as old as dragons.  They have innate magic and resistances, such as immunity to cold and fire.  These things make it crystal clear that they are giants, a unique race, not just jumped up humans.  It's far more of an assumption to view their internal structure as human, than it is to view it as unique and supportive of their size.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Why would you leave out the official quote I provided for you that a dragon being magical in combination with the wing strength is how it flies.  It makes it appear that you argue disingenuously when you do things like this.



(1) I was replying to  [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION], who I thought was suggesting that flying dragons are physically possible.

(2) That is inlcuded in my (iii): _it doesn't really make sense to think of the world of D&D using such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics_. A world in which beings have "innate magic" that combines with their muscualture to let them fly is not a world in which scientific categories such as _gravity _and _fluid mechanics_ have application. (Whichi was  [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s point some way upthread.)

I also think it is worth nothing that in 3E (at least according to the d20srd) a dragon's flight is not SU.



Shasarak said:


> Of course they are biomechanically possible.  That is what the physics says.
> 
> What kind of respiratory system does a DnD Arthrod have?  Maybe you are imagining the wrong sort.



I'm talking about the real world. Are you asserting that D&D giants are biomechanically possible in the real world? If you are, that's interesting because I thought the general opinion was that, with the possible exception of fire giants, they are not.

Likewise with respect to arthropods - as per the webpage I linked to in my earlier reply to you, my understanding is that an arthropod the size of a D&D giant scorpion would (in the real world) not be able to respirate and would also have serious exoskeleton problems. Are you saying that the website is wrong?



Maxperson said:


> You have no idea about the internal structure, though.  The bones, cartilage and more could be different enough to make the health issues vanish.  It's only a biologic impossibility for HUMANS with larger builds.  Nothing says that giants are just large humans.



So what - giants in D&D have bones made of steel?

And they don't have lungs or other organst like humans do?

At what point do you accept the proposition that the physical, biological etc traits of the D&D world don't correspond to those in the real world? What do you think is at stake in saying "The physics is indistinguishable, it's just that the materials are different?" As if the nature of materials (biological and otherwise) in the real world was not itself a manifestation of physical properties.

In any event, the "Giant" entry in the AD&D MM opens with these words (p 44): "Giants are huge humanoids." As a feature of D&D, giants are inspired by fairy stories, myths etc about giants (eg this is why we have Cloud Giants). The person who first wrote down the story of Jack the Giant-Killer wasn't envisaging that the giants Jack was described as killing were, in reality, biologically feasible but radically non-human creatures who just happened to take human form!

Treating D&D as a sci-fi game seems ridiculous to me. I don't get it at all.

EDIT:


Maxperson said:


> Except that they are incredibly obviously not just scaled up humans.  They predate humans, being almost as old as dragons.  They have innate magic and resistances, such as immunity to cold and fire.  These things make it crystal clear that they are giants, a unique race, not just jumped up humans.  It's far more of an assumption to view their internal structure as human, than it is to view it as unique and supportive of their size.



I don't understand how you think this claim about the fiction of the game - which is absolutely laden with mythical and supernatural  notions - counts as evidence that giants in D&D are biological beings whose physical, chemical and biological nature conforms to that which is possible in the real world.

How do you think you are defending some form of scientific naturalism by pointing to supernatural, mythic "history"? It's just about the most basic category confusion I can think of.


----------



## heretic888

Maxperson said:


> Except that they are incredibly obviously not just scaled up humans.  They predate humans, being almost as old as dragons.  They have innate magic and resistances, such as immunity to cold and fire.  These things make it crystal clear that they are giants, a unique race, not just jumped up humans.  It's far more of an assumption to view their internal structure as human, than it is to view it as unique and supportive of their size.




Excellent point, I can concede that. My larger issue is more of the claim that giant humans are a biological possibility. They're not without some serious caveats.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> I'm talking about the real world. Are you asserting that D&D giants are biomechanically possible in the real world? If you are, that's interesting because I thought the general opinion was that, with the possible exception of fire giants, they are not.




If you are talking about DnD creatures in the "Real World" that are just big versions of normal creatures then I can not really help you.  It just seems like a faulty premise.



> Likewise with respect to arthropods - as per the webpage I linked to in my earlier reply to you, my understanding is that an arthropod the size of a D&D giant scorpion would (in the real world) not be able to respirate and would also have serious exoskeleton problems. Are you saying that the website is wrong?




I would say that you could not really apply the web site to DnD creatures at all, so it is not so much that it is wrong more not relevant.



> So what - giants in D&D have bones made of steel?
> 
> And they don't have lungs or other organst like humans do?




Not necessarily steel.  There is evidence that bone can support a bipedal creature that weighs 18,000kg but what kind of bones would a Fire Giant have?  Would it be logical to assume they were just "big human" bones?  I would not draw that conclusion.



> At what point do you accept the proposition that the physical, biological etc traits of the D&D world don't correspond to those in the real world? What do you think is at stake in saying "The physics is indistinguishable, it's just that the materials are different?" As if the nature of materials (biological and otherwise) in the real world was not itself a manifestation of physical properties.




If the best we have is to look at a picture or description and say, well it looks like a big human therefore it must be a big human, then you would expect that all the traits in the DnD world would correspond to the real world.  Afterall Fire Giants are Red and they have Fire Resistance therefore being Red must give humans Fire Resistance.



> In any event, the "Giant" entry in the AD&D MM opens with these words (p 44): "Giants are huge humanoids." As a feature of D&D, giants are inspired by fairy stories, myths etc about giants (eg this is why we have Cloud Giants). The person who first wrote down the story of Jack the Giant-Killer wasn't envisaging that the giants Jack was described as killing were, in reality, biologically feasible but radically non-human creatures who just happened to take human form!




So are you saying that imaginary creatures do not have to be the same as humans?  That sounds more like my definition of Giant as opposed to your claim that Giants could not even support their own weight.



> Treating D&D as a sci-fi game seems ridiculous to me. I don't get it at all.




I dont know what your definition of a sci-fi game would even mean.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> (2) That is inlcuded in my (iii): _it doesn't really make sense to think of the world of D&D using such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics_. A world in which beings have "innate magic" that combines with their muscualture to let them fly is not a world in which scientific categories such as _gravity _and _fluid mechanics_ have application. (Whichi was  [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]'s point some way upthread.)




It does make sense to view D&D as having such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics.  It just ALSO has magic, which when applied to the former, supersedes them.  The point you two are making not logical.  If the world didn't have gravity like we know it, dragons wouldn't NEED that magic to fly. 



> So what - giants in D&D have bones made of steel?




Nope.  Doesn't require steel.



> And they don't have lungs or other organst like humans do?




Sure they do.  Just not built like ours.



> At what point do you accept the proposition that the physical, biological etc traits of the D&D world don't correspond to those in the real world? What do you think is at stake in saying "The physics is indistinguishable, it's just that the materials are different?" As if the nature of materials (biological and otherwise) in the real world was not itself a manifestation of physical properties.




When they differ from the real world of course.  Giants in D&D are not human, so they wouldn't be built like humans inside.  Humans in D&D are human, so humans are built like humans inside.



> In any event, the "Giant" entry in the AD&D MM opens with these words (p 44): "Giants are huge humanoids." As a feature of D&D, giants are inspired by fairy stories, myths etc about giants (eg this is why we have Cloud Giants). The person who first wrote down the story of Jack the Giant-Killer wasn't envisaging that the giants Jack was described as killing were, in reality, biologically feasible but radically non-human creatures who just happened to take human form!




All humanoid has ever really meant in D&D was a mortal creature with two arms, two legs, a torso and a head in roughly the same spot as a human.  There are exceptions of course, but humanoid has never equated to human.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> I dont know what your definition of a sci-fi game would even mean.



A sci-fi game tends to treat the physical reality of the world as more-or-less obtaining, but then tweaks things with speculative technological developments, permitting FTL travel, or something similar.

But in a sci-fi game we are generally expected to think of biological things as having evolved through some combination of natural selection and biochemical processes; to think of stars and solar systems as having formed thorugh some combination of nuclear and gravitational processes; etc.

In my Classic Traveller game, the PCs have used medical laboratories to undertake biochemical examination of various living things from an alien world, to try and identify which ones evolved on that world and which ones came from elsewhere. (Traveller posits a world with a fairly high degree of interstellar colonisation by humans and other sentient beings.) That depends upon an assumption that the fictional world - although it is, in fact, most likely physically impossible because including FTL travel via "jump" drives and "gravitic field" generators - correlates to a high degree to the scientific reality of our world. There is also a broader underlying assumption that the world is a mechanistic one amenable to natural explanation via scientific means. 

None of these assumptions is true of the D&D world. Lifeforms in D&D are created, not evolved. The elements are air, earth, fire and water - plus (in some schemes) positive (life) and negative (death) energy. The performance of magical spells is commonplace.

This world seems obviously not amenable to any sort of explanation of the sort that would be recongisably scientific. It is not a mechanistic world; not a world in which the best explanations are naturalistic; not a world of processes amenable to mathematical modelling.



Shasarak said:


> So are you saying that imaginary creatures do not have to be the same as humans?  That sounds more like my definition of Giant as opposed to your claim that Giants could not even support their own weight.



I'm saying that once we start talking about human-like beings who can nevertheless support their own weight, we're talking about a world which has very different biomecanical proceses from our own. And once we toss in _magic_, there's no point in even trying to conceive of it as having _natural _processes in the _scientific_ sense at all.



Maxperson said:


> It does make sense to view D&D as having such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics.  It just ALSO has magic, which when applied to the former, supersedes them.  The point you two are making not logical.  If the world didn't have gravity like we know it, dragons wouldn't NEED that magic to fly.



Gravity as we know it - or, at least, as _I_ know it - is a univeral force that all masses exert upon all other masses. (Yes, my knowledge of gravity reflects Newtonian conceptions - my general relativity is weak to the point of non-existence. But I'll plough on.)

Aristotle, and Aristotle's toga-maker, both knew that dropped or otherwise unsupported objects fall to the ground, and that bats and birds need to flap their wings to take off. But they didn't think the world had gravity as I know it. The idea of universal gravitation was still about 2000 years ahead of them.

In other words, envisaging a world in which dragons need to flap their wings to fly is not the same thing as envisaging a world in which gravitation as I know it operates. And given that the only treatment of planetary motion in an official D&D sourcde that I'm aware of is Spelljammer, and it's account of planetary motion  has nothing to do with gravity at all, there is good reason to think that there is no universal gravitation in the D&D world.

What happens in the D&D world if a person tries to measure the density of their world by means of a torsion balance (a la Cavendish)? I think the rulebooks leave this a completely open question - or, rather, they assume that this won't happen.

Just the same as, in Traveller, the game just assumes that no one will actually ask what a jump drive is or how one works, because (of course) there is no coherent answer to that.

In any event, to return to the logic of the point that I am making (and that [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] has made):



Maxperson said:


> It does make sense to view D&D as having such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics.  It just ALSO has magic, which when applied to the former, supersedes them.



It's of the nature of scientific categories that they describe natural phenomena or natural processes that are not arbitrarily "superseded". That's what makes it science.

Consider this, from p 58 of Gygax's DMG, under the heading "Travel in the Known Planes of Existence":

uppose that you decide that there is a breathable atmosphere which extends from the earth to the moon, and that any winged steed capable of flying fast and far can carry its rider to that orb. Furthermore, once beyond the normal limits of earth's atmosphere, gravity and resistance are such that speed increases dramatically, and the whole journey will take but a few days. You must then decide what will be encountered during the course of the trip - perhaps a few new creatures in addition to the standard ones which you deem likely to be between earth and moon.

Then comes what conditions will be like upon Luna, and what will be found there, why, and so on. Perhaps here is where you place the gateways to yet other worlds. In short, you devise the whole schema just as you did the campaign, beginning from the dungeon and environs outward into the broad world - in this case the universe, and then the multiverse.​

The foundations of that are Edgar Rice Burroughs and co; not Newton, Einstein and Maxwell! There are tropes, but there is no default assumption that the world is one that resemble the real world in respect of gravity or fluid mechanics (given that he is positing that a flying horse can fly from the earth to the moon!).

That seems to me to be the whole point of the fantasy genre.


----------



## Ilbranteloth

heretic888 said:


> A little tangential here, but as a math teacher I wanted to address this point real quick...
> 
> Actually, "the physics" says precisely the opposite: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html
> 
> A giant with 3 times the proportional height, width, and length of a human being would not weigh 3 times as much. He or she would weigh 27 times as much (all other things being equal, volume is height cubed) as the human. The moment said giant stood up, most of the bones in his or her leg would collapse under the immense weight.
> 
> In other words, if a "human" averages 6 feet, 200 lbs then an 18 foot "giant" would weigh around 5400 lbs. You can't support that amount of weight without a deep structural change in the anatomical proportions of the organism: the result wouldn't be anything that remotely resembles a gigantic human, at least not in terms of musculature and skeletal structure.
> 
> An elephant is not a bipedal primate, nor is a tyrannosaur. Their musculature, bone structure, and anatomical proportions are totally different from ours.
> 
> There's a lot of stuff in D&D style games that is like this (dragons being able to fly with their listed weights and wingspans being an oft-cited example). D&D's world only obeys the laws of physics if by "physics" we mean, as pemerton suggested earlier, common sense tropes and not actual mathematics.




Or it follows real world physics except where it doesn’t. 

The most common answer is, you know, magic. There’s certainly no reason to throw out the physics that still work while introducing semi-magical beings that break those rules.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Kobold Boots said:


> or maybe, they were just targeting the 70% of the market that lies within 1 stdev of their market center and you were in the other 30%?
> 
> Sometimes the simplest answer isn't deception, it's perception.



Oh, certainly! I would have nothing against them, if they simply chose to make a game for a different audience. They did it with 4E, and I dropped it after a year, and I held them no animus for it. I found a different game that worked better for me.

The deception is that they specifically said that they were making a game for everyone, which could be played by fans of 3E or 4E. Setting aside how the 4E fans feel about that, for now, they clearly failed to make it functional for serious fans of 3E; there are all these glaring issues, which could have been easily patched around, but which were nevertheless implemented directly into the core material. It's like they didn't even have a 3E-fan on staff, to give the material a once-over.


ccs said:


> Boy did you ever take swig of that Marketing Cool-Aid back there in 2012/13....  What'd you do?  Roll in the negatives on your Wisdom save?



I'm not going to fault myself for believing their lies. I'm one of the victims here. They are the ones who lied, and so  the fault lies entirely with them.


ccs said:


> That said, it's not the designers fault if you can't persuade the other people at the table to change some rule...



It's not necessarily the fault of _these_ designers, if I can't persuade a prospective player to accept one or more house rules. Throughout all of 3E and 4E, though, the intended design goal was to move away from house rules and toward a more universal experience. Regardless of the cause, the current batch of prospective players is highly-resistant to house rules. Again, I'm not going to blame myself for that; I'm not the one who changed the environment.


----------



## Lanefan

heretic888 said:


> At that point, though, we're just speculating. From every appearance, giants are just scaled up humans.



As almost universally depicted, this is indeed the case...with a few exceptions e.g. cloud giants, astral giants, etc. that kind of aren't entirely made of the same stuff we are. 

The quite reasonable assumption we all make is that what's under the skin roughly mirrors what's under a human's skin.  To make them thusly and have them still be functional there has to be something else going on, and my educated guess would be magic.

Either that, or what's under a giant's skin differs quite significantly from what's under a human's skin.  Maybe there's an...well, not exactly an exoskeleton as it's not on the outside, but an internal framework skeleton a foot or so beneath the skin of the torso and legs that holds it all together...?  That, or their flesh is somehow less dense than ours?

Lan-"me, I'm going with the magic-based answer on this one"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> It does make sense to view D&D as having such scientific categories as gravity and fluid mechanics.  It just ALSO has magic, which when applied to the former, supersedes them.



Or works together with them to produce the in-game results we expect.



> The point you two are making not logical.  If the world didn't have gravity like we know it, dragons wouldn't NEED that magic to fly.



Though lots of other creatures would need some magic in order to stay on the ground... 



> All humanoid has ever really meant in D&D was a mortal creature with two arms, two legs, a torso and a head in roughly the same spot as a human.  There are exceptions of course, but humanoid has never equated to human.



More specifically, in D&D the term generally applies to "monstrous" 2-armed bipedal single-headed races as opposed to "kindred" races i.e. those available to be played as PCs.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> What happens in the D&D world if a person tries to measure the density of their world by means of a torsion balance (a la Cavendish)? I think the rulebooks leave this a completely open question - or, rather, they assume that this won't happen.



Beleive it or not, in my first year or two of playing this game - so, a long time ago - my character did almost exactly this!

Not with intent of measuring the density of the world, mind you.  We'd just gone through an odd teleporter and were wondering if we were even still on the same world - I did a few experiments with pendulums etc. on each side of the gate and showed the "new" world had about 80% of the gravity of our home world, which told us we were in fact jumping worlds or planes through that teleporter (gate).

Fortunately the DM had a degree in astronomy/physics and could easily keep up with what I was trying to do. 



> Just the same as, in Traveller, the game just assumes that no one will actually ask what a jump drive is or how one works, because (of course) there is no coherent answer to that.



Which is odd, because a constantly-recurring trope of travel-based adventuring is that your transportation needs repair or needs a whole new propulsion unit built out of whatever spare parts you have on hand.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Saelorn said:


> It's not necessarily the fault of _these_ designers, if I can't persuade a prospective player to accept one or more house rules. Throughout all of 3E and 4E, though, the intended design goal was to move away from house rules and toward a more universal experience. Regardless of the cause, the current batch of prospective players is highly-resistant to house rules.



And as it took 15-odd years to get things to this sad point, it'll probably take another 15 to get 'em back.  5e is merely a worthy start in that direction.


----------



## pemerton

Ilbranteloth said:


> Or it follows real world physics except where it doesn’t.





Lanefan said:


> cloud giants



In the AD&D MM, we are told (pp 44-5) that

cloud giants usually reside in crude castles built atop mountains or on magical cloud islands . . . 10% of cloud giants are very intelligent. These will be the ones found dwelling on cloud islands. . . .

The most powerful and respected true giant is the storm giant. . . . Their abodes are typically cloud islands (60%), mountain peaks (30%) or underwater (l0%), and there the storm giants build their spacious castles.​
What is a "magical cloud island"? What role does it play in the water cycle? If rain falls from a cloud island, does it get smaller? If rain can't fall from cloud islands, then why are they called _cloud_ islands at all? And does this mean that, in the D&D world, the connection between clouds and precipitation is much more arbitrary than in the real world?

At a certain point, the instances of "except when it doesn't" become so numerous that the sense in which it _does_ becomes hard for me to grasp.



Lanefan said:


> Which is odd, because a constantly-recurring trope of travel-based adventuring is that your transportation needs repair or needs a whole new propulsion unit built out of whatever spare parts you have on hand.



Look at it this way: if the player of a character in a standard CoC game says "I go to the physics lecture at the university", the GM can pick up an old physics textbook and start reading from it and the player will get an immersive experience. Or I could use my copy of Einstein on relativity as a prop.

But what happens if the player in Traveller says (in character) "I go to the introductory lecture on jump drives"? The GM can spout some babble or other, but there are not actual coherent things that can be said, or equations exhibited, to generate an immersive experience, because it's all just made-up nonsense.

But whereas this sort of pressure-point can come up in a sci-fi game, I don't think it is even really an issue in a fantasy game, as there is no assumption in a fantasy game that the world is knowable by way of natural laws. The supernatural element is what makes a fantasy game _fantasy_.


----------



## Ilbranteloth

pemerton said:


> In the AD&D MM, we are told (pp 44-5) that
> 
> cloud giants usually reside in crude castles built atop mountains or on magical cloud islands . . . 10% of cloud giants are very intelligent. These will be the ones found dwelling on cloud islands. . . .
> 
> The most powerful and respected true giant is the storm giant. . . . Their abodes are typically cloud islands (60%), mountain peaks (30%) or underwater (l0%), and there the storm giants build their spacious castles.​
> What is a "magical cloud island"? What role does it play in the water cycle? If rain falls from a cloud island, does it get smaller? If rain can't fall from cloud islands, then why are they called _cloud_ islands at all? And does this mean that, in the D&D world, the connection between clouds and precipitation is much more arbitrary than in the real world?
> 
> At a certain point, the instances of "except when it doesn't" become so numerous that the sense in which it _does_ becomes hard for me to grasp.




I thought you had a better imagination than that 

For me it’s simple. Things that have a real world counterpart work the same way. Things that don’t have a real world counterpart might work similarly to one, or not. In most cases it’s really not important to know. During the course of the game it’s probably only necessary to know that the giant weighs 2,000 lbs. it doesn’t really matter if that meets the laws of physics. 

On the other hand, when that giant throws a rock, the laws of physics can certainly help.  

Unless there’s a reason for me to specifically know something about a cloud island, it doesn’t matter much to me. I’d say no, once the magic has trapped the cloud into an island form it doesn’t interact with the water cycle at all. It doesn’t rain, and doesn’t get smaller. It doesn’t even have the proper properties of a cloud because you can walk on it and build a castle on it. Otherwise, until such a cloud is trapped and transformed by magic, it works the same as here.

See, that wasn’t so tough! I do like things to “make sense” and the reality is, I love being asked questions like those, or asking them myself. I actually do like magic to have its own internal laws too. This is all along the lines of the old Ecology Of... articles in Dragon magazine. Great fun as far as Im concerned, and one of those things that doesn’t necessarily directly impact the game either way. Although you can certainly work it into it.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> In the AD&D MM, we are told (pp 44-5) that
> 
> cloud giants usually reside in crude castles built atop mountains or on magical cloud islands . . . 10% of cloud giants are very intelligent. These will be the ones found dwelling on cloud islands. . . .
> 
> The most powerful and respected true giant is the storm giant. . . . Their abodes are typically cloud islands (60%), mountain peaks (30%) or underwater (l0%), and there the storm giants build their spacious castles.​
> What is a "magical cloud island"?



In my own view, it's something that was a cloud that one or more cloud giants have magically made solid enough for them and others to stand on, visually indistinguishable from a normal cloud (and as a weather geek I even note the cloud type!).  I also give cloud giants the ability to move these islands* in whatever direction they want, though they can't do much about the elevation; which can produce some odd visuals when one cloud is going a different direction from all the other clouds! 

If a giant doesn't set a direction then the cloud island will drift on the wind like any other cloud.

Oh, and if taken to a place where a cloud would normally evaporate a cloud island will not, though it might get a bit smaller.

* - I got this from a published 2e module, I think, but I forget which one...might have been the very late 2e-era Return To... giants module.



> What role does it play in the water cycle? If rain falls from a cloud island, does it get smaller? If rain can't fall from cloud islands, then why are they called _cloud_ islands at all?



Rain can't fall from them (they're usually not big enough anyway), but they're called cloud islands because they look just like clouds...to the point that someone walking on one could easily step from a solid bit to a real-cloud bit and fall through if not extremely careful.



> And does this mean that, in the D&D world, the connection between clouds and precipitation is much more arbitrary than in the real world?



Not really.  As I say, the size of cloud a cloud giant can turn into an island is 99% of the time not going to have enough moisture and-or internal vertical movement to produce precip anyway, so it's not something I really have to worry about.



> Look at it this way: if the player of a character in a standard CoC game says "I go to the physics lecture at the university", the GM can pick up an old physics textbook and start reading from it and the player will get an immersive experience. Or I could use my copy of Einstein on relativity as a prop.
> 
> But what happens if the player in Traveller says (in character) "I go to the introductory lecture on jump drives"? The GM can spout some babble or other, but there are not actual coherent things that can be said, or equations exhibited, to generate an immersive experience, because it's all just made-up nonsense.



Technobabble is a staple of the genre, isn't it? 



> But whereas this sort of pressure-point can come up in a sci-fi game, I don't think it is even really an issue in a fantasy game, as there is no assumption in a fantasy game that the world is knowable by way of natural laws. The supernatural element is what makes a fantasy game _fantasy_.



I assume that large parts of the prime-material are knowable by way of natural laws, with magic integrated into and part of them in a consisteny and internally-logical manner.

Lan-"thoguh internally logical to me might not, I admit, be logical at all to anyone else"-efan


----------



## pemerton

Ilbranteloth said:


> Unless there’s a reason for me to specifically know something about a cloud island, it doesn’t matter much to me. I’d say no, once the magic has trapped the cloud into an island form it doesn’t interact with the water cycle at all. It doesn’t rain, and doesn’t get smaller.



And are you confident that I can't find a D&D scenario somewhere in which the PCs fly up through rain, pass through the clouds into sunshine, only to see a giant's castle on top of it?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Gravity as we know it - or, at least, as _I_ know it - is a univeral force that all masses exert upon all other masses. (Yes, my knowledge of gravity reflects Newtonian conceptions - my general relativity is weak to the point of non-existence. But I'll plough on.)
> 
> Aristotle, and Aristotle's toga-maker, both knew that dropped or otherwise unsupported objects fall to the ground, and that bats and birds need to flap their wings to take off. But they didn't think the world had gravity as I know it. The idea of universal gravitation was still about 2000 years ahead of them.
> 
> In other words, envisaging a world in which dragons need to flap their wings to fly is not the same thing as envisaging a world in which gravitation as I know it operates. And given that the only treatment of planetary motion in an official D&D sourcde that I'm aware of is Spelljammer, and it's account of planetary motion  has nothing to do with gravity at all, there is good reason to think that there is no universal gravitation in the D&D world.




It doesn't matter if Aristotle and his toga maker knew about gravity or envisioned it.  It existed for them the same as it does for you.  The same applies to D&D.  Feel free not to envision gravity when you play.  Nothing is requiring you to, but the fact that you need wings to fly, things fall when you drop them, you have limited jumping ability due to the force pulling you back down, you have weight, etc., means that there is gravity in D&D, even if it is not precisely mirroring the real world.



> It's of the nature of scientific categories that they describe natural phenomena or natural processes that are not arbitrarily "superseded". That's what makes it science.




That only applies to the real world, not D&D where magic can supersede it.  The real world doesn't have magic that can do that.  If it did, then science would add it to the definition and define physics in terms of "except when magic counters things."  



> Consider this, from p 58 of Gygax's DMG, under the heading "Travel in the Known Planes of Existence":
> uppose that you decide that there is a breathable atmosphere which extends from the earth to the moon, and that any winged steed capable of flying fast and far can carry its rider to that orb. Furthermore, once beyond the normal limits of earth's atmosphere, gravity and resistance are such that speed increases dramatically, and the whole journey will take but a few days. You must then decide what will be encountered during the course of the trip - perhaps a few new creatures in addition to the standard ones which you deem likely to be between earth and moon.​





Yes, magic can alter things and physics doesn't have to exactly mirror the real world.  He was big on not trying to simulate reality.  That doesn't mean that an approximation of physics wasn't in his game.​


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> In the AD&D MM, we are told (pp 44-5) that
> 
> cloud giants usually reside in crude castles built atop mountains or on magical cloud islands . . . 10% of cloud giants are very intelligent. These will be the ones found dwelling on cloud islands. . . .
> 
> The most powerful and respected true giant is the storm giant. . . . Their abodes are typically cloud islands (60%), mountain peaks (30%) or underwater (l0%), and there the storm giants build their spacious castles.​
> What is a "magical cloud island"? What role does it play in the water cycle? If rain falls from a cloud island, does it get smaller? If rain can't fall from cloud islands, then why are they called _cloud_ islands at all? And does this mean that, in the D&D world, the connection between clouds and precipitation is much more arbitrary than in the real world?
> 
> At a certain point, the instances of "except when it doesn't" become so numerous that the sense in which it _does_ becomes hard for me to grasp.




That applies to everything in the game.  A game by nature can't come close to encompassing all the things that might happen out there or might need to be answered.  The answer to your questions is that the DM decides. But we do know that weather happens, regardless of whether or not cloud giant clouds can rain on things.  We do know that things fall and so on due to an approximation of gravity.  We do know that sans magic, swords don't swing themselves and need an approximation of physics to act on them somehow if they are to move.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Saelorn said:


> The deception is that they specifically said that they were making a game for everyone, which could be played by fans of 3E or 4E. Setting aside how the 4E fans feel about that, for now, they clearly failed to make it functional for serious fans of 3E; there are all these glaring issues, which could have been easily patched around, but which were nevertheless implemented directly into the core material. It's like they didn't even have a 3E-fan on staff, to give the material a once-over.




I hear you.  I think though that there's some room to wiggle when the designers say that 4e could be enjoyed by people who play 3e.  I don't think it was deceptive marketing as much as it was an underestimation of what the most vocal 20% of the fan base could do to influence another 20-30 percent.  Combine that with allowing a legal situation where Paizo could create Pathfinder and it borders on incompetence as far as business is concerned.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> And as it took 15-odd years to get things to this sad point, it'll probably take another 15 to get 'em back.  5e is merely a worthy start in that direction.




It's funny how "will appeal to fans of all editions" got interpreted to mean "will meet the strict requirements of the most extreme zealots."

Actually, because I'm curious, can you (or @_*Saelorn*_ or anybody else) provide me with a specific quote from WotC that you think is evidence of a broken promise?  

(With full acknowledgement that the above quote is not evidence that you are in the camp; all it actually implies is that you are disappointed with 5e, not that you think they broke promises to get there.  So apologies if I made incorrect assumptions.)


----------



## Sadras

nevermind


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Elfcrusher said:


> It's funny how "will appeal to fans of all editions" got interpreted to mean "will meet the strict requirements of the most extreme zealots."



It's not an extreme position to suggest that players not meta-game. Not meta-gaming is literally the fundamental premise of role-playing - that you approach everything in-character, rather than treating it like a board game. It was a very, very low bar which they failed to clear.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Kobold Boots said:


> I hear you.  I think though that there's some room to wiggle when the designers say that 4e could be enjoyed by people who play 3e.  I don't think it was deceptive marketing as much as it was an underestimation of what the most vocal 20% of the fan base could do to influence another 20-30 percent.



Some people who enjoyed 3E could also enjoy 4E, because there are a lot of similarities, but the differences were significant enough to fracture the player base. In the aftermath of 4E, fans of 3E distinguish themselves from fans of 4E on the basis of those changes; the things that 3E fans enjoy about 3E are the things that 4E killed off, like rules-as-physics and maintaining-actor-stance.

When 5E was in the later stages of development, and they said that it would have optional rules to let fans of 3E and fans of 4E keep playing they way that they liked, that feels like a lie. Those options were never included. So either they never intended to include those options (i.e. it was all a malicious lie, intended to deceive), or they tried and failed because they didn't understand what players actually enjoyed about those games (i.e. they were not competent enough to deliver on that promise).


----------



## Lanefan

Saelorn said:


> When 5E was in the later stages of development, and they said that it would have optional rules to let fans of 3E and fans of 4E keep playing they way that they liked, that feels like a lie. Those options were never included. So either they never intended to include those options (i.e. it was all a malicious lie, intended to deceive), or they tried and failed because they didn't understand what players actually enjoyed about those games (i.e. they were not competent enough to deliver on that promise).



Or it could be that the two editions are simply so different that one game can't functionally contain both.

Lan-"and my preference would be that it try to contain neither, as I don't much like either 3e or 4e"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> It's funny how "will appeal to fans of all editions" got interpreted to mean "will meet the strict requirements of the most extreme zealots."
> 
> Actually, because I'm curious, can you (or @_*Saelorn*_ or anybody else) provide me with a specific quote from WotC that you think is evidence of a broken promise?
> 
> (With full acknowledgement that the above quote is not evidence that you are in the camp; all it actually implies is that you are disappointed with 5e, not that you think they broke promises to get there.  So apologies if I made incorrect assumptions.)



I'm actually not disappointed with 5e - I see it as a rather big improvement on the previous two, in fact.

And I've no complaints about WotC breaking any promises.  My point was simply that 5e by design will maybe start to undo some of the damage 3e and 4e did in terms of acceptance of house rules and DM rulings.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lanefan said:


> Or it could be that the two editions are simply so different that one game can't functionally contain both.
> 
> Lan-"and my preference would be that it try to contain neither, as I don't much like either 3e or 4e"-efan



So you're saying that it could be a combination of the two? They didn't necessarily intend it as a lie, but they were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task once they attempted it (_i.e._ their marketing wrote a check that their design skills couldn't cash)?


----------



## Arilyn

Elfcrusher said:


> It's funny how "will appeal to fans of all editions" got interpreted to mean "will meet the strict requirements of the most extreme zealots."
> 
> Actually, because I'm curious, can you (or @_*Saelorn*_ or anybody else) provide me with a specific quote from WotC that you think is evidence of a broken promise?
> 
> (With full acknowledgement that the above quote is not evidence that you are in the camp; all it actually implies is that you are disappointed with 5e, not that you think they broke promises to get there.  So apologies if I made incorrect assumptions.)




I believe it started during the early days of 5e when Monte Cook had a contract with WOTC. Cook was doing weekly articles on DnD Next, and in one of those articles he stated that the game would be modular, and that players would have room to play in their preferred style, from 1st to 4th. Even at the same table, player 1 could have a 2e style character and player 2, a 4e style character. Probably not workable.

I believe he was just musing, but it was taken as the game's philosophy, and not forgotten...


----------



## Guest 6801328

Saelorn said:


> So you're saying that it could be a combination of the two? They didn't necessarily intend it as a lie, but they were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task once they attempted it (_i.e._ their marketing wrote a check that their design skills couldn't cash)?




It seems like you are _determined_ to reach a conclusion that reflects badly on WotC.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Elfcrusher said:


> It seems like you are _determined_ to reach a conclusion that reflects badly on WotC.



The game already reflects poorly on WotC. This is just a semantic question, of how to best classify their folly.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Saelorn said:


> It's not an extreme position to suggest that players not meta-game. Not meta-gaming is literally the fundamental premise of role-playing - that you approach everything in-character, rather than treating it like a board game. It was a very, very low bar which they failed to clear.




I think I need you to step through the swimlane for me of how what you're saying regarding the metagame has anything to do with what EC was saying about the differences between 3e and 4e and how zealotry is involved with being in the center of the market for the game from the vendor's perspective.

Granted, we're on the hook for going on a tangent.  However, I'm not following the metagame association besides the convo being in the thread.  Might just be me.

KB


----------



## Kobold Boots

Arilyn said:


> I believe it started during the early days of 5e when Monte Cook had a contract with WOTC. Cook was doing weekly articles on DnD Next, and in one of those articles he stated that the game would be modular, and that players would have room to play in their preferred style, from 1st to 4th. Even at the same table, player 1 could have a 2e style character and player 2, a 4e style character. Probably not workable.
> 
> I believe he was just musing, but it was taken as the game's philosophy, and not forgotten...




At the point where Monte walked away from the Next design team, anything that he mused about should have been understood to be null and void from an expectations perspective.  

You're not wrong.  I remember reading that and being psyched.  But I also know that when people don't work somewhere anymore it's not usually because they're doing what the company wants in the way they direct.

Of course the other side of the argument is Monte saying "You guys are fubar" and walking off but the truth is somewhere in between as it always is and folks on the outside looking in should really know better.

Thanks,
KB

(edit - any tone that may be read into my reply is not directed at you, if it exists I'd be aiming that at those who are holding WoTC to an intentionally negative outcome due to the words of someone who wasn't working there by the time the product hit the shelf.)


----------



## Arilyn

Kobold Boots said:


> At the point where Monte walked away from the Next design team, anything that he mused about should have been understood to be null and void from an expectations perspective.
> 
> You're not wrong.  I remember reading that and being psyched.  But I also know that when people don't work somewhere anymore it's not usually because they're doing what the company wants in the way they direct.
> 
> Of course the other side of the argument is Monte saying "You guys are fubar" and walking off but the truth is somewhere in between as it always is and folks on the outside looking in should really know better.
> 
> Thanks,
> KB
> 
> (edit - any tone that may be read into my reply is not directed at you, if it exists I'd be aiming that at those who are holding WoTC to an intentionally negative outcome due to the words of someone who wasn't working there by the time the product hit the shelf.)




Yes, it was also early in the design phase. Things change. Sometimes best intentions are unworkable.


----------



## Maxperson

Arilyn said:


> Yes, it was also early in the design phase. Things change. Sometimes best intentions are unworkable.




I can't remember them saying that it had changed, though.  If you're going to announce a design idea that you plan on accomplishing, it's probably a good idea to let people know that it was scrapped as unworkable as soon as you realize it.


----------



## Ilbranteloth

Saelorn said:


> The game already reflects poorly on WotC. This is just a semantic question, of how to best classify their folly.




Yeah, while there may be a few that agree with you, the game and edition is selling better and more popular than pretty much any prior one. From WotC’s perspective it is an incredible success and it would appear that there is a significant portion of the gaming community that agrees.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Maxperson said:


> I can't remember them saying that it had changed, though.  If you're going to announce a design idea that you plan on accomplishing, it's probably a good idea to let people know that it was scrapped as unworkable as soon as you realize it.




I agree with this in practice, but lets be honest.  Either "you're fired" or "I'm outta here" is about as obvious a clue that one can leave for people to figure it out.  No one expects a new boss to be the same as the old boss, or a movie to be the same when a director gets fired, so the only reason why anyone should expect nothing to have changed would be naivete.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Ilbranteloth said:


> Yeah, while there may be a few that agree with you, the game and edition is selling better and more popular than pretty much any prior one. From WotC’s perspective it is an incredible success and it would appear that there is a significant portion of the gaming community that agrees.




He's referring to 4e, you're referring to 5e.


----------



## Maxperson

Kobold Boots said:


> I agree with this in practice, but lets be honest.  Either "you're fired" or "I'm outta here" is about as obvious a clue that one can leave for people to figure it out.  No one expects a new boss to be the same as the old boss, or a movie to be the same when a director gets fired, so the only reason why anyone should expect nothing to have changed would be naivete.




It's a bit different when it's a team.  When he says "We are going to do X," it has the appearance of being more involved than just him.  A new boss will also often not change major things.  Minor things, sure.  Those get changed all over the place, but major pieces will often remain the same as $$$, often significant $$$ have already been spent trying to accomplish those things.  I didn't and wouldn't assume that the modular idea was dropped just because of a change in management.


----------



## Ilbranteloth

Kobold Boots said:


> He's referring to 4e, you're referring to 5e.




Ahhh. It was hard to follow. Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> I'm saying that once we start talking about human-like beings who can nevertheless support their own weight, we're talking about a world which has very different biomecanical proceses from our own. And once we toss in _magic_, there's no point in even trying to conceive of it as having _natural _processes in the _scientific_ sense at all.




Some one made the statement that if a Giant stood up then its bones would break under its own weight.  And yet you find that bone can support at least 18,000kg of weight, which is much more then required to support a Giant.

So, even without adding in Magic, basic physics already disproves the crippled Giant theory.

Someone said that Giants could not get enough oxygen to breath and yet we already have creatures bigger then Giants that can get enough oxygen to breath.

So, even without adding in Magic, basic physics already disproves the choking Giant theory.

The main problem that I see is that people try to use Magic to explain concepts that basic physics already covers.


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> And I've no complaints about WotC breaking any promises.  My point was simply that 5e by design will maybe start to undo some of the damage 3e and 4e did in terms of acceptance of house rules and DM rulings.




3e and the d20 system have so many variations built on them that I find it very hard to believe that there was anything intrinsically anti-house rule about it except for the fact that it actually presented a cohesive system rather then a giant grab bag of optional rules.


----------



## Emerikol

I think this thread has devolved into three different threads.

Why don't you guys obsessed with giant's legs go get a thread of your own .

I appreciate the one guys advice but it was mostly "just think about them differently" which wasn't really what I was after in this thread.

As for WOTC, I am still undecided on whether they just chose to ignore us when not ignoring was almost free OR whether they really had no one one staff that fully understood our viewpoint.

When you design a game with essentially built in subclasses, you would think the controversial mechanics would go in the subclasses.  You would think you'd then design subclasses that basically appealed to the different styles.  By building second wind, action surge, etc.   into the base they ruined every subclass.  Again who knows what they were thinking.  Bawylie in a short time gave an easy option they could have used.  So I don't think it is design skill.

And while people who are really bugged by some of these things are rare, the cost to add them to their playerbase is really small.


----------



## Ted Serious

Lanefan said:


> I'm actually not disappointed with 5e - I see it as a rather big improvement on the previous two, in fact.
> 
> And I've no complaints about WotC breaking any promises.  My point was simply that 5e by design will maybe start to undo some of the damage 3e and 4e did in terms of acceptance of house rules and DM rulings.




Which edition do you actually play?

I don't understand how 3e making the game good enough that you didn't have to house rule it is damage.

Most house rules are bad.
Professionals make better rules than amateurs.
DMs running just so they can impose their house rules probably have some agenda.

If you run and play by RAW you all know what your getting.

The TSR period sounds like the 60s or Episode IV or the golden age of comics or Nirvana.
  It's only great if you were there for it.


----------



## Shasarak

Ted Serious said:


> The TSR period sounds like the 60s or Episode IV or the golden age of comics or Nirvana.
> It's only great if you were there for it.




You mean it was only great when you remember it 20 years later after you have forgotten all the bad bits?

=;O)

Makes me feel all nostalgic for nostalgia.


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> I think this thread has devolved into three different threads.
> 
> Why don't you guys obsessed with giant's legs go get a thread of your own .
> 
> I appreciate the one guys advice but it was mostly "just think about them differently" which wasn't really what I was after in this thread.
> 
> As for WOTC, I am still undecided on whether they just chose to ignore us when not ignoring was almost free OR whether they really had no one one staff that fully understood our viewpoint.
> 
> When you design a game with essentially built in subclasses, you would think the controversial mechanics would go in the subclasses.  You would think you'd then design subclasses that basically appealed to the different styles.  By building second wind, action surge, etc.   into the base they ruined every subclass.  Again who knows what they were thinking.  Bawylie in a short time gave an easy option they could have used.  So I don't think it is design skill.
> 
> And while people who are really bugged by some of these things are rare, the cost to add them to their playerbase is really small.




Oh man, I am so sorry.  I thought for sure by 36 pages in that someone would have solved your problem by now.

So, have you tried pretending that your character can only cast the Action Surge spell a limited number of times per day?  Seems like that would solve your metagame problem.


----------



## heretic888

Shasarak said:


> Some one made the statement that if a Giant stood up then its bones would break under its own weight.  And yet you find that bone can support at least 18,000kg of weight, which is much more then required to support a Giant.
> 
> So, even without adding in Magic, basic physics already disproves the crippled Giant theory.
> 
> Someone said that Giants could not get enough oxygen to breath and yet we already have creatures bigger then Giants that can get enough oxygen to breath.
> 
> So, even without adding in Magic, basic physics already disproves the choking Giant theory.
> 
> The main problem that I see is that people try to use Magic to explain concepts that basic physics already covers.




Yeah, that would be me. And, once again, the "basic physics" says precisely the opposite of what you claim. Here are the articles I linked before (one of which is from the University of Virginia's physics department). I would suggest actually reading them this time:

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/giant-bfg-shouldnt-just-look-like-giant-human/

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html

*puts on math teacher hat* Look, guys, this isn't that complicated. A human being scaled up times 3 --- meaning, the same anatomical proportions but 3 times the height, 3 times the width, and 3 times the depth --- will weigh 27 times as much, because volume = length times height times depth and 3 times 3 times 3 = 27. So, basically, your suggesting a given column of support (say, an ankle bone) can be 3 times as thick yet somehow support 27 times as much weight. It just doesn't add up.

This is really, really basic stuff. Like, I teach this kind of stuff to my 8th graders basic.

Trotting out the T-Rex over and over is irrelevant because a T-Rex is not a scaled up human being. Their skeletal, circulatory, and respiratory systems are totally different from ours (they have more in common with birds than primates). Seriously, look at a T-Rex skeleton side by side with a human skeleton. Their leg bones are *massively* thicker in terms of relative proportions than ours are. All large animals are like that. Their bone structure is very, very different from that of smaller animals.

The only way to explain giants-as-scaled-up-humans is to basically wave our hands and say Its Magic! There certainly isn't any math to support their physiology.


----------



## Shasarak

heretic888 said:


> Yeah, that would be me. And, once again, the "basic physics" says precisely the opposite of what you claim. Here are the articles I linked before (one of which is from the University of Virginia's physics department). I would suggest actually reading them this time:
> 
> https://www.wired.com/2016/07/giant-bfg-shouldnt-just-look-like-giant-human/
> 
> http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/scaling.html
> 
> *puts on math teacher hat* Look, guys, this isn't that complicated. A human being scaled up times 3 --- meaning, the same anatomical proportions but 3 times the height, 3 times the width, and 3 times the depth --- will weigh 27 times as much, because volume = length times height times depth and 3 times 3 times 3 = 27. So, basically, your suggesting a given column of support (say, an ankle bone) can be 3 times as thick yet somehow support 27 times as much weight. It just doesn't add up.
> 
> This is really, really basic stuff. Like, I teach this kind of stuff to my 8th graders basic.
> 
> Trotting out the T-Rex over and over is irrelevant because a T-Rex is not a scaled up human being. Their skeletal, circulatory, and respiratory systems are totally different from ours (they have more in common with birds than primates). Seriously, look at a T-Rex skeleton side by side with a human skeleton. Their leg bones are *massively* thicker in terms of relative proportions than ours are. All large animals are like that. Their bone structure is very, very different from that of smaller animals.
> 
> The only way to explain giants-as-scaled-up-humans is to basically wave our hands and say Its Magic! There certainly isn't any math to support their physiology.




A normal sized thigh bone can support up to 30 times the weight of a human.

Now I am no Maths teacher but it seems to me that 30 times support is greater then 27 times weight.  And of course that is without taking into account any strengthening that would occur by making the bone three times as big.

Maybe you could run the math past one of your 8th graders to see if my calculations have any errors?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Saelorn said:


> The game already reflects poorly on WotC. This is just a semantic question, of how to best classify their folly.




Except that obviously a stupendous number of seem to like the game.  What exactly is their folly?

I look at a game like...oh, all the Fantasy Flight Star Wars variants...and I just have zero desire to play.  It's not at all how I would write a Star Wars RPG.  It's pretty much the antithesis of what I look for in a game.

However my reaction isn't, "those morons at Fantasy Flight."  No, I think, "Hmm...I guess a lot of people have tastes that are totally different than mine.  That's a bummer, because I'd really like a good Star Wars rpg."

And yet _your_ conclusion about 5e...despite its staggering success...is that WotC is a combination of malicious and incompetent.  

That just comes across as staggeringly arrogant and delusional.


----------



## heretic888

Shasarak said:


> A normal sized thigh bone can support up to 30 times the weight of a human.
> 
> Now I am no Maths teacher but it seems to me that 30 times support is greater then 27 times weight.  And of course that is without taking into account any strengthening that would occur by making the bone three times as big.
> 
> Maybe you could run the math past one of your 8th graders to see if my calculations have any errors?




That would be a compelling argument if every bone in the human body were as strong as the femur. They're not. A giant's ankles would snap as soon as they stood up.

Look, this is a pointless diversion. If you're not going to both to read the articles I provided with actual physicists and mathematicians explaining why giant humans are physically impossible, there is no point in discussing further.


----------



## Lanefan

Ted Serious said:


> Which edition do you actually play?



Modified 1e now.  3e in the past.

Which edition do I own?  All of 'em except 3.5.



> I don't understand how 3e making the game good enough that you didn't have to house rule it is damage.



The damage is that the trend - started with 3e and continued through 4e - of seeing house rules as a bad thing is, in my view, damaging to the game.  One of the foundational tenets of early-era games (not just D&D) boiled down to "here's the framework, now do what you have to do to make the game your own"...which means anyone willing to do some lifting ended up with the game s/he wanted to run.  5e has gone back to that, but is now fighting this misguided perception that houserules are a bad thing.



> Most house rules are bad.



A misguided perception you, unfortunately, seem to share.


> Professionals make better rules than amateurs.



That's up for debate.  The only difference between a pro and an amateur is the pro gets paid to do it while an amateur does it for the sheer joy/love/hell of it.


> DMs running just so they can impose their house rules probably have some agenda.



Pretty much the entire game system I run is a great big houserule: 35+ years of modifications to 1e.

Do I have an agenda?  To make what seems like a fun and playable game, yes.  To make campaigns last longer than the base design assumes, yes.  Beyond that?  You'd have to play at my table to tell for yourself, though you're welcome to check out some of our* rules etc. at www.friendsofgravity.com/games (copy and paste this if you want to go there later, google will not find it) then click on "Commons Room".

* - it's not just me doing this, there's been a number of us over the years and more than just me are still at it.  And it's still a work in progress, and likely always will be.



> If you run and play by RAW you all know what your getting.



Yes, you're >99% of the time getting a game that - while playable as it sits - isn't exactly what you and-or your players want.

3e didn't give any of us what we wanted as written.  The DM (not me) went through it and made various mods to try and bring it more in line with what we were after, and while this worked fine for the short-medium term, eventually too many accumulated knock-on effects eventually forced him to go to a much-closer-to-RAW 3.5 when it came out.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Kobold Boots said:


> I agree with this in practice, but lets be honest.  Either "you're fired" or "I'm outta here" is about as obvious a clue that one can leave for people to figure it out.  No one expects a new boss to be the same as the old boss, or a movie to be the same when a director gets fired, so the only reason why anyone should expect nothing to have changed would be naivete.



Problem is, it seems there's a bunch of people like me who heard/read that quote at the time, attributed it to the design team as a whole, took it in, accepted and approved of it as a pleasant fact of 5e design, and went about our day.

I never knew the specific person who said it had left, as I never knew - and never cared - which specific person said it in the first place.

It came from the design team - good enough for me - and they never really walked it back that I know of.  Therefore, it's IMO perfectly reasonable to view the reality of 5e in light of what was said during the design phase.  I don't think anyone lied, I just think they set themselves what turned out to be an impossible goal and settled for getting as close as they could.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> Problem is, it seems there's a bunch of people like me who heard/read that quote at the time, attributed it to the design team as a whole, took it in, accepted and approved of it as a pleasant fact of 5e design, and went about our day.




Is it possible that an early-stage design goal somehow morphed over time, in the minds of some fans, into a "promise"?


----------



## Guest 6801328

Shasarak said:


> Oh man, I am so sorry.  I thought for sure by 36 pages in that someone would have solved your problem by now.
> 
> So, have you tried pretending that your character can only cast the Action Surge spell a limited number of times per day?  Seems like that would solve your metagame problem.




Ha!  

I have another solution:
 - Your character will use Action Surge every chance he gets.
 - You, the player, are responsible for narrating circumstances such that he only actually gets that chance once per day.  At most.  E.g., "I'd love to dig deep and attack twice, but that kobold's ferocious attack has me off-balance and I'm just not feeling it."  Or, "Those rations I ate during our last short...err, 1-hour...rest must have been in my Explorer's Pack too long. I feel nauseous."  

Your character doesn't _know_ he isn't allowed to use Action Surge twice, he just can't seem to find an opportunity to do so.

Also, a question: how do you take turns?  I mean, from your character's point of view everything is simultaneous.  So if you, the player, patiently wait your turn, aren't you using information your character wouldn't have?  To really immerse yourself in your actor stance roleplay, I think you should interrupt everybody else at the table.  Constantly.


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> Is it possible that an early-stage design goal somehow morphed over time, in the minds of some fans, into a "promise"?



Not only possible, but highly likely.  It certainly resonated more than most things the design team said during that period.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Emerikol said:


> As for WOTC, I am still undecided on whether they just chose to ignore us when not ignoring was almost free OR whether they really had no one one staff that fully understood our viewpoint.




Given that it's not so hard to understand, I'm guessing it was A.  I suspect Mike Mearles listened to you, patiently nodding (while thinking "oh my god...it's that dissociative mechanics guy again...), said something polite (which you may have misinterpreted as agreement), and walked away thinking, "Not in a million years.  There are approximately 8 gamers on the planet who care that much about the issue."



> When you design a game with essentially built in subclasses, you would think the controversial mechanics would go in the subclasses.  You would think you'd then design subclasses that basically appealed to the different styles.  By building second wind, action surge, etc.   into the base they ruined every subclass.  Again who knows what they were thinking.  Bawylie in a short time gave an easy option they could have used.  So I don't think it is design skill.




How are you determining "controversial".  As you allude to below, not many people actually find daily-use martial skills controversial.

Can we call each of my gripes about 5e "controversial", too?

(That said, I find almost everything Bawylie says to be thoughtful and intelligent, so now I'm curious what his stance is on this issue.)



> And while people who are really bugged by some of these things are rare, the cost to add them to their playerbase is really small.




What does that look like?  For example, if everybody except a few of you like Action Surge and Second Wind, then how do you do that?  Put Action Surge and Second Wind into every subclass except the one that has been earmarked for anti-daily-martial-skill people?


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> What does that look like?  For example, if everybody except a few of you like Action Surge and Second Wind, then how do you do that?  Put Action Surge and Second Wind into every subclass except the one that has been earmarked for anti-daily-martial-skill people?



Simple.

Make them feats, available only to certain classes; then make feats (individual or collective) a non-essential optional element of the game.


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> Simple.
> 
> Make them feats, available only to certain classes; then make feats (individual or collective) a non-essential optional element of the game.




I don't think that works very well.  If getting those abilities are a "non-essential, optional" element, it means I have to give something up to get them.  What would I be giving up? 

Also, one of the things I hate about Feats is that they are optional.  That is, the way they made them optional sucks, because taking the ASI is almost always better than taking the Feat, unless you take one of the overused and overpowered cookie-cutter Feats like GWM.

No thanks.  That's making the thing I like least about 5e even worse, all for the sake of keeping a handful of zealots happy.  But of course they _still_ won't be happy because they also hate HP, HD, and just about every other aspect of D&D....


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> I don't think that works very well.  If getting those abilities are a "non-essential, optional" element, it means I have to give something up to get them.  What would I be giving up?
> 
> Also, one of the things I hate about Feats is that they are optional.  That is, the way they made them optional sucks, because taking the ASI is almost always better than taking the Feat, unless you take one of the overused and overpowered cookie-cutter Feats like GWM.



Oops - forgot I wasn't thinking to myself.  In my mind I always just see ASIs as another type of feat, as mechanically that's about what it is: an unnamed feat that lets you gain a couple of stat points instead of whatever ability you'd get if you chose a named feat.

I'm just trying to think of a way to take those disiked abilities out for some tables yet keep 'em in for others.  Making them feats and then making feats - together with ASIs! - optional; or up-front making each individual feat optional for a DM to include or exclude from her game, seems the simplest from here.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Some one made the statement that if a Giant stood up then its bones would break under its own weight.  And yet you find that bone can support at least 18,000kg of weight, which is much more then required to support a Giant.





Shasarak said:


> A normal sized thigh bone can support up to 30 times the weight of a human.



 [MENTION=60326]heretic888[/MENTION] has already pointed out that the issues aren't with thigh bones.

As well as the ankle, I would have thought that giants might have pelvis issues, and also problems with musculature given the human-like nature of their bipedalism. It's certainly the case that a human scaled up to giant size would be unable to stand or walk.



Shasarak said:


> Someone said that Giants could not get enough oxygen to breath and yet we already have creatures bigger then Giants that can get enough oxygen to breath.



I don't know whether a giant's lungs, given its proportionately human chest cavity, would give it enough oxygen, and whether its circulatory system would be up to the job of getting it to all the relevant parts of its body.

I think its brain is quite a bit bigger than a T-Rex's, given it can speak and use tools and in some cases (eg some cloud giants, all storm giants) is cleverer than a typical human. I'm not a biologist, but I suspect that puts demands on its respiratory and circulatory system that are different from a T-Rex or even an elephant.

Anyway, what I said was that I don't think a giant scorpion could respirate. I also think it would have trouble with its exoskeleton. Not having done my own research, nor studied much biology, I linked to a sensible-looking website which seemed to confirm these conjectures (including suggesting that 4-ish kg is the maximum feasible size for a land arthropod). Do you think that website was wrong?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> A game by nature can't come close to encompassing all the things that might happen out there or might need to be answered.



A game that doesn't have fantasy or sci-fi elements can do this. And some sci-fi games can do this too. Because in those games it really is the case that you can extrapolate from real-world scientifc knowledge should you wish to.



Maxperson said:


> [Gygax]was big on not trying to simulate reality.  That doesn't mean that an approximation of physics wasn't in his game.



What bit of physics, approximated, is part of AD&D as published by TSR? Not nuclear physics (because the elements are air, earth, fire and water). Not chemistry (see previous point). Not biology (many creatures, certainly sentient ones, are created, and have non-material components - minds/spirits/souls - that generate material effects, like movements of body parts when the mind wills it). What's left, besides a few remnants of common sense that were common knowledge among human beings long before the idea of physics as a science was even conceived of?



Maxperson said:


> Feel free not to envision gravity when you play.  Nothing is requiring you to, but the fact that you need wings to fly, things fall when you drop them, you have limited jumping ability due to the force pulling you back down, you have weight, etc., means that there is gravity in D&D



No it doesn't, because none of those things show that gravity exists! Aristotle knew all those things, but knew nothing of gravity. _Gravity_ does not mean "unsupported things fall to earth and can't just take off from it". Even a 3 year old knows that. _Gravity_ means that a force obtains between all masses, proportionate in some fashion to their product. None of the things you mention show that such a force exists.

If a D&D character could replicate the Cavendish torsion balance experiment, _that_ would show that gravity is part of the gameworld. But no D&D book I've ever read has discussed the result of that experiment, or whether the equipment and knowledge needed to perform it (eg wires which have a calculable constant torque) is available. And for good reason! - it's not a sci-fi game, it's a fantasy one.



Maxperson said:


> It doesn't matter if Aristotle and his toga maker knew about gravity or envisioned it.  It existed for them the same as it does for you.  The same applies to D&D.



Well, Aristotle lived in a real world that had properties (like universal gravitation) that he was unaware of.

But I think we all agree that the D&D world is not real, and hence does not have mind-independent properties in the same way.

If Aristotle, rather than Gygax, had written the DMG very little about it would have to be different (it alludes to some technologies and some social forms that Aristotlte didn't know about). He certainly wouldn't have had to change any of the rules around falling damage, nor dragon flight, nor Gygax's discussion of flying to the moon on a winged steed.

I think that's a sufficient demonstration that nothing in Gygax's DMG assumes that _physics_ (as opposed to common sense - dropped objects fall, creatures without wings can't fly, etc) is part of the gameworld.

The contrast with (say) Traveller, or even Call of Cthulhu, is in this respect rather marked. Both game systems posit worlds which are chock-full of stuff that Aristotle could not even have conceived of.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> A game that doesn't have fantasy or sci-fi elements can do this.




It's clear from the context of the discussion that I'm not talking about checkers.



> And some sci-fi games can do this too. Because in those games it really is the case that you can extrapolate from real-world scientifc knowledge should you wish to.




And this is just an admission that I am right.  If you have to extrapolate, the game did not encompass the situation.  In science FICTION, you have elements that go beyond what we know and/or are just made up.  Technobabble anyone?



> What bit of physics, approximated, is part of AD&D as published by TSR? Not nuclear physics (because the elements are air, earth, fire and water).




Thermodynamics.   Fire consumes fuel unless it's magical fire, then it creates non-magical fires that consume fuel, leaving behind carbon.  Charred remains are common in modules from that era.  Gravitational physics.  And more.  I'm not going to scour the game to find every different type of physics in it.



> *Not chemistry *(see previous point). *Not biology *(many creatures, certainly sentient ones, are created, and have non-material components - minds/spirits/souls - that generate material effects, like movements of body parts when the mind wills it). What's left, besides a few remnants of common sense that were common knowledge among human beings *long before the idea of physics* as a science was even conceived of?




Yes, this exists in AD&D.  Gygax introduces alchemy as a medieval type of chemistry, as well as gun powder.  Also, this is from page 32 of the 1e DMG.  It's the sage field of study table.

Humankind 01-30
Art & Music
*Biology*
Demography
History
Languages
Legends & Folklore
Law & Customs
Philosophy & Ethics
Politics & Genealogy
Psychology
Sociology
Theology 8 Myth

Physical Universe(s) 61-70
Architecture & Engineering
Astronomy
*Chemistry*
Geography
Geology & Mineralogy
Mathematics
Meteorology & Climatology
Oceanography
*Physics*
Topography & Cartography

Oh look, biology, physics and chemistry.  You were saying?



> No it doesn't, because none of those things show that gravity exists! Aristotle knew all those things, but knew nothing of gravity. _Gravity_ does not mean "unsupported things fall to earth and can't just take off from it". Even a 3 year old knows that. _Gravity_ means that a force obtains between all masses, proportionate in some fashion to their product. None of the things you mention show that such a force exists.




You keep saying this like it means something.  Just because Aristotle did not know about it, doesn't mean that gravity didn't exist.  Are you seriously arguing that gravity sprung into being when we discovered it?  Schrodinger's Gravity?  It both existed and didn't exist until we spotted it?



> If a D&D character could replicate the Cavendish torsion balance experiment, _that_ would show that gravity is part of the gameworld. But no D&D book I've ever read has discussed the result of that experiment, or whether the equipment and knowledge needed to perform it (eg wires which have a calculable constant torque) is available. And for good reason! - it's not a sci-fi game, it's a fantasy one.




I'm content to take Gygax's word for it and know that physics, chemistry and biology exist in the D&D universe.  While Aristotle may have been ignorant, D&D sages studied those fields.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Lanefan said:


> Problem is, it seems there's a bunch of people like me who heard/read that quote at the time, attributed it to the design team as a whole, took it in, accepted and approved of it as a pleasant fact of 5e design, and went about our day.
> 
> I never knew the specific person who said it had left, as I never knew - and never cared - which specific person said it in the first place.
> 
> It came from the design team - good enough for me - and they never really walked it back that I know of.  Therefore, it's IMO perfectly reasonable to view the reality of 5e in light of what was said during the design phase.  I don't think anyone lied, I just think they set themselves what turned out to be an impossible goal and settled for getting as close as they could.




Hi Lane - 

1. 4e design.  Easy mistake to make but just so folks don't start another tangent thread I'll note it.
2. The problem is that folks in general take their gaming way too seriously and group think their way through problems.

Your point about assuming makes sense.  But it doesn't matter how or what people take from Monte's commentary if they don't listen to noise and think their way through situations instead of reacting.

It's something everyone has problems with, including me.  It's just something I'm consciously looking to correct about myself and I wish that it was more common among others.

Be well
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]

While the disciplines that sages can study include the foundational sciences it does not mean that those sciences work the same way for every game world.

 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 

I think Maxperson adequately defended his side of the argument.

From my perspective I'd say that there's nothing meta about player knowledge of the sciences in a game world.   Only reason why they would be is if you had a real world scientist playing an average intellect character in a medieval setting and the DM specifically said, "all real world physics works the same in my world".

All you have to do as a DM is not have that be the case and you've essentially killed meta.  But then expect that the curiosity of the player (as a scientist in real life) is going to be piqued and you'd better be ready to answer his or her questions consistently as it pertains to your world on some level.

Be well
KB


----------



## Emerikol

Elfcrusher said:


> Ha!
> 
> I have another solution:
> - Your character will use Action Surge every chance he gets.
> - You, the player, are responsible for narrating circumstances such that he only actually gets that chance once per day.  At most.  E.g., "I'd love to dig deep and attack twice, but that kobold's ferocious attack has me off-balance and I'm just not feeling it."  Or, "Those rations I ate during our last short...err, 1-hour...rest must have been in my Explorer's Pack too long. I feel nauseous."
> 
> Your character doesn't _know_ he isn't allowed to use Action Surge twice, he just can't seem to find an opportunity to do so.
> .




Your suggestion is basically author mode.  If you like that approach then it is a good solution for you.  I just don't prefer to play that way myself.




Elfcrusher said:


> Also, a question: how do you take turns?  I mean, from your character's point of view everything is simultaneous.  So if you, the player, patiently wait your turn, aren't you using information your character wouldn't have?  To really immerse yourself in your actor stance roleplay, I think you should interrupt everybody else at the table.  Constantly



I know this is probably intended as half a joke and is somewhat flippant.  When my character is taking an action, he is acting in actor mode as that character.  

The constant barrage of false comparisons is tiring.  First it's hit points and now it's turns.  It should be obvious to you that we've played and play roleplaying games.  They all have turns.  We played old school D&D, that had hit points.  Even if you can't get your head around the theory of what we don't like, you should by now at least be able to grasp the practical cases.


----------



## Emerikol

Elfcrusher said:


> Except that obviously a stupendous number of seem to like the game.  What exactly is their folly?
> 
> I look at a game like...oh, all the Fantasy Flight Star Wars variants...and I just have zero desire to play.  It's not at all how I would write a Star Wars RPG.  It's pretty much the antithesis of what I look for in a game.
> 
> However my reaction isn't, "those morons at Fantasy Flight."  No, I think, "Hmm...I guess a lot of people have tastes that are totally different than mine.  That's a bummer, because I'd really like a good Star Wars rpg."
> 
> And yet _your_ conclusion about 5e...despite its staggering success...is that WotC is a combination of malicious and incompetent.
> 
> That just comes across as staggeringly arrogant and delusional.




I don't think they are morons.  They may though be ignorant of the playstyle preference or they may not.  Mike Mearls every time I asked him answered me "We understand that and aren't doing it"   Now they scaled it back a lot compared to 4e but they still did it.  So what is it?  Maybe Mike's understanding of "it" is different than our understanding of "it".

OR the more negative take, which I personally have no proof of one way or the other, would be they deliberately designed the game without regard and were just blowing us off.  

It really doesn't matter at this point.  I thought it would be nice to have a discussion about fixes to these issues in the system for people that have the issues.  A bunch of people though without the problem have dive bombed the thread and ignored the original post.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=60326]heretic888[/MENTION] has already pointed out that the issues aren't with thigh bones.




As heretic888 has already pointed out, if you can not prove your point then just move the goal posts.  Because I am certain that if the argument that a Giants legs would be broken under its own weight does not match reality then surely a Giants ankles must break under its own weight or maybe it would stub its toe or maybe its hair would be too bushy to be able to be brushed properly must be correct.



> I don't know whether a giant's lungs, given its proportionately human chest cavity, would give it enough oxygen, and whether its circulatory system would be up to the job of getting it to all the relevant parts of its body.
> 
> I think its brain is quite a bit bigger than a T-Rex's, given it can speak and use tools and in some cases (eg some cloud giants, all storm giants) is cleverer than a typical human. I'm not a biologist, but I suspect that puts demands on its respiratory and circulatory system that are different from a T-Rex or even an elephant.
> 
> Anyway, what I said was that I don't think a giant scorpion could respirate. I also think it would have trouble with its exoskeleton. Not having done my own research, nor studied much biology, I linked to a sensible-looking website which seemed to confirm these conjectures (including suggesting that 4-ish kg is the maximum feasible size for a land arthropod). Do you think that website was wrong?




To be honest, your real mistake is assuming that a Giant is just a big human and likewise a Giant Scorpion is just a big scorpion.

Neither Evolution in the Real World nor Magical Creation in DnD is bound by that premise.


----------



## Emerikol

On this whole science in D&D thing, it is a cinematic reality.  We expect people when pushed to fall down.  We expect arrows to sail through the air.  We expect in most cases what we expect here in this world.  The exceptions of course are all the fantasy elements and magic.  What we don't expect is for non-magical characters like fighters and rogues to suddenly exhibit powers.

The rest of the whole debate is off topic and really doesn't matter.  I'm not making Second Wind and Action Surge into magical powers.  It's might've worked for a Paladin (at least Action Surge anyway).  Second Wind runs afoul of my healing preferences in ways beyond just my metagame complaint.


----------



## Lanefan

Kobold Boots said:


> From my perspective I'd say that there's nothing meta about player knowledge of the sciences in a game world.   Only reason why they would be is if you had a real world scientist playing an average intellect character in a medieval setting and the DM specifically said, "all real world physics works the same in my world".
> 
> All you have to do as a DM is not have that be the case and you've essentially killed meta.  But then expect that the curiosity of the player (as a scientist in real life) is going to be piqued and you'd better be ready to answer his or her questions consistently as it pertains to your world on some level.



Yeah, tell me about it!

One of my players has a masters in astronomy and a second masters in classics.  I have neither.

For the classics side, I made it clear right up front that even though my game is set in classical Greece, real-world historical accuracy was going out the window as I'm using Herc-Xena Greece instead.

For the astronomy side, I just ask him whether something is plausible when I dream some astronomical thing up that probably isn't, and then tweak to suit if I can. And he's nice enough not to call me on my sometimes-blatant errors unless I ask him to.  (I also play in his game and he does the same thing with me regarding boats and sailing, of which I know enough to get by and he knows near-nothing).

Lan-"not Lane"-efan


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Your suggestion is basically author mode.



Not entirely sure what you mean by "author mode", but the suggestions given were _director stance_.



Emerikol said:


> It should be obvious to you that we've played and play roleplaying games.  They all have turns.



No they don't. Dungeon World doesn't have turns. Burning Wheel can easily be played without turns - they're part of an optional subsystem.



Shasarak said:


> Neither Evolution in the Real World nor Magical Creation in DnD is bound by that premise.



So what's your point? That a world in which living things are magically created is one that follows the same scientific law as the real world?


----------



## Kobold Boots

Lanefan said:


> Yeah, tell me about it!
> 
> One of my players has a masters in astronomy and a second masters in classics.  I have neither.
> 
> For the classics side, I made it clear right up front that even though my game is set in classical Greece, real-world historical accuracy was going out the window as I'm using Herc-Xena Greece instead.
> 
> For the astronomy side, I just ask him whether something is plausible when I dream some astronomical thing up that probably isn't, and then tweak to suit if I can. And he's nice enough not to call me on my sometimes-blatant errors unless I ask him to.  (I also play in his game and he does the same thing with me regarding boats and sailing, of which I know enough to get by and he knows near-nothing).
> 
> Lan-"not Lane"-efan




Hi Lan

We all have our strengths.    In my case, I've got an undergrad in medieval studies with a focus in comparative religion, another in comp sci, an MBA and a masters in cybersecurity and aiming at Ph.D programs. I've done time in the SCA and spent about 20 years doing martial arts.  My fatal weakness is anything having to do with power tools or swinging a hammer and my wife will constantly tell you that I forget the simplest things.  Pop culture also escapes me due to having a TV, but never turning it on.  ( I have managed to catch every Marvel movie since 2008 but that's the remnants of a 100 a month comic book habit that went away in the late 90s)

Most of my group has at least their masters in something mathy or professional sounding so with no shortage of irony, most of our table conversations are incredibly stupid.  Questions like "How does magic work?" have taken entire sessions on a tangent and spawned more than a few email threads.

All that said, I'm wired to make connections between disciplines so it's really important to me to have a world that's both continually growing due to the player activity and internally consistent across things my players discover.  Fortunately we don't play as often as we all used to while in college so it's not a massive undertaking but I care about it and it reflects in how I post here for better or worse.

I'm thinking about starting a VTT campaign in the coming months and opening up the group to the rest of the world.  If I don't self-immolate, I might just be able to finish the model before I die. 

Ramble, ramble, ramble.
KB


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> It's clear from the context of the discussion that I'm not talking about checkers.[/uote]Nor am I. It's possible to have a RPG that has neither sci-fi nor fantasy elements. Top Secret would be an example.
> 
> 
> 
> Maxperson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thermodynamics.   Fire consumes fuel unless it's magical fire, then it creates non-magical fires that consume fuel, leaving behind carbon.  Charred remains are common in modules from that era.  Gravitational physics.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You keep saying this like it means something.  Just because Aristotle did not know about it, doesn't mean that gravity didn't exist.  Are you seriously arguing that gravity sprung into being when we discovered it?  Schrodinger's Gravity?  It both existed and didn't exist until we spotted it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. But I live in a real world with properties that are mind-independent. Fairy stories, though, are about imaginary worlds.
> 
> When Aristotle tells a fairy story about a giant in a castle on a cloud, does the giants' castle generate a gravitational field proportionate to its mass? Was Aristotle telling a story about universal gravitation even though he didn't know of it?
> 
> Besides making a point that fairy stories aren't real, my main point is that _the falling of unsupported things to the earth_ doesn't prove that gravity exists. The fact that fire needs fuel isn't what shows that combustion is oxidation, or that thermodynamics apply. In fact, D&D clearly isn't bound by thermodynamics, given the various processes that gods, sorcerers etc engage in!
Click to expand...


----------



## MichaelSomething

How about changing Action Surge to, "At the start of your turn, roll a D20.  If you roll a 20 or higher, you gain another action.  Add a bonus to these rolls equal to half your fighter level."  You may need to adjust the bonus higher or lower depending on taste\balance.

It should be less metagamey since the Fighter is always trying to do more but not always succeeding instead of selecting when to do it.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> Besides making a point that fairy stories aren't real, my main point is that _the falling of unsupported things to the earth_ doesn't prove that gravity exists. The fact that fire needs fuel isn't what shows that combustion is oxidation, or that thermodynamics apply. In fact, D&D clearly isn't bound by thermodynamics, given the various processes that gods, sorcerers etc engage in!




The great thing about all RPG's not just D&D (but focusing there) is that room exists in how the rules are written and executed during play such that if you wanted to, you very well could make the laws of thermodynamics work within the scope of a D&D game using RAW.

That doesn't mean you want to do that.  It certainly doesn't mean you have to do that.  It's definitely possible.  

Just do yourself a favor though and don't try to reconcile that logical consistency with anything that comes out of the designers' mouths via Sage Advice.  You will want to poke your eyeballs out with sticks.  Once you create your own metaphysics for the game you run, you need to look at all expansion material through its lens.  When you find inconsistencies against RAW, then that means someone somewhere made a discovery you need to account for.

2c
KB


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Of course not. But I live in a real world with properties that are mind-independent. Fairy stories, though, are about imaginary worlds.
> 
> When Aristotle tells a fairy story about a giant in a castle on a cloud, does the giants' castle generate a gravitational field proportionate to its mass? Was Aristotle telling a story about universal gravitation even though he didn't know of it?
> 
> Besides making a point that fairy stories aren't real, my main point is that _the falling of unsupported things to the earth_ doesn't prove that gravity exists. The fact that fire needs fuel isn't what shows that combustion is oxidation, or that thermodynamics apply. In fact, D&D clearly isn't bound by thermodynamics, given the various processes that gods, sorcerers etc engage in!




You just accused me of insulting you by saying things like you ignore half the story, cutting out things that prove you wrong.  Not more than a few posts later, look, you did it again.  You plan on addressing the sage table that proves that physics, chemistry and biology are part of the D&D world?

The truth is the ultimate defense.  If it's true, it's not an insult.


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> The rest of the whole debate is off topic and really doesn't matter.  I'm not making Second Wind and Action Surge into magical powers.  It's might've worked for a Paladin (at least Action Surge anyway).  Second Wind runs afoul of my healing preferences in ways beyond just my metagame complaint.




Of course dont call it magic, that would be dumb.  You need a name that people would associate with Martial characters, like Martial powers.  The you could use Martial powers in a Antimagic zone, they could not be dispelled and there is a plausible reason why your character can only choose to use them a certain number of times per day.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> So what's your point? That a world in which living things are magically created is one that follows the same scientific law as the real world?




That a Giant is not a big human.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> You just accused me of insulting you by saying things like you ignore half the story, cutting out things that prove you wrong.  Not more than a few posts later, look, you did it again.  You plan on addressing the sage table that proves that physics, chemistry and biology are part of the D&D world?



Aristotle had a book called Physics. Does that mean that he wrote about universal gravitation?

Sages in D&D might study physics. That doesn't show that they are studying the body of knowledge that is currently taught in schools and universities under that label; or writing books about tenser calculus, the nuclear forces, or universal gravitation. Likewise (with approriate substitutions) for biology and chemistry.

Given the contents of the AD&D MM, I find it hard to envisage a Gygaxian sage whose specialisation is biology doing anything but scoff at the notions put forward in On the Origins of Species.



Kobold Boots said:


> The great thing about all RPG's not just D&D (but focusing there) is that room exists in how the rules are written and executed during play such that if you wanted to, you very well could make the laws of thermodynamics work within the scope of a D&D game using RAW.



I've got doubts about that, because I don't see how magical fireballs are consistent with thermodynamics.

But even if you're right, _you cold if you wanted to_ doesn't entail _the gameworld defaults to that_.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> a Giant is not a big human.



The Greeks and the Vikings (and many others) told stories about giants.

Here are two possibilities:

(1) They were telling stories about beings who - despite, in the stories, seeming by all accounts to be big humans - really were not big humans, but were some other sort of thing that the Greeks and Vikings and others knew nothing about and never tried to describe;

(2) They were telling stories about big humans, and not imagining the world of those big humans to be constrained by considerations (like the limits of human biology relative to size) that they didn't even know about.

I know which possibility I think produces a more coherent conception of imagination and storytelling.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Aristotle had a book called Physics. Does that mean that he wrote about universal gravitation?
> 
> Sages in D&D might study physics. That doesn't show that they are studying the body of knowledge that is currently taught in schools and universities under that label; or writing books about tenser calculus, the nuclear forces, or universal gravitation. Likewise (with approriate substitutions) for biology and chemistry.




By that logic we aren't studying physics now.  In 2000 years our knowledge of "physics" will dwarf what we now know, so they will be studying physics.  We only have books called physics, just like Aristotle.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> Aristotle had a book called Physics. Does that mean that he wrote about universal gravitation?
> 
> Sages in D&D might study physics. That doesn't show that they are studying the body of knowledge that is currently taught in schools and universities under that label; or writing books about tenser calculus, the nuclear forces, or universal gravitation. Likewise (with approriate substitutions) for biology and chemistry.
> 
> Given the contents of the AD&D MM, I find it hard to envisage a Gygaxian sage whose specialisation is biology doing anything but scoff at the notions put forward in On the Origins of Species.
> 
> I've got doubts about that, because I don't see how magical fireballs are consistent with thermodynamics.
> 
> But even if you're right, _you cold if you wanted to_ doesn't entail _the gameworld defaults to that_.





Lets pretend the world has all of the tropes of the standard fantasy realm and follows a similar path to the understanding of science back in the day.. for the sake of conversation.

Elements: Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Void (eastern concept)

Then lets assume there's a good amount of stuff that medieval folks generally don't know about, but some may be playing with.  

Fluid dynamics (Colisseum), Thermodynamics, Metallurgy, Chemistry (Forging Steel) etc.

All of this behaves as you would believe it would in the real world.

Last, add magic.

The only definition for magic that you need is "A force that can modify and maintain the natural order of things or modify and maintain an unnatural order of things."  It can come from wherever you want it to, it can be explained away as fluff, but in order to fit in the D&D universe it needs to be a recognized thing that the enlightened races and natural world can manipulate if all the right conditions are met.

So if you need to figure out a way where a mage could throw a fireball.. that's what magic allows.  it supercedes the basic laws of physics but it's not easy to make permanent.  Specific rules for that can exist in your game.


----------



## Lanefan

Kobold Boots said:


> Lets pretend the world has all of the tropes of the standard fantasy realm and follows a similar path to the understanding of science back in the day.. for the sake of conversation.
> 
> Elements: Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Void (eastern concept)
> 
> Then lets assume there's a good amount of stuff that medieval folks generally don't know about, but some may be playing with.
> 
> Fluid dynamics (Colisseum), Thermodynamics, Metallurgy, Chemistry (Forging Steel) etc.
> 
> All of this behaves as you would believe it would in the real world.
> 
> Last, add magic.
> 
> The only definition for magic that you need is "A force that can modify and maintain the natural order of things or modify and maintain an unnatural order of things."  It can come from wherever you want it to, it can be explained away as fluff, but in order to fit in the D&D universe it needs to be a recognized thing that the enlightened races and natural world can manipulate if all the right conditions are met.



Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D setting kind of assumes a more enlightened and less restricted academic community than our real-world medieval society had, which means it's entirely reasonable to have studies of (some of?) the sciences be more advanced than what we had in the middle ages.

Now their studies might not necessarily have led them to what we today consider the correct conclusions, but that's not the point.  The point is that if someone becaue curious about how or why something did what it did then it could be studied....and in the case of a species like Elves, those studies could go on for a very long time.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Lanefan said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D setting kind of assumes a more enlightened and less restricted academic community than our real-world medieval society had, which means it's entirely reasonable to have studies of (some of?) the sciences be more advanced than what we had in the middle ages.
> 
> Now their studies might not necessarily have led them to what we today consider the correct conclusions, but that's not the point.  The point is that if someone becaue curious about how or why something did what it did then it could be studied....and in the case of a species like Elves, those studies could go on for a very long time.




Agreed completely.

I found that for balance reasons between races considering exactly this, that it was very important to have a history where there was extensive conflict and parlay or we'd have a situation where elves were superior in every tangible way.


----------



## Emerikol

Shasarak said:


> Of course dont call it magic, that would be dumb.  You need a name that people would associate with Martial characters, like Martial powers.  The you could use Martial powers in a Antimagic zone, they could not be dispelled and there is a plausible reason why your character can only choose to use them a certain number of times per day.




You said make them up but you didn't give me the plausible reason? Assuming now magic is involved what is the reason for martial "powers".


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Elfcrusher said:


> Except that obviously a stupendous number of seem to like the game.  What exactly is their folly?



The numerous and overwhelming flaws of 5E would be a topic beyond the purview of this thread. Let it suffice to say that, the game is popular because it intentionally targets an audience that doesn't really care, and such is no measure of its quality.


----------



## Emerikol

MichaelSomething said:


> How about changing Action Surge to, "At the start of your turn, roll a D20.  If you roll a 20 or higher, you gain another action.  Add a bonus to these rolls equal to half your fighter level."  You may need to adjust the bonus higher or lower depending on taste\balance.
> 
> It should be less metagamey since the Fighter is always trying to do more but not always succeeding instead of selecting when to do it.




Thank you for at least treating my thread question with reasonableness and respect.  If you want special manuevers, and I'm flexible on that but they don't bother me and some people might like them, I agree they need some kind of activation.  Your die roll approach is closing in on the target we are seeking I think.

1.  Do you think there is a way to avoid rolling an extra die?  I'm not against an extra die but maybe we can streamline it in some way.

2.  If we do roll an extra die, should the die be a d20?  What is the frequency we want these to occur?  Should it be truly random?  I've always wondered that your most devastating attack always seems to go off against the most formidable enemies.   Perhaps it should be some sort of crit system.  Every time you exceed the to hit roll by X you get a special follow up manuever.

3.  Is there a separation here where some of the powers are truly randomly activated and others are done using the crit system above?  It seems like some things make more sense being random whereas others seem to require you to have some sort of advantage.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> The Greeks and the Vikings (and many others) told stories about giants.
> 
> Here are two possibilities:
> 
> (1) They were telling stories about beings who - despite, in the stories, seeming by all accounts to be big humans - really were not big humans, but were some other sort of thing that the Greeks and Vikings and others knew nothing about and never tried to describe;
> 
> (2) They were telling stories about big humans, and not imagining the world of those big humans to be constrained by considerations (like the limits of human biology relative to size) that they didn't even know about.
> 
> I know which possibility I think produces a more coherent conception of imagination and storytelling.




So when the Greeks are telling stories about Zeus and the other Gods fighting the Titans were they just telling stories about literal Gods fighting literal Titans?  Or were they trying to describe Aliens who had taken some time off from making the Pyramids in Egypt to go and mess with the Greeks?  Or maybe they were talking about big humans fighting other big humans?  Or maybe they were just making up stories the same way that we make up stories now like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you were a tall Greek standing around 150cm and you were attacked by a freakish large person standing 180cm tall then you would probably call that person a Giant.  And when you got home your stories would most likely start to increase that size because if you were impressed with me fighting a guy 180cm tall then what about 200cm.  Yeah now we are talking.  Of course they are not a Giant though.  I think it would be a mistake to confuse fiction for a factual account.

And afterall the one common thread that we can follow in all of the stories about Giants is that in none of them the Giant is defeated when it tries to stand up and breaks its ankle.  That lie is not support by neither the fiction nor the facts.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Not entirely sure what you mean by "author mode", but the suggestions given were _director stance_.
> 
> No they don't. Dungeon World doesn't have turns. Burning Wheel can easily be played without turns - they're part of an optional subsystem.
> 
> So what's your point? That a world in which living things are magically created is one that follows the same scientific law as the real world?




I meant author stance.  After reading the definitions, I realized that director means you create new content and author just means you player metagame but don't invent new things outside your character.

So I felt you were acting as the player but you weren't creating whole new fiction.  Maybe I missed something.

Either way I don't want either.  Actor stance alone for me.


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> You said make them up but you didn't give me the plausible reason? Assuming now magic is involved what is the reason for martial "powers".




Maybe it can be similar (but different) to your plausible reason for Magical powers?


----------



## Shasarak

Elfcrusher said:


> Except that obviously a stupendous number of seem to like the game.  What exactly is their folly?




A Stupendous number?  

Are, are we still talking about the number DnD players?


----------



## Emerikol

Shasarak said:


> Maybe it can be similar (but different) to your plausible reason for Magical powers?




Well it's a fantasy game set in a fantasy world, so spells and such seem part of the implied landscape.  Martial characters doing things once per day doesn't fit any fantasy notion I have.  A fighter sitting around talking about his daily power would seem odd to me.  A wizard talking about his spell in his spell book would not.  Maybe it is taste but I think a lot of people out there don't imagine fighters or rogues as being anything different from normal people except in a cinematic scope.  So yeah, you have fighters who can fight off large numbers of enemies but that is cinematic not magic.

When I watch a show, and the hero knocks out a bad guy with one punch repeatedly, that is cinematic.  It's not realistic but when watched on tv the instant response isn't "that's magic".


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> Well it's a fantasy game set in a fantasy world, so spells and such seem part of the implied landscape.  Martial characters doing things once per day doesn't fit any fantasy notion I have.  A fighter sitting around talking about his daily power would seem odd to me.  A wizard talking about his spell in his spell book would not.  Maybe it is taste but I think a lot of people out there don't imagine fighters or rogues as being anything different from normal people except in a cinematic scope.  So yeah, you have fighters who can fight off large numbers of enemies but that is cinematic not magic.




Ok, so it is a fantasy game in a fantasy world with accepted use of daily magical powers.  So would it be possible for the God of Battle to give the people most likely to spread his "worship" (like Fighters) abilities that they could use a certain number of times per day?



> When I watch a show, and the hero knocks out a bad guy with one punch repeatedly, that is cinematic.  It's not realistic but when watched on tv the instant response isn't "that's magic".




One Punch Man is obviously not magical because he tells you exactly the formula that he used to be able to One Punch everything.  It is: 100 Push-Ups, 100 Sit-Ups,  100 Squats and 10KM Running every day.

So absolutely no magic involved at all.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> Aristotle had a book called Physics. Does that mean that he wrote about universal gravitation?




Does the fact that Aristotle did or did not write about universal gravitation change the presence of universal gravitation?

That reminds me of a cartoon where Baby Coyote chases Baby Roadrunner off the edge of a cliff but does not fall because he has not learnt about gravity yet.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Emerikol said:


> 1.  Do you think there is a way to avoid rolling an extra die?  I'm not against an extra die but maybe we can streamline it in some way.



You could tie it into the attack roll, since every fighter is probably attacking every round anyway. That would also let it scale with your number of attacks.

The obvious solution is that your Action Surge triggers whenever you roll a natural 20, but that might interact poorly with one of the feats, which already gives an extra attack on a critical hit.

My preferred solution is that your Action Surge triggers whenever you roll a natural 1, since that makes the fighter more consistent and reliable each round, balancing out bad luck with good luck. That might create weird interactions with halflings, though.

You could also make the trigger sub-class specific, so champions trigger Action Surge when they crit, and warlords trigger Action Surge when their dice do something funky, but that could get complicated. In any case, it should definitely be limited to one trigger per round, or else things could get out of control.


----------



## heretic888

Emerikol said:


> You said make them up but you didn't give me the plausible reason? Assuming now magic is involved what is the reason for martial "powers".




The fictional basis for martial powers are described on page 106 of 4E's _Martial Power 2_ and also touched upon in _Wizards Presents: Races & Classes_ in the chapter on fighters. From the text, we can infer that martial heroes aren't "magical" but they also clearly aren't "mundane" either.


----------



## heretic888

Saelorn said:


> You could tie it into the attack roll, since every fighter is probably attacking every round anyway. That would also let it scale with your number of attacks.
> 
> The obvious solution is that your Action Surge triggers whenever you roll a natural 20, but that might interact poorly with one of the feats, which already gives an extra attack on a critical hit.
> 
> My preferred solution is that your Action Surge triggers whenever you roll a natural 1, since that makes the fighter more consistent and reliable each round, balancing out bad luck with good luck. That might create weird interactions with halflings, though.
> 
> You could also make the trigger sub-class specific, so champions trigger Action Surge when they crit, and warlords trigger Action Surge when their dice do something funky, but that could get complicated. In any case, it should definitely be limited to one trigger per round, or else things could get out of control.




This is similar to how Fighter maneuvers work in 13th Age. 

Basically, each maneuver has a specific die trigger such as "any even roll", "on a natural 16+", "on an odd miss", and so on. Assuming a 4 round battle on average and assuming you want your fighter to use these abilities around once per battle, you could key it to a natural 16+ on an attack roll. Would work out about the same.


----------



## Emerikol

heretic888 said:


> This is similar to how Fighter maneuvers work in 13th Age.
> 
> Basically, each maneuver has a specific die trigger such as "any even roll", "on a natural 16+", "on an odd miss", and so on. Assuming a 4 round battle on average and assuming you want your fighter to use these abilities around once per battle, you could key it to a natural 16+ on an attack roll. Would work out about the same.




I think certain abilities would fire off more often against inferior foes.  Critical hits for example.  On the flip side, I do think there are other things that are more random.  So a mix would be fine.   One trick might be for the random case is your roll equals the round number.  So round 1 it's 1, 10 it's 10, and so forth.  Not sure though an ActionSurge would happen often enough in that case.

For a combat attack, just say every time you exceed your opponents AC by 5 or 7 or 10 you get some followup manuever.  In the some cases maybe it's just another attack.  I kind of like the idea of telescoping dice so if you roll a 20, you roll another d20 and add 20.


----------



## heretic888

Emerikol said:


> I think certain abilities would fire off more often against inferior foes.  Critical hits for example.  On the flip side, I do think there are other things that are more random.  So a mix would be fine.   One trick might be for the random case is your roll equals the round number.  So round 1 it's 1, 10 it's 10, and so forth.  Not sure though an ActionSurge would happen often enough in that case.
> 
> For a combat attack, just say every time you exceed your opponents AC by 5 or 7 or 10 you get some followup manuever.  In the some cases maybe it's just another attack.  I kind of like the idea of telescoping dice so if you roll a 20, you roll another d20 and add 20.




Yes, that's similar to how it works in 13th Age as well. The fighter has a variety of maneuvers (I believe you start off with 4) and each one can have a different type of trigger. Generally speaking, defensive measures like Second Wind tend to trigger on misses and powerful offensive abilities trigger on high rolls.

This is an area where PF2's critical miss/miss/hit/critical hit setup might be beneficial. I could see some maneuvers only triggering on misses (assuming a miss by 5 or less) and others on solid hits (hit by 5 or more). 

However, a potential danger there is special maneuvers only seeing use against lesser threats. That feels very un-heroic and un-cinematic to me.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Does the fact that Aristotle did or did not write about universal gravitation change the presence of universal gravitation?



In the real world which has a mind-independent existence? No.

In stories that Aristotle tells on the basis of his imagination? Yes. When Aristotle tells a story about planets that move about the earth in various "spheres", we can tell that he is imaging a world not governed by universal gravitation.

Likewise, when Aristotle tells a story about giant arthropods which are able to respirate, he's probably not telling a story about things with a realistic biology that (in virtue of being realistic) is radically different from the biology of real-world arthorpods. He's telling a story about things that he imagines to have much the same biology as real world arthropods, whose biology he does not fully understand. The fact that he is imagining something that is physically impossible doesn't stop him imagining it. And it would be a mistake to read his story and try and theorise it as consistent with contemporary biological understandings.



Shasarak said:


> I think it would be a mistake to confuse fiction for a factual account.
> 
> And afterall the one common thread that we can follow in all of the stories about Giants is that in none of them the Giant is defeated when it tries to stand up and breaks its ankle.



I don't see why you think this is dsagreement with me. It's my whole point.


----------



## Lanefan

Emerikol said:


> Thank you for at least treating my thread question with reasonableness and respect.  If you want special manuevers, and I'm flexible on that but they don't bother me and some people might like them, I agree they need some kind of activation.  Your die roll approach is closing in on the target we are seeking I think.
> 
> 1.  Do you think there is a way to avoid rolling an extra die?  I'm not against an extra die but maybe we can streamline it in some way.
> 
> 2.  If we do roll an extra die, should the die be a d20?  What is the frequency we want these to occur?  Should it be truly random?



Make it that you want to roll low, and then use a progressively smaller die size for after each failed roll (or maybe have the first two or three on d20 then move to the decreasing dice) until you succeed, and at that point it resets to rolling a d20 next time.



> I've always wondered that your most devastating attack always seems to go off against the most formidable enemies.



Which, if the PC knows the formidable enemy is coming, can in fact make in-game sense: "I've been savin' this one up for you, buddy!"  



> Perhaps it should be some sort of crit system.  Every time you exceed the to hit roll by X you get a special follow up manuever.



This would give the opposite effect: your stunts would go off way more often against the low-AC mooks than against the high-AC boss...which as a side effect would serve to increase the mechanical difference between a mook and a boss, if this matters.  Another side-effect would be to make defense a bit more important at cost of offense; the knock-on here is that well-defended PCs and opponents, being harder to hit, cause the battles to go on longer.

Not saying this is a bad idea, just saying be careful with it. 



> 3.  Is there a separation here where some of the powers are truly randomly activated and others are done using the crit system above?  It seems like some things make more sense being random whereas others seem to require you to have some sort of advantage.



You know, a plan B just wandered into my mind here: how about on a natural 20 to hit the player/PC gets a choice: roll to confirm the crit OR use a martial power and forego the confirm roll.  All of this happens before damage is rolled.

Lanefan


----------



## Manbearcat

Brief chime-in on a point of contention in this thread that I typically champion:

1)  the coherency in the relationship of gravity and atmosphere (the issue that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is espousing) with respect to any kind of earth-based morphology of arthropods, dragons, and giants.

and

2)  if we're willing to just hand-wave any aspects of these away, then why are we so intent on "earth-physics-ing" our martial heroes into something resembling (sometimes the lower) earthy-human bounds.  This is especially concerning when their counterparts (spellcasters) are, effectively, god-like.

So a couple of things on this:

a)  The giant theropods and sauropods don't have hips that resemble bipedal humans.  This allows their load-bearing machinery to function in proportion to their insane loads while also interfacing with their spinal column/necks/tails to distribute those insane load such that they can move just fine...however, they *could NOT walk/load-bear in an upright fashion. The premise of *"dinosaurs/T-Rex could do it, therefore massive upright bipeds should be able to do it" is not a line of evidence.  Its actually the exact opposite.  If Giants' endoskeletons possessed similar architecture to distribute their massive load, they would look and behave nothing like D&D giants.  They would look like alligators...and have massive tails...and long necks or massive heads.  

b)  There is no indication that the overwhelming number of medium+ sized creatures with exoskeletons in D&D (the arthropods) have magical respiration or kinesiology or load-distribution.  We apply so many earth-based physics and biological (specifically how their form and systems relate to gravity and atmosphere) bounds on martial heroes yet the exact same limitations that should disallow spiders, scorpions, ettercaps, umber-hulks (et al) from being larger than a chicken are hand-waved away...because "reasons?"

c)  Evolution is not a thing in D&D land.  All creatures are basically magically spawned via primordial forces or brought into existence via divine myth (eg a God bled or cried them into existence, etc).  So why are we inconsistently applying selection pressure-based evolution to adventurers/martial heroes or applying earth-based physics/biology, yet ignoring one or both of these things for the many fantastical creatures they face in battle (and must move dynamically to do so!)?

Its just a giant D&D double standard.  Either (i) allow martial heroes to do fantastical things (because they're origin is magical, the same as everything else...or because hand-waving all the things we hand-wave for magical creatures), (ii) disallow the fantastical things of D&D world (that is no fun and not going to happen), or (iii) just admit that their is no rational high ground for the double standard...it doesn't have a basis beyond aesthetic preference!


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> In the real world which has a mind-independent existence? No.
> 
> In stories that Aristotle tells on the basis of his imagination? Yes. When Aristotle tells a story about planets that move about the earth in various "spheres", we can tell that he is imaging a world not governed by universal gravitation.
> 
> Likewise, when Aristotle tells a story about giant arthropods which are able to respirate, he's probably not telling a story about things with a realistic biology that (in virtue of being realistic) is radically different from the biology of real-world arthorpods. He's telling a story about things that he imagines to have much the same biology as real world arthropods, whose biology he does not fully understand. The fact that he is imagining something that is physically impossible doesn't stop him imagining it. And it would be a mistake to read his story and try and theorise it as consistent with contemporary biological understandings.




Aristotle's inductive-deductive method runs counter to your narrative.  I dont think that he would have imagined his stories were real and I would have trouble believing that his imagined stories were not at least internally consistent.  If he had access to both a small and a large Scorpion then basic observation and experimentation would have revealed quickly any similarities and differences.



> I don't see why you think this is dsagreement with me. It's my whole point.




You seem to be arguing quite hard for the ankle breaking Giants despite proof to the contrary.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> c)  Evolution is not a thing in D&D land.  All creatures are basically magically spawned via primordial forces or brought into existence via divine myth (eg a God bled or cried them into existence, etc).  So why are we inconsistently applying selection pressure-based evolution to adventurers/martial heroes or applying earth-based physics/biology, yet ignoring one or both of these things for the many fantastical creatures they face in battle (and must move dynamically to do so!)?



Why can't evolution be a thing in D&D land, though?

Sure, some of the fantastic creatures may have been originally spawned from a wizard's lab somewhere or from the tears of a god; but as soon as said creatures become able to reproduce on their own then you'll get some evolution happening...or extinction, if the creature isn't viable.

Interbreeding e.g. part-elves, part-orcs, etc. is another obvious form of evolution.



> Its just a giant D&D double standard.  Either (i) allow martial heroes to do fantastical things (because they're origin is magical, the same as everything else...or because hand-waving all the things we hand-wave for magical creatures), (ii) disallow the fantastical things of D&D world (that is no fun and not going to happen), or (iii) just admit that their is no rational high ground for the double standard...it doesn't have a basis beyond aesthetic preference!



Or my preference: (iv) find or invent a science where it all *can* fit together in a consistent manner, then use that as the foundation for, well, everything in the game world.  And if this ends up meaning some martial powers get canned because they don't fit in, then so be it.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> You seem to be arguing quite hard for the ankle breaking Giants despite proof to the contrary.



Huh? A version of my that was triple my height (and hence 27 times my mass) but otherwise physically/biologically identical _would not be able to stand or walk_. This is a basic fact about real world biomechanical processes.

However, such beings in the world of D&D are able to stand and walk. Hence, either (i) they are not physically/biologically like humans, or (ii) the world of D&D is not constrained by real world biomechanical processes.

You appear to assert (i). I assert (ii), on the grounds that it fits with a sensible theory of storytelling.



Shasarak said:


> Aristotle's inductive-deductive method runs counter to your narrative.  I dont think that he would have imagined his stories were real and I would have trouble believing that his imagined stories were not at least internally consistent.



Again, huh?

I don't understand your point. People tell stories all the time that are inconsistent with physical possibility - look at Gygax's story of a hero flying to the moon on a flying steed, which piles impossibility on impossibility!

Aristotle _did_ imagined things that were inconsistent with what is physically possible - eg he not only imagined, but in fact believed, that the real world was one in which planets and the sun moved about the earth in "spheres". And that belief, it turns out, is inconsistent with many, many ovservations about the real world, the planets and the sun.

But Aristotle was able to maintain his false beliefs because he didn't know about those observations (most of them not having been made yet).

The stories that me and my players tell when we play Classic Traveller are not internally consistent, because we posit both that human beings have the biology and biochemistry they do in the real workd, and that solar systems exist, and are formed, just as they are in the real world, and yet we also posit FTL travel by means of "jump" drives, which is clearly inconsistent with all that other scientific fact.

We maintain our story by simply not focusing our attention on the points of contradiction.

The idea that tellers of fairy stories are, in fact, imagining that the world is governed by the scientific rules taught in science faculties, and are therefore positing that their pixies and giants and pegasi and giant scorpions and the like all have bizarre unearthly biology that makes their existence physically possible, is one that I've not encountered until you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] advocated it in this thread.


----------



## Shasarak

Manbearcat said:


> So a couple of things on this:
> 
> a)  The giant theropods and sauropods don't have hips that resemble bipedal humans.  This allows their load-bearing machinery to function in proportion to their insane loads while also interfacing with their spinal column/necks/tails to distribute those insane load such that they can move just fine...however, they *could NOT walk/load-bear in an upright fashion. The premise of *"dinosaurs/T-Rex could do it, therefore massive upright bipeds should be able to do it" is not a line of evidence.  Its actually the exact opposite.  If Giants' endoskeletons possessed similar architecture to distribute their massive load, they would look and behave nothing like D&D giants.  They would look like alligators...and have massive tails...and long necks or massive heads.




The beauty with Evolution is that it really does not care what either Manbearcat or Shasarak has to say on the matter.  You could certainly argue for Alligator Giants if you prefer and on the other hand simple biology is able to meet every structural requirement that you mention.  It turns out that bone can handle a giant weight without breaking, respiratory systems can handle the air requirements of giant breaths, ankles can be reinforced to bend correctly, temperature to be regulated correctly so that really the only thing missing is another creature big enough to meet the caloric requirements that a Giant would need.



> b)  There is no indication that the overwhelming number of medium+ sized creatures with exoskeletons in D&D (the arthropods) have magical respiration or kinesiology or load-distribution.  We apply so many earth-based physics and biological (specifically how their form and systems relate to gravity and atmosphere) bounds on martial heroes yet the exact same limitations that should disallow spiders, scorpions, ettercaps, umber-hulks (et al) from being larger than a chicken are hand-waved away...because "reasons?"




Personally I would like to see the Umberhulk that is the size of a chicken but in truth it would most likely turn into another Gopher type creature forever digging holes in the lawn.



> c)  Evolution is not a thing in D&D land.  All creatures are basically magically spawned via primordial forces or brought into existence via divine myth (eg a God bled or cried them into existence, etc).  So why are we inconsistently applying selection pressure-based evolution to adventurers/martial heroes or applying earth-based physics/biology, yet ignoring one or both of these things for the many fantastical creatures they face in battle (and must move dynamically to do so!)?




I think that if you look at the Kobold for example you would see that Evolution is alive and well within the DnD Universe.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Why can't evolution be a thing in D&D land, though?
> 
> Sure, some of the fantastic creatures may have been originally spawned from a wizard's lab somewhere or from the tears of a god; but as soon as said creatures become able to reproduce on their own then you'll get some evolution happening...or extinction, if the creature isn't viable.



Evolution, in the real world, depends (among other things) upon facts of biochemistry.

But why would anyone suppose that living things in D&D have the sorts of cellular, genetic and biochemical properties they have in the real world?

It is possible for people to have very rich common-sense understandings of how living things behave and reproduce without _knowing_ any of those scientific facts: I give you most of human history as proof of that.

It's possible for people to _tell stories_ about imaginary and fantastic living things, and their behaviour and reproduction, (i) without asuming any of those scientific facts, and (ii) which would be physically impossible in light of those scientific facts: I give you most myth, legend and fairy story as proof of that.

In the case of the people who originated most myth, legend and fairy story, the reason for (i) is because they can't assume what they don't know. In the case of modern fantasy writers, (i) becomes a literary device.

Once (i) is in play, evolution is out of play as far as the story in question is concerned.

Is D&D intended to be played under fundamentally different assumptions from those that govern most myth, legend and fairy story? Nothing in the rulebooks gives me that impression.


----------



## pemerton

Premise: we can't learn scientific truth simply by imagining things, or examining things that we imagine.

Premise: if something is conditioned by, or exemplifies the workings of, scientific laws, then by examining it we can learn scientific truth from it.

Conclusion: the things that we imagine are not, or at least need not be, conditioned by or exmemplifications of the workings of scientific laws.

Thus we can imagine giant humans, giant arthropods, flying dragons, etc which are neither conditioned by nor exemplifications of the workings of scientific laws. Throughout history, many people have done this on the basis of ignorance of scientific laws. _Fantasy stories_ do this not on the basis of ignorance, but as a literary device.

D&D is a form of fantasy story. It uses the same literary devices as other fantasy stories. One of those devices is to imagine things that are neither conditioned by nor examplifications of the workings of scientific laws.

I'm sure it is possible to play D&D as a sci-fi game, adopting the conceit that things like giant humans, giant arthropods, flying dragons etc _are_ conditioned by and exemplifications of the workings of real world scientific laws - and hence (eg) have biological properties very different from the earthy creatures they resemble, or live on worlds whose atmospheres have radically different fluid compositions from the earth that they resemble.

But nothing in the rulebooks that I'm familiar with suggests that the default approach to D&D is as a sci-fi game rather than a fantasy one.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> Huh? A version of my that was triple my height (and hence 27 times my mass) but otherwise physically/biologically identical _would not be able to stand or walk_. This is a basic fact about real world biomechanical processes.




Normal human bone can support up to 30x its normal weight.  So just looking at mass support alone tripling your height and 27xing your mass would be no problem for normal bone to support.

Is it really that hard to understand.  I am just not sure which part you are having trouble with. 



> However, such beings in the world of D&D are able to stand and walk. Hence, either (i) they are not physically/biologically like humans, or (ii) the world of D&D is not constrained by real world biomechanical processes.
> 
> You appear to assert (i). I assert (ii), on the grounds that it fits with a sensible theory of storytelling.




Of course they are physically/biologically not like humans.  If they were they would not be Giants, they would be Giant Humans.  Even Aristotle could figure that out.



> Again, huh?
> 
> I don't understand your point. People tell stories all the time that are inconsistent with physical possibility - look at Gygax's story of a hero flying to the moon on a flying steed, which piles impossibility on impossibility!
> 
> Aristotle _did_ imagined things that were inconsistent with what is physically possible - eg he not only imagined, but in fact believed, that the real world was one in which planets and the sun moved about the earth in "spheres". And that belief, it turns out, is inconsistent with many, many ovservations about the real world, the planets and the sun.
> 
> But Aristotle was able to maintain his false beliefs because he didn't know about those observations (most of them not having been made yet).




There is a difference between believing stuff that is incorrect and not being logically consistent.  Just the fact that Aristotle's whole inductive-deductive system (which is a very rudimentary version of the Scientific method) would mean that any observations that were inconsistent with his deductions would require him to reassess and come up with another theory.  So there is no reason to suspect that given a telescope and a year to study the stars that Aristotle would not have updated his Earth centric model of the universe.



> The idea that tellers of fairy stories are, in fact, imagining that the world is governed by the scientific rules taught in science faculties, and are therefore positing that their pixies and giants and pegasi and giant scorpions and the like all have bizarre unearthly biology that makes their existence physically possible, is one that I've not encountered until you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] advocated it in this thread.




So what did you imagine that these creatures were made out of?  I am guessing pure handwavium at this point because I have never come across someone who sincerely believed that a Giant was just like a normal human enlarged to 3x the size.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> Evolution, in the real world, depends (among other things) upon facts of biochemistry.
> 
> But why would anyone suppose that living things in D&D have the sorts of cellular, genetic and biochemical properties they have in the real world?
> 
> It is possible for people to have very rich common-sense understandings of how living things behave and reproduce without _knowing_ any of those scientific facts: I give you most of human history as proof of that.
> 
> It's possible for people to _tell stories_ about imaginary and fantastic living things, and their behaviour and reproduction, (i) without asuming any of those scientific facts, and (ii) which would be physically impossible in light of those scientific facts: I give you most myth, legend and fairy story as proof of that.
> 
> In the case of the people who originated most myth, legend and fairy story, the reason for (i) is because they can't assume what they don't know. In the case of modern fantasy writers, (i) becomes a literary device.
> 
> Once (i) is in play, evolution is out of play as far as the story in question is concerned.
> 
> Is D&D intended to be played under fundamentally different assumptions from those that govern most myth, legend and fairy story? Nothing in the rulebooks gives me that impression.




If you had any real knowledge of science then you would find that real life is much more fantastical then the myths and legends that your common sensical ancestors ever imagined in their myths and legends.

There really is, for example, a fungus that can infect an Ant, mind control it and turn it into a fungal Ant Zombie.  I mean what exactly is common sense about that?  Do we need to invoke magic to explain that?

There really is, for example, a worm that lives around hydrothermal vents from undersea volcanoes at temperatures exceeding 100oC that gets its energy from chemical reactions.  Do we need to invoke magic to explain that?

No, I am deeply suspicious of anyone presenting common sense as the reason why they live on a flat earth being orbited by a sun pushed by a giant dung beetle like my ancestors did for the majority of human history.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> Premise: we can't learn scientific truth simply by imagining things, or examining things that we imagine.




Before I go too much into depth on this subject, is this an actual "Premise" or are you just joking for comedic effect?


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Normal human bone can support up to 30x its normal weight.  So just looking at mass support alone tripling your height and 27xing your mass would be no problem for normal bone to support.



Not all human bones are thigh bones, as [MENTION=60326]heretic888[/MENTION] alreayd pointed out. And being able to stand and walk depends upon musculature as well as bones. A further constraint for humans is that the pelvis has to be large and strong enough to permit standing and walking, but small enough to permit birth.

Here is what seems likes a sensible discussion - are you saying that it is wrong?



Shasarak said:


> If you had any real knowledge of science then you would find that real life is much more fantastical then the myths and legends that your common sensical ancestors ever imagined in their myths and legends.
> 
> There really is, for example, a fungus that can infect an Ant, mind control it and turn it into a fungal Ant Zombie.  I mean what exactly is common sense about that?  Do we need to invoke magic to explain that?



As best I can tell my knowledge of science is as good as most posters on this thread - I certainly know that science isn't just a list of facts with a does of "otherwise it's magic!".

Pointing out that there are strange things in the world doesn't prove that anything a person can imagine is possible. I can imagine faster than light travel, and do so every time I play Traveller - that doesn't show that FTL travel is possible.



Shasarak said:


> There is a difference between believing stuff that is incorrect and not being logically consistent. Just the fact that Aristotle's whole inductive-deductive system (which is a very rudimentary version of the Scientific method) would mean that any observations that were inconsistent with his deductions would require him to reassess and come up with another theory. So there is no reason to suspect that given a telescope and a year to study the stars that Aristotle would not have updated his Earth centric model of the universe.



What's your point? Yes, Aristtotle was clever. He was also ignorant, and there were some false things that he believed (eg about human biology; about planetary motion) and some true things he did not believe (eg universal gravitation).

So when Aristotle makes up a fairy story, he is not imagining a world in which (eg) universal gravitation exists.



Shasarak said:


> I am deeply suspicious of anyone presenting common sense as the reason why they live on a flat earth being orbited by a sun pushed by a giant dung beetle like my ancestors did for the majority of human history.



WTF? Maybe you think you llive on a flat earth; I don't.

But what does that have to do with whether or not the D&D world is one in which the earth and its motion is governed by universal gravigtation?


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Before I go too much into depth on this subject, is this an actual "Premise" or are you just joking for comedic effect?



It's a premise: to learn scientific truth you actually need to investigate stuff in the real world, not just imagine stuff. That's why Galileo's opinions about the nature of the planets are connected to truth, whereas the stuff CS Lewise wrote in his Out of the Silent Planet stories is not.


----------



## Maxperson

heretic888 said:


> The fictional basis for martial powers are described on page 106 of 4E's _Martial Power 2_ and also touched upon in _Wizards Presents: Races & Classes_ in the chapter on fighters. From the text, we can infer that martial heroes aren't "magical" but they also clearly aren't "mundane" either.




They are magical from what the 4e rules say.  It refers to martial powers as "Not magic in the traditional sense."  That phrase means that martial powers are magic in a non-traditional sense.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The idea that tellers of fairy stories are, in fact, imagining that the world is governed by the scientific rules taught in science faculties, and are therefore positing that their pixies and giants and pegasi and giant scorpions and the like all have bizarre unearthly biology that makes their existence physically possible, is one that I've not encountered until you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] advocated it in this thread.




Most people don't really think about it, because it really doesn't matter.  However, when debating this sort of thing, people do think about it and it makes sense for there to be physical laws and magical laws in a fantasy world.  Gygax thought so, which is why he explicitly added in the sciences to D&D.  He didn't do it in any sort of simulationist manner, though, so all your arguments about how physics in D&D doesn't mirror reality are just a bunch of red herrings.  He added them in as an approximation of real world sciences.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Evolution, in the real world, depends (among other things) upon facts of biochemistry.
> 
> But why would anyone suppose that living things in D&D have the sorts of cellular, genetic and biochemical properties they have in the real world?



Because it fits with the baseline assumption that things in the D&D world work the same as in our world unless something says otherwise.



> It is possible for people to have very rich common-sense understandings of how living things behave and reproduce without _knowing_ any of those scientific facts: I give you most of human history as proof of that.



Yes, and from the player side that's all that's needed.  But from the DM side, I for one want to nail down how it all works, using a combination of my imagination and my limited knowledge of most things scientific.



> It's possible for people to _tell stories_ about imaginary and fantastic living things, and their behaviour and reproduction, (i) without asuming any of those scientific facts, and (ii) which would be physically impossible in light of those scientific facts: I give you most myth, legend and fairy story as proof of that.
> 
> In the case of the people who originated most myth, legend and fairy story, the reason for (i) is because *they can't assume what they don't know*. In the case of modern fantasy writers, (i) becomes a literary device.
> 
> Once (i) is in play, evolution is out of play as far as the story in question is concerned.
> 
> Is D&D intended to be played under fundamentally different assumptions from those that govern most myth, legend and fairy story? Nothing in the rulebooks gives me that impression.



But in our case as RPG DMs, we *can* assume what we don't know in that we can design our own science to back everything up; and the easiest jumping-off point for that is to just use the science we already have in the real world wherever we can and then add or amend things to suit game-world elements that don't exist in the real world.  It's really not that difficult.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Shasarak said:


> So what did you imagine that these creatures were made out of?  I am guessing pure handwavium at this point because I have never come across someone who sincerely believed that a Giant was just like a normal human enlarged to 3x the size.



The problem is, most depictions of basic Giants e.g. Hill Giants show them as pretty much looking like really big Humans; so it's an easy step from there to assume they just more or less *are* really big Humans.

Lan-"never mind an actual game-world Human who downs a Potion of Growth and suddenly becomes 15' tall"-efan


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Premise: we can't learn scientific truth simply by imagining things, or examining things that we imagine.
> 
> Premise: if something is conditioned by, or exemplifies the workings of, scientific laws, then by examining it we can learn scientific truth from it.
> 
> Conclusion: the things that we imagine are not, *or at least need not be*, conditioned by or exmemplifications of the workings of scientific laws.




I don't think anyone has argued that the game needs to be exemplified by scientific laws.  Pretty sure the argument has been, "Approximations of physics(and it turns out the other sciences) exist in D&D, but if you don't want it to be that way for your game, cool."


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Gygax thought so, which is why he explicitly added in the sciences to D&D.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> He added them in as an approximation of real world sciences.



Gygax said nothing about "approximation of real world sciences". He indicated some areas of study for sages, which are approximations of real world mediaeval universities and scholarship.

Do sages who study astronomy in D&D engage with contemporary theories of stellar formation, with Ptolemaic theories of spheres around the earth, or with the ideas set out in Spelljammer? Gygax doesn't tell us, but the one astronomical example he provides - of someone flying to the moon on a winged horse - suggests more like the lattermost! It cetainly isn't consistent with the first.



Lanefan said:


> Because it fits with the baseline assumption that things in the D&D world work the same as in our world unless something says otherwise.



But there is no such baseline assumption! There is a baseline assumption that common sense things - eg animal husbandry - work much as they do in our world. But there is no such assumption when it comes to scientific theories that aren't evident to common sense, weren't known to mediaeval or even early modern people, and aren't discussed in the rulebooks.

In D&D, a character can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth, collect a diamond, and bring it back to earth. Is it distinguishable from an earthly diamond of the same size and shape? I've never seen anything to suggest that it is. Is it made of carbon atoms? Presumably not, given that we're talking about the Elemental Plane of Earth rather than the Elemental Plane of Carbon! But if it is indistinguishable from the earthly one, then presumably that is not made of carbon either!

Any number of similar examples can be given. Eg a vampire can suck the "life force" from a human being! Whatever the hell that is, it's not something that Darwin ever theorised! Or this one: fire is an element, which means that combustion is the release of an element from within the burned thing; which is much closer to the pholgiston theory of combustion than to the true theory that combustion is oxidation.



Lanefan said:


> from the DM side, I for one want to nail down how it all works, using a combination of my imagination and my limited knowledge of most things scientific.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> as RPG DMs, we can assume what we don't know in that we can design our own science to back everything up; and the easiest jumping-off point for that is to just use the science we already have in the real world wherever we can



OK, that's your prerogative. But I've never read a D&D rulebook that gave that advice (the closest thing I can think of is Gygax's discussion of ecology in his DMG, and that doesn't involve science at all, but pseudo-science about the sun in the gameworld being a diferent colour from that on earth). Nor do I recall any D&D book that suggested that the default is real world science beyond the remit of common sense.



Maxperson said:


> "Approximations of physics(and it turns out the other sciences) exist in D&D



Which ones? We've established that terminal velocity is different; that the only discussion of the earth's atmosphere and moon is different; that the composition of diamonds is different; that the elements are different; that combustion is different; that life is something connected to a supernatural "life force" rather than something that consiss in, or perhaps supervenes on, certain biochemical processes. 

What is left besides common sense tropes? - which are an "approximation of physics and other sciences" only in the sense that they are among the observations that are the starting point for scientific enquiry.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Gygax said nothing about "approximation of real world sciences". He indicated some areas of study for sages, which are approximations of real world mediaeval universities and scholarship.
> 
> Do sages who study astronomy in D&D engage with contemporary theories of stellar formation, with Ptolemaic theories of spheres around the earth, or with the ideas set out in Spelljammer? Gygax doesn't tell us, but the one astronomical example he provides - of someone flying to the moon on a winged horse - suggests more like the lattermost! It cetainly isn't consistent with the first.




One astronomical example?  He gives 4 right there, including one where stars are suns at a distance.  He then says it's the DMs call as to what can be done.  Even if you do go with the horse flying to the moon idea, that still doesn't mean that starts aren't balls of burning hydrogen, that planets don't orbit stars, and that moons don't orbit planets.  It doesn't mean that meteors don't fly around, crashing into planets.  It doesn't mean that there aren't black holes out there, and more.  Again, it's an APPROXIMATION of the science, not the science.  Enough with your Red Herring that they have to mirror real life exactly.



> Which ones? We've established that terminal velocity is different; that the only discussion of the earth's atmosphere and moon is different; that the composition of diamonds is different; that the elements are different; that combustion is different; that life is something connected to a supernatural "life force" rather than something that consiss in, or perhaps supervenes on, certain biochemical processes.




There's nothing to say that diamond is different, or that the atmosphere isn't composed of the same elements as Earth's, or that the elements are different.  I don't see anything to indicate that combustion is different, either.  It requires fire and a fuel source.  Gygax also established that a vacuum exists.  Where else would it exist if not in space?  As for terminal velocity.  So what if it's different.  What do you think "approximation" means.   You seem to think the "approximation" means "exact."

 Heck, he says this, "Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth."


----------



## pemerton

From Gygax's DMG, p 21:

Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair.

By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folk-lore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth.​
_Can be used_ does not mean, nor imply, _is the assumed baseline_. It is put in the same category as folklore, myth, fable and fiction.



Maxperson said:


> Even if you do go with the horse flying to the moon idea, that still doesn't mean that starts aren't balls of burning hydrogen, that planets don't orbit stars, and that moons don't orbit planets.



If moons orbit planets in the vacuum of space, then no horse is flying up to them, is it?



Maxperson said:


> There's nothing to say that diamond is different, or that the atmosphere isn't composed of the same elements as Earth's, or that the elements are different.  I don't see anything to indicate that combustion is different, either.  It requires fire and a fuel source.



Phlogiston theorists new that fire required fuel. But they thought that combustion meant that something (phlogiston) was being driven out of the burning substance, rather than something (oxygen) being bonded with it.

Given that, in D&D, the elements are air, earth, fire and water then it seems highly unlikely that the atmosphere is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, CO2, etc - as opposed to _elemental air_. And given that _fire_ is an element, it seems highly unlikely that combustion is a chemcial reaction of the sort it is on earth, as opposed to a process of driving the _elemental fire_ out of substances.

Of is the nsaming of the elements as elements a misnomer like the name of Cure Light Wounds?


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> But there is no such baseline assumption! There is a baseline assumption that common sense things - eg animal husbandry - work much as they do in our world. But there is no such assumption when it comes to scientific theories that aren't evident to common sense, weren't known to mediaeval or even early modern people, and aren't discussed in the rulebooks.



They aren't discussed because they are assumed.

Every item in the equipment list in the PH is given a weight.  The unwritten assumption behind this is that gravity exists, otherwise "weight" would be a meaningless term and he'd instead use "mass".  Ditto for encumbrance rules...they're irrelevant in a gravity-free environment and so their existence assumes the existence of gravity.  Ditto for ranges of ranged weapons - in a gravity-free environment they'd just keep going until they hit something or until air resistance slowed them down.

Once we agree that gravity exists in the game world as evidenced by these rules, we-as-DMs are then free to ask ourselves how it works; and to ask whether there's any good reason to have it work differently than in the real world other than where modified by magic*.

* - by the way, whatever system you're running, check the duration on the "Reverse Gravity" spell in that system and then hit one of the sites that do the acceleration calcs for you - you might be a little surprised... 



> In D&D, a character can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth, collect a diamond, and bring it back to earth.



Heh - in your D&D, maybe. 

In mine a character can travel to the Elemental Plane of Earth and 99.99%-likely immediately die, unless ahead of time it has turned itself into a Xorn or some other creature that can survive in solid earth or rock.

The tiny chance of survival is that there's occasional air pockets and caves, kind of like how open space has occasional solid objects in it (stars, planets, etc.).



> Any number of similar examples can be given. Eg a vampire can suck the "life force" from a human being! Whatever the hell that is, it's not something that Darwin ever theorised!



This is ne I've given quite a bit of thought to over the years...I've sort of got a vague theory half-built that covers this, and spirits in general, and how they relate to being alive-dead-undead, and revival from death, and a bunch of other metaphysical stuff; but it's by no means solid enough yet to apply to the game.  Which means I still kinda wing a lot of it, for the time being.

Lanefan


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> If moons orbit planets in the vacuum of space, then no horse is flying up to them, is it?




A horse(or anything else) can't fly to the moon.  He gives that as an alternative that a DM can make up, which means that the baseline is that you can't do it.  Nobody is arguing that you can't add something magical or different.  Only that the game approximates the sciences.



> Phlogiston theorists new that fire required fuel. But they thought that combustion meant that something (phlogiston) was being driven out of the burning substance, rather than something (oxygen) being bonded with it.




Another Red Herring?!?!  A made up substance that is campaign specific does not prove you correct.



> Given that, in D&D, the elements are air, earth, fire and water then it seems highly unlikely that the atmosphere is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, CO2, etc - as opposed to _elemental air_. And given that _fire_ is an element, it seems highly unlikely that combustion is a chemcial reaction of the sort it is on earth, as opposed to a process of driving the _elemental fire_ out of substances.




He gives actual elements in the game.  The elemental planes are not the actual elements that all things are made up from.  He gives us gold, iron, platinum, copper, carbon, sulfur, phosphorus, chlorine, silver, zinc, mercury, and lead.  Now, Gygax may have intended that the physical elements be a part of "elemental earth" and the gaseous elements be a part of "elemental air," but the fact is, the elements from the real world exist there in an approximation of the real world sciences that use them.



> Of is the nsaming of the elements as elements a misnomer like the name of Cure Light Wounds?




See above.  Gygax names them properly just fine.

P.S. Gravity cannot be reversed by the spell if it doesn't exist in the first place.

P.P.S. Molecular Agitation explicitly says that it affects the molecules of an item.

P.P.P.S. the list of herbs and such is incredibly detailed in real world herbs.  He then adds fantasy plants to them, making D&D botany an approximation of the real world's.

P.P.P.P.S. He also lists real world gambling games.

If you can't see by now that Gygax drew from the real world as a baseline on top of which he built his fantasy components, I really don't know what else to tell you.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> It's a premise: to learn scientific truth you actually need to investigate stuff in the real world, not just imagine stuff. That's why Galileo's opinions about the nature of the planets are connected to truth, whereas the stuff CS Lewise wrote in his Out of the Silent Planet stories is not.



I guess we'll just have to tell the boys in the theoretical physics department they should just go home; no science to be done.

Also, as an aside, Galileo had no evidence or fact to back up his model.  He thought ut was a more elegant solution to astrology [sic].  Also, he thought himself so smart as to be infallible, and so insisted by dint of him being him he was right.  

Actual observational science of the time agreed with the Earth centric model because telescope optics were too poor to reveal parallax in stars. Even then, no one could really even imagine the distances involved.  It wasn't until optics improved to the point observers could view the parallax enough to overcome the disbelief of the distances involved that the Earth centric model was actually adopted.  And then it was Kepler's much better model rsther than "Shut up I'm Galileo"''s one.


----------



## Morrus

pemerton said:


> It's a premise: to learn scientific truth you actually need to investigate stuff in the real world, not just imagine stuff. That's why Galileo's opinions about the nature of the planets are connected to truth, whereas the stuff CS Lewise wrote in his Out of the Silent Planet stories is not.




Tell that to Albert Einstein.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Every item in the equipment list in the PH is given a weight.  The unwritten assumption behind this is that gravity exists, otherwise "weight" would be a meaningless term and he'd instead use "mass".



This can't be true, because "weight' _was_ a meaningful term even before the notion of _mass_ as distinct from _weight_ had been discovered. (According to the wikipedia page on the Cavendish experiment, in Cavendish's time the distincition between mass and weight wasn't made in the way it is made in contemporary physics.) Of course it's true, in the real world, that weight is a function of mass, and of the operation of universal gravitation. But those equipment lists could have been written, without change, in the seventeenth century! Are you really saying that a seventeenth person who talked about the weight of things was presupposing the operation of scientific laws that s/he didn't know about, and - given the state of knowledge and equipment - perhaps even _couldn't _know about.



Lanefan said:


> Ditto for encumbrance rules...they're irrelevant in a gravity-free environment





Maxperson said:


> Gravity cannot be reversed by the spell if it doesn't exist in the first place.



I can't believe we're still stuck on this.

Surely you can appreciate that it is possible to know that unsupported objects fall, and that objects have weight, without knowing about universal gravitation? Surely you aware that people have known that unsupported objects fall, and that objects have weight, for somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million or so years; but have know about universal gravitation for about 300 years?

Given that those people were able to thinks, and talk about their lives and world, and imagine things, and tell stories, _iwithout implying anything about universal gravitation_, fantasy authors today can do the same thing. And do.



Maxperson said:


> He also lists real world gambling games.
> 
> If you can't see by now that Gygax drew from the real world as a baseline on top of which he built his fantasy components, I really don't know what else to tell you.



Of course Gygax drew on the real world. So did Aristotle. So did the author of Beowulf. But you can draw on the real world (what, upthread, I and others have called "common sense tropes") without assuming that the real world is as it is in virtue of the operation of scientific laws.



Maxperson said:


> the list of herbs and such is incredibly detailed in real world herbs.



Yes. My point is that people can know things about the real world without knowing science; and that we can imagine those things without imagining them to be grounded in scientific reality. (Just as Aristotle did, given that he didn't _know_ a great deal of scientific reality.)



Maxperson said:


> He gives actual elements in the game.  The elemental planes are not the actual elements that all things are made up from.  He gives us gold, iron, platinum, copper, carbon, sulfur, phosphorus, chlorine, silver, zinc, mercury, and lead.



The Greeks, who posited that the elements were air, earth, fire and water, knew of these different metals. But that these _metals_ are _elements_ is a modern discovery.

If the elements of air, earth, fire and water are not in fact the elements from which matter is composed, then why are they called _elements_?



Maxperson said:


> A horse(or anything else) can't fly to the moon.  He gives that as an *alternative *that a DM can make up, which means that the baseline is that you can't do it.



I've highlighted a key word. _Alternative_ to what?

He doesn't use the word _alternative_, does he? He refers (p 57) to "nearly endless possibilities". It is a possibility, not mandated - but no default is specified to which it is an _alternative_.



Maxperson said:


> Another Red Herring?!?!  A made up substance that is campaign specific does not prove you correct.



I'm not referring to Spelljammer, I'm referring to the phlogiston theory of combustion, which was extent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

If you're not familiar with the history of science and the development of human knowledge over 100,000+ years of human history, that would help explain why you seem to think that _having beliefs about the world_ - which human beings have always had - entails _knowing scientifc truth_ - which, in fact, people have known only for a few hundred years or so.

*******************************



Maxperson said:


> Molecular Agitation explicitly says that it affects the molecules of an item.



Yes. The psionic rules deliberately evoke scientific notions.

They also invoke Freudian psychological notions - id, ego, super-ego. But I've yet to read the poster who says, therefore, that it is a game rule that D&D characters have , by the rulebook, the psychological strucutres and processes that Freud posits!

On that latter point, I think that's because most D&D players don't use Freud as part of their everyday framework of thought, but do use molecules.

On the broader point, psionics are presented in an optional Appendix, and so can't be treated as establishing a default. And in fact a frequent reason given by people who don't like psionics in D&D is that they introduce too much scientific flavour into a fantasy game.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to the best of my knowledge Galileo actually saw some moons through his telescope; he didn't just conjure them up in imagination and thereby conclude that Jupiter had moons.


----------



## pemerton

Morrus said:


> Tell that to Albert Einstein.



I was waiting for that.

Einstein relied on observation. The Michelson-Morely experiement had shown that light had no velocity relative to the aether. And the constancy of the speed of light, whatever the motion of its source, is a key assumption in Einstein's thought experiments.

Plato thought that scientific knowledge was able to be generated by pure reflection on ideas. He was wrong.

Also, in checking the spelling of and attribution to Michelson-Morley I came across this interesting paper: Chasing a Beam of Light: Einstein's Most Famous Thought Experiment. In passing, it makes the following remark:

Maxwell's electrodynamics evolved over the course of half a century and built on a long series of experiments in electricity and magnetism. An emission theory must adjust the theory, but it cannot alter it too radically on pain of incompatibility with those experiments.​
Einstein was not proceeding in ignorance or disregard of experimental results and their theoretical implications!


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Surely you can appreciate that it is possible to know that unsupported objects fall, and that objects have weight, without knowing about universal gravitation? Surely you aware that people have known that unsupported objects fall, and that objects have weight, for somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million or so years; but have know about universal gravitation for about 300 years?
> 
> Given that those people were able to thinks, and talk about their lives and world, and imagine things, and tell stories, _iwithout implying anything about universal gravitation_, fantasy authors today can do the same thing. And do.




Surely you can appreciate and are aware that nothing you just said is relevant to my argument.  Gravity existed that entire time, whether the people realized it or not.  Further, Reverse Gravity is the name of the spell in the game world, so regardless of when people figured out that gravity exists in the real world, people in the game world are aware of it.



> Of course Gygax drew on the real world. So did Aristotle. So did the author of Beowulf. But you can draw on the real world (what, upthread, I and others have called "common sense tropes") without assuming that the real world is as it is in virtue of the operation of scientific laws.
> 
> Yes. My point is that people can know things about the real world without knowing science; and that we can imagine those things without imagining them to be grounded in scientific reality. (Just as Aristotle did, given that he didn't _know_ a great deal of scientific reality.)




This right here is the problem.  You seem to think we're talking about characters in the game.  We're not.  We're saying that the game world is designed by Gygax to include approximations of real world physics, chemistry, etc.  You can have the people in your game know about it, or not know a thing about it.  It's not relevant what they know.  The game world has these approximations of physics and other sciences regardless of what the people in the game world are aware of.



> I've highlighted a key word. _Alternative_ to what?
> 
> He doesn't use the word _alternative_, does he? He refers (p 57) to "nearly endless possibilities". It is a possibility, not mandated - but no default is specified to which it is an _alternative_.




Context is your friend.  The context of his statements is Gygax giving DMs ideas on how they might change the game.  



> Yes. The psionic rules deliberately evoke scientific notions.
> 
> They also invoke Freudian psychological notions - id, ego, super-ego. But I've yet to read the poster who says, therefore, that it is a game rule that D&D characters have , by the rulebook, the psychological strucutres and processes that Freud posits!




Sure, I suppose it makes sense for these characters to use terms and knowledge for their psionic powers that doesn't exist in the game world.  I suppose.



> On the broader point, psionics are presented in an optional Appendix, and so can't be treated as establishing a default. And in fact a frequent reason given by people who don't like psionics in D&D is that they introduce too much scientific flavour into a fantasy game.




Regardless of whether or not it's optional, it's a part of the game he designed and shows his thought process.  And psionics introducing too much scientific flavor is an understandable objection.  It's not one that I myself have, but I've had difficulty with other people I play with and since I'm the odd man out here, I just sort of gave up on using them in the game outside of mind flayers.  For some reason everyone is okay with mind flayers having psionics.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> It's a premise: to learn scientific truth you actually need to investigate stuff in the real world, not just imagine stuff. That's why Galileo's opinions about the nature of the planets are connected to truth, whereas the stuff CS Lewise wrote in his Out of the Silent Planet stories is not.




So you say that Mathematics can not be scientific truth?  At least it is consistent with what humans believed for the majority of their existence I guess.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to the best of my knowledge Galileo actually saw some moons through his telescope; he didn't just conjure them up in imagination and thereby conclude that Jupiter had moons.




Sure he did.  But moons around Jupiter aren't the same as a non-Earth-centric cosmos, nor was that discovery contested at the time.  Galileo saw moons and jumped to a conclusion which, for Galileo, was true because he thought of it not because there was evidence for it.  Again, if the Earth went around the Sun, why didn't the stars show parallax?  They _observably _did not, ergo, they revolved around Earth.  There was much stronger observational evidence in favor of an Earth-centric cosmos at the time, even with Galilean moons.  The apocryphal stories about the Church suppressing Galileo have added to this myth that Galileo was the first real scientist and that he discovered the Helio-centric nature of the solar system.  But, as noted, that's largely bullhockey.  Galileo actually had a great deal of favor in the Church - the Pope himself was a fan and patron of his model.  However, they told Galileo that he couldn't publish his model as truth because he lacked evidence -- evidence that wouldn't exist for another 100 years upon which the Church adopted a helio-centric model.  Instead they told him he had to publish it as a mathematical prediction model, not the true nature of the world.  Galileo thought that everyone should just listen to him, so he wrote a book where a character that clearly favored Galileo explained how the theory was true to a dunce of a character clearly modeled after the Pope -- even with an extremely similar name!  For this Galileo was punished, but even there his close ties to the Church got him a very lenient sentence of house arrest which would have been lifted if Galileo publicly stated his theory had no evidence (it did not) and was just a mathematical astrology model (it was).

Galileo has his myth enchanced by the fact he was otherwise widely published and he caused quite a scandal. Oh, and also that he had guessed a theory that was close to what turned out to be true.  Helio-centrism wasn't new at the time, Gelileo just made it a huge news splash at that time and still couldn't prove a thing.  Kepler, who independently developed a helio-centric model that was far better than Galileo's at about the same time is largely ignored by pop-culture because he didn't get in trouble with the Church for insulting the pontiff while self-aggrandizing.   Kepler also had a huge advantage in publishing in that he was Lutheran, and so did not require Church approval of his theories.

The Church occupied an interesting position at the time.  Contrary to popular belief, the Church did not have Earth-centrism as dogma, meaning it wasn't held as absolute religious truth.  Instead, it was in the body of work that was held as truth that did not contradict dogma.  Helio-centrism didn't contradict dogma, either, but the Church actually held a standard that proof was required prior to adjusting what the Church held out as understood truth (as opposed to dogma, which is mandated truth).  At the time, the observable scientific proof was on the side of Earth-centrism.  That's hard for people to swallow these days because the evidence we have now is so overwhelmingly in the other direction, but it's absolutely true that at the time it was nearly impossible to detect that evidence (as I said above, telescope tech was really poor due to the inability to grind lenses precisely enough).  The evidence that could be detected strongly pointed to Earth-centrism or didn't point to helio-centrism.  The Church was actually defending science at the time, not suppressing it.  Funny how our myths get made, though -- it's easy to make the Church the villain and we like to champion the underdog.  The truth is that Galileo, while brilliant, was a blowhard most of the time and a rather unpleasant fellow when thwarted and the Church was involved in good science.  Weird, yeah?


----------



## Shasarak

Lanefan said:


> The problem is, most depictions of basic Giants e.g. Hill Giants show them as pretty much looking like really big Humans; so it's an easy step from there to assume they just more or less *are* really big Humans.
> 
> Lan-"never mind an actual game-world Human who downs a Potion of Growth and suddenly becomes 15' tall"-efan




An Elf looks pretty much like a thin Human, a Dwarf like a short Human and a Halfling like a Human child.  A Merman looks like a Human with a Fish tail, a Harpy like a Human with wings, a Centaur like a Human with a Horse body.

It is a very easy step to assume that they are more or less just Humans wearing a funny costume or rubber mask.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Shasarak said:


> So you say that Mathematics can not be scientific truth?  At least it is consistent with what humans believed for the majority of their existence I guess.




I think this.  I'm an engineer, and rely on math daily to create.  But, I also think that math cannot be proven by anything other than inference, and therefore a lot of our knowledge that is based on math is similarly based on inference.  This means that it's possible that the math we trust is merely a good enough model for where we are, much like Newtonian physics is good enough for most daily needs but unreliable for things like space travel (GPS satellites don't work without a relativistic correction to time, frex).  Maybe we're incapable of doing better, maybe one day we will, maybe what we have is right, but there's enough places where the math we now understand just fails to work that I can't really fully believe we have it right.  Right enough for now, sure.

Example:  the imaginary number. It's critical to many functions in our daily life -- AC power, communications, etc.  However, it has no mathematical representation we can resolve.  For those that don't know, the imaginary number is the representation of the square root of -1.  There exists no number that, when multiplied by itself, equals -1.  But we have math that generates square roots of negative numbers that we need to resolve, so we've invoked the imaginary number to do the work.  And it does the work -- we get answers we can use to predict and operate on.  However, we've had to break our fundamental understanding of numbers to do so and apply a patch.  That's not a feature of a discovered truth, it's a feature of a theory that has a hole that can be patched with a few assumptions.  Who knows, perhaps there's a number concept out there that handles the imaginary number naturally and also does everything else we need it to do, or maybe we have the whole thing wrong but it's still hella useful anyway (all models are wrong, some are useful), or maybe it really is unanswerable by our intellect or by the current state of physical laws.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> This can't be true, because "weight' _was_ a meaningful term even before the notion of _mass_ as distinct from _weight_ had been discovered. (According to the wikipedia page on the Cavendish experiment, in Cavendish's time the distincition between mass and weight wasn't made in the way it is made in contemporary physics.) Of course it's true, in the real world, that weight is a function of mass, and of the operation of universal gravitation. But those equipment lists could have been written, without change, in the seventeenth century! Are you really saying that a seventeenth person who talked about the weight of things was presupposing the operation of scientific laws that s/he didn't know about, and - given the state of knowledge and equipment - perhaps even _couldn't _know about.
> 
> I can't believe we're still stuck on this.
> 
> Surely you can appreciate that it is possible to know that unsupported objects fall, and that objects have weight, without knowing about universal gravitation? Surely you aware that people have known that unsupported objects fall, and that objects have weight, for somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million or so years; but have know about universal gravitation for about 300 years?
> 
> Given that those people were able to thinks, and talk about their lives and world, and imagine things, and tell stories, _iwithout implying anything about universal gravitation_, fantasy authors today can do the same thing. And do.



As I've said before, this is all fine and dandy for the typical inhabitant of the game world - even the typical average-intelligence PC, for all that.

But for the DM behind the scenes it's not enough, because to build a consistent world/universe she's better off if she thinks through at least the basics and how they will (or can) relate to both our real world and to magic...because sooner or later it's inevitable some of this stuff will somehow come up, and better she be able to have confident and consistent answers on hand than to risk making it up on the fly and causing grief for all involved when the made-up things don't agree with other tings already established.

And it's thinking a DM only has to do once, as it can then be applied to pretty much every fantasy campaign you ever run from there on.



> If the elements of air, earth, fire and water are not in fact the elements from which matter is composed, then why are they called _elements_?



Because any of the following might be true:

1. The word "elements" has multiple meanings; or
2. The default meaning of the word "elements" has changed over time; or
3. The term is being mis-used, either in Aristotle's day or in ours.

I think most of us would agree it's #1 above.


----------



## Emerikol

Manbearcat said:


> Its just a giant D&D double standard.  Either (i) allow martial heroes to do fantastical things (because they're origin is magical, the same as everything else...or because hand-waving all the things we hand-wave for magical creatures), (ii) disallow the fantastical things of D&D world (that is no fun and not going to happen), or (iii) just admit that their is no rational high ground for the double standard...it doesn't have a basis beyond aesthetic preference!




I don't think anyone is saying that fighters don't do things beyond what humans can do in this world.  It is how it is presented.  Do you use author/director style mechanics or mechanics that still fit within an actor stance?

Trust me, no human on earth is going to ever kill a dragon with a pointy metal sword.  Fighters do that in D&D and have throughout the history of the game.

For me though, if you feel the necessity of those style mechanics then we can just agree to disagree because for me those mechanics you might suggest wouldn't be fun.  I keep reiterating we don't all need to play in the same group or for that matter even the same game.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> So you say that Mathematics can not be scientific truth?  At least it is consistent with what humans believed for the majority of their existence I guess.



Mathematics in itself tells us nothing about the world. As Hilbert said, if you can't substitute "beer mugs" et al for "points, lines, et al" then you haven't got to the heart of the mathematical proposition (or something to that effect).

Mathematical physics tells us about the world because it is anchored in measurement.

The Ancient Greeks had excellent geometry, but they were able to use it to determine the circumference of the earth because they took measurements. Conversely, their astronomical theories suffered from the limitations of their observations, which were not sufficient to displace the geocentric theory.

 [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - the observation of moons around Jupiter is sufficient to disrupt the basic geocentric framework. Once other planets have moons in orbit about them, the posit of the earth as the centre of all orbits breaks down. (There is also the technical challenge of incorporating the moons of Jupiter into the then highly epicyclic state of geocentric theorising - I don't know enough of the history of that period to know if this was seriously attempted.)


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> As I've said before, this is all fine and dandy for the typical inhabitant of the game world - even the typical average-intelligence PC, for all that.
> 
> But for the DM behind the scenes it's not enough, because to build a consistent world/universe she's better off if she thinks through at least the basics and how they will (or can) relate to both our real world and to magic



GMing would be no harder for a 17th century GM than a 20th century one.

For all I know Gygax had never heard of the strong and weak nuclear forces, yet was able to GM pretty well by all accounts.

JRRT certainly had never heard of nuclear forces when he started working on his fantasy stories (given the relevant dates), but seemed to do OK also on the world-building front.

Common sense and a familiarity with a variety of historical and fantasy tropes will get you a long way!



Lanefan said:


> any of the following might be true:
> 
> 1. The word "elements" has multiple meanings; or
> 2. The default meaning of the word "elements" has changed over time; or
> 3. The term is being mis-used, either in Aristotle's day or in ours.
> 
> I think most of us would agree it's #1 above.



Appendix IV of the PHB includes the following:

The _Positive Material Plane_ is a place of energy and light, the place which is the source of much that is vital and active, the power supply for good.

The _Negative Material Plane _is the place of anti-matter and negative force, the source of power for undead, the energy area from which evil grows.​
This is in an appendix, so optional, but the source of stuff that's gone on to be treated as rather canonical. The description of the positive material plane seems rather vitalistic (still a going theory in the latter part of the nineteenth century) rather than biochemical. And the notion of anti-matter and "negative force" that is put forward doesn't seem to overlap in substance (as opposed to terminology) with modern physics.

Between this and the elemental planes - which are the _inner planes_, the building blocks of all creation - I find it hard to take seriously that this is a world which is aptly described by a modern physics or biology textbook!


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Between this and the elemental planes - which are the _inner planes_, the building blocks of all creation




So you're argument is that the PCs wear earth armor and fight with earth weapons purchased with earth pieces?  Me, I think that elemental earth consists of the physical, made up of atoms and molecules(born out by molecular agitation), and elements(born out by the myriad of elements used by Gygax in the game).



> I find it hard to take seriously that this is a world which is aptly described by a modern physics or biology textbook!




I find it hard to take seriously that you are still using this tired Red Herring.  Let the poor fish rest!


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> Mathematics in itself tells us nothing about the world. As Hilbert said, if you can't substitute "beer mugs" et al for "points, lines, et al" then you haven't got to the heart of the mathematical proposition (or something to that effect).
> 
> Mathematical physics tells us about the world because it is anchored in measurement.



I have no idea where your idea of modern mathematical purity comes from, but it's entirely wrong.  There are lots and lots of theories that are based solely on mathematical models that do a pretty good job of predicting behaviors but aren't based on observation.  Heck, take the flow of electricity -- we still don't know what "direction" electricity flows or if it's even a net flow of electrons or a net flow of "holes" where electrons aren't.  But we have math that we can make work, and it does a good enough job that you can read this on your computer.  Don't even get started on RF communication theory.  Seriously, don't, there's a few things I was shocked to learn that we just use statistics because it results in a useful answer but can't even begin to describe the phenomenon -- and that's before we get to quantum theory.

There's a modern belief that our science is really truth and should be held up.  That's wrong.  Science is a tool, a damn good one, but it's only as good as the craftsman using it.  Our theories may look just as stupid to future people in a few hundred years as Geo-centrism looks to us.  



> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - the observation of moons around Jupiter is sufficient to disrupt the basic geocentric framework. Once other planets have moons in orbit about them, the posit of the earth as the centre of all orbits breaks down. (There is also the technical challenge of incorporating the moons of Jupiter into the then highly epicyclic state of geocentric theorising - I don't know enough of the history of that period to know if this was seriously attempted.)



Nope.  You can't point to one piece of evidence that isn't supported by other necessary evidence and claim it's sufficient.  That's quackery.  At the time, even with the discover of moons around Jupiter, the overwhelming evidence was that the planets and the stars and the sun orbited the Earth.  It's normal to resist facts when they attack a strongly held belief in how things were, and you've likely always heard that Galileo proved helio-centrism and that the Church punished him to suppress it.  But, that's wrong.  Galileo gathered some evidence, but not enough, and was a loud quack with a good guess.  He got himself in trouble with the Church by mocking the Pope.  That's it.  

The core evidence that things didn't orbit Earth is star parallax.  If thing really didn't orbit the Earth, they'd be in slightly different places relative to each other and their position in the sky as Earth went around the sun.  Direct telescope observation showed that this was NOT the case.  Stars didn't shift.  Now we know that's because they're so insanely far away that the shift is tiny and you need a very powerful and clear telescope to detect it, but that didn't mean the observational science of the time didn't do a good job and was upended because Galileo had an idea or saw some moons orbiting Jupiter.  Heck, the Church even acknowledged the Galilean moons at the time, so that wasn't it.  We keep giving Galileo prime place, but, again, Kepler did far better work that had even more evidence behind it.  He, though, was more humble, and didn't tell everyone he was right because he couldn't prove it and knew it.  All Galileo did was advance a theory that couldn't be proved.  Do you know what we do with those today?  Pretty much the same thing the Church did.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> So you're argument is that the PCs wear earth armor and fight with earth weapons purchased with earth pieces?



On a 4-elements basis, yes.  Those things are not water, nor fire, nor air - earth is all that's left.

Of the 4 elements, earth comes in the greatest variance of everyday-observable-to-the-average-person forms.  Water has a few variants (beer, wine, etc.; maybe ice), air even less, and fire is - well, pretty much just fire.



> Me, I think that elemental earth consists of the physical, made up of atoms and molecules(born out by molecular agitation), and elements(born out by the myriad of elements used by Gygax in the game).



That sounds more like a description of the Prime Material plane, from here.



> I find it hard to take seriously that you are still using this tired Red Herring.  Let the poor fish rest!




Lan-"sometimes guilty myself of using a red herring to flog a dead horse"-efan


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> On a 4-elements basis, yes.  Those things are not water, nor fire, nor air - earth is all that's left.
> 
> Of the 4 elements, earth comes in the greatest variance of everyday-observable-to-the-average-person forms.  Water has a few variants (beer, wine, etc.; maybe ice), air even less, and fire is - well, pretty much just fire.
> 
> That sounds more like a description of the Prime Material plane, from here.




If the prime plane is built from the 4 elements and it contains atoms, molecules and elements, then the elemental planes must also contain those things.  It doesn't make sense for earth to spontaneously develop atoms, molecules and elements after it arrives on the prime plane.  We also know from the books that the elemental plane of earth contains gems and such, so it's not just dirt and common stone.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> I was waiting for that.
> 
> Einstein relied on observation. The Michelson-Morely experiement had shown that light had no velocity relative to the aether. And the constancy of the speed of light, whatever the motion of its source, is a key assumption in Einstein's thought experiments.
> 
> Plato thought that scientific knowledge was able to be generated by pure reflection on ideas. He was wrong.
> 
> Also, in checking the spelling of and attribution to Michelson-Morley I came across this interesting paper: Chasing a Beam of Light: Einstein's Most Famous Thought Experiment. In passing, it makes the following remark:
> 
> Maxwell's electrodynamics evolved over the course of half a century and built on a long series of experiments in electricity and magnetism. An emission theory must adjust the theory, but it cannot alter it too radically on pain of incompatibility with those experiments.​
> Einstein was not proceeding in ignorance or disregard of experimental results and their theoretical implications!




The mistake you're making with your argument is that your position is based on the assumption that folks who are replying to you are disregarding experimental results and their theoretical implications.  

If you go back through the thread, you'll note that if read impartially that you're the one using that assumption as the basis for your argument and all it's doing is inflating the post count as folks either take the bait or try to talk you back to a shared position.

It's called shifting the goal posts.  When people who aren't good at it do it, people catch on and stop replying.  You're really good at it so others' follow along.

Be well
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots

Maxperson said:


> If the prime plane is built from the 4 elements and it contains atoms, molecules and elements, then the elemental planes must also contain those things.  It doesn't make sense for earth to spontaneously develop atoms, molecules and elements after it arrives on the prime plane.  We also know from the books that the elemental plane of earth contains gems and such, so it's not just dirt and common stone.




Usually I agree with your positions.  In this case I present a possible basis for differences between the prime material and elemental planes.  

The prime material has all four or five (in my personal model) elements.  This mixing could if you wanted it to, be the basis for an entirely different set of rules around atomic theory in a game world.

2c
KB


----------



## Emerikol

Mathematics is not science.  For example, mathematics is true in all possible universes.  We can easily say that scientific laws could in theory be different in different universes.

Mathematics is a tool which we use to analyze the scientific universe.  It is not scientific truth in and of itself.  It is just a tool for analysis.  That is why ALL of the sciences use math.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Emerikol said:


> Mathematics is not science.  For example, mathematics is true in all possible universes.  We can easily say that scientific laws could in theory be different in different universes.
> 
> Mathematics is a tool which we use to analyze the scientific universe.  It is not scientific truth in and of itself.  It is just a tool for analysis.  That is why ALL of the sciences use math.




I'd restate your initial premise thusly:

Mathematics is true in a multiverse model when any individual universe is analyzed through the lens of our specific universe.

KB


----------



## Maxperson

Kobold Boots said:


> Usually I agree with your positions.  In this case I present a possible basis for differences between the prime material and elemental planes.
> 
> The prime material has all four or five (in my personal model) elements.  This mixing could if you wanted it to, be the basis for an entirely different set of rules around atomic theory in a game world.
> 
> 2c
> KB




For sure you could play it that way, but Gygax wrote the the elemental planes were the building blocks for the others.  That sounds as small as it gets, which to me would include the atoms, molecules and elements.  Especially when you consider that in 1e the elemental plane of earth has all of the gems, minerals and metals of the prime planes in it as native sources to find.  Lastly, I found this gem in the 1e Manual of the Planes, "Toward the positive material plane, the water becomes warmer and more agitated until cohesiveness between water molecules breaks down and the plane of quasi-elemental steam is reached."  It doesn't get clearer than that.  Atoms and molecules exist on the elemental planes, just as they do on the prime planes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Emerikol said:


> Mathematics is not science.  For example, mathematics is true in all possible universes.  We can easily say that scientific laws could in theory be different in different universes.
> 
> Mathematics is a tool which we use to analyze the scientific universe.  It is not scientific truth in and of itself.  It is just a tool for analysis.  That is why ALL of the sciences use math.



Aw, man, there's a TLJ Luke quote for this.


----------



## Emerikol

Kobold Boots said:


> I'd restate your initial premise thusly:
> 
> Mathematics is true in a multiverse model when any individual universe is analyzed through the lens of our specific universe.
> 
> KB




No.  First all mathematics of all sorts exists as truth whether human minds conceive of it or not.  It is true that on a plane in all universes the shortest distance between a point is a straight line.   

You can conceive of a non-Euclidean universe and that is fine but the math for a plane is still true math.  It may not be as useful in a different universe it is still true.  The same for math used to describe alternate realities.  It would all be true in all universes.

There is a concept in philosophy of necessity.  Something that has the property must exist in all universes.  Depending on your views that will only include abstract concepts or something more.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Emerikol said:


> No.  First all mathematics of all sorts exists as truth whether human minds conceive of it or not.  It is true that on a plane in all universes the shortest distance between a point is a straight line.
> 
> You can conceive of a non-Euclidean universe and that is fine but the math for a plane is still true math.  It may not be as useful in a different universe it is still true.  The same for math used to describe alternate realities.  It would all be true in all universes.
> 
> There is a concept in philosophy of necessity.  Something that has the property must exist in all universes.  Depending on your views that will only include abstract concepts or something more.




I'm not intending to start a lengthy discussion about math and truth.  But since you're expressing your opinion, I'm expressing things I've been taught over the years by folks that thought they were math and english professors.

- Math does not exist without sentient thought.  It's a language.  Don't confuse the nature of reality with the math that models it.  Two entirely different things.  

- Math is not truth.  In order for truth to exist as a function, fallacy needs to exist.  This is not the same thing as correct vs. incorrect.  Something can be incorrect without being a fallacy.  The difference is intention and the universe does not intend to lie to anyone.  It's good marketing for math and science to be in the "truth" camp but it's really just a way for us to not be in the dark and model our understanding of the world around us.  The moment science becomes "truth" we will have nothing left to learn.

- Philosophy is great, but it's absolute garbage.  The minute someone goes "philosophy" on you, you know they haven't got a leg to stand on.  There's a reason why math and science research papers are usually less than 20 pages and liberal arts papers are usually hundreds of pages long.  More words = nonsense being passed as fact.

(edited due to filtered language)


----------



## Satyrn

Kobold Boots said:


> More words = nonsense being passed as fact.




So, to hide the fact that I'm spouting nonsense, I should keep my posts short? 


I can do that.


----------



## Lanefan

Kobold Boots said:


> Usually I agree with your positions.  In this case I present a possible basis for differences between the prime material and elemental planes.
> 
> The prime material has all four or five (in my personal model) elements.  This mixing could if you wanted it to, be the basis for an entirely different set of rules around atomic theory in a game world.



Nice!

If I hadn't already thought this all through a long time ago, this would be my jumping-off point to do it now.


----------



## Shasarak

Kobold Boots said:


> - Math is not truth.  In order for truth to exist as a function, fallacy needs to exist.  This is not the same thing as correct vs. incorrect.  Something can be incorrect without being a fallacy.  The difference is intention and the universe does not intend to lie to anyone.  It's good marketing for math and science to be in the "truth" camp but it's really just a way for us to not be in the dark and model our understanding of the world around us.  The moment science becomes "truth" we will have nothing left to learn.




The good news is that as long as we are filtering Science through humans then there will always be something to learn.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Kobold Boots said:


> I'm not intending to start a lengthy discussion about math and truth.  But since you're expressing your opinion, I'm expressing things I've been taught over the years by folks that thought they were math and english professors.
> 
> - Math does not exist without sentient thought.  It's a language.  Don't confuse the nature of reality with the math that models it.  Two entirely different things.
> 
> - Math is not truth.  In order for truth to exist as a function, fallacy needs to exist.  This is not the same thing as correct vs. incorrect.  Something can be incorrect without being a fallacy.  The difference is intention and the universe does not intend to lie to anyone.  It's good marketing for math and science to be in the "truth" camp but it's really just a way for us to not be in the dark and model our understanding of the world around us.  The moment science becomes "truth" we will have nothing left to learn.
> 
> - Philosophy is great, but it's absolute garbage.  The minute someone goes "philosophy" on you, you know they haven't got a leg to stand on.  There's a reason why math and science research papers are usually less than 20 pages and liberal arts papers are usually hundreds of pages long.  More words = nonsense being passed as fact.
> 
> (edited due to filtered language)




In general, I agree with this.  There is no real "Science," just the scientific method which is a tool, not truth.  You shouldn't believe in science any more than you should believe in your hammer.  It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general -- the scientific method is excellent for observing our universe, but cannot offer answers on other things. \

However, if you really think math and science papers are just shorter, I'm going to have to disagree on that point.  I read quite a few beasts in my time.

And, further furthermore, to the thread in general, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this thread has devolved into arguments about whether modern physics exists or doesn't in made up elf games just so that one side or the other can show that a preference for non-magical fighter abilities is wrong or right.  Why the hell are we inventing stupid arguments about the nature of reality in elf-games just to prove another's preferred method of explaining something in that elf-game is wrongheaded?  What your end goal?  I love to drop bombs about Galileo when I get the chance, but it just dawned on me why it even came up in this thread, and I'm left befuddled as to the point.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> And, further furthermore, to the thread in general, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this thread has devolved into arguments about whether modern physics exists or doesn't in made up elf games just so that one side or the other can show that a preference for non-magical fighter abilities is wrong or right.  Why the hell are we inventing stupid arguments about the nature of reality in elf-games just to prove another's preferred method of explaining something in that elf-game is wrongheaded?  What your end goal?  I love to drop bombs about Galileo when I get the chance, but it just dawned on me why it even came up in this thread, and I'm left befuddled as to the point.




Actually, the idea on whether physics and other sciences exists in D&D is completely a side discussion I believe.  Yes, it's in the thread about metagaming, but this portion did a strong right turn off topic, which often happens in threads of any significant length.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Ovinomancer said:


> There is no real "Science," just the scientific method which is a tool, not truth.  You shouldn't believe in science any more than you should believe in your hammer.  It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general -- the scientific method is excellent for observing our universe, but cannot offer answers on other things.




This is a sweeping, unsupported, epistemological assertion; I can make those too, but it doesn't make them true.

What "other things" did you have in mind which are not part of "our universe?"


----------



## Ovinomancer

Sepulchrave II said:


> This is a sweeping, unsupported, epistemological assertion; I can make those too, but it doesn't make them true.
> 
> What "other things" did you have in mind which are not part of "our universe?"




Sure. 

"Science, when is it okay to kill someone?"  "Science, what is the best corporate tax rate?"
"Science, prove [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] is not a figment of my imagination."

Or, "Science, prove that Science is the best means to discover truth."

Now, I'm pretty sure they'll be handwaiving about the questions or that Science will on day figure all this out, but that's invalid because these are things in the universe, and you can't invoke non-scientific guesses about the future to justify science.  That's self-defeating for the question -  you're using not science to claim science is (will be?) right.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Actually, the idea on whether physics and other sciences exists in D&D is completely a side discussion I believe.  Yes, it's in the thread about metagaming, but this portion did a strong right turn off topic, which often happens in threads of any significant length.



Nope, started directly off the action surge/second wind as magic discussion.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, started directly off the action surge/second wind as magic discussion.




Well, okay then.  Me personally, I'm not arguing about that.  Action surge isn't even metagaming since people can in fact intentionally dig deep for a brief surge of strength or speed a limited number of times, and second wind isn't properly named.  Second wind is just a natural process which gives you some extra energy that reduces fatigue, allowing you to run farther or stay at Disneyland longer to get on more rides.  It doesn't correlate to hit points, since you don't lose hit points when you get tired.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Well, okay then.  Me personally, I'm not arguing about that.  Action surge isn't even metagaming since people can in fact intentionally dig deep for a brief surge of strength or speed a limited number of times, and second wind isn't properly named.  Second wind is just a natural process which gives you some extra energy that reduces fatigue, allowing you to run farther or stay at Disneyland longer to get on more rides.  It doesn't correlate to hit points, since you don't lose hit points when you get tired.



Sure, man, you do you.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Ovinomancer said:


> In general, I agree with this.  There is no real "Science," just the scientific method which is a tool, not truth.  You shouldn't believe in science any more than you should believe in your hammer.  It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general -- the scientific method is excellent for observing our universe, but cannot offer answers on other things. \
> 
> However, if you really think math and science papers are just shorter, I'm going to have to disagree on that point.  I read quite a few beasts in my time.
> 
> And, further furthermore, to the thread in general, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this thread has devolved into arguments about whether modern physics exists or doesn't in made up elf games just so that one side or the other can show that a preference for non-magical fighter abilities is wrong or right.  Why the hell are we inventing stupid arguments about the nature of reality in elf-games just to prove another's preferred method of explaining something in that elf-game is wrongheaded?  What your end goal?  I love to drop bombs about Galileo when I get the chance, but it just dawned on me why it even came up in this thread, and I'm left befuddled as to the point.




There are always exceptions to the general rule.. but in my limited personal experience, the moment I realized that my undergrad history thesis grew to over 700 pages while my masters thesis on advanced crypto rang in at 30 before references.. lets' just say that what I was advised by those particular instructors rang true in a very personal way.  (Note that the defense of that thesis was brutal due to its length. So you do have a point that I'm not refuting.)

I agree regarding the ridiculousness of this thread.  My apologies for adding to it.

Be well
KB


----------



## Sepulchrave II

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that you didn’t answer my question (emphasis added):


			
				Sepulchrave II said:
			
		

> What "other things" did you have in mind *which are not part of "our universe?"*




I’m still confused about what _better_ methods there are for determining truth when you wrote of science:


			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general




You asked:


			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> "Science, when is it okay to kill someone?"



What is a “better” approach to moral judgments?



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> "Science, what is the best corporate tax rate?"



This is a poor example. What “better” way can you assign a corporate tax rate which does not include predictive economic modelling.



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> "Science, prove [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] is not a figment of my imagination."



Yes, there’s always solipsism. But what “better” way is there of proving the truth of my existence to you?



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> Or, "Science, prove that Science is the best means to discover truth."



“Better” way?



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> You can't invoke non-scientific guesses about the future to justify science.



No, but you can use cliodynamics to model rates of scientific progress, and it does have predictive value.



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> these are things in the universe



Yes, they are.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Sepulchrave II said:


> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]
> 
> Leaving aside for a moment the fact that you didn’t answer my question (emphasis added):
> 
> 
> I’m still confused about what _better_ methods there are for determining truth when you wrote of science:
> 
> 
> You asked:
> 
> What is a “better” approach to moral judgments?
> 
> 
> This is a poor example. What “better” way can you assign a corporate tax rate which does not include predictive economic modelling.
> 
> 
> Yes, there’s always solipsism. But what “better” way is there of proving the truth of my existence to you?
> 
> 
> “Better” way?
> 
> 
> No, but you can use cliodynamics to model rates of scientific progress, and it does have predictive value.
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.




Ah, I see.  I left off "physical" prior to universe and you've locked onto that.  Consider it a slip.  That said, is a justification for murder actually part of the universe?  Is there a fundamental particle of justification, or a physical process by which it is generated?  Is the number 2 part of the universe? Can you show it to me?

A better method for justifying murder is myriad -- discussion, belief, arbitration -- any number of non-science human consesus building methods.  They aren't good either, but science can't even address the question, so their better than that.

As for taxes, are you actually saying that predictive economic models are science? Weird.  Science has no inout here because the reasons for setting tax levels are widely based on non-scientific preferences and policy goals which are thenselves immune to science.

Re: you're existence, no better way I can think of, but that doesn't defeat the point tgat science cannot either.  Hypothesis: you're a figment of my imagination along with all of my perceived reality.  Test:....

Seeing as these haven't seemed persuasive, can science answer why the universe exists?  To head anything off, I'm agnostic, so my question isn't pointing to a religious answer at all.  Strictly in the secular.

At the end of this, it occurs to me that you've just contested my statements without stating a position of your own.  Is there a counter-position you'd like to stake out?


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> At the end of this, it occurs to me that you've just contested my statements without stating a position of your own. Is there a counter-position you'd like to stake out?



History doesn’t have a great track record with non-scientifically evidenced truth claims, so when you write:



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general



I tend to disagree.

You’ve occupied a moving position between caricaturing “science” on one hand, and representing it as a toolkit – with which I largely agree – on the other. 

If a mode of inquiry which seeks replicable, predictable results is not the best means to determine truth, then what is? Other methods are moveable; subjective; particular rather than generic: this is not to say that they should not be _valued_ – just that they’re not best deployed in the search for _truth_. 

But you seem to be using a very expansive definition of “truth,” and a very narrow definition of “science.” Perhaps the reverse is true for me.


----------



## pemerton

The assertion that moral truth is a thing in the universe is contentious. "Thing in the universe" is not really a technical term, but if some form of meta-ethical expressivism of some form is correct, then it seems reasonable to deny that moral truth is a thing in the universe.

The best argument I'm aware of that [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] (and other minds in general) exist is a version of that developed by the late nineteeenth and twentieth century empiricists, and that takes the form of argument to best explanation - which is a mode of scientific argument, though not based on the sort of regimentation of observation that is characteristic of scientific enquiry. Similar structures of argument explain why inference to best explanation grounded in careful and regimented observation is the best path to knowledge.

The soundness of these empiricist modes of argument is of course contested. But for the purposes of friendly conversation on a RPG message board, it can't be treated as obvious that scientific modes of explanation can't be used to explain the power of science, nor the existence of other minds.


----------



## Ratskinner

Emerikol said:


> No.  First all mathematics of all sorts exists as truth whether human minds conceive of it or not.  It is true that on a plane in all universes the shortest distance between a point is a straight line.




I suppose there are alien minds, but "truths" AFAICT, don't exist outside minds. The universe just do what it do.



Emerikol said:


> You can conceive of a non-Euclidean universe and that is fine but the math for a plane is still true math.  It may not be as useful in a different universe it is still true.  The same for math used to describe alternate realities.  It would all be true in all universes.




This, I agree with (provided the mathematics is properly formulated). However, that doesn't mean that the math requires any special existence outside our minds. I'm also not sure what "true in all universes" would mean, vs. just "true".


----------



## Ovinomancer

Sepulchrave II said:


> History doesn’t have a great track record with non-scientifically evidenced truth claims, so when you write:
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree.
> 
> You’ve occupied a moving position between caricaturing “science” on one hand, and representing it as a toolkit – with which I largely agree – on the other.
> 
> If a mode of inquiry which seeks replicable, predictable results is not the best means to determine truth, then what is? Other methods are moveable; subjective; particular rather than generic: this is not to say that they should not be _valued_ – just that they’re not best deployed in the search for _truth_.
> 
> But you seem to be using a very expansive definition of “truth,” and a very narrow definition of “science.” Perhaps the reverse is true for me.



I define science as the scientific method, how do you define it?  

Science is useless for moral, social, ethical, and political issues -- there's nothing to measure, there.  Yet, we often speak of hoping to find truth in these areas.  I'm pointing out the limitations of science in doing so.

I also think that there's plenty of non-science bright spots in history:  mathematics, language, philosophy, heck, the golden rule.  Maybe these haven't reached a truth, maybe there isn't a truth to find, but these can at least address the issues in a way science cannot.

As I've said, I'm an engineer from a family of scientists.  I love science; it's a fantastic tool.  However, I think there's also a lot of 'having a hammer so only seeing nails' with science these days.  This even goes to assuming scientists are somehow morally superior bt dint of being purveyors  of Science!, which is also clearly non-scientific.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> The assertion that moral truth is a thing in the universe is contentious. "Thing in the universe" is not really a technical term, but if some form of meta-ethical expressivism of some form is correct, then it seems reasonable to deny that moral truth is a thing in the universe.
> 
> The best argument I'm aware of that [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] (and other minds in general) exist is a version of that developed by the late nineteeenth and twentieth century empiricists, and that takes the form of argument to best explanation - which is a mode of scientific argument, though not based on the sort of regimentation of observation that is characteristic of scientific enquiry. Similar structures of argument explain why inference to best explanation grounded in careful and regimented observation is the best path to knowledge.
> 
> The soundness of these empiricist modes of argument is of course contested. But for the purposes of friendly conversation on a RPG message board, it can't be treated as obvious that scientific modes of explanation can't be used to explain the power of science, nor the existence of other minds.



Then, by all means, explain the power of science with science.  Or the existence of other minds.  

The device you're speaking (sometimes referred to as Occam's Razor) of isn't part of the scientific method, but rather a rule of thumb or decision aide to help limit questions investigated through scientific inquiry.  The mere fact you acknowledge the contested nature of the argument disqualifies it as a scientific maxim.


----------



## pemerton

Argument to best explanation is not Occam' Razor (though Occam's Razor may be an element in such reasoning). For a good treatment, which include discussion of the external world and other minds, see AJ Ayer's _The Origins of Pragmatism_ - drawing especially on the work of the American philospher CS Peirce (who used the term "abduction").


----------



## Lanefan

You guys are making my brain hurt.

Wake me up when we're back to talking about killing Orcs and taking their pies....


----------



## Ratskinner

Ovinomancer said:


> "Science, when is it okay to kill someone?"
> "Science, what is the best corporate tax rate?"




I would just point out here that there are in fact those that think that science _can_ address these questions. Personally, I don't think these questions can be adequately answered _without_ these the application of science. I mean, the greatest good to the greatest number can get you surprisingly far. Its not as if we have to pretend to be ignorant of our own moral sensibilities when asking moral questions.



Ovinomancer said:


> Or, "Science, prove that Science is the best means to discover truth."




I'm not sure what other methods there are. AFAICT, science in the only method of "truth discovery" which is distinguishable from "I made this up." ....which is kinda what the whole scientific method was designed for, honestly.



Ovinomancer said:


> Now, I'm pretty sure they'll be handwaiving about the questions or that Science will on day figure all this out, but that's invalid because these are things in the universe, and you can't invoke non-scientific guesses about the future to justify science.  That's self-defeating for the question -  you're using not science to claim science is (will be?) right.




Are you saying that science can't be used to examine science? If so,why not?


----------



## Ratskinner

Ovinomancer said:


> Science is useless for moral, social, ethical, and political issues -- there's nothing to measure, there.




I mean, this is a patently untrue. If it was, you wouldn't have American political parties outlawing or defunding research that they suspect won't go their way. You also wouldn't have things like Lysenkoism. If Science is useless for these things, then there's certainly no reason to fudge it.



Ovinomancer said:


> I also think that there's plenty of non-science bright spots in history:  mathematics, language, philosophy, heck, the golden rule.  Maybe these haven't reached a truth, maybe there isn't a truth to find, but these can at least address the issues in a way science cannot.




The way I see it, science makes all these other human endeavors better and more effective.


----------



## Maxperson

Ratskinner said:


> I mean, this is a patently untrue. If it was, you wouldn't have American political parties outlawing or defunding research that they suspect won't go their way. You also wouldn't have things like Lysenkoism. If Science is useless for these things, then there's certainly no reason to fudge it.




They aren't defunding research because they think science can answer social, ethical or political issues.  They are defunding it because it goes against their moral issues.  Science running contrary to a moral belief doesn't mean that science is answering that belief in a moral way.  Science is useless for establishing morality or political issues.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ratskinner said:


> I would just point out here that there are in fact those that think that science _can_ address these questions. Personally, I don't think these questions can be adequately answered _without_ these the application of science. I mean, the greatest good to the greatest number can get you surprisingly far. Its not as if we have to pretend to be ignorant of our own moral sensibilities when asking moral questions.



Scientifically define "good."  You'll find it's a subjective preference.





> I'm not sure what other methods there are. AFAICT, science in the only method of "truth discovery" which is distinguishable from "I made this up." ....which is kinda what the whole scientific method was designed for, honestly.



Inductive reasoning (although science might be considered a form of inductive reasoning).  Deductive reasoning. Consensus building (for moral, social, and political issues, frex).  Philosophy.  And, no, the scientific method was designed to do hypothesis testing.  There's nothing that prevents rather wild hypothesis.




> Are you saying that science can't be used to examine science? If so,why not?



What would your hypothesis be?  "Science is the best tool to discover all truth?"  What's the experiment?  What's the conclusion?  I'm saying it can't, all you have to do is prove it once and I'm wrong.  Conversely, I cannot prove a negative.  The burden here is on the side claiming it can define itself.



Ratskinner said:


> I mean, this is a patently untrue. If it was, you wouldn't have American political parties outlawing or defunding research that they suspect won't go their way. You also wouldn't have things like Lysenkoism. If Science is useless for these things, then there's certainly no reason to fudge it.



You're confusing subjective policy decisions with science, or are you trying to claim political parties are using science to determine which science research areas to defund?  I'm certainly not at all claiming that politics cannot impact the priorities on where to spend money, I'm explicitly saying science cannot provide those priorities.  Your statement above tends to agree with me.





> The way I see it, science makes all these other human endeavors better and more effective.



Mathematics is the language of science so it's hard to go from science improving mathematics.  This is like saying Shakespeare made the English language better rather than just using it really damn well.  Science hasn't weighed in, ever, on the golden rule.  What would that experiment look like?  Science avoids philosophy like the plague -- nothing to measure so how could you experiment?

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of pseudo-belief structure in science as the one true way to understanding I'm cautioning against.  You've got your hammer and are looking for nails.

ETA:  Again, I'm a _freaking engineer_ (electronic, not trains).  I love science.  I use it every day.  I read papers for fun.  None of this is meant to attack science; it's a fantastic tool in the box for helping us understand our physical universe.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ratskinner said:


> I mean, the greatest good to the greatest number can get you surprisingly far.





Ovinomancer said:


> Scientifically define "good."  You'll find it's a subjective preference.



At this point the moral philosopher in me just wants to crack both your heads together.

Ratskinner: "The greatest good to the greatest number" can't even tell you unambiguously how to slice a birthday cake.

Ovinomancer: Psychologists, marketers, and pollsters scientifically define and quantify subjective preferences every day.


----------



## Kobold Boots

TheCosmicKid said:


> At this point the moral philosopher in me just wants to crack both your heads together.
> 
> Ratskinner: "The greatest good to the greatest number" can't even tell you unambiguously how to slice a birthday cake.
> 
> Ovinomancer: Psychologists, marketers, and pollsters scientifically define and quantify subjective preferences every day.




On the first point: Agreed.

On the second point: Definition of and quantification of subjective preferences is math/probability, not science.  There's a reason why Psych is considered a liberal art and neuroscience isn't. (Self-report) Granted, there are many research labs dedicated to cognition that are staffed by those with psych degrees but they're led by folks with O.D, Engineering and Neuroscience qualifications.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> At this point the moral philosopher in me just wants to crack both your heads together.
> 
> Ratskinner: "The greatest good to the greatest number" can't even tell you unambiguously how to slice a birthday cake.
> 
> Ovinomancer: Psychologists, marketers, and pollsters scientifically define and quantify subjective preferences every day.




To step a bit further than KB's post, there's a lot of problems in social research.  Data collection is often biased by collection method, sample composition, sample size, sample time, and sample location.  Often, since new collection is hard, data from different surveys is combined, which taints everything.  But, even if we can get all the data to be perfectly collected, there are still issues.  Primarily, how do you measure the data?  If you didn't put in a Likert scale to begin with, you'll have to come up with some way to categorize and value-ize the data, which is again open to bias.  In fact, bias in that step is unavoidable because the very nature of the effort is subjectively valuing data.  If you did do a Likert scale, then you have ordinal* data, not ratiometric data.  The difference between a 5 and a 10 on a Likert scale is undefined and it's certain that 10 is not twice 5.  However, in either case, since numbers are now presented the assumption is that you can do math.  You can't, the math doesn't mean anything. In the former case, you're doing math on proxied data that you proxied -- you're doing math on your subjective preferences, not the participants.  In the latter, you can't ever do math with ordinal data.

An even worse sin in the social sciences is p-hacking.  They'll take a huge data set and then start crunching though various recipe-book statistics (another yuck) until some wee p-value pops out and then report this result as true.  But ANY large volume of data will ALWAYS spit out some wee p-value.  Further, for the scientific method, this is, at best, step one - observation.  You haven't even reached a hypothesis to test yet!  But, quite often, this is where research is left.  A p-hacked result is found and presented as true without any of the actual scientific process taking place.

The social sciences have major issues with how they do business right now (medicine has many of these issues as well).  Fundamentally, though, they can't avoid many of these issues as they're trying to work with data that's inherently subjective to begin with.  There's some good work, psychology has had some success for instance, but even there any approach is at best a 50/50 and most psychologists bring multiple approaches to find which works best on a given subject.  That's because you can't just measure and model people's subjective beliefs and wants.  You can't measure happiness.  Setting aside you can't define it, no matter what definition you use people will have a subjective opinion of where they are in relation to that definition.  Dressing things up in statistics does not science make.

*Ordinal scales do not have defined steps between numbers.  And example is race finishes.  If you have a race of 10 people, they runners will finish in ordinal order -- 1st through 10th.  But, armed with that ordinal order, you cannot say anything about how fast they ran the race, only which was faster or slower than others. You can't say that the 1st place runner was 10x faster than then 10th place runner, but only that there were 8 other runners that were slower than 1st and faster than 10th.  You can't average this data, nor can you do any statistics on it.  Yet, in the case of ordinal data in social science research, stats are often run on ordinal data because once you have a number, people mistake it and assume math will work because you use numbers in math.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> Mathematics is the language of science so it's hard to go from science improving mathematics.  This is like saying Shakespeare made the English language better rather than just using it really damn well.



This struck me as odd. After all, I'd regard it as patently obvious that Shakespeare _did_ make the English language better. How many expressions that are now commonplace originated in his works?

And I'd be surprised if there's no area of mathematics that was not improved by its use in science - because _improve_ in relation to maths can be taken in multiple ways I'm not sure if you would count this as an example, but the first example I thought of was the improvements in the theorisation of geometry and its foundations in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some of which was driven by developments in physics - eg Einstein's use of non-Euclidean geometry in the theory of relativity.

Given that this work started before Einstein's work obviously his physics was not the sole driver, but at a certain point it helped drive it.


----------



## pemerton

The claim that "good" is subjective preference is controversial.

Obviously many ordinary people disagree. I would say that the majority of contemporary English-speaking philosopher think that _good_ is objectively defined, either in some Aristotle-type _human interests_ fashion or some Kant-type _mutuality of reason_ fashion. When you add in those who deny objectivity but aren't subjectivists either, becausae they are expressivists who think that "good" is not a referring term in the ordinary sense, then I think you get many more than just a majority of contemporary philosophers.

If you're an Aristotle-type, then you hold that to learn the good does require something like scientific study of humans and their nature.

If you're a Kant-type, then you hold that to learn the good - which there is a good chance you think is parasitic on the _right_, so let's instead say "moral truth" - requires some form of reasoning that, if not scientific, is certainly not just making stuff up.

And if you're an expressivist, then there is a certain sense in which you don't think that _moral value_ is a thing in the universe, any more than we would think (say) that _conjunction_ is a thing in the universe (as opposed to a linguistic/syntactic device for conjoining propositions).


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> This struck me as odd. After all, I'd regard it as patently obvious that Shakespeare _did_ make the English language better. How many expressions that are now commonplace originated in his works?
> 
> And I'd be surprised if there's no area of mathematics that was not improved by its use in science - because _improve_ in relation to maths can be taken in multiple ways I'm not sure if you would count this as an example, but the first example I thought of was the improvements in the theorisation of geometry and its foundations in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some of which was driven by developments in physics - eg Einstein's use of non-Euclidean geometry in the theory of relativity.
> 
> Given that this work started before Einstein's work obviously his physics was not the sole driver, but at a certain point it helped drive it.




Shakespeare didn't improve English, he created phrases and uses of it that have goid use.  Much like a proof doesn't invent new math but instead allows a good use of math.

Einstien didn't allow tge invention of new math but instead pointed to areas of nath that had been neglected.  Science diesn't make new math, it follows new math.  We cannot observe math, cannot measure it -- it's not a subject for science.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> The claim that "good" is subjective preference is controversial.
> 
> Obviously many ordinary people disagree. I would say that the majority of contemporary English-speaking philosopher think that _good_ is objectively defined, either in some Aristotle-type _human interests_ fashion or some Kant-type _mutuality of reason_ fashion. When you add in those who deny objectivity but aren't subjectivists either, becausae they are expressivists who think that "good" is not a referring term in the ordinary sense, then I think you get many more than just a majority of contemporary philosophers.
> 
> If you're an Aristotle-type, then you hold that to learn the good does require something like scientific study of humans and their nature.
> 
> If you're a Kant-type, then you hold that to learn the good - which there is a good chance you think is parasitic on the _right_, so let's instead say "moral truth" - requires some form of reasoning that, if not scientific, is certainly not just making stuff up.
> 
> And if you're an expressivist, then there is a certain sense in which you don't think that _moral value_ is a thing in the universe, any more than we would think (say) that _conjunction_ is a thing in the universe (as opposed to a linguistic/syntactic device for conjoining propositions).




You say the majority of philosophers believe good is defined but then point out that there's strong disagreement in thise definitions.  This pretty much supports my statement that you can't objectively define good.


----------



## Ratskinner

Maxperson said:


> They aren't defunding research because they think science can answer social, ethical or political issues.  They are defunding it because it goes against their moral issues.  Science running contrary to a moral belief doesn't mean that science is answering that belief in a moral way.  Science is useless for establishing morality or political issues.




In some cases (Stem Cell Research) I would agree with you. They have an objection to the methods and procedures that would be used. In others (Gun as Public Health, Global Warming) it is simply that the results would make their subjective moral/political positions less tenable in the face of objective evidence (or they fear that outcome.)

I agree that Science is not very good at establishing  morality/political positions. That is because all such positions are subjective, and science helps determine objective things. However, humans tend to evaluate their moral and political positions based upon what they perceive as objective reality, science has repeatedly bumped up against this...often getting scientists burned at the stake or put under house arrest, etc.


----------



## Maxperson

Ratskinner said:


> In some cases (Stem Cell Research) I would agree with you. They have an objection to the methods and procedures that would be used. In others (Gun as Public Health, Global Warming) it is simply that the results would make their subjective moral/political positions less tenable in the face of objective evidence (or they fear that outcome.)
> 
> I agree that Science is not very good at establishing  morality/political positions. That is because all such positions are subjective, and science helps determine objective things. However, humans tend to evaluate their moral and political positions based upon what they perceive as objective reality, science has repeatedly bumped up against this...often getting scientists burned at the stake or put under house arrest, etc.




The entirety of your posts supports what I said, though.  Stem cell research doesn't care about morality or politics.  Neither does research on global warming.  Not sure what you mean by gun as public health.  They bump against moral and political issues when people are morally opposed to science, or politically opposed to it as with global warming, but the science itself is neither moral nor political.  I don't think anyone here is saying that science doesn't run afoul of people who are basing their positions on morals or politics.  As you say, some scientists have been killed for it.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> This struck me as odd. After all, I'd regard it as patently obvious that Shakespeare _did_ make the English language better. How many expressions that are now commonplace originated in his works?
> 
> And I'd be surprised if there's no area of mathematics that was not improved by its use in science - because _improve_ in relation to maths can be taken in multiple ways I'm not sure if you would count this as an example, but the first example I thought of was the improvements in the theorisation of geometry and its foundations in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some of which was driven by developments in physics - eg Einstein's use of non-Euclidean geometry in the theory of relativity.
> 
> Given that this work started before Einstein's work obviously his physics was not the sole driver, but at a certain point it helped drive it.




Also @_*Ovinomancer*_

Use of English in novel ways (application) contributes back to the language itself over time (theory/discipline).
Use of Math to solve a problem (application) contributes back the language itself over time (theory/new avenues to proof)

No tool exists in an absolute vacuum.  However, some tools are more open to being changed than others.  English changes daily based on millions of folks speaking, creating novel phrases and sharing them regionally and globally.  Math changes less often, if only because the math available to the masses is pretty well defined and the scholars operating at the edges of current knowledge aren't as numerous as the total English speaking population.

So you're both right, but I'll take the stab at providing the lens for the win-win.  That lens requires science to be taken out of the loop for math.  Math begets Math just as English begets English.

Oranges do not beget apples; but you might learn that putting apples and oranges together improve orchard outcomes (profit)

KB


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> Shakespeare didn't improve English, he created phrases and uses of it that have goid use.



What is a language, if not its stock in trade of phrases? A simple formal definition of a language is a vocabulary plus syntax - and in the case of English Shakespeare contributed to both!



Ovinomancer said:


> a proof doesn't invent new math but instead allows a good use of math.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Einstien didn't allow tge invention of new math but instead pointed to areas of nath that had been neglected.  Science diesn't make new math, it follows new math.  We cannot observe math, cannot measure it -- it's not a subject for science.



If you're a strong Platonist who thinks that there's no such thing as inventing new mathematica techniques, or improving upon then, then I guess you would treat is a trivial consequence that science can't improve maths.

But even a strong Platonist of that sort would admit that mathematical _knowledge_ can be improved. Eg a proof might reveal something to be true which hitherto was not know to be true.

The claim that maths doesn't make new maths, it follows maths I find very dubious. Work on the calculus was intimately connected to the need for better mathematical techniques in scientific enquiry. Likewise work on the foundations of geometry, as I mentioned. Describing it in a fairly abstract way, one could point to both an "agenda setting" function of science in relation to mathematical endeavour, and also pointing to concrete problems in need of new techniques or new solutions.

Obviously not all mathematical development is driven by science. I'm disputing the claim that it never is. (And the fact that mathematics is not an observational science seems irrelevant to this point: painting isn't an observational science either, but one could hardly argue that the science of optics has never influenced - and at least arguably, on occasion, improved - painting.)



Ovinomancer said:


> You say the majority of philosophers believe good is defined but then point out that there's strong disagreement in thise definitions.  This pretty much supports my statement that you can't objectively define good.



Not really. Disagreement isnt necessarily evidence that something is not objective. Mediaeval geographers disagreed about what was on the south side of the equator - that doesn't mean that there was no objective fact of the matter.

It's arguable that there is no _systematic and institutionalised method_ in philosophy for settling the question - though that was also true of those geographers, given that they were debating before scientific geography had really been invented.

But while that lack of method goes to the question of whether moral philosophy is a science, it doesn't show that there is no objective truth.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Kobold Boots said:


> Also @_*Ovinomancer*_
> 
> Use of English in novel ways (application) contributes back to the language itself over time (theory/discipline).
> Use of Math to solve a problem (application) contributes back the language itself over time (theory/new avenues to proof)
> 
> No tool exists in an absolute vacuum.  However, some tools are more open to being changed than others.  English changes daily based on millions of folks speaking, creating novel phrases and sharing them regionally and globally.  Math changes less often, if only because the math available to the masses is pretty well defined and the scholars operating at the edges of current knowledge aren't as numerous as the total English speaking population.
> 
> So you're both right, but I'll take the stab at providing the lens for the win-win.  That lens requires science to be taken out of the loop for math.  Math begets Math just as English begets English.
> 
> Oranges do not beget apples; but you might learn that putting apples and oranges together improve orchard outcomes (profit)
> 
> KB




That was my point -- science speaks math, like Shakespeare spoke English.  The medium is not the same as the art/science.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> What is a language, if not its stock in trade of phrases? A simple formal definition of a language is a vocabulary plus syntax - and in the case of English Shakespeare contributed to both!



Bafflegab.  That's like saying this post contributes to the creation of English.



> If you're a strong Platonist who thinks that there's no such thing as inventing new mathematica techniques, or improving upon then, then I guess you would treat is a trivial consequence that science can't improve maths.



I am not.  I personally do not believe math is discovered, but I don't claim to be right on this matter -- there are other opinions.



> The claim that maths doesn't make new maths, it follows maths I find very dubious. Work on the calculus was intimately connected to the need for better mathematical techniques in scientific enquiry. Likewise work on the foundations of geometry, as I mentioned. Describing it in a fairly abstract way, one could point to both an "agenda setting" function of science in relation to mathematical endeavour, and also pointing to concrete problems in need of new techniques or new solutions.



That's because I said science doesn't create new maths, it follows math.  Changing the words could easily lead to confusion.



> Not really. Disagreement isnt necessarily evidence that something is not objective. Mediaeval geographers disagreed about what was on the south side of the equator - that doesn't mean that there was no objective fact of the matter.



No, it's not necessary -- we could all agree on something and still be objectively wrong.  It is, however, extremely indicative of subjective definitions.  Given you cannot show an objectively correct definition of good, I'm going to rest my case.



> It's arguable that there is no _systematic and institutionalised method_ in philosophy for settling the question - though that was also true of those geographers, given that they were debating before scientific geography had really been invented.
> 
> But while that lack of method goes to the question of whether moral philosophy is a science, it doesn't show that there is no objective truth.



Nice move of the pea -- I never said there was no possibility of objective truth, I said we're unable to objectively determine it.  What I believe is good differs from every other persons' definition of good.  Case in point, even the philosophers that share a general definition argue over particular instances.  The existence of an objective truth does not mean we can know it.  Then, for all human intents and purposes, there exists no objective definition.

What is good is a question we've always had.  We're no closer to the answer today.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The claim that maths doesn't make new maths, it follows maths I find very dubious. Work on the calculus was intimately connected to the need for better mathematical techniques in scientific enquiry. Likewise work on the foundations of geometry, as I mentioned. Describing it in a fairly abstract way, one could point to both an "agenda setting" function of science in relation to mathematical endeavour, and also pointing to concrete problems in need of new techniques or new solutions.




I think what he's getting at is that the math has always been there, even from a time before we knew about math at all.  Calculus wasn't finding new math, but rather finding math that was new to us, but which already existed.  So it was a discovery from following math where it lead, rather than making up a new math.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Ovinomancer said:


> That was my point -- science speaks math, like Shakespeare spoke English.  The medium is not the same as the art/science.




Thanks.  Thought that was the case but just making sure.

To what I think was @_*pemerton*_ 's point, but perhaps slightly more on point.  Science sometimes becomes informed by math through direct or indirect changes to the mathematics underpinning materials patents and other derivative works.  If the math changes that makes one material possible such that a "better" material exists for the existing work or another material becomes possible for some other task.. then mathematics directly changes what's possible with science.

Likewise (wholly speculative, I admit) if scientists were to find something they could not reverse engineer due to existing tech (ex. finding an iPhone back in 1977) but the tech were something that they could reasonably determine function of. (printed circuitry as compared to hand sautered) then they'd know that what they found was possible, but not within the current realm of materials or capacity.  In this case, science informs mathematicians that they're missing something and the collaboration ensues.

My apologies for the horrible futuristic reference.  But my point is that no discipline exists in an absolute vacuum.  Math certainly has a one-way four lane highway towards influencing science.  Science still has a dirt road back to math even if you have to look hard to find it.  

..and honestly there's probably a better example once we look back to history and find civilizations that were more advanced than others. (edit - and while I realize that to build the pyramids, egyptians had to have certain math under wraps.. that doesn't necessarily mean that random civ X had access to the egyptian math when they discovered the ruined pyramid and started rev engineering)


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> Shakespeare didn't improve English, he created phrases and uses of it that have goid use.



There are rather more than 2000 words which are unattested before Shakespeare; some were already likely in current use, but the vast majority were first employed by him – there are consistent formation patterns. He drew on loan words, back-formed hundreds of words with previously uncombined prepositions, verbalized nouns and invented words from whole cloth. In his writing, he combined words in ways more complex and nuanced, expressive and poetic, than previously imagined.

I’m interested in what you think it takes to “improve” a language, or whether such improvement is even possible. For example, Joseph Tito ordered a consistent spelling, alphabet and phraseology in Serbo-Croatian; did he “improve” the language?


----------



## Ratskinner

Ovinomancer said:


> Scientifically define "good."  You'll find it's a subjective preference.




I agree. Fortunately, enough humans can usually agree on the basics to form complex societies and sit around debating this stuff and doing science, etc. Is that subjective? Yup. But we generally agree (enough) on many things that are subjective or matters of taste, this is no different.



Ovinomancer said:


> Inductive reasoning (although science might be considered a form of inductive reasoning).  Deductive reasoning. Consensus building (for moral, social, and political issues, frex).  Philosophy.  And, no, the scientific method was designed to do hypothesis testing.  There's nothing that prevents rather wild hypothesis.




"Prevents" a wild hypothesis? Sure nothing prevents someone from proposing one. But the scientific method is about finding out which ones are false and rejecting them. I mean, hypothesis testing is _how_ science comes closer to objective "truth". 

As far as the rest goes...Reasoning + evidence approximates science. Remove the evidence part...well philosophy and reason in a vacuum have never proven themselves good at coming up with "truths" about reality, AFAICT. "Consensus Building" by itself? I don't see how that can determine anything non-trivially objective about reality at all (beyond "we all agree X"). That is, until you add the evidence and science part back in.



Ovinomancer said:


> What would your hypothesis be?  "Science is the best tool to discover all truth?"  What's the experiment?  What's the conclusion?  I'm saying it can't, all you have to do is prove it once and I'm wrong.  Conversely, I cannot prove a negative.  The burden here is on the side claiming it can define itself.




Whoa, okay. A lot going on here. And I think you've poorly-defined some things here, as well as mashed some things together.



Ovinomancer said:


> What would your hypothesis be?  "Science is the best tool to discover all truth?"  What's the experiment?  What's the conclusion?




...first off, science can be done by observation, not necessarily experiment. To grossly oversimplify: you need to make predictions that can be falsified by further observation and then go see if you can falsify them. If you don't accept that, then you're throwing out astronomy, paleontology, and I'm sure a few other fields as well.

"Science is the best tool to discover all truth?" includes the unwarranted assumption that all truth is discoverable. So, at the very least, I would reduce the statement to "Science is the best tool to discover truth." I would also go one step further, given my druthers, and substitute "the nature of reality" for "truth". "Truth" tends to be rather fuzzy in modern English, where we can use it to cover 
"valid" for an argument as well as "true" for a statement. An argument can be valid without being true. But I digress...I would toss in "objective" as well for "Science is the best tool to discover the nature of objective reality." "Science" is also a bit fuzzy, but I'm content to let it ride on the understanding that we mean "people practicing some form of the scientific method."

This would be, I think rather obviously, a question to approach observationally, rather than experimentally. Unless I'm misreading you, it would appear that we both accept that science can discover at least some objective truths about reality. So we don't have to prove that.

So, what characteristics can we look for in a human endeavor that we can hypothesize come from its ability to discover objective reality? (Assuming such a reality exists, for you philosophy types.)

First off, I submit that, like multiple moths to a single flame, such an endeavor would necessarily be what I call _convergent_ (others might use the term _consilient_). That is to say, wherever you start, valid methods of determining any objective reality will necessarily tend to converge on a singular description of that reality. Furthermore, endeavors that are better at it will do so faster than those which are worse at it. Science has this property. History didn't have it until science weighed in (and may still not have it, to hear some of my friends in the field talk). Religion?...nope. Philosophy? A little tougher, but I think generally no. The arts?...heavens no, and also "angry orange subtraction" for you Dadaists out there. Politics....no. If anything, most of these endeavors demonstrate _divergence_ in that two groups/traditions starting from the same place end up trying to kill each other over later disagreements. Mathematics...I tend to say, No-ish. Not so much because mathematicians would disagree on the field, but they aren't really trying to create such a model (to my understanding, anyway). To some extent, that describes most of these fields. 

Now, does that prove that there is no better human endeavor for discovering objective truth? Only to the extent that you accept that I've exhausted all human endeavors and agree with my assessments of them. 



Ovinomancer said:


> I'm saying it can't, all you have to do is prove it once and I'm wrong.




If science (or math), can't then I don't know what will. At which point, I call into question the "truth" of things that science can't address.   



Ovinomancer said:


> The burden here is on the side claiming it can define itself.




The burden here is on the...what? How do you think...? Hunh? I honestly have no idea what this could mean.



Ovinomancer said:


> You're confusing subjective policy decisions with science, or are you trying to claim political parties are using science to determine which science research areas to defund?  I'm certainly not at all claiming that politics cannot impact the priorities on where to spend money, I'm explicitly saying science cannot provide those priorities.  Your statement above tends to agree with me.




You are reversing my argument/intention. I was merely objecting to your claim: "Science is useless for moral, social, ethical, and political issues -- there's nothing to measure, there." If science is totally irrelevant to moral, social, ethical issues, there is never a need for a church to arrest Galileo, there is no reason to object to teaching evolution in schools. 

As to your question, "are you trying to claim political parties are using science to determine which science research areas to defund?" the cynic in me would bet money that a lot of social science research goes into formulating the opinions and policies of national parties and politicians. We certainly know it goes into electioneering and redistricting efforts. 



Ovinomancer said:


> Mathematics is the language of science so it's hard to go from science improving mathematics.




Computers (dependent upon scientific understanding) have permitted many rather famous "brute force" proofs within my lifetime that would have been unthinkable undertakings just a few decades ago. I would include the increased ability to communicate between mathematicians as well. So, yes, science has improved mathematics as a human endeavor.



Ovinomancer said:


> This is like saying Shakespeare made the English language better rather than just using it really damn well.




I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] addressed this nicely.



Ovinomancer said:


> Science hasn't weighed in, ever, on the golden rule.  What would that experiment look like?




There are many ongoing observations and experiments with primates to examine the origins and nature of human moral sense. I'm also not sure what makes you think the golden rule isn't subjective, or that science _couldn't _ "weigh in on it." Here are a list of questions about the Golden Rule that I think science could take a crack at answering:

Why do so many human societies express some approximation of the Golden Rule?
Is the Golden Rule (or some approximation) instinctive to humans?
If so, to what extent?
How did that evolve?
What other social species seem to follow a "Golden Rule" similar to humans and what ones don't?
 - why and how?




Ovinomancer said:


> Science avoids philosophy like the plague -- nothing to measure so how could you experiment?




And yet, so many scientists write philosophy books wherein they disparage philosophy....


----------



## Ratskinner

Maxperson said:


> The entirety of your posts supports what I said, though.  Stem cell research doesn't care about morality or politics.  Neither does research on global warming.  Not sure what you mean by gun as public health.  They bump against moral and political issues when people are morally opposed to science, or politically opposed to it as with global warming, but the science itself is neither moral nor political.  I don't think anyone here is saying that science doesn't run afoul of people who are basing their positions on morals or politics.  As you say, some scientists have been killed for it.




I think we see the same things, but are interpreting them differently. How can science run afoul of them, if it is not addressing moral positions? The thing is, "moral" (as in "moral question") in this case, is not a stable target, and just because a scientifically minded person wouldn't consider something a moral issue doesn't mean it isn't one. Is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection a completely amoral statement about reality or is it the most evil satanic immoral thing you can ever teach a child? The answer depends on who is asked, not some inherent property of scientific results, AFAICT. I don't think we can excuse something from being a "moral issue", just because it was not intended as such. Nor can we exclude something from scientific examination merely because we view it as a moral issue. We may, in deference to our proclivities, decide not to pursue certain courses of inquiry for what we deem "moral" reasons, but that is a separate question from whether science can address moral questions or morality as a whole.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Ratskinner said:


> I agree. Fortunately, enough humans can usually agree on the basics to form complex societies and sit around debating this stuff and doing science, etc. Is that subjective? Yup. But we generally agree (enough) on many things that are subjective or matters of taste, this is no different.



Yes, ergo the better method for defining moral good is social, not scientific.  What you're doing here is reification -- the swapping of one thing for the other and then pretending their the same.  Science done on social definitions of moral good aren't actually addressing objective moral good -- you've swapped in a subjective understanding and then pretended that since you've invoked Science! that it's actually science.  You've forgotten that the basis of your effort isn't observation of reality, is subjective definition of it. 




> "Prevents" a wild hypothesis? Sure nothing prevents someone from proposing one. But the scientific method is about finding out which ones are false and rejecting them. I mean, hypothesis testing is _how_ science comes closer to objective "truth".



Yes.



> As far as the rest goes...Reasoning + evidence approximates science. Remove the evidence part...well philosophy and reason in a vacuum have never proven themselves good at coming up with "truths" about reality, AFAICT. "Consensus Building" by itself? I don't see how that can determine anything non-trivially objective about reality at all (beyond "we all agree X"). That is, until you add the evidence and science part back in.



No.  Science is the method.  Period.  Reasoning + evidence (I'll assume you mean observations) isn't the method, ergo not science.  This kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about -- so long as the title Science! is applied, the actual means and subjective bases are ignored.  You do yourself a disservice as you're allowing yourself to believe that the outcome is much more certain than it should be.



> Whoa, okay. A lot going on here. And I think you've poorly-defined some things here, as well as mashed some things together.




This is claiming there's a problem on my side without actually stating the problem.  You're dismissing, not discussing.  If you're confused as to what I meant, point out where and I can elucidate.  Claiming I've made an error without stating the error, though, is handwaving.



> ...first off, science can be done by observation, not necessarily experiment. To grossly oversimplify: you need to make predictions that can be falsified by further observation and then go see if you can falsify them. If you don't accept that, then you're throwing out astronomy, paleontology, and I'm sure a few other fields as well.



What is it you're observing, then, if not an experiment?

Question -- are all ants red?
Research -- I've seen ants in my backyard and they appear red
Hypothesis -- all ants are read
Experiment Design -- collect many ants and observe their color
Conduct Experiment -- I collect 100 ants from my backyard and observe them
Analysis -- all the ants I observe are red.
Conclusion -- hypothesis not disproven
Refine -- collect ants form more locations

Observation is part of experimentation -- so long as design is done prior to observation.  You can't observe a bunch of things and go back to see what fits -- you cannot be sure you collected the necessary data or noticed possible confounders.




> "Science is the best tool to discover all truth?" includes the unwarranted assumption that all truth is discoverable. So, at the very least, I would reduce the statement to "Science is the best tool to discover truth." I would also go one step further, given my druthers, and substitute "the nature of reality" for "truth". "Truth" tends to be rather fuzzy in modern English, where we can use it to cover
> 
> "valid" for an argument as well as "true" for a statement. An argument can be valid without being true. But I digress...I would toss in "objective" as well for "Science is the best tool to discover the nature of objective reality." "Science" is also a bit fuzzy, but I'm content to let it ride on the understanding that we mean "people practicing some form of the scientific method."
> 
> This would be, I think rather obviously, a question to approach observationally, rather than experimentally. Unless I'm misreading you, it would appear that we both accept that science can discover at least some objective truths about reality. So we don't have to prove that.
> 
> So, what characteristics can we look for in a human endeavor that we can hypothesize come from its ability to discover objective reality? (Assuming such a reality exists, for you philosophy types.)
> 
> First off, I submit that, like multiple moths to a single flame, such an endeavor would necessarily be what I call _convergent_ (others might use the term _consilient_). That is to say, wherever you start, valid methods of determining any objective reality will necessarily tend to converge on a singular description of that reality. Furthermore, endeavors that are better at it will do so faster than those which are worse at it. Science has this property. History didn't have it until science weighed in (and may still not have it, to hear some of my friends in the field talk). Religion?...nope. Philosophy? A little tougher, but I think generally no. The arts?...heavens no, and also "angry orange subtraction" for you Dadaists out there. Politics....no. If anything, most of these endeavors demonstrate _divergence_ in that two groups/traditions starting from the same place end up trying to kill each other over later disagreements. Mathematics...I tend to say, No-ish. Not so much because mathematicians would disagree on the field, but they aren't really trying to create such a model (to my understanding, anyway). To some extent, that describes most of these fields.
> 
> Now, does that prove that there is no better human endeavor for discovering objective truth? Only to the extent that you accept that I've exhausted all human endeavors and agree with my assessments of them.



I do not agree.  I don't agree that science converges on objective truth -- that's a belief of yours and absent proof.  There's some good evidence that science self-corrects error given enough time, but it's equally possible that some objective truths are unknowable to us.  The result of moral good, for instance.

And, on the topic of other means of inquiry converging, they most certainly can.  The golden rule, for instance, seems a strong point of convergence for many areas of study: religion, politics, philosophy.  Most of the world seems to have converged on the idea that slavery is evil.  There's convergence in other means of inquiry as well -- this is not a unique feature to science, if science even has such a feature.




> If science (or math), can't then I don't know what will. At which point, I call into question the "truth" of things that science can't address.



Are you presenting that some things, like morality, do not actually exist because you can't science them?  There's some nice philosophy on that, you may enjoy it.




> The burden here is on the...what? How do you think...? Hunh? I honestly have no idea what this could mean.



That if you claim that a thing can be done, it is your burden to show it can be done, not mine to show it can't.  Similarly, if I claim a thing cannot be done, the burden is on others to do it and prove me wrong.  This is entirely because it's impossible to prove a negative.




> You are reversing my argument/intention. I was merely objecting to your claim: "Science is useless for moral, social, ethical, and political issues -- there's nothing to measure, there." If science is totally irrelevant to moral, social, ethical issues, there is never a need for a church to arrest Galileo, there is no reason to object to teaching evolution in schools.



No, you making a reification mistake.  Spending on science isn't a science issue, it's a political one.  Science cannot speak to which questions should be addressed, as that's a policy issue, not a scientific one.  Choices of where money is spent to achieve policy goals has absolutely nothing to do with science as a tool or means of inquiry.  It does, however, affect people that employ science as a means of inquiry.




> As to your question, "are you trying to claim political parties are using science to determine which science research areas to defund?" the cynic in me would bet money that a lot of social science research goes into formulating the opinions and policies of national parties and politicians. We certainly know it goes into electioneering and redistricting efforts.



Given that science cannot speak to proper policy, as that's a political question, I disagree.  Some social research may provide inputs, but, really, most of it should be strongly distrusted as it isn't science.  Issues of bias, improper collection, and p-hacking have resulted in less than 1/4 of all social science experiments being able to be repeated successfully.  And the ones that are usually successfully repeated are the ones that mostly confirm well known phenomenon.  The vast majority of the new stuff just fails in replication.

Largely, I think this is because social scientists are taught cookbook stats and think that all statistical methods are valid regardless of data input and don't understand the fundamental errors they're causes.  Most statistics are only valid in very narrow conditions, and, even then, the dangers of reification and overconfidence abound.




> Computers (dependent upon scientific understanding) have permitted many rather famous "brute force" proofs within my lifetime that would have been unthinkable undertakings just a few decades ago. I would include the increased ability to communicate between mathematicians as well. So, yes, science has improved mathematics as a human endeavor.



You're confusing cause and effect, here.  Brute force methods are not new or dependent on science.  Computers, a product of science experiment and hard-working, heroic engineers making science actually useful, just allowed faster use of existing brute force methods.  Science (mostly engineers) provided a new means of doing an old problem.



> I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] addressed this nicely.



I'm already disagreeing with him in other posts.




> There are many ongoing observations and experiments with primates to examine the origins and nature of human moral sense. I'm also not sure what makes you think the golden rule isn't subjective, or that science _couldn't _ "weigh in on it." Here are a list of questions about the Golden Rule that I think science could take a crack at answering:



Of course the golden rule is subjective.  How I want to be treated is solely my subjective belief.*



> Why do so many human societies express some approximation of the Golden Rule?
> Is the Golden Rule (or some approximation) instinctive to humans?
> If so, to what extent?
> How did that evolve?
> What other social species seem to follow a "Golden Rule" similar to humans and what ones don't?
> - why and how?



Those are just questions.  That science can answer them is your belief, not fact.  You've decided to believe Science! is the tool to answer all questions, and so look at any question like a nail to be hit by Science!  I'm saying you shouldn't do that, you're limiting yourself to a narrow belief structure unsupported by reality and forming dogma around it.





> And yet, so many scientists write philosophy books wherein they disparage philosophy....



Sigh.  Scientists are people, not science.  When a scientist is writing philosophy books, he's not doing science, he's done philosophy.  People are complex and capable organism -- they're not restricted to only one role or passion in society. 


*Interestingly, I can use the scientific method to refine my subjective preferences.  I can ask if I like kicking puppies, for instance, design and run a puppy-kicking experiment, observe that I actually don't like it and that I also don't like the social fallout for doing it, falsify my hypothesis that I like kicking puppies, and then move on to refine my question to finding out if I like cuddling with puppies.  Spoiler alert -- I love it.

The point here, though, is that science cannot tell me what I like.  It can be a tool to discover what I like, but at all times that discovery is limited to only me.  And, really, this experiment is very limited to falsifying the specific claim.  If I ran another experiment on whether I like drinking sweet tea (yes) I couldn't compare these results at all.  Even if I added a scale of 1 to 10 on each separately and rated cuddling puppies at a 8 and drinking sweet tea at a 6 (respectively), I can't say I'd rather cuddle a puppy than drink sweet tea or that I'd enjoy doing both at the same time even more (nope, messy).  It's very important that you don't extrapolate results past the experiment and the specific question asked.  This is, however, done all the time and the recent trend of science by press release is very disheartening.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> The social sciences have major issues with how they do business right now (medicine has many of these issues as well).



Preaching to the choir.



Ovinomancer said:


> Fundamentally, though, they can't avoid many of these issues as they're trying to work with data that's inherently subjective to begin with.  There's some good work, psychology has had some success for instance, but even there any approach is at best a 50/50 and most psychologists bring multiple approaches to find which works best on a given subject.  That's because you can't just measure and model people's subjective beliefs and wants.  You can't measure happiness.  Setting aside you can't define it, no matter what definition you use people will have a subjective opinion of where they are in relation to that definition.  Dressing things up in statistics does not science make.



You're dismissing, not discussing. When someone like Nate Silver can statistically model political preferences well enough to accurately predict the results of all fifty states in a US presidential election, that sure looks like science to me.


----------



## pemerton

The absence of disagreement about the nature of _good_, or _moral truth_, does not self-evidently prove (i) that these are not objective matters, nor _(ii)_ that any candidate account or definition of them is not objectively true.

 [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] mentioned consilience as a marker of knowledge. The absence of consilience in moral philosophy is relevant to the question of whether or not moral philosophy is a science. And it might even be used as part of an _argument_ that there is no objective truth there (eg one candidate explanation for the absence of consilience is that there is no truth for enquirers to converge on). But being an element of a possible argument is not self-evident demonstration.

Perhaps it could be argued that consilience is _constitutive_ of their being an "objective definition", but I'm not sure what that argument is.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] mentioned consilience as a marker of knowledge. The absence of consilience in moral philosophy is relevant to the question of whether or not moral philosophy is a science. And it might even be used as part of an _argument_ that there is no objective truth there (eg one candidate explanation for the absence of consilience is that there is no truth for enquirers to converge on). But being an element of a possible argument is not self-evident demonstration.
> 
> Perhaps it could be argued that consilience is _constitutive_ of their being an "objective definition", but I'm not sure what that argument is.



"What have I got in my pocket?"

This thread could go on for a hundred years discussing the question, and no consilience would emerge. You guys simply lack the epistemic access to make any progress towards an answer. Yet it seems silly to claim that there _is_ no objective answer.


----------



## Maxperson

Ratskinner said:


> I think we see the same things, but are interpreting them differently. How can science run afoul of them, if it is not addressing moral positions? The thing is, "moral" (as in "moral question") in this case, is not a stable target, and just because a scientifically minded person wouldn't consider something a moral issue doesn't mean it isn't one. Is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection a completely amoral statement about reality or is it the most evil satanic immoral thing you can ever teach a child? The answer depends on who is asked, not some inherent property of scientific results, AFAICT. I don't think we can excuse something from being a "moral issue", just because it was not intended as such. Nor can we exclude something from scientific examination merely because we view it as a moral issue. We may, in deference to our proclivities, decide not to pursue certain courses of inquiry for what we deem "moral" reasons, but that is a separate question from whether science can address moral questions or morality as a whole.




There are two very different things you are talking about.  The first is the science.  Science is stem cell research, or studying evolution, or cloning.  Those things make no moral judgments whatsoever.  The second thing is the people observing the science.  Those people can make moral judgments ABOUT the science, and usually do.  Cloning is cloning.  The science involved in creating a clone is neither moral, nor immoral.  A Christian might view cloning as man playing god and be morally offended.  A woman wanting to replace a beloved dog might not view it as morally wrong at all.  The science doesn't have an opinion, so it is not addressing morality in any way.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> You're dismissing, not discussing. When someone like Nate Silver can statistically model political preferences well enough to accurately predict the results of all fifty states in a US presidential election, that sure looks like science to me.



Tell that to President Hillary who won 90%+ of the Electoral Votes, or so the "science" you are referring to you said would happen.  Polls and such are not accurate.  They broadly hit the general area they aim at most of the time, but precision and accuracy is not a strong suit.

The fact that so many get so many things wrong with that sort of modeling proves that it's not a science.  In science experiments and conclusions are repeatable.  Everyone has access to the same information to draw their conclusions and create their political models.  Were it a science, they would all come to the same conclusion when using the same information.


----------



## Shasarak

Ovinomancer said:


> Scientifically define "good."  You'll find it's a subjective preference.




What happens if there is a scientific definition of "Good" and we (humans) dont agree with it?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> Tell that to President Hillary who won 90%+ of the Electoral Votes, or so the "science" you are referring to you said would happen.



That is not an accurate description of the predictions Silver's model made prior to the 2016 election. Yes, it assigned a higher probability of winning to the Democrat. No, it did not predict a landslide. And as somebody who rolls dice as a hobby, you ought to know well that a 75% chance is _not_ a sure thing. Furthermore, it predicted the most likely scenario for an upset - the Rust Belt flipping red - which is in fact what happened.



Maxperson said:


> The fact that so many get so many things wrong with that sort of modeling proves that it's not a science. In science experiments and conclusions are repeatable.  Everyone has access to the same information to draw their conclusions and create their political models.  Were it a science, they would all come to the same conclusion when using the same information.



Is meteorology a science? Is medicine?

In sciences of chaotic systems, experiments are often _not_ directly repeatable, and hypotheses are probabilistic.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> That is not an accurate description of the predictions Silver's model made prior to the 2016 election. Yes, it assigned a higher probability of winning to the Democrat. No, it did not predict a landslide. And as somebody who rolls dice as a hobby, you ought to know well that a 75% chance is _not_ a sure thing. Furthermore, it predicted the most likely scenario for an upset - the Rust Belt flipping red - which is in fact what happened.




He got lucky.  Many others with the same information didn't.  



> Is meteorology a science?




The study of cloud formation and other measurable things?  Sure.  The actual predictions?  Not so much.  They are using science to try and make a stab at letting us know what the weather will be like, and are very often wrong.  And yes, I know, it's possible to scrounge up from one of the dictionaries where it talks about weather predictions.  Most don't.  Most just talk about studying the weather and related phenomena. 



> Is medicine?




Illnesses have specific symptoms.  Medicine(unless you're watching House) isn't just a bunch of guess and hope you are right.  Doctors can diagnose many different illnesses and diseases because of repeatability.  Curing is more difficult due to genetic variations in patients and our science isn't good enough to tailor treatments genetically.........yet.  When we reach that point, cures will be far more repeatable.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> He got lucky.



You could say "They got lucky" to dismiss _any_ correct scientific prediction. But fortunately, we can use math to quantify luck. We can calculate the probability that a correct prediction would have occurred under the null hypothesis; the lower this "_p_-value", the higher the "statistical significance" of the result. (You may have seen these terms before. In this thread, if nowhere else.)

So... just _how_ "lucky" was Nate Silver, correctly calling 99 of 100 state races over two consecutive elections?



Maxperson said:


> Many others with the same information didn't.



It's not just the information that's important; it's the model a scientist builds with that information. Everybody in the 17th Century had the same information about planetary motion, but only this one guy named Kepler built a model of the Solar System that included elliptical orbits allowing him to make much more accurate predictions (and postdictions) of the motion.



Maxperson said:


> The study of cloud formation and other measurable things?  Sure.  The actual predictions?  Not so much.



Saying of any field that "it's science except for the predictive part" is like saying of a person that "they're a doctor except for the medical-professional part". Predictions, and the commitment to assessing their accuracy, are what separate science from mere pontification.



Maxperson said:


> Curing is more difficult due to genetic variations in patients and our science isn't good enough to tailor treatments genetically.........yet.



Take this insight and apply it to meteorology, or political science. The presence of _variation_ makes repeatable, accurate prediction much more difficult. It does not make it impossible, or make the attempt not science.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] - are you a philosopher, or trained in philsophy of science or some similar field?

(I have non-scientifically but also non-arbitrarily formed such a conjecture on the basis of your posts in this thread.)


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] - are you a philosopher, or trained in philsophy of science or some similar field?
> 
> (I have non-scientifically but also non-arbitrarily formed such a conjecture on the basis of your posts in this thread.)



I've dabbled in the field.


----------



## Shasarak

TheCosmicKid said:


> Is meteorology a science? Is medicine?




Are we talking about regular medicine or homeopathy?

Because one of those is a science and the other is homeopathy.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Shasarak said:


> Are we talking about regular medicine or homeopathy?
> 
> Because one of those is a science and the other is homeopathy.



I said "medicine". Alternative medicine isn't.


----------



## Shasarak

TheCosmicKid said:


> I said "medicine". Alternative medicine isn't.




Alternative medicine is pretty strong words for homeopathy but you never know who you are talking to.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> You could say "They got lucky" to dismiss _any_ correct scientific prediction. But fortunately, we can use math to quantify luck. We can calculate the probability that a correct prediction would have occurred under the null hypothesis; the lower this "_p_-value", the higher the "statistical significance" of the result. (You may have seen these terms before. In this thread, if nowhere else.)
> 
> So... just _how_ "lucky" was Nate Silver, correctly calling 99 of 100 state races over two consecutive elections?




24 out of 25 over two consecutive elections.  That's how many swing states there were.  The rest weren't in doubt and he didn't need to do calculations.  This guy got a lot right, too.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus


----------



## Ovinomancer

Shasarak said:


> What happens if there is a scientific definition of "Good" and we (humans) dont agree with it?



Philosophy.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> You could say "They got lucky" to dismiss _any_ correct scientific prediction. But fortunately, we can use math to quantify luck. We can calculate the probability that a correct prediction would have occurred under the null hypothesis; the lower this "_p_-value", the higher the "statistical significance" of the result. (You may have seen these terms before. In this thread, if nowhere else.)



No, no, no!  P-values give a confudence level of the model of parameters and test you've chosen, which are assumptions.  They don't prove your assumptions.  Reliance on p-values is reification.


> So... just _how_ "lucky" was Nate Silver, correctly calling 99 of 100 state races over two consecutive elections?
> 
> 
> It's not just the information that's important; it's the model a scientist builds with that information. Everybody in the 17th Century had the same information about planetary motion, but only this one guy named Kepler built a model of the Solar System that included elliptical orbits allowing him to make much more accurate predictions (and postdictions) of the motion.
> 
> 
> Saying of any field that "it's science except for the predictive part" is like saying of a person that "they're a doctor except for the medical-professional part". Predictions, and the commitment to assessing their accuracy, are what separate science from mere pontification.
> 
> Take this insight and apply it to meteorology, or political science. The presence of _variation_ makes repeatable, accurate prediction much more difficult. It does not make it impossible, or make the attempt not science.




Statistical modelling isn't science, though, it's horoscopes with math.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Sepulchrave II said:


> There are rather more than 2000 words which are unattested before Shakespeare; some were already likely in current use, but the vast majority were first employed by him – there are consistent formation patterns. He drew on loan words, back-formed hundreds of words with previously uncombined prepositions, verbalized nouns and invented words from whole cloth. In his writing, he combined words in ways more complex and nuanced, expressive and poetic, than previously imagined.
> 
> I’m interested in what you think it takes to “improve” a language, or whether such improvement is even possible. For example, Joseph Tito ordered a consistent spelling, alphabet and phraseology in Serbo-Croatian; did he “improve” the language?




Improving a language would require the language to use less words to accomplish higher levels of understanding.  Similar to how technology generally gets smaller and smaller, and generally less expensive over a very long period of time; languages that are efficient without losing depth are generally considered improved.  It's a hard balance to strike.

Adding words and phrases to a language, that can be misunderstood without appropriate context is not improvement.  I'm sure others may have a different opinion, but since you asked I'm sharing.  Specific to Shakespeare.  Fantastic amount of work, good stuff to read.. horrible example to use for improving a language.

I've no opinion on Tito.  Depending on what he did, his work could either improve or damage the language.  I've seen similar attempts in Italy to streamline the main language out of regional dialect and all it did was isolate the folks that weren't in the urban orbit.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Ovinomancer said:


> No, no, no!  P-values give a confudence level of the model of parameters and test you've chosen, which are assumptions.  They don't prove your assumptions.  Reliance on p-values is reification.
> 
> 
> Statistical modelling isn't science, though, it's horoscopes with math.




I'm starting to hope that this conversation is an expression of the differences in knowledge between a research Ph.D and grad students with some background in research, or I'm going to have a real concern for what some are stating in this thread.  For the record, my concern is not with Ovinomancer.  For whatever reason, he reads more in line with my own education.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Ovinomancer said:


> Statistical modelling isn't science, though, it's horoscopes with math.




But with all I've said previously, this is where I think perhaps you've gone a bit far afield from the middle.

There are two things you can do with statistics.
- Use for discovery
- Use for support

The problem with using statistics for support is bias.  You can make numbers look like they mean anything if you try hard enough.  What population did you use?  What do your error bars look like?  How did your power analysis work out with such a small population?  Oh, you didn't think about that?  Wow.

Nonetheless, statistical modeling gives us the ability to optimize workflow, aim at deployments, and generally predict high liklihood outcomes.  The value you get out of the numbers has a lot to do with the person doing the work and the effort put in to getting a clean data set.  It could be argued that the reason why tenure exists is to allow folks to have the structured time to get clean data and look at outcomes with little bias.

So horoscopes with math is possible.  So is enablement by math.  

Be well
KB


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Kobold Boots said:


> Improving a language would require the language to use less words to accomplish higher levels of understanding.




Conciseness is certainly a dimension which can be improved in a language, but this fails to account for aesthetic considerations; given that a common use for language is to purposely evoke feelings (theater, literature etc.), this would seem to me an important component in how we judge "improvement". And nuance is hard to achieve without adding more words; as the field of human experience grows (and our record of previous experience becomes more-and-more comprehensive), we add more-and-more words to describe the phenomena which we encounter.

The more I think about it, the more I'm skeptical of the notion that [the English] language _can_ be improved beyond a simple phonetic rationalization; it is best suited to the time and context in which it is used: it evolves to best reflect its own milieu. 

But this is silly:

_Cough  Enough  Through  Thorough  Chough  Plough  Slough  Ought_ 

And there has to be room for improvement here. _Thru_ and _plow_ are a good start, but I rather think they were modified for brevity, rather than any kind of phonetic clarity.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Sepulchrave II said:


> Conciseness is certainly a dimension which can be improved in a language, but this fails to account for aesthetic considerations; given that a common use for language is to purposely evoke feelings (theater, literature etc.), this would seem to me an important component in how we judge "improvement". And nuance is hard to achieve without adding more words; as the field of human experience grows (and our record of previous experience becomes more-and-more comprehensive), we add more-and-more words to describe the phenomena which we encounter.
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I'm skeptical of the notion that [the English] language _can_ be improved beyond a simple phonetic rationalization; it is best suited to the time and context in which it is used: it evolves to best reflect its own milieu.
> 
> But this is silly:
> 
> _Cough  Enough  Through  Thorough  Chough  Plough  Slough  Ought_
> 
> And there has to be room for improvement here.




There is.  Here's what I think I think 

1. Nuance isn't about the word used as much as the context and tone of the word when used.  Emotion can be conveyed to an audience even when using the wrong words for the situation.  Comedy is a good example of this, much of the content has no business being laughed at, but in context and with the right delivery; we laugh.

2. Adding new words happens during social integration as a bridge to making the language more accessible to a foreign speaker and is not necessarily a good thing for the language aside from expanding its use to new speakers thus broadening its base.  The stronger social group in a region will force a new dialect over time.

So there's the social aspect of language that some would consider improvement.  There's also the hard points you've made about cough, and enough.  That's where a good pass with linguistic brillo would do us all some benefit.

In this particular discussion though, I think you and I are generally on the same page.

Be well
KB


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> No, no, no!  P-values give a confudence level of the model of parameters and test you've chosen, which are assumptions.  They don't prove your assumptions.



Did I say they did?



Ovinomancer said:


> Reliance on p-values is reification.



You keep using that word.



Ovinomancer said:


> Statistical modelling isn't science, though, it's horoscopes with math.



Again: dismissive. You're using terms of abuse and avoiding addressing the key question: does it work? And perhaps some corollary questions, like: if it doesn't work, how _should_ we approach research on massive and/or chaotic systems like human health, the weather, and politics? Do we just throw up our hands and say, "Not science, we can't learn anything about this"?


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> The study of cloud formation and other measurable things?  Sure.



Also the record-keeping and analysis of the data thus generated.

Problem is, for weather at least, reliable and consistent record-keeping hasn't been around that long (in the grand scheme of things) and in many cases still isn't reliable and consistent - even something as simple as moving a weather station from one part of town to another throws consistency out the window.



> The actual predictions?  Not so much.  They are using science to try and make a stab at letting us know what the weather will be like, and are very often wrong.



A trivial-scale comparison would be trying to predict the outcome of a chess game - not just who will win but what the final position will be and how many moves it'll take.

Given enough data from previous games played by the specific players involved, and a bunch of computing power, one could arrive at a tolerably-accurate guess...but that's all it would ever be.

For weather, take all that and dial it up off the scale.  Short-term - within 24 hours, say - is pretty easy to get right in most cases; and medium-term (2-4 days) is rapidly getting better.  Get out much beyond that and the inaccuracies really start to rear their heads; anything beyond a week is more or less an estimate, anything beyond a month is really just a guess.  It would take a galloping leap in available computing power to get it any better.



> Illnesses have specific symptoms.



Most of the time...but not all.

Lanefan


----------



## Emerikol

Maxperson said:


> I think what he's getting at is that the math has always been there, even from a time before we knew about math at all.  Calculus wasn't finding new math, but rather finding math that was new to us, but which already existed.  So it was a discovery from following math where it lead, rather than making up a new math.




This is exactly my point.  All abstract mathematical concepts exist in all possible universes in all possible times.  They are eternal truths.  Some would add "in the mind of God" and I'd agree but that isn't necessary for this discussion.


----------



## Emerikol

TheCosmicKid said:


> Preaching to the choir.
> You're dismissing, not discussing. When someone like Nate Silver can statistically model political preferences well enough to accurately predict the results of all fifty states in a US presidential election, that sure looks like science to me.




I think Nate does some good work but he can't predict perfectly.  He can present probabilities.  That fits very well with the original point.  Psychology has some successes so it can't be dismissed but there is no unified theory.  Whereas in physics, things can often be predicted with 100% reliability.  It is why physics is considered a "hard" science and psychology a "soft" science.  One day that may not be true.  We are just further along in some areas than others.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Lanefan said:


> For weather, take all that and dial it up off the scale.  Short-term - within 24 hours, say - is pretty easy to get right in most cases; and medium-term (2-4 days) is rapidly getting better.  Get out much beyond that and the inaccuracies really start to rear their heads; anything beyond a week is more or less an estimate, anything beyond a month is really just a guess.  It would take a galloping leap in available computing power to get it any better.
> Lanefan



But oddly, when we look at the _really_ big picture, we can make some very reliable predictions again, no computer necessary. We can be quite certain that it will get colder in the winter. And we can me quite certain that Magnus Carlsen will wipe the floor with me.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> Did I say they did?



Reading your post again, I still come away with you saying a wee p is validation of the model as correct.  Did you intend to convey a different meaning?  In the context you responded, something other would be very unclearly stated.



> You keep using that word.



With intent.  Statistics usually invokes reification in it's users, to their error.


> Again: dismissive. You're using terms of abuse and avoiding addressing the key question: does it work? And perhaps some corollary questions, like: if it doesn't work, how _should_ we approach research on massive and/or chaotic systems like human health, the weather, and politics? Do we just throw up our hands and say, "Not science, we can't learn anything about this"?



Well, yes, it's dismissive, as I'm saying you're wrong.  I provided reasons for this in the same post -- p-values are not measures of reality, but of model parameters, and that reification of model parameters into real things shown is rampant.  I tried to chose a humorous way to put that.

If your model is a statistical one, all you can possibly show is correlation.  Causation is outside the realm of statistics.  Saying that Silver is doing science when he builds a statistical model that uses heavily weighted and adjusted poll results (themselves very imperfect data sets) is ludicrous, regardless of his success rate.  Nate Silver is, foremost, an astute political observer.  He has a knack for putting his predictions in math-y format.  Absent his keen observations, which lead to how he weights his data inputs, his models wouldn't have much skill.  The success of Nate Silver is not due to his statistical methods, but his interpretation and massaging of the data inputs into his statistical methods.  Plenty of other keen political observers had similar predictions to Silver's without the stats.  Sliver is engaged in political prognostication wrapped in stats.  This does not make what he does science (use of stats does not science make anywhere) -- it's still just politics watching.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Kobold Boots said:


> But with all I've said previously, this is where I think perhaps you've gone a bit far afield from the middle.
> 
> There are two things you can do with statistics.
> - Use for discovery
> - Use for support
> 
> The problem with using statistics for support is bias.  You can make numbers look like they mean anything if you try hard enough.  What population did you use?  What do your error bars look like?  How did your power analysis work out with such a small population?  Oh, you didn't think about that?  Wow.
> 
> Nonetheless, statistical modeling gives us the ability to optimize workflow, aim at deployments, and generally predict high liklihood outcomes.  The value you get out of the numbers has a lot to do with the person doing the work and the effort put in to getting a clean data set.  It could be argued that the reason why tenure exists is to allow folks to have the structured time to get clean data and look at outcomes with little bias.
> 
> So horoscopes with math is possible.  So is enablement by math.
> 
> Be well
> KB




I use stats in my day job for science reasons.  I do it because it creates a predictable model with great skill to do radio frequency work.  However, the stats I use aren't reality, they're just a good tool, one that has shown repeated reliability for decades for this kind of work.  I don't confuse statistics as being the useful part of this tool -- this tool stands on it's own merits, and statistics doesn't inherent any good faith from me from this one (actually a family) of tool. 

Stats builds a model.  The old saw, "All models are wrong; some are useful," is true.  There are many useful tools in stats, but they require the user to be aware of their limitations, use clean data, and understand what the model actually says.  Whenever someone says 'statistics prove it' I cringe.  This is fundamentally incorrect statement.  Stats aren't run on the data, they're run on parameters of the data, and those parameters are all assumptions the user is making.  The math then works, and spits out an answer, and the user is now in the easy position of thinking that answer is based on the data rather than the parameterization.  The answer is also very often precise -- perhaps a wee p-value is obtained.  This leads to overconfidence in the result.  In short, it's very easy to both lie to yourself (and others) with stats and to also be overconfident in your results.

This doesn't mean statistics isn't useful -- I make a comfortable living uses statistical approaches in my job.  But, most often, stats are just guesses cloaked in the justifying garb of numbers.  I have a generally negative view of statistics due to how often it's misused.  I can be very favorable of specific statistical models, given they have shown to have good skill and don't mistake themselves for truth.

So, yes, under that understanding I know that statistics can be useful for discovery (correlations only) and can provide some support to a theory.  They cannot ever _prove _a theory, though.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Emerikol said:
			
		

> All abstract mathematical concepts exist in all possible universes in all possible times. They are eternal truths.




Whoa, Tiger. Slow down.


----------



## pemerton

Kobold Boots said:


> Improving a language would require the language to use less words to accomplish higher levels of understanding.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Adding words and phrases to a language, that can be misunderstood without appropriate context is not improvement.



On this I tend to go with Orwell in his essay on Newspeak.

More words allows nuance, rhythm, assonance, alliteration, etc. It increases the expressive power of the language.

Reading on, I see that [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] has said the same in reply.

Also, on statistics and causation: scientific knowledge isn't limited to knowledge of causal processes. Statistically confirmed correlations may enable predictions to be made, even though the causal process that generates the correlation is not known. This is starting to push my knowledge of the history of science, but I would have thought that Mendelian genetics and 19th century statistical mechanics of gasses would be examples of scientific knowledge of correlations in ignorance of the actual causal process.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> Reading your post again, I still come away with you saying a wee p is validation of the model as correct.  Did you intend to convey a different meaning?  In the context you responded, something other would be very unclearly stated.



The claim "They just got lucky" is not the end of the discussion, but the beginning, and in asserting it  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] was grasping towards the concept of statistical significance.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a scientist, it's been a long time since I've used this math in any serious way, and it's entirely probable that I will make a mistake along the line here. But I _do_ know the difference between statistical significance and proof.



Ovinomancer said:


> Well, yes, it's dismissive, as I'm saying you're wrong. I provided reasons for this in the same post -- p-values are not measures of reality, but of model parameters, and that reification of model parameters into real things shown is rampant. I tried to chose a humorous way to put that.



It seems like you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here: using a mistake that people make as reason to discard the whole pursuit rather than to say, "oh, we should be careful not to make that mistake".



Ovinomancer said:


> If your model is a statistical one, all you can possibly show is correlation.  Causation is outside the realm of statistics.  Saying that Silver is doing science when he builds a statistical model that uses heavily weighted and adjusted poll results (themselves very imperfect data sets) is ludicrous, regardless of his success rate.  Nate Silver is, foremost, an astute political observer.  He has a knack for putting his predictions in math-y format.  Absent his keen observations, which lead to how he weights his data inputs, his models wouldn't have much skill.  The success of Nate Silver is not due to his statistical methods, but his interpretation and massaging of the data inputs into his statistical methods.  Plenty of other keen political observers had similar predictions to Silver's without the stats.  Sliver is engaged in political prognostication wrapped in stats.  This does not make what he does science (use of stats does not science make anywhere) -- it's still just politics watching.



I think the fundamental disagreement here is just that you have a narrower definition of "science" than I would consider conventional. I'm with  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: if a statistical model built through observation and experimentation allows us to make predictions better than otherwise, then we have learned something in a way I would call "science", even if we don't understand the causation we're capturing in the model yet.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> But oddly, when we look at the _really_ big picture, we can make some very reliable predictions again, no computer necessary. We can be quite certain that it will get colder in the winter. And we can me quite certain that Magnus Carlsen will wipe the floor with me.




Yep, but as Paul the octupus shows, prediction isn't science.  It's prediction.  We can predict that an object I drop tomorrow will fall to the ground.  That's not science.  The science was all the observation and testing that went into allowing us to predict gravity.  We can predict that it will be colder in the winter, but that is also not science.  Science was measuring the temperature at during all of the seasons including winter and recording that data.  Reliable predictions are not science.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> We can predict that an object I drop tomorrow will fall to the ground.  That's not science.  The science was all the observation and testing that went into allowing us to predict gravity.



Suppose someone does a series of experiments, dropping various objects various distances, and carefully measures the time they take to fall. Those resuts could be published as tables which might then be useful for various purposes

That would be an example of scientific knowledge - careful measurment use to produce a systematic body of knowledge - which was not about the discovery or explanation of a causal process.

Knowing that it will get cold in winter isn't scientific knowledge, but careful measurement might produce more precise and systematic knowledge, such that - for instance - the likelihood of the temperature in any given day in some particular summer month failing to exceed 20 degrees is such-and-such. That scienitifc knowledge might then be useful for, say, horticulturalists even though it does not identify or explain any causal process that governs temperatures, nor enable the top temperature on any particular summer day to be forecast.

Careful measurement, identifying which measurements can be reliablty extrapolated to future instances, and organisting such measurements systematically so that they are accessible and applicable knowledge - that is one of the things that science does, which distinguishes it from mere common sense observations such as "unsupported objects fall" or "winter is cold".

And to go back to the tangent that spawned _this_ tangent: I don't think that the default gameworlds of fantasy RPGs assume anything about what the results of such careful measurements would be. They don't need to, as it's the nature of most fantasy RPGing that common sense tropes - "unsupported objects fall", "winter is cold", etc - are sufficient to permit players to sensibly declare actions for their PCs, and GMs to adjudicate the results of those action declarations.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> The claim "They just got lucky" is not the end of the discussion, but the beginning, and in asserting it  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] was grasping towards the concept of statistical significance.
> 
> Don't get me wrong: I'm not a scientist, it's been a long time since I've used this math in any serious way, and it's entirely probable that I will make a mistake along the line here. But I _do_ know the difference between statistical significance and proof.
> 
> 
> It seems like you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here: using a mistake that people make as reason to discard the whole pursuit rather than to say, "oh, we should be careful not to make that mistake".



Actually, I'd be quite happy with the complete demise of the p-value.  There are really only a handful of good cases for frequentist stats (RF being one), but you could do with Bayesian techniques (harder, but less misleading).



> I think the fundamental disagreement here is just that you have a narrower definition of "science" than I would consider conventional. I'm with  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: if a statistical model built through observation and experimentation allows us to make predictions better than otherwise, then we have learned something in a way I would call "science", even if we don't understand the causation we're capturing in the model yet.



Well, I started with this, so...

Science is the scientific method.  Everything else is smearing the term to promote overconfidence in methods and results.  Stats isn't science, although it's occasionally useful.  Personally, I don't think correlations are anything but sources of new questions to with which science starts.  The problem is how often it stops at correlation.


----------



## pemerton

Scientific navigation is another example of correlation without knowledge of causation.

Scientific navigation depends on knowledge about compass needles pointing north; about the motion of the sun in the sky; about the keeping of time by clocks.

I don't think reliable clocks can be built without knowing quite a bit about causal processes within a bit of machinery; but the motion of the sun in the sky, and how that correlates to differences in the time at which noon occurs at different longitudes, can be known without knowing what _causes_ the earth to rotate about its axis at a uniform rate; and one can know that compass needles point north without knowing how magnetism works, or why the earth has a magnetic field - the discovery that the earth's core includes a lot of iron happened much after the use of compasses in navigation had been systematised.

Central to the _scientific method_ is the systematic generation of measurable results, and the ordering of those results so as to enable knowledge - by generalising from them, by determining the conditions under which they permit reliable predictions, etc. Identifying patterns of correlation is a very important part of the scientific method.

An example of the application of scientific method, including the use of statistics, to social rather than natural scientific problems, is demography and related fields (eg public health and epidemiology). This generates systematic knowledge about life expectancies, patterns of morbidity and mortality, etc. It does not have to generate knowledge of causal processes (and there's an argument that it cannot, give that the causal processes - such as transmissions of pathogens from individual to individual - don't operate at the population level).

Of course one can see bad arguments made in public health, because they rest on a conflation of correlation with causation - to put a really crude example, which is perhaps an unfair exaggeration even of the worst arguments, the fact that highly educated people are in the top quartile for life expectancy and low morbidity doesn't mean that if (somehow) everyone achieved those levels of population we could level the population up to those standards (given eg that now we would have people with PhDs working in mines, and thus exposed to risks of workplace injury and death that at present are faced only by those with lower levels of education).

But that doesn't mean that the statistical information that such arguments draw upon is not knowledge, or that the generation of that information is not science.


----------



## Shasarak

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, I started with this, so...
> 
> Science is the scientific method.  Everything else is smearing the term to promote overconfidence in methods and results.  Stats isn't science, although it's occasionally useful.  Personally, I don't think correlations are anything but sources of new questions to with which science starts.  The problem is how often it stops at correlation.




I dont really understand your claim that stats is not science.  How can you do Science without using stats?  If I want to create a new medicine to prevent Heart attacks then how can I prove its effectiveness without the use of stats and of course randomised control studies?


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> I dont really understand your claim that stats is not science.  How can you do Science without using stats?  If I want to create a new medicine to prevent Heart attacks then how can I prove its effectiveness without the use of stats and of course randomised control studies?



I take it that, on the conception of science being promoted, it's not _science_ until you have a total model of the biochemistry of heart attacks and of the chemistry of your medicine which allows a demonstration of the precise way in which it will affect that biochemistry.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> I take it that, on the conception of science being promoted, it's not _science_ until you have a total model of the biochemistry of heart attacks and of the chemistry of your medicine which allows a demonstration of the precise way in which it will affect that biochemistry.




So you can not do science until you already know everything about the thing you want to do science on?

Isnt that the opposite of science?


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> So you can not do science until you already know everything about the thing you want to do science on?
> 
> Isnt that the opposite of science?



Don't ask me - I'm not defending it, just trying to explain what I take [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] to be saying.

You can see my own suggestion as to how to think about what science is in some of my posts over the past page or two.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> Don't ask me - I'm not defending it, just trying to explain what I take [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] to be saying.




I did not get that impression from what he was saying.

Meta-analysis, for example, is an important tool used for analyzing multi studies.  So is that 'not science'?


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> Don't ask me - I'm not defending it, just trying to explain what I take [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] to be saying.




You should probably stop doing that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Shasarak said:


> I dont really understand your claim that stats is not science.  How can you do Science without using stats?  If I want to create a new medicine to prevent Heart attacks then how can I prove its effectiveness without the use of stats and of course randomised control studies?




It's a method of data analysis, yes, and, as such, can be used to do science.  It is not science.  Doing stats does not make what you're doing science.

You wouldn't actually have to use stats for that experiment, either.  Find a reasonable similar cohort of subjects and have a control group, then compare results.  Medicine is another place where bad use of statistics is rampant.


----------



## Shasarak

Ovinomancer said:


> It's a method of data analysis, yes, and, as such, can be used to do science.  It is not science.  Doing stats does not make what you're doing science.
> 
> You wouldn't actually have to use stats for that experiment, either.  Find a reasonable similar cohort of subjects and have a control group, then compare results.




Comparing results is exactly what stats is doing.



> Medicine is another place where bad use of statistics is rampant.




If you think that it is just bad statistics in medicine to worry about then you have another think coming.

Still it is a process, even the best (worst?) efforts of the tobacco industry could not hide the problems with smoking for example.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> And to go back to the tangent that spawned _this_ tangent: I don't think that the default gameworlds of fantasy RPGs assume anything about what the results of such careful measurements would be. They don't need to, as it's the nature of most fantasy RPGing that common sense tropes - "unsupported objects fall", "winter is cold", etc - are sufficient to permit players to sensibly declare actions for their PCs, and GMs to adjudicate the results of those action declarations.



Attempts to apply realistic physics to falling damage rules are particularly notorious.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> Actually, I'd be quite happy with the complete demise of the p-value.  There are really only a handful of good cases for frequentist stats (RF being one), but you could do with Bayesian techniques (harder, but less misleading).



But, as  [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] put it, you're drifting away from the mainstream there.



Ovinomancer said:


> Science is the scientific method.



That's tautological. What's the scientific method? Why doesn't observation-based statistical prediction qualify?


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> What's the scientific method? Why doesn't observation-based statistical prediction qualify?




"Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation
Scientists are naturally curious about the world. While many people may pass by a curious phenomenon without sparing much thought for it, a scientific mind will take note of it as something worth further thought and investigation.

Form a Question
After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. This is in fact a natural phenomenon. If you have ever wondered why or how something occurs, you have been listening to the scientist in you. In the scientific method, a question converts general wonder and interest to a channelled line of thinking and inquiry.

Form a Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an informed guess as to the possible answer of the question. The hypothesis may be formed as soon as the question is posed, or it may require a great deal of background research and inquiry. The purpose of the hypothesis is not to arrive at the perfect answer to the question but to provide a direction to further scientific investigation.

Conduct an Experiment
Once a hypothesis has been formed, it must be tested. This is done by conducting a carefully designed and controlled experiment. The experiment is one of the most important steps in the scientific method, as it is used to prove a hypothesis right or wrong, and to formulate scientific theories. In order to be accepted as scientific proof for a theory, an experiment must meet certain conditions – it must be controlled, i.e. it must test a single variable by keeping all other variables under control. The experiment must also be reproducible so that it can be tested for errors.

Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion
As the experiment is conducted, it is important to note down the results. In any experiment, it is necessary to conduct several trials to ensure that the results are constant. The experimenter then analyses all the data and uses it to draw a conclusion regarding the strength of the hypothesis. If the data proves the hypothesis correct, the original question is answered. On the other hand, if the data disproves the hypothesis, the scientific inquiry continues by doing research to form a new hypothesis and then conducting an experiment to test it. This process goes on until a hypothesis can be proven correct by a scientific experiment."

Because predictions don't follow the scientific method.  There is no carefully designed and controlled experiment, and that's one of the most important steps in the process.  It even says so!!


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> Because predictions don't follow the scientific method.  There is no carefully designed and controlled experiment, and that's one of the most important steps in the process.  It even says so!!



That's the grade-school presentation of the scientific method. In real sciences of many varieties, "experiments" have to take the form of making further careful observations of the world and assessing whether they conform to a prediction made by the hypothesis. For example, controlled and repeated experiments are not usually possible in astronomy: if we want to test, say, the prediction made by general relativity about gravitational lensing, we have to wait until a solar eclipse and then measure the apparent positions of the stars around it. Make no mistake: these "natural experiments" are _not as good_ as controlled experiments in a laboratory. There is greater risk of the result being a consequence of an uncontrolled variable, and as far as repeatability goes we're at nature's mercy. We have to be more careful, and cannot be as certain. But that does not mean that no science can come of it. It seems absurd to declare that the Eddington-Dyson observation of the 1919 eclipse, one of the most dramatic and famous experimental confirmations of a hypothesis in the history of science, was "not scientific".


----------



## pemerton

TheCosmicKid said:


> That's the grade-school presentation of the scientific method.



Thanks you!

As well as the examples you point to (astronomy) we could point to aspects of biology (Darwin didn't do experiments - he made very careful observations and conjectured the best explanation for them given the constraints he took to be applicable) or demography/public health (no one goes about spreading diseases or polluting water supplies to try and determine the effect on life expectancy, birth rates, and other aspects of population health), etc.

Beginning with the caveat that while I have taught and also supervised in philosophy of science it's not my main gig, I would start any account of the scientific method with the centrality of careful observation and measurement. Experiments are a device for facilitating this, but not the only way.

In the fields that _are_ my main gig - law, political and social philosophy, philosophy of language - one of the most common causes of bad work is (in my view) a lack of careful observation - which mostly manifests itself in treating common sense about one's own social situation or one's own linguistic usage as if were a more-or-less necessary feature of such things. (Even with careful observation - eg attention, when doing social theory, to the widest possible range of human social formations - these disciplines still will not count as _scientific_ for the most part, as they typically don't involve measurement.)


----------



## Sepulchrave II

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], re: reification. I have pondered your posts, and the point is well made. I had never before encountered the term in the context in which you used it. As it happens to be one of my favorite words, I felt it necessary to do some digging. I am no statistician, but I don’t need to be; I fully understand the fallacy of treating a model of a thing as the thing itself. But this line is more interesting:


			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> Statistical modelling isn't science, though, it's horoscopes with math.




Because 400 years ago, astronomy was that _literally_. Like alchemy, it needed to shake off the _woo-woo_, and enter respectability.

My sense is that with economics, sociology, psychology, we are observing phases in nascent sciences; the disciplines are still struggling to cohere. Psychology is hardening – largely because of neuroscience – but it still has a long way to go. The traditional physical sciences are more established, and have had longer to iron out their wrinkles – perhaps that is why the soft edges of the soft sciences are frustrating to those who are grounded in the hard.

I would submit that history is one of the youngest sciences; historians seem singularly resistant to any kind of systematic inquiry and display an almost paranoid avoidance of mathematics. Bayesian reasoning is beginning to appear at the fringes; it is not being well-received – because history professors are ignorant and lazy. My evidence is purely anecdotal.

And what I think matters not one whit. If a discipline really _is_ a science, it will self–correct and improve, and demonstrate its value – such is the virtue of science; if not, it goes the way of homeopathy, confined to a few fringe cranks who seek ever-deeper meanings in its arcane formulations.


----------



## VisanidethDM

Emerikol said:


> I raised this issue on several occasions with Mike Mearls, but I have to think he didn't understand me.  He'd give an answer that sounded like he cared about the concern but then we got the game as written.  So I think maybe he thought I was asking about X when in fact it was about Y.  Otherwise I hope he would have not been so encouraging.




I think your problem is that you need to look for really, really simple games that limit player choices as much as they can. Everytime a player gets to choose a different type of action you basically create a potential disconnect between player and character because the character may not be as informed as the player on the context of that action. 
What you want is a system where you describe your action, roll a dice, and you get to describe what happened based on the idea that the character is hoping for the best result possible every time and how close he gets is based on how well he rolls.




> What about Pf2e?  Do you think it will do this particular issue better?   I've been following your posts about that game but not sure I can be  sure.  Realize too that I only need a workable subset of a system.  If I  had to ban a few classes I could easily live with that.  Fighter,  Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric are core and I wouldn't want to ban those.




If Action Surge (the idea that going overboard with effort will mean you won't be able to do it again, think of "I'm doing 5 more reps on this exercise but this means I won't be able to do another series") is already triggering your metagame threshold I think PF2 isn't going to be a game for you.


----------



## VisanidethDM

Saelorn said:


> In an earlier thread, I got one of the developers to confirm that every hit on an attack roll corresponds definitionally to some sort of physical impact, so Hit Points should be less abstract in PF2 than they are in D&D 4E or 5E.
> 
> I know that it's tangential to the topic at hand, but it gives some indication as to their stance on overtly gamist mechanics.





A character being able to survive 10-15 direct hits a day and becoming capable of withstanding inordinate amounts of punishment as he becomes more competent IS the overtly gamist mechanics.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> That's the grade-school presentation of the scientific method. In real sciences of many varieties, "experiments" have to take the form of making further careful observations of the world and assessing whether they conform to a prediction made by the hypothesis.




All hypothesis is prediction in the scientific method. You are conflating prediction of something specific that you are trying to prove via controlled experimentation and analysis, and prediction of something specific and involves no controlled experiment at all(an election).



> For example, controlled and repeated experiments are not usually possible in astronomy: if we want to test, say, the prediction made by general relativity about gravitational lensing, we have to wait until a solar eclipse and then measure the apparent positions of the stars around it. Make no mistake: these "natural experiments" are _not as good_ as controlled experiments in a laboratory. There is greater risk of the result being a consequence of an uncontrolled variable, and as far as repeatability goes we're at nature's mercy.




This is a controlled experiment.  The control isn't as great as the lab, but it's there.  We can know with incredible accuracy when solar eclipses will happen.  I watched one earlier this year or maybe it was last year.  I can't remember. I was able to go outside exactly when it happened because of repeatability of experiments in the past.  Yes, we're at nature's mercy on when we can repeat the astronomical experiment, but repeatable it is.



> We have to be more careful, and cannot be as certain. But that does not mean that no science can come of it. It seems absurd to declare that the Eddington-Dyson observation of the 1919 eclipse, one of the most dramatic and famous experimental confirmations of a hypothesis in the history of science, was "not scientific".




Whereas you cannot repeat an election.  Even going to a second term, so much has changed that Trump's second attempt at election cannot possibly be viewed as a repeated experiment.  There is no science involved in these sorts of predictions.  You might as well get another Paul the Octopus to do it.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> As well as the examples you point to (astronomy) we could point to aspects of biology (Darwin didn't do experiments - he made very careful observations and conjectured the best explanation for them given the constraints he took to be applicable) or demography/public health (no one goes about spreading diseases or polluting water supplies to try and determine the effect on life expectancy, birth rates, and other aspects of population health), etc.




His observations and measurements were the experiment in this case.  He would compare the same species on different islands(an experiment) and note the differences in their adaptions.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> That's the grade-school presentation of the scientific method. In real sciences of many varieties, "experiments" have to take the form of making further careful observations of the world and assessing whether they conform to a prediction made by the hypothesis. For example, controlled and repeated experiments are not usually possible in astronomy: if we want to test, say, the prediction made by general relativity about gravitational lensing, we have to wait until a solar eclipse and then measure the apparent positions of the stars around it. Make no mistake: these "natural experiments" are _not as good_ as controlled experiments in a laboratory. There is greater risk of the result being a consequence of an uncontrolled variable, and as far as repeatability goes we're at nature's mercy. We have to be more careful, and cannot be as certain. But that does not mean that no science can come of it. It seems absurd to declare that the Eddington-Dyson observation of the 1919 eclipse, one of the most dramatic and famous experimental confirmations of a hypothesis in the history of science, was "not scientific".



Yes, you can conduct experiment by observing phenomena.  You must have a theory and observe to falsify, and, as you note, such experiments have less power.  Still, there are things you can only observe, but thise are also often areas where we have limited knowledge.

The common problem is to gather a data set, do analysis, discover a correlation, and deckare this as science.  It is not.  You must form a theory and test it against newly gather data.  Then you've done science.  There's a large set of current study that skips the experiment and relies on stats on the original collection.  Not science.

A further issue is the creation of computer models and testing the model.  This can be a useful tool to narrow down where to look for more data, but it is not science.  Model output is not valid data.  Most egregious in this area are doing stats on stats, like many if the fMRI studies.  fMRI is a statistical model by itself; doing statistical comparisions of statistical models is turtles, all the way down.
 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Collection and cataloguing of data cannot be science by itself, else baseball scorekeepers are engaged in science.  Collection of data is necessary to science, but it is not sufficient.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> But, as  [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] put it, you're drifting away from the mainstream there.
> 
> That's tautological. What's the scientific method? Why doesn't observation-based statistical prediction qualify?



Is the mainstream always right, or somesuch? What a strange argument.

And, yes, it appears tautologucal, yet it seems extremely controversial, yeah? And there are a few arguing for science being things outside the method or only one part of the method.  If you're (general you) going to argue science is a means to truth, then you should stick to the proven method.  This is really the summation of my argument.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Sepulchrave II said:


> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], re: reification. I have pondered your posts, and the point is well made. I had never before encountered the term in the context in which you used it. As it happens to be one of my favorite words, I felt it necessary to do some digging. I am no statistician, but I don’t need to be; I fully understand the fallacy of treating a model of a thing as the thing itself. But this line is more interesting:
> 
> 
> Because 400 years ago, astronomy was that _literally_. Like alchemy, it needed to shake off the _woo-woo_, and enter respectability.
> 
> My sense is that with economics, sociology, psychology, we are observing phases in nascent sciences; the disciplines are still struggling to cohere. Psychology is hardening – largely because of neuroscience – but it still has a long way to go. The traditional physical sciences are more established, and have had longer to iron out their wrinkles – perhaps that is why the soft edges of the soft sciences are frustrating to those who are grounded in the hard.
> 
> I would submit that history is one of the youngest sciences; historians seem singularly resistant to any kind of systematic inquiry and display an almost paranoid avoidance of mathematics. Bayesian reasoning is beginning to appear at the fringes; it is not being well-received – because history professors are ignorant and lazy. My evidence is purely anecdotal.
> 
> And what I think matters not one whit. If a discipline really _is_ a science, it will self–correct and improve, and demonstrate its value – such is the virtue of science; if not, it goes the way of homeopathy, confined to a few fringe cranks who seek ever-deeper meanings in its arcane formulations.



I disagree history could ever be a branch of science -- there's no way to experiment.  It could certainly do with more rigor.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> His observations and measurements were the experiment in this case.  He would compare the same species on different islands(an experiment) and note the differences in their adaptions.



Darwin's theory is only the first step of science.  He saw something, had a question, did research, and firmed a tgeory.  We're still collectively doing the experiment/falsification steps.  It's ongoing.

I rather like the theory of evolution and think its most likely right.  We've certainly found some surprises that have required modifying the theory so far, but nothing that's falsified it.


----------



## Kobold Boots

pemerton said:


> On this I tend to go with Orwell in his essay on Newspeak.
> 
> More words allows nuance, rhythm, assonance, alliteration, etc. It increases the expressive power of the language.
> 
> Reading on, I see that [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] has said the same in reply.
> 
> Also, on statistics and causation: scientific knowledge isn't limited to knowledge of causal processes. Statistically confirmed correlations may enable predictions to be made, even though the causal process that generates the correlation is not known. This is starting to push my knowledge of the history of science, but I would have thought that Mendelian genetics and 19th century statistical mechanics of gasses would be examples of scientific knowledge of correlations in ignorance of the actual causal process.




Fair.  However, I think it's more clearly stated by others I've met, that correlation does not indicate causation.


----------



## VisanidethDM

This thread could work perfectly as the origin story for a Frenzied Berserker.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> This is a controlled experiment.  The control isn't as great as the lab, but it's there.



And controls on an election, or on a living human body, or on the weather are also not great, but to some extent there. This isn't a binary "experiment"/"not experiment" distinction. It's a continuum from "better control" to "worse control".



Maxperson said:


> We can know with incredible accuracy when solar eclipses will happen.  I watched one earlier this year or maybe it was last year.  I can't remember. I was able to go outside exactly when it happened because of repeatability of experiments in the past.



You're putting the cart before the horse. The timing of solar eclipses is itself a scientific prediction, and going outside to observe it at the predicted time is an experimental confirmation. But, like you say, the controls on this experiment aren't perfect. Maybe aliens read our news and blot out the sun when eclipses are predicted as a prank. We can't control for that.

Also: not to be flippant, but we can know with incredible accuracy when presidential election will happen too.



Maxperson said:


> Whereas you cannot repeat an election.  Even going to a second term, so much has changed that Trump's second attempt at election cannot possibly be viewed as a repeated experiment.  There is no science involved in these sorts of predictions.  You might as well get another Paul the Octopus to do it.



Well, that's a hypothesis, and we can test it. We can continue watching elections and seeing whether in the long run, Nate Silver or Paul the Octopus makes better predictions. Yes, variables change. It is precisely because variables change that we repeat experiments. In principle, with a perfectly controlled experiment, we wouldn't have to.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, you can conduct experiment by observing phenomena.  You must have a theory and observe to falsify, and, as you note, such experiments have less power.  Still, there are things you can only observe, but thise are also often areas where we have limited knowledge.
> 
> The common problem is to gather a data set, do analysis, discover a correlation, and deckare this as science.  It is not.  You must form a theory and test it against newly gather data.  Then you've done science.  There's a large set of current study that skips the experiment and relies on stats on the original collection.  Not science.



Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I agree with all that. My point is that modeling an election and then testing it against an upcoming real election certainly seems to count as the former rather than the latter. Nate Silver isn't looking at past data and saying, "JFK won the 1960 election! Hah, called it!"


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree history could ever be a branch of science -- there's no way to experiment.  It could certainly do with more rigor.



There are a couple of ways to experiment in history. You can do what we've been talking about: make a prediction about some phenomenon and then wait for more history to happen and see if the prediction bears out (_e.g._, "based on the trajectories of totalitarian states, the North Korean regime will fall within 25 years"). You can also make a prediction and test it against new data you gather in the primary sources and archeology (_e.g._, "this culture suffered a plague at this date, so we should see an increase in death motifs in their writing and art").

The problem isn't the inability to experiment. It's the tiny sample size - just one timeline, no repeats - and the fact that the experiments are way down on the "worse control" side of the continuum. It's certainly never gonna be a _hard_ science.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

VisanidethDM said:


> A character being able to survive 10-15 direct hits a day and becoming capable of withstanding inordinate amounts of punishment as he becomes more competent IS the overtly gamist mechanics.



Not in the slightest. How many direct hits could Mike Tyson survive from a lesser competitor? It's a real thing that really happened in the real world.

Just because there's a significant physical impact that causes some sort of injury, does not mean that you've been impaled on a spear.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I agree with all that. My point is that modeling an election and then testing it against an upcoming real election certainly seems to count as the former rather than the latter. Nate Silver isn't looking at past data and saying, "JFK won the 1960 election! Hah, called it!"



Only if you're going to include most sports betting in the same category.  Fancy statistical models aren't much different from serious betters parsing the stats.  It's prognostication by knowledge of the game, which is how Silver builds his models through heavily weighted and sorted data.  Silver doesn't take straight data as an input, he selects and massages it according to his keen political insights and then makes a model that matches his guesses.  Same as someone betting on sports.  Or casting a horoscope, really.

ETA: I guess a more succinct way to put it is that what's successful about Nate Silver's predictions isn't his method, but rather Nate Silver.  He's an astute political observer, and I enjoy his analysis -- it's thought provoking.  But I don't ascribe any more science to his methods than I do any other pundit.



TheCosmicKid said:


> There are a couple of ways to experiment in history. You can do what we've been talking about: make a prediction about some phenomenon and then wait for more history to happen and see if the prediction bears out (_e.g._, "based on the trajectories of totalitarian states, the North Korean regime will fall within 25 years"). You can also make a prediction and test it against new data you gather in the primary sources and archeology (_e.g._, "this culture suffered a plague at this date, so we should see an increase in death motifs in their writing and art").
> 
> The problem isn't the inability to experiment. It's the tiny sample size - just one timeline, no repeats - and the fact that the experiments are way down on the "worse control" side of the continuum. It's certainly never gonna be a _hard_ science.



If you're making a guess about the future, it's no longer history, is it?  Under this interpretation, ALL science is history, because it all uses past observations to inform the method.  This proves too much.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> As well as the examples you point to (astronomy) we could point to aspects of biology (Darwin didn't do experiments - he made very careful observations and conjectured the best explanation for them given the constraints he took to be applicable) or demography/public health (no one goes about spreading diseases or polluting water supplies to try and determine the effect on life expectancy, birth rates, and other aspects of population health), etc.




Are you saying that no one goes about spreading disease or that no one should go about spreading disease?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> Only if you're going to include most sports betting in the same category.



Why not? Because it's trivial? Nate Silver himself is first and foremost a sports statistician - national elections are a sideline.



Ovinomancer said:


> Fancy statistical models aren't much different from serious betters parsing the stats.  It's prognostication by knowledge of the game, which is how Silver builds his models through heavily weighted and sorted data.



I'm having a hard time reconciling "knowledge of the game sufficient to make accurate predictions reliably" with "not science".



Ovinomancer said:


> Silver doesn't take straight data as an input, he selects and massages it according to his keen political insights and then makes a model that matches his guesses.  Same as someone betting on sports.



If I'm trying to find the gravitational constant _G_, I might estimate it at some value, run an experiment, compare the results to what's predicted by my estimate, and then adjust the estimate up or down accordingly and repeat. I am effectively "massaging" the gravitational force in my model. But I'm massaging it _in accordance with experimental results, in order to make better predictions_.

If Nate Silver decides _a priori_, "My gut tells me Ohio is going to go red", and then weights his data to say that Ohio is going to go red, then you're right, that's not science. But if he does what he says he does, and what we have no reason to suspect he's lying about, then the weights he puts on his data are in response to the results of previous experiments, and will be adjusted in response to future ones, in order to zero in on some value which can make predictions most accurately. That looks like a scientific process to me.



Ovinomancer said:


> Or casting a horoscope, really.



I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you don't read many horoscopes? The key element of horoscopes and prophecies, the trick that makes them work, is that they make _vague_ predictions which can can be interpreted after the fact as conforming to whatever happened, and are thus difficult to falsify. Whatever else you may say about political prognosticators, they do not do that. We can say, definitively, what Nate Silver was right about and what he was wrong about. That clarity is in falsification conditions the _sine quae non_ of science. So to compare a prediction which has such clarity with one which doesn't is deeply unfair and, when the whole point of this discussion is "what is science?", actively misleading.



Ovinomancer said:


> If you're making a guess about the future, it's no longer history, is it?  Under this interpretation, ALL science is history, because it all uses past observations to inform the method.  This proves too much.



With apologies to Francis Fukuyama, history did not end in the year 1990. History is the diachronic study of human behavior and societies - or, if I may be tautological in turn, it's the study of the stuff that makes it into history books. Historians have _tons_ to say about current and future events. They differ from, say, sociologists or political scientists in that their methodology is more focused on finding patterns of cause and effect in the written and archeological record, although naturally the boundary between the disciplines is fuzzy and there's a lot of overlap. But in short, "Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it" really is kind of the historian's mission statement.


----------



## Emerikol

Shasarak said:


> I dont really understand your claim that stats is not science.  How can you do Science without using stats?  If I want to create a new medicine to prevent Heart attacks then how can I prove its effectiveness without the use of stats and of course randomised control studies?




Well a hammer is not a house but carpenters will use a hammer to build a house.  Mathematics have other uses besides science so they aren't science but rather tools which scientists often use.


----------



## Emerikol

VisanidethDM said:


> I think your problem is that you need to look for really, really simple games that limit player choices as much as they can. Everytime a player gets to choose a different type of action you basically create a potential disconnect between player and character because the character may not be as informed as the player on the context of that action.
> What you want is a system where you describe your action, roll a dice, and you get to describe what happened based on the idea that the character is hoping for the best result possible every time and how close he gets is based on how well he rolls.



I didn't have a problem with earlier editions of the game pre-3e.  Not saying I couldn't find one tiny example of something in a splat book but I could play the basic game without worrying about these things.  So it's not that revolutionary and idea to want that same sort of approach.





VisanidethDM said:


> If Action Surge (the idea that going overboard with effort will mean you won't be able to do it again, think of "I'm doing 5 more reps on this exercise but this means I won't be able to do another series") is already triggering your metagame threshold I think PF2 isn't going to be a game for you.




Look, I used the term metagame because a lot of people on here are triggered by the term dissociative mechanics or dissonant mechanics or whatever.  It's a subtle form of bias but bias non-the same to try and make people you disagree without out as radicals.  That is a fallacious form of argument.  The topic, though way off the rails at the moment, is about discussing solutions to the problem.  Those who can help are welcome.  Those who can't get their heads around the idea should probably just look for a better thread for their input.

Also, there is no martial maneuver or pulling of inner resources that is limited to even a two hour window let alone a whole day window.  Not in terms of combat where people are fighting in rounds.


----------



## Emerikol

Folks, can we drop the arguments about science?  Come on.


----------



## Shasarak

Emerikol said:


> Well a hammer is not a house but carpenters will use a hammer to build a house.  Mathematics have other uses besides science so they aren't science but rather tools which scientists often use.




Science is also not a house but houses are tools that scientists often use to keep their stuff in.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Are you saying that no one goes about spreading disease or that no one should go about spreading disease?



I'm saying that public health researchers don't go about spreading disease so as to perform experiments concerning population health.

(I'm not talking here about experimenters who infect themselves, which happens from time to time.)



Maxperson said:


> His observations and measurements were the experiment in this case.  He would compare the same species on different islands(an experiment) and note the differences in their adaptions.



That's not an experiment. It's careful observation and measurement. Those are not the same thing!



Kobold Boots said:


> Fair.  However, I think it's more clearly stated by others I've met, that correlation does not indicate causation.



It would be correct to say that correlation does not, per se, indicate causation.

I have noted the following correlation over my life, though: when I tap a solid surface with my finger, it often generats a noise. And I have inferred, from the correlation, plus the absence of any other salient phenomenon correlating with my tapping, that it is the tapping that generates the noise.

Patterns of correlation (what present thing correlates with what other present thing, what absent phenomenon correlates with what other absent thing, what absence correlates with what presence, etc) tend to be the best evidence we can get of causal relationships. Part of the function of control in experiments is to eliminate the possibility of non-salient correlations.

Part of what distinguishes Darwin's careful observation and measurement from someone taking holiday photos is that he is trying systematically to note correlations between phenomena (both present and absent) that he judges to be salient.



Ovinomancer said:


> Collection and cataloguing of data cannot be science by itself, else baseball scorekeepers are engaged in science.  Collection of data is necessary to science, but it is not sufficient.



Collection and cataloguing of data _can_ be science, by itself, if other conditions are satisfied. Joseph Banks systematicallly catalogued fauna and flora on his voyages. That was - in my view, correctly - treated as a contribution to science.

Astronomy begins by systematically recording the position and visible motion of heavenly bodies. That is science.

There are many sorts of information that can be collected and systematised. There are many ways of doing so. And there are many degrees of difficulty in doing so. Whether or not such collection and systematisation constitutes science may depend on all these things. Baseball scores are (i) not interesting features of the natural world, (ii) not hard to discover, and (iii) are not systematised in any interesting or revelatory way by a scorekeeper.

Whereas the work done by Banks, or by early observers of the heavens, (i) concerned interesting features of thenatural world, (ii) required the application both of discipline and intellectual effort to discover, and (iii) was systematised in various interesting and revelatory ways.


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> I'm saying that public health researchers don't go about spreading disease so as to perform experiments concerning population health.




I wish that was true and on the other hand there are just so many examples of this I dont know which to point you at first.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> I wish that was true and on the other hand there are just so many examples of this I dont know which to point you at first.



What have you got in mind? Are you thinking of exposures/infections of soldiers and prison inmates?


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> What have you got in mind? Are you thinking of exposures/infections of soldiers and prison inmates?




Ha, I wish soldiers and prison inmates.

How about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment run by the US Public Health service or the Fernald Science Club experiments run by MIT and Kellogg.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> Why not? Because it's trivial? Nate Silver himself is first and foremost a sports statistician - national elections are a sideline.



Sorry, I'm uncertain -- are you claiming sports betting is also science?  If so, we have little more to discuss on this line, as your definition of science is so broad as to be meaningless.



> I'm having a hard time reconciling "knowledge of the game sufficient to make accurate predictions reliably" with "not science".



Yes, I see that.  Walk this back a moment -- where is knowledge 'sufficient'?  At what point does it switch to uneducated guess?  If you can't point to that line (fuzzy or not), then your operational definition of science becomes 'makes a guess'.  If science is to have meaning, it has to me more than makes a guess, educated or not.  

This is exactly why my definition of science is the method.  If it's not the method, it's not science.  And you cannot do science on statistics (because it's not data from the real world).



> If I'm trying to find the gravitational constant _G_, I might estimate it at some value, run an experiment, compare the results to what's predicted by my estimate, and then adjust the estimate up or down accordingly and repeat. I am effectively "massaging" the gravitational force in my model. But I'm massaging it _in accordance with experimental results, in order to make better predictions_.



No, because G isn't the data you're obtaining in your experiment.  If you, instead of measuring the experiment, take a poll of the people that were present and use their opinions of the outcome as your data, you're in the ballpark of what I'm talking about.  If you then discount Bob because he's blind and favor Paul because he's been pretty okay lately (your opinion) and use that as the data for G, you aren't finding G anymore, you're finding people's opinions on G.  And you've massaged your data.



> If Nate Silver decides _a priori_, "My gut tells me Ohio is going to go red", and then weights his data to say that Ohio is going to go red, then you're right, that's not science. But if he does what he says he does, and what we have no reason to suspect he's lying about, then the weights he puts on his data are in response to the results of previous experiments, and will be adjusted in response to future ones, in order to zero in on some value which can make predictions most accurately. That looks like a scientific process to me.



No, I don't think he does that, but he does observe the polls and note which have been successful in the past and weight those more heavily.  He tries to "correct" for things he thinks are deficient in the polling executions (bias, sample, date, etc.) and weights the data he has accordingly.  But that's subjective as well.  It's subject to expertise -- Silver clearly isn't stupid and is actually very good at what he does.  But, it's still subjectively altered data as an input.  He's using stats on his opinions.



> I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you don't read many horoscopes? The key element of horoscopes and prophecies, the trick that makes them work, is that they make _vague_ predictions which can can be interpreted after the fact as conforming to whatever happened, and are thus difficult to falsify. Whatever else you may say about political prognosticators, they do not do that. We can say, definitively, what Nate Silver was right about and what he was wrong about. That clarity is in falsification conditions the _sine quae non_ of science. So to compare a prediction which has such clarity with one which doesn't is deeply unfair and, when the whole point of this discussion is "what is science?", actively misleading.



Are you unaware of error bars?  Silver gave central guesses, but his model quite often encompassed both results inside the error margin.  Again, his calls on individual states were his opinion on the model outcome, because the actual outcome of his statistical model on his choices of data had error bars that weren't as precise.  You can choose to ignore that because his headline guess was often right (he's had a few bombs, as well), but the model you're claiming is the science is not at all as confident.  This is available for looking at (one other thing I credit Silver for, he's discloses pretty well).

I don't dislike Silver.  I think he is a good pundit.  He's got some great observations.  It's not science.


> With apologies to Francis Fukuyama, history did not end in the year 1990. History is the diachronic study of human behavior and societies - or, if I may be tautological in turn, it's the study of the stuff that makes it into history books. Historians have _tons_ to say about current and future events. They differ from, say, sociologists or political scientists in that their methodology is more focused on finding patterns of cause and effect in the written and archeological record, although naturally the boundary between the disciplines is fuzzy and there's a lot of overlap. But in short, "Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it" really is kind of the historian's mission statement.



Just like when a scientist opines on philosophy they're doing philosophy and not science, when a historian opines on current events, he's not doing history.  I have a lot to say on music, but that doesn't make me a musician (no truer benefit to the world).


----------



## Shasarak

Ovinomancer said:


> This is exactly why my definition of science is the method.  If it's not the method, it's not science.  And you cannot do science on statistics (because it's not data from the real world).




I must admit that I am baffled how data from the real world can not be data from the real world?

Must be an engineering thing, I guess.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> Collection and cataloguing of data _can_ be science, by itself, if other conditions are satisfied.



Huh?  Those things can be science _by themselves_ so long _as other things happen, too_?  I'm not sure what work you think 'by itself' is doing in this sentence, but it's not any work I'm familiar with!



> Joseph Banks systematicallly catalogued fauna and flora on his voyages. That was - in my view, correctly - treated as a contribution to science.



Not science, but very useful to science.  What theory did Banks test with his collection?  The method is the science, pieces of the method are not.



> Astronomy begins by systematically recording the position and visible motion of heavenly bodies. That is science.



Not science, but vary useful to science.  Astronomers do science, but it's by observing (research) and forming a question which they try to find support or falsify by further observation.  The act of observation is, by itself, not science.  Necessary, but not sufficient.



> There are many sorts of information that can be collected and systematised. There are many ways of doing so. And there are many degrees of difficulty in doing so. Whether or not such collection and systematisation constitutes science may depend on all these things. Baseball scores are (i) not interesting features of the natural world, (ii) not hard to discover, and (iii) are not systematised in any interesting or revelatory way by a scorekeeper.
> 
> Whereas the work done by Banks, or by early observers of the heavens, (i) concerned interesting features of thenatural world, (ii) required the application both of discipline and intellectual effort to discover, and (iii) was systematised in various interesting and revelatory ways.



Your i, ii, and iii are not things that are requirements of science.  There's tons of uninteresting science.  There's tons of obvious science.  There's tons of non-revelatory science.  You seem to be making an argument that profundity is a requirement of science.  It is not.  The method is the only requirement of science.

For example, I could run experiments on the number of rice grains that fall from the tumbler I got in Disney World five years ago if I fill it to the brim with dried, white rice and tip it at a 45 degree angle.  That's not (i) an interesting feature of the natural world, nor (ii) hard to discover, nor (iii) systematised in various interesting and revelatory ways, but I can still Science! the hell outta it.  

I must say, I am constantly amazed at the strange woo people keep hanging on science.  Science must mean something is really profound, or that my favorite result using stats is science, or...  I don't get it.  The need.  The need to have science be important, to be special.  It's a fantastic tool, but it's just a _tool_.  It can be used for boring crap or spectacular, world-altering discover.  It can be benign and terrible.  But, at the end of the day, it's just a tool.  And one wielded by people -- and scientists are just people, with all the usual gamut of vice and virtue.  They're not special, either, they're just people.  I don't get the reverence.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Shasarak said:


> I must admit that I am baffled how data from the real world can not be data from the real world?
> 
> Must be an engineering thing, I guess.




Statistics aren't data from the real world.  This is why I keep using reification to describe the effect.  When you do stats, you start with real data - well, you hope you have real data like measurable observations and not a social science 'instrument'.  Then you pick your statistical test, and here's where the hanky-panky occurs.  When you pick the test, you pick a set of parameters -- proxy assumptions about your data that now stand in for part of your real data.  Then you run the math and get a result, but the result isn't on your data, it's on the parameterization of your data.  You make some assumptions and then hide them behind the math.  And, viola!  You have a math-y result that looks great and convinces you that the model you just built is the real world and that the result isn't hugely overconfident.  If your experiment starts with statistics, you've done a bad.  There's some areas where you can get away with it, but you should be extremely careful to not misrepresent the results to yourself, much less others.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> Huh?  Those things can be science _by themselves_ so long _as other things happen, too_?  I'm not sure what work you think 'by itself' is doing in this sentence, but it's not any work I'm familiar with!



It's doing the same sort of work as "per se" or "ipso facto".

Eg hitting a ball with a bat is not per se sport, but it can be if certain other conditions are satisifed.

If the other conditions are internal to the hitting of the ball with the bat, then we're talking about some instances of hittings, diestinguished by their internal properties and relations.

The features I mentioned as making careful observation and measurement science are not external conditions. They are internal to the observation and measurement.



Ovinomancer said:


> For example, I could run experiments on the number of rice grains that fall from the tumbler I got in Disney World five years ago if I fill it to the brim with dried, white rice and tip it at a 45 degree angle. That's not (i) an interesting feature of the natural world, nor (ii) hard to discover, nor (iii) systematised in various interesting and revelatory ways, but I can still Science! the hell outta it.



Without more, I'm also not persuaded that it would be science.

Science connotes not only a method, but also an output: a contribution to the stock of human knowledge, which is systematically generated and hence (in some fashion) systematically recoverable and disseminable.

As you describe it, I'm also not sure what your "experiments" would consist in other than careful observation and measurment. What properties of the cup, or of the grains, are you suggesting you would be investigating?

EDIT: I also checked the Wikipedia page on Joseph Banks, to see if it confirmed my own recollections:

[A]n English naturalist, botanist and patron of the natural sciences.

Banks made his name on the 1766 natural history expedition to Newfoundland and Labrador. He took part in Captain James Cook's first great voyage (1768–1771), visiting Brazil, Tahiti, and, after 6 months in New Zealand, Australia, returning to immediate fame. He held the position of President of the Royal Society for over 41 years. He advised King George III on the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and by sending botanists around the world to collect plants, he made Kew the world's leading botanical gardens. . . .

From his mother's home in Chelsea he kept up his interest in science by attending the Chelsea Physic Garden of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries and the British Museum, where he met Daniel Solander. He began to make friends among the scientific men of his day and to correspond with Carl Linnaeus, whom he came to know through Solander. As Banks's influence increased, he became an adviser to King George III and urged the monarch to support voyages of discovery to new lands, hoping to indulge his own interest in botany. . . .

In 1766 Banks was elected to the Royal Society, and in the same year, at 23, he went with Phipps aboard the frigate HMS Niger to Newfoundland and Labrador with a view to studying their natural history. He made his name by publishing the first Linnean descriptions of the plants and animals of Newfoundland and Labrador. . . .

Banks was appointed to a joint Royal Navy/Royal Society scientific expedition to the south Pacific Ocean on HMS Endeavour, 1768–1771. . . .

The voyage went to Brazil, where Banks made the first scientific description of a now common garden plant, bougainvillea . . .

While they were in Australia, Banks, Daniel Solander and the Finnish botanist Dr. Herman Spöring Jr. made the first major collection of Australian flora, describing many species new to science. . . .

Banks arrived back in England on 12 July 1771 and immediately became famous. He intended to go with Cook on his second voyage, which began on 13 May 1772, but difficulties arose about Banks' scientific requirements on board Cook's new ship, Resolution. The Admiralty regarded Banks' demands as unacceptable and without prior warning withdrew his permission to sail.​
It seems that at least a number of scientists of his day regarded Banks's careful observation and measurement as constituting a contribution to scientific knowledge. And I personally regard the idea that one of the more significant enlightenment scientists, who was famous for his scientific endeavours and was a long-serving president of the Royal Society, was in fact _not_ a scientist generating scientific knowledge, as a counterexample to the mooted definition of _science_ and _scientist_ that produce that result.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, I'm uncertain -- are you claiming sports betting is also science?



It can be, if the method used to make predictions is the scientific one. Why not? Like you say a little later, science is a tool that can be used for boring crap.



Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, I see that.  Walk this back a moment -- where is knowledge 'sufficient'?



When it suffices. When it _works_.



Ovinomancer said:


> No, because G isn't the data you're obtaining in your experiment.



I didn't say it was. I said it was the factor by which the data you're obtaining are massaged.



Ovinomancer said:


> No, I don't think he does that, but he does observe the polls and note which have been successful in the past and weight those more heavily. He tries to "correct" for things he thinks are deficient in the polling executions (bias, sample, date, etc.) and weights the data he has accordingly.  But that's subjective as well.  It's subject to expertise -- Silver clearly isn't stupid and is actually very good at what he does.  But, it's still subjectively altered data as an input.  He's using stats on his opinions.



If the weighting is in response to prior election results, in what sense is it subjective? If I adjust the gravitational constant of my physical model in response to experiment results, is _that_ subjective?



Ovinomancer said:


> Are you unaware of error bars?  Silver gave central guesses, but his model quite often encompassed both results inside the error margin. Again, his calls on individual states were his opinion on the model outcome, because the actual outcome of his statistical model on his choices of data had error bars that weren't as precise.  You can choose to ignore that because his headline guess was often right (he's had a few bombs, as well), but the model you're claiming is the science is not at all as confident.  This is available for looking at (one other thing I credit Silver for, he's discloses pretty well).



Are you saying that science is always confident and precise? I think you know better, but that really sounds like the argument you're making here.



Ovinomancer said:


> Just like when a scientist opines on philosophy they're doing philosophy and not science, when a historian opines on current events, he's not doing history.  I have a lot to say on music, but that doesn't make me a musician (no truer benefit to the world).



You're doing nothing here but contradicting me, so I don't know what else to do but contradict you right back. Current events are absolutely within the domain of the historian, because the historical processes that historians study are not confined to the past and do not suddenly cease to exist at the present. When a historian of, say, labor relations comments on a contemporary labor dispute, that's not like a chemist commenting on philosophy - it's like a chemist commenting on _more chemistry_.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you don't read many horoscopes? The key element of horoscopes and prophecies, the trick that makes them work, is that they make _vague_ predictions which can can be interpreted after the fact as conforming to whatever happened, and are thus difficult to falsify. Whatever else you may say about political prognosticators, they do not do that. We can say, definitively, what Nate Silver was right about and what he was wrong about. That clarity is in falsification conditions the _sine quae non_ of science. So to compare a prediction which has such clarity with one which doesn't is deeply unfair and, when the whole point of this discussion is "what is science?", actively misleading.




I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you only read online and/or newspaper horoscopes.  A real horoscope done by a serious astrologer involves calculations that involve figuring out where the stars, planets, sun and moon were when you were born.  My parents were hippies in San Francisco and my mother had a horoscope done when I was born. It was much more complex than the ones that you find online or in a paper.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you only read online and/or newspaper horoscopes.  A real horoscope done by a serious astrologer involves calculations that involve figuring out where the stars, planets, sun and moon were when you were born.  My parents were hippies in San Francisco and my mother had a horoscope done when I was born. It was much more complex than the ones that you find online or in a paper.



...

Read the paragraph you quoted again.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> ...
> 
> Read the paragraph you quoted again.




I did.  You're still off about horoscopes.  The ones done by serious astrologers are much more specific than the ones in the papers and online.


----------



## pemerton

My opinion of history is that it is not a science - it involves careful observation, but not measurement, and does not provide the sort of systematically ordered knowledge that science does.

That's not to deny that historians provide knowledge - not all knowledge is scientific knowledge.

That's also not to deny that historians can identify causal relationships - not all identification of causation is scientific. (Eg I am identifying, right now, that movements of my fingers are causing events to occur in my computer, which in due course will cause other related events to occur in other computers, but I have not worked any of that out scientifically, and none of that is scientific knowledge.)


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> It's doing the same sort of work as "per se" or "ipso facto".
> 
> Eg hitting a ball with a bat is not per se sport, but it can be if certain other conditions are satisifed.
> 
> If the other conditions are internal to the hitting of the ball with the bat, then we're talking about some instances of hittings, diestinguished by their internal properties and relations.
> 
> The features I mentioned as making careful observation and measurement science are not external conditions. They are internal to the observation and measurement.




Your sentence structure didn't imply that reading, though, but thanks for the clarification.  However, I strongly disagree that observation becomes science if there's some internal properties exist.  Internal properties exists in everything if you look for them.  This cannot be a sufficient condition.

Observation is only one part of the method.  It cannot be science on it's own, regardless of how many internal conditions you think apply.



> Without more, I'm also not persuaded that it would be science.
> 
> Science connotes not only a method, but also an output: a contribution to the stock of human knowledge, which is systematically generated and hence (in some fashion) systematically recoverable and disseminable.
> 
> As you describe it, I'm also not sure what your "experiments" would consist in other than careful observation and measurment. What properties of the cup, or of the grains, are you suggesting you would be investigating?



This need to attach significance to a tool is baffling.  It's a tool, it doesn't have any measure of human import.  Humans bring that.  There's nothing profound about science, but there can be about what questions humans pursue with science.  Don't confuse the two.


> EDIT: I also checked the Wikipedia page on Joseph Banks, to see if it confirmed my own recollections:
> 
> [A]n English naturalist, botanist and patron of the natural sciences.
> 
> Banks made his name on the 1766 natural history expedition to Newfoundland and Labrador. He took part in Captain James Cook's first great voyage (1768–1771), visiting Brazil, Tahiti, and, after 6 months in New Zealand, Australia, returning to immediate fame. He held the position of President of the Royal Society for over 41 years. He advised King George III on the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and by sending botanists around the world to collect plants, he made Kew the world's leading botanical gardens. . . .
> 
> From his mother's home in Chelsea he kept up his interest in science by attending the Chelsea Physic Garden of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries and the British Museum, where he met Daniel Solander. He began to make friends among the scientific men of his day and to correspond with Carl Linnaeus, whom he came to know through Solander. As Banks's influence increased, he became an adviser to King George III and urged the monarch to support voyages of discovery to new lands, hoping to indulge his own interest in botany. . . .
> 
> In 1766 Banks was elected to the Royal Society, and in the same year, at 23, he went with Phipps aboard the frigate HMS Niger to Newfoundland and Labrador with a view to studying their natural history. He made his name by publishing the first Linnean descriptions of the plants and animals of Newfoundland and Labrador. . . .
> 
> Banks was appointed to a joint Royal Navy/Royal Society scientific expedition to the south Pacific Ocean on HMS Endeavour, 1768–1771. . . .
> 
> The voyage went to Brazil, where Banks made the first scientific description of a now common garden plant, bougainvillea . . .
> 
> While they were in Australia, Banks, Daniel Solander and the Finnish botanist Dr. Herman Spöring Jr. made the first major collection of Australian flora, describing many species new to science. . . .
> 
> Banks arrived back in England on 12 July 1771 and immediately became famous. He intended to go with Cook on his second voyage, which began on 13 May 1772, but difficulties arose about Banks' scientific requirements on board Cook's new ship, Resolution. The Admiralty regarded Banks' demands as unacceptable and without prior warning withdrew his permission to sail.​
> It seems that at least a number of scientists of his day regarded Banks's careful observation and measurement as constituting a contribution to scientific knowledge. And I personally regard the idea that one of the more significant enlightenment scientists, who was famous for his scientific endeavours and was a long-serving president of the Royal Society, was in fact _not_ a scientist generating scientific knowledge, as a counterexample to the mooted definition of _science_ and _scientist_ that produce that result.



Careful observation can definitely be useful, but it's not, by itself, science.  There's a method.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> It can be, if the method used to make predictions is the scientific one. Why not? Like you say a little later, science is a tool that can be used for boring crap.
> 
> When it suffices. When it _works_.



Outcome cannot be the definition of science.



> I didn't say it was. I said it was the factor by which the data you're obtaining are massaged.



I think you're confused about what massaged means in this context.  It doesn't mean 'changes', it means 'is changed to affect the outcome of the experiment.'  When calculating G, you don't change the experiment to get the correct value of G, you use the the result of the experiment to calculate G.  There's a big difference.




> If the weighting is in response to prior election results, in what sense is it subjective? If I adjust the gravitational constant of my physical model in response to experiment results, is _that_ subjective?



Adjusting inputs to get an output is subjective.  Adjusting your calculated results based on the results of your experiment isn't changing input data or output data, but the calculation you do with it.  This is fairly simple stuff.



> Are you saying that science is always confident and precise? I think you know better, but that really sounds like the argument you're making here.



Not at all, and how you got to me claiming science is more precise when I was pointing out your overconfidence is a pretty big jump.



> You're doing nothing here but contradicting me, so I don't know what else to do but contradict you right back. Current events are absolutely within the domain of the historian, because the historical processes that historians study are not confined to the past and do not suddenly cease to exist at the present. When a historian of, say, labor relations comments on a contemporary labor dispute, that's not like a chemist commenting on philosophy - it's like a chemist commenting on _more chemistry_.



Yeah, we're just going to have to disagree that the study of history is the study of all time.  I'm okay with that if you are.


----------



## TwoSix

Ovinomancer said:


> Careful observation can definitely be useful, but it's not, by itself, science.  There's a method.



Sure, but if my 6th grader tells me they learned about kingdoms and phyla in science class, and I tell them "Actually, that wasn't a real science class, you're really in more of 'learning basic background observations that will someday let you do actual science' class", I'm still kind of a douche. 

The fact that a more precise definition of "science" exists doesn't render the more casual usage any less useful.  There's nothing wrong with referring to a guy who spends 5 years in the Amazon rain forest cataloging the different kinds of ants that live there as a "scientist" even if he doesn't make a single hypothesis.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> I did.  You're still off about horoscopes.  The ones done by serious astrologers are much more specific than the ones in the papers and online.



I'm sorry, I'm still a bit thrown by the oxymoron that is "serious astrologer".

_Complexity_ is not the same as _falsifiability_. No matter how many and varied the calculations an astrologer makes, it's all for nothing if their prediction is phrased in such a way that its truth value is open to interpretation after the fact. No horoscope I've read, be it ever so "serious", has ever clearly stated, "We will be able to observe Event E happening at Time T and Place P, and if we do not observe it, then I am wrong and will need to modify or discard the theory under which I made this prediction." But such falsifiable predictions are the bread and butter of science. And they're also what Nate Silver is producing. Falsifiability alone is not sufficient to make a prediction scientific, of course - the method by which it is arrived at and the response to it are also critical - but _without_ falsifiability, it is definitely _not_ scientific. And this key distinction is what separates statistical prognostication from horoscopy (unless the statistical prognostication is stated vaguely).


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> Outcome cannot be the definition of science.



You keep making these bald declarations, as if authority was yours to define terms and concepts by fiat. This one is particularly jarring, given how outcome-oriented science clearly is, and how distinctive that trait is compared to other, superficially similar fields (like astrology). Hell, one definition-for-kindergarteners I use for the scientific method is "seeing what works".



Ovinomancer said:


> I think you're confused about what massaged means in this context.  It doesn't mean 'changes', it means 'is changed to affect the outcome of the experiment.'  When calculating G, you don't change the experiment to get the correct value of G, you use the the result of the experiment to calculate G.  There's a big difference.



I understand that. I'm not sure you understand the analogy. Silver, per his stated methodology, does the latter. He uses the results of elections (experiment) to calculate the most effective weight (G) for a given input (data).  He certainly doesn't change elections to fit his predetermined weight.



Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, we're just going to have to disagree that the study of history is the study of all time.  I'm okay with that if you are.



Only if you're okay with my calling sports betting science.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm sorry, I'm still a bit thrown by the oxymoron that is "serious astrologer".
> 
> _Complexity_ is not the same as _falsifiability_. No matter how many and varied the calculations an astrologer makes, it's all for nothing if their prediction is phrased in such a way that its truth value is open to interpretation after the fact. No horoscope I've read, be it ever so "serious", has ever clearly stated, "We will be able to observe Event E happening at Time T and Place P, and if we do not observe it, then I am wrong and will need to modify or discard the theory under which I made this prediction." But such falsifiable predictions are the bread and butter of science. And they're also what Nate Silver is producing. Falsifiability alone is not sufficient to make a prediction scientific, of course - the method by which it is arrived at and the response to it are also critical - but _without_ falsifiability, it is definitely _not_ scientific. And this key distinction is what separates statistical prognostication from horoscopy (unless the statistical prognostication is stated vaguely).



You clearly don't understand the model Silver presents.  It's not falsifuable because it assigns a probability to all possible outcomes.  That probability may be very small, nearly zero, but it exists. Now, what Silver opines will happen is falsifiable, but that's just his interpretation of the model output.

You have an extremely poor understanding of the underlying maths and that's leading you to be overconfident in the results.  Like I keep saying about stats.


----------



## Wiseblood

Morrus said:


> Interesting choice of game to illustrate your point... D&D is pretty light on the metagamey elements.
> 
> Feng Shui is a game I’ve always felt used those concepts in a really effective and positive way. Modiphius’ 2d20 system which powers Conan and Star Trek has some heavy metagame elements (as a more modern example).
> 
> Metagaming is a slightly outdated term for player narrative control, which is much more popular in modern games. There are entire games built around the concept these days.
> 
> For me, it depends on the game. Are you asking about metagaming in D&D or metagaming in general? In some games it works really well (I go back to Feng Shui); in others it wouldn’t be a natural fit.



 For me metagaming was making narrative decisions based on player knowledge and based upon information observed by other characters.

In other words Lidda is away from the party scouting & stumbles upon a band of monsters. They discover her and attack to subdue. When other PLAYERS hear this they look for excuses to come and help using all sorts of mental gymnastics.

What the op describes is merely the user interface of RPGs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> You keep making these bald declarations, as if authority was yours to define terms and concepts by fiat. This one is particularly jarring, given how outcome-oriented science clearly is, and how distinctive that trait is compared to other, superficially similar fields (like astrology). Hell, one definition-for-kindergarteners I use for the scientific method is "seeing what works".



Science is process oriented.  If it was results oriented, then the neans of gettinf a correct result wouldn't matter -- astrology is as good as chemistry so long as they are right.  This even ignores that science is a tool to learn what is true, so how can it be outcome based when you're doing science to learn some truth you do not already know?  And your shorthand is perpetrating your misunderstanding of science, it isn't evidence of what science is.


> I understand that. I'm not sure you understand the analogy. Silver, per his stated methodology, does the latter. He uses the results of elections (experiment) to calculate the most effective weight (G) for a given input (data).  He certainly doesn't change elections to fit his predetermined weight.



The very nature of polling means that previous success does not result in future success, or haven't ypu noticed the run of failed predictions based on pollomg models?  If Silver is doing science, then all the failures are as well, and, taken as a field, the result isn't very good.  That a few models did well isn't evidence that they were science while the others aren't, and further goes to show that outcomes aren't the definition of science.



> Only if you're okay with my calling sports betting science.




Oh, well, I suppose you'll have to continue to argue at me about history being the science of the future, literally.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TwoSix said:


> Sure, but if my 6th grader tells me they learned about kingdoms and phyla in science class, and I tell them "Actually, that wasn't a real science class, you're really in more of 'learning basic background observations that will someday let you do actual science' class", I'm still kind of a douche.



Yes, you would be.  Not sure where you get that I would advocate such a thing.  



> The fact that a more precise definition of "science" exists doesn't render the more casual usage any less useful.  There's nothing wrong with referring to a guy who spends 5 years in the Amazon rain forest cataloging the different kinds of ants that live there as a "scientist" even if he doesn't make a single hypothesis.




Yes, it does make the casual usage less useful.  This should be evident.  Less useful doesn't mean not useful, though, hence the _casual _usage.  However, as this discussion isn't about the casual usage but about the precise one, I'm not sure what you're trying to get to except strangely implying I'd say 'not science' to a 6th grader talking about what they've learned at school.  I have evidence with having had my own 6th grader that I do not.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm sorry, I'm still a bit thrown by the oxymoron that is "serious astrologer".




There is no oxymoron.  Just because you don't take it seriously, doesn't mean that they and others do not.  



> I]Complexity[/I] is not the same as _falsifiability_. No matter how many and varied the calculations an astrologer makes, it's all for nothing if their prediction is phrased in such a way that its truth value is open to interpretation after the fact. No horoscope I've read, be it ever so "serious", has ever clearly stated, "We will be able to observe Event E happening at Time T and Place P, and if we do not observe it, then I am wrong and will need to modify or discard the theory under which I made this prediction."




The horoscope my mother had done about me when I was born said very clearly that I would either become an interior decorator or a military officer when I became an adult.  That's a very specific prediction.  The closest I came to one of those two professions was when I was in my mid 20's.  For a couple of days I gave serious thought to joining the air force.  So much for predictions being accurate.  Clearly stated, yes.  Correct, no.  And clearly able to be established as false.  I'm not now, nor will I ever be, one of those professions.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], we need to stop. This is clearly getting out of hand. Look, I get it. I know how it annoying it can feel to have some layman lecture you about the nature of your own damn field. (And if I didn't earlier, I certainly would have once you started talking about history.) But your tone is getting more and more openly abusive, while at the same time the positions you're abusing are slipping further and further from what I'm actually saying. There's already been a couple of flat-out "That's not what I said" moments over the course of this conversation, and if I kept responding to your most recent posts point-by-point as I have been, there'd be a few more. As for my own contribution to this mess, I can't know exactly how derisive and unfair I've come across to others, but looking back I can't imagine I made a good showing. For that I am sorry.

Let's look at how else we could be carrying on. One example really jumps out at me. I gave a shorthand summary of science as _"seeing what works"_. In your response to that, you describe science as _"a tool to learn what is true"_. You seemed to believe that I meant something totally different from and opposed to what you meant, but come on, just look at it: _"seeing what works"_, _"a tool to learn what is true"_. Doesn't it seem possible that we're using modestly different phrasing to say the same thing? Or at least that there is some common ground there, enough to build something on rather than sniping at each other over? I honestly don't understand how you could say that something is "a tool to do X" and deny that it's outcome-oriented; X is obviously (to me) the outcome in question. But it's clear you just as honestly don't understand how I could deny that such a thing is process-oriented. I think we have different understandings of what it means to be "outcome-oriented" or "process-oriented" more than we actually disagree on what science is. And I'm still interested in understanding your meaning. But only if we can bring this back to someplace civil and constructive. Deal?


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> The horoscope my mother had done about me when I was born said very clearly that I would either become an interior decorator or a military officer when I became an adult.  That's a very specific prediction.  The closest I came to one of those two professions was when I was in my mid 20's.  For a couple of days I gave serious thought to joining the air force.  So much for predictions being accurate.  Clearly stated, yes.  Correct, no.  And clearly able to be established as false.  I'm not now, nor will I ever be, one of those professions.



Thank you. Yes, you're absolutely right, that's a falsifiable prediction. I haven't seen a horoscope like that.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> Thank you. Yes, you're absolutely right, that's a falsifiable prediction. I haven't seen a horoscope like that.




I haven't have much opportunity to see horoscopes from serious astrologers, mostly because I don't give astrology the time of day.  I mean, I know my signs so that I can answer the usual questions, but beyond that...  The one my mother had done is the only one that I've seen, and I was rather surprised at how many specific things it included.  Before that, my only experience was glancing periodically at the new paper or online horoscopes for a chuckle.  And yes, those are incredibly vague.  "Keep an eye out, because something, somewhere will make you smile within the next month." and the like.


----------



## Ovinomancer

TheCosmicKid said:


> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], we need to stop. This is clearly getting out of hand. Look, I get it. I know how it annoying it can feel to have some layman lecture you about the nature of your own damn field. (And if I didn't earlier, I certainly would have once you started talking about history.) But your tone is getting more and more openly abusive, while at the same time the positions you're abusing are slipping further and further from what I'm actually saying. There's already been a couple of flat-out "That's not what I said" moments over the course of this conversation, and if I kept responding to your most recent posts point-by-point as I have been, there'd be a few more. As for my own contribution to this mess, I can't know exactly how derisive and unfair I've come across to others, but looking back I can't imagine I made a good showing. For that I am sorry.
> 
> Let's look at how else we could be carrying on. One example really jumps out at me. I gave a shorthand summary of science as _"seeing what works"_. In your response to that, you describe science as _"a tool to learn what is true"_. You seemed to believe that I meant something totally different from and opposed to what you meant, but come on, just look at it: _"seeing what works"_, _"a tool to learn what is true"_. Doesn't it seem possible that we're using modestly different phrasing to say the same thing? Or at least that there is some common ground there, enough to build something on rather than sniping at each other over? I honestly don't understand how you could say that something is "a tool to do X" and deny that it's outcome-oriented; X is obviously (to me) the outcome in question. But it's clear you just as honestly don't understand how I could deny that such a thing is process-oriented. I think we have different understandings of what it means to be "outcome-oriented" or "process-oriented" more than we actually disagree on what science is. And I'm still interested in understanding your meaning. But only if we can bring this back to someplace civil and constructive. Deal?




I'm not trying to be abusive.  I actually like and generally respect your posts -- you're one of the posters I perk up when I see the handle, as you usually have an interesting take on whatever's being discussed.  I usually try to avoid the fisking style of discussion, as it usually leads to gross mischaractization of points and gets into  for tat, but failed here.  I also apologize for my contributions to the tone.

Moving forward, process oriented is where the process is the important part. If the process isn't followed, the results are usually diminished or useless (luck happens sometimes).  Outcome oriented, on the other hand, really is about results over process -- it doesn't matter _how _you did it if it worked.  A good example of this is sports.  It doesn't matter how you score, the score is the thing.  Bringing this around to science, there's no amount of being right that justifies not following the method.  The method is what allows science to be ultimately self-correcting* and to be shown to others so that they can believe the outcome rather than have to accept it on faith.  Being correct in a prediction doesn't require science, so science cannot be just being correct in a prediction (and, arguably, some of the most important science done has been showing predictions to be wrong).

This is why I say outcomes cannot be the definition of science.  Ultimately, science is not just the result but also the completely reviewable chain of evidence that led to that result.  

And, to again say it, statistics is subjective in all cases -- you choose a model to use with the associated parameters because you think it will provide the best fit.  That choice, the choice of model, is subjective, and each choice provides differing answers.  Further, if you select data input to your model based on how you think they did rather than a rule (and Silver evaluates polls individually), then that is also subjective.  This isn't to say that the subjective choice cannot be informed or subject to expertise, but, by nature, it isn't dealing with clean data, and anything you do past the initial step is working with modeled data rather than real data.  Silver is exceeding good, and I certainly do not recommend dismissing him, but what he does is fundamentally not science in the same way that sports betting isn't science.  


* Although, there's likely a case where any tool used by humans cannot self-correct at a certain point -- a hammer cannot exceed the skill of the carpenter.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> I haven't have much opportunity to see horoscopes from serious astrologers, mostly because I don't give astrology the time of day.  I mean, I know my signs so that I can answer the usual questions, but beyond that...  The one my mother had done is the only one that I've seen, and I was rather surprised at how many specific things it included.  Before that, my only experience was glancing periodically at the new paper or online horoscopes for a chuckle.  And yes, those are incredibly vague.  "Keep an eye out, because something, somewhere will make you smile within the next month." and the like.



It's not just them. This one is from a certain 17th-Century astrologer named Galileo Galilei, concerning his daughter Virginia:

_"The Moon is very debilitated and in a sign which obeys. She is dominated by family relationships. Saturn signifies submission and severe customs which gives her a sad demeanour, but Jupiter is very well with Mercury, and well-aspected corrects this. She is patient and happy to work very hard. She likes to be alone, does not talk too much, eats little with a strong will but she is not always in condition and may not fulfil her promise."_

Which, in retrospect, actually seems uncannily accurate: she became a nun and is best known for her devoted and supporting correspondence with her father, in which she shows considerable intelligence that was probably not being best fulfilled in a convent. But, y'know, that's how this works. She could have done a lot of different things and it would still have looked accurate. Definitely not falsifiable. (Also, she was in a convent because Dad sent her there as a child.)


----------



## Sword of Spirit

Emerikol said:


> So how do you guys with my own sentiments (or at least some sympathy for my sentiments) handle these things.  What house rules have you developed?  Is the game salvageable for someone like us?




I have similar sentiments regarding D&D (I'm more flexible for certain other systems), and I'll say that you can't really totally get rid of it in 5e. However, overall I just think 5e is the best D&D, so I'll tell you what I do (or think could be done) to minimize the problematic elements.

I'll start with your examples and go from there.



> 1.  The player chooses the number of hit dice to apply towards healing during a short rest.  There seems to be no analog for the character.  There also seems to be a resource being consumed but what is that resource?  Potential healing?




The best way is to look at current hit points as your ability to soak up immediate trauma, and HD as representing the rest of your hp. Basically, you can only handle taking about half of your total resiliency's worth of damage in a short period of time, but if you rest up, you can get back into the action.

To minimize metagaming, there are two possibilities. The first is to just say that you have to use HD as the first opportunity. You might make an exception for when you are within 1 or 2 hp of your maximum, but otherwise you have to use them. 

The second (and compatible) option is the use the optional Healer's Kit dependency rule from the DMG (must use a healer's kit to spend HD during a short rest). That means spending HD represents the benefit you get from bandaging yourself up and applying ointments and such.

I also use Slower Recovery (puts healing on par with say 3e, or even a bit slower).

So the character chooses to pull out the healer's kit and bandage up, and that gives them a bit more strength to get into the fight. They can only benefit from so much of this before they are worn out and need more than bandages (ie, long rests).

Overall, I haven't found my players using HD unless they plan to get themselves at least close to full, and the kit dependency helps with encouraging that style I think.



> 2.  Action surge.  Why is this limited (besides game balance) early on to once between short rests?  Can a fighter really only once in the course of a battle choose an exact moment to make an extra effort and then not again?  This again seems like the player is choosing something the fighter would know nothing about.
> 
> 3.  Second Wind.  A player decides to give his character a surge of energy.  The character just gets it apparently unexpectedly.  It happens in the fast and furious furer of combat so it's not even something the character could think about much.




I don't think it's _too_ much of stretch to say they can only pull these off occasionally and that they might be choosing the moment of when to do them. But it is more difficult to explain than the HD, and no optional rules are provided.

I just go with it, and it works fairly well as an in-character choice.

Mechanically, however, Second Wind can be problematic because a fighter can just sit around for a few hours doing it repeatedly and recover all his hp (though not HD). I've house-ruled that a character can benefit from no more than 4 short rests per day, primarily to address Second Wind, but it also works for other things that might be problematic.. So far, we've never run up against a situation where we would exceed those 4, and it does fix the conceptual problem.

You didn't mention Battle Master maneuvers, which are similar to Action Surge and Second Wind. You have a single pool of Superiority Dice you spend on the maneuvers which replenishes on a short rest, so at least it isn't by maneuver recharging. By the book, you don't have to declare using the maneuvers until you hit (or it otherwise comes up). That is simple to fix however. You just say the player has to declare what maneuver they are attempting, and if they fail to hit then the opportunity to complete the maneuver just didn't occur, and hence the full effort wasn't expended (so the die isn't lost). Battle Master's are masters of this stuff, so they know when not to overexert themselves. Of course, you could go hardcore and say the die is expended whether or not the maneuver succeeds, but I think that's unnecessary. The simpler method rarely changes the way the way the game goes (or balance) to any noticeable degree.

In fact, I've decided not worry about it and just let the player declare after success...but my player rarely remembers that and usually declares before taking the action anyway. 

Another potentially problematic one is the rogue's Sneak Attack, which you don't have to declare until after the attack hits (though based on other rules, I do believe the intent is that you do declare before you roll damage, thus not allowing you to see if an opponent dies before deciding to use Sneak Attack, so there isn't that particular problem) but you can only use 1/turn. However, when they fail on the first attack and get to try again on the second one, that's where it is weird.

One interpretation is to say that the rogue can spot when the opportunities are there to make a hit be a really good hit. You could say the player has to declare that their character is going for a Sneak Attack before the roll, which shouldn't change how things play out.

Another interpretation of why this is once a turn is that it takes more focus than you can consistently pull off when you are stabbing quickly. I can relate to that general sort of restriction from playing action video games. It really does take more focus than I can maintain to play "at my best" every moment. It doesn't work as well as the first, but works well in combination with the first.

Sneak Attack in 5e works against everything, so it needs to be interpreted a bit differently anyway. 

I don't worry about requiring a pre-declaration on this one. I assume the character is always trying to make the best hit they can (ie, they use Sneak Attack at the first opportunity--which my players actually do, so it works), and they just can't maintain the focus on every attack.



> 4.  Inspiration.  Since this part of the game is pretty optional (and my guess is anyone close to my thinking ignores it anyway), it's not that big a deal.




Yeah, it's definitely unapologetically metagame. Ignoring it works perfectly fine.

Overall, 5e design seems to have embraced more metagaming than most D&D, but not really done what 4e did. Or at least when they borrowed ideas from 4e in those regards they attempted to tone it down so you could creatively interpret it (like I described above).

If you can work with the sorts of explanations I gave above, you can probably work with pretty much all of the metagame elements in 5e without a serious problem.

Probably one of the biggest things that bugs me is how learning cantrips works. You are limited to only ever knowing a small number of what are supposed to be the simplest spells, even when you can know everything else on your class list automatically (clerics/druids), or theoretically learn them all, including _wish_ (wizards). Drives me crazy. My house rule is that prepared casters can use a spell preparation slot to prepare other cantrips (which means wizards can add them to their spellbook like any other spell). Prepared cantrips can still be cast at-will. It's not really a problem with casters who know a limited number of spells anyway, though I would allow them to switch a cantrip when they level up, since they can do so with spells of other levels.

This one bothers me so much from a suspension of disbelief perspective that if I'm playing a prepared caster in someone else's campaign I would actually be so bold as to _request_ my house rule be in effect. I'm not sure I could stomach playing a wizard otherwise.

In practice, no one has ever used my house rule for that. Spell preparations are so precious that my players just haven't wanted to take up a slot with a cantrip, even though it would add an at-will spell to their complement.

I haven't looked at Pathfinder 2 yet. Too crunchy for me, though I'll probably at least scan the SRD to look at the design elements.


----------



## pemerton

TwoSix said:


> Sure, but if my 6th grader tells me they learned about kingdoms and phyla in science class, and I tell them "Actually, that wasn't a real science class, you're really in more of 'learning basic background observations that will someday let you do actual science' class", I'm still kind of a douche.
> 
> The fact that a more precise definition of "science" exists doesn't render the more casual usage any less useful.  There's nothing wrong with referring to a guy who spends 5 years in the Amazon rain forest cataloging the different kinds of ants that live there as a "scientist" even if he doesn't make a single hypothesis.



Well, for what it's worth, I don't think this is just about manners.

There's a small matter of usage - if everyone in his day described Joseph Banks as a scientist, and made him President of their most important scientific society for more than 40 years, it seems odd to deny that he is one.

But there's also the issue of accurately describing a human practice. Science is a human practice aimed at generating a body of knowledge that is systematised and (in part because of that) disseminable and usable. Hypothesis formation, and testing by way of experiment (= controlled observation and measurement), is one way of generating such knowledge. Careful observation and measurement of natural phenomena is another. Such observation and measurement does at least three things:

(i) in itself, it may produce systematised, disseminable and usable knowledge (think of how important scientific cartography, surveying, etc is to much of contemporary life, from road maps and GPS to urban planning to international trade);

(ii) it may help with hypothesis formation (eg it seems unlikely that anyone would start thinking about plate tectonics without first having the data provided by scientific cartography);

(iii) it may help with hypothesis confirmation or enrichment (eg the way that Joseph Banks' collection and classification of botanical data helps show the utility of, and further develop techniques of, biological categorisation, which are themselves a, perhaps _the_, major part of biological knowledge before the invention of modern biochemistry over the past 50 to 100 years).​
The idea that _science_ is equivalent to, in some confined, sense, _the scientific method_ as that is taught in high school or first year lectures, is inaccurate as a matter of history, is misleading about the nature and richness of the bodies of scientific knowledge that have been developed over the past 400-odd years (much longer for astronomy, of course), and leads to a type of methodological fetishism that generates distorted descriptions (eg astronomical observatin gets described as "experimentation" when it obviously is not) and prioritises a certain privileged set of means (the classic chemistry or physics lab) over the actual _ends_ of science (a body of systematised, disseminable and usable knowledge).


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> I disagree history could ever be a branch of science -- there's no way to experiment.





TheCosmicKid said:


> It's certainly never gonna be a _hard_ science.





			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> My opinion of history is that it is not a science




FWIW, here are my 4a.m. insomniac thoughts. I won't make any ambitious prophecies about eternity, though :

1.	History is an intrinsically trans-disciplinary discipline; I would argue that in order to practice “good” history, reasonable fluency is required in sociology, psychology, anthropology, philology, climatology etc. Further, history makes routine use of data gathered by scientific methods: carbon dating, materials science, dendrochronolgy, core samples, DNA evidence, molecular archaeology etc. This does not make history science, as historical judgements still proceed from inference; what it does do, however, is provide lots of _data_, so hold that thought for a second.

2.	Caveat: We are pattern-seeking apes. Where no pattern exists, we try to invent them.

3.	There have been a number of appeals to science by historians over the past two centuries. Comte had a positivist model; the French and German academics who established the modern practice of history in the 19th century saw themselves as “scientists;” Ranke’s (completely debunked) historiographical theories; Bloch; the _Annales_ school of historigraphy; more recently, human cycles theory and cliodynamics have attempted to model “big picture” historical processes. None of this makes history science, either; but it starts to move things in the right direction. Most importantly, it describes the _recurring human desire to construe history in objective, measurable terms which can then be used predictively._ Humans are also nothing, if not tenacious apes.

4.	Verifying historical data is inherently problematic. Because we cannot observe history directly, all historical pronouncements are probabilistic inferences. Bayes’ theorem – and probably others, of which I have no understanding – offer ways to frame these pronouncements. 

5.	Further caveat: Bayes’ can also be used to justify all kinds of whacko pseudoscience.  Garbage in, garbage out, and all that.

6.	We need big computers to crunch lots of data.

7.	Prediction: History-as-science – if achievable – will concern itself (initially, at least) with large, long-term processes. It will involve predicting the interactions of fields with varying degrees of uncertainty. Perhaps it will resemble quantum theory more than history-as-we-understand-it-today.


----------



## pemerton

Sepulchrave II said:


> the French and German academics who established the modern practice of history in the 19th century saw themselves as “scientists



Agreed, but while they developed a practice of careful observation, I think the measurement and systematisation that are characteristic of science are missing. History tends to have a particularastic element that is at odds with science.

That's not to deny that it is knowledge. Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge.



Sepulchrave II said:


> Prediction: History-as-science – if achievable – will concern itself (initially, at least) with large, long-term processes. It will involve predicting the interactions of fields with varying degrees of uncertainty. Perhaps it will resemble quantum theory more than history-as-we-understand-it-today.



Framing this in the language I have been using, this looks like a prediction about how history might try and invoke measurement.

I have seen this attempted for economic history (eg the various "wave" theories) but I don't know enough about that field to know how seriously to take those attempts.


----------



## Shasarak

Sepulchrave II said:


> 7.	Prediction: History-as-science – if achievable – will concern itself (initially, at least) with large, long-term processes. It will involve predicting the interactions of fields with varying degrees of uncertainty. Perhaps it will resemble quantum theory more than history-as-we-understand-it-today.




Personally I prefer History as a story, some times using a bit of science helps to get you a better story.


----------



## Maxperson

Sepulchrave II said:


> FWIW, here are my 4a.m. insomniac thoughts. I won't make any ambitious prophecies about eternity, though :
> 
> 1.	History is an intrinsically trans-disciplinary discipline; I would argue that in order to practice “good” history, reasonable fluency is required in sociology, psychology, anthropology, philology, climatology etc. Further, history makes routine use of data gathered by scientific methods: carbon dating, materials science, dendrochronolgy, core samples, DNA evidence, molecular archaeology etc. This does not make history science, as historical judgements still proceed from inference; what it does do, however, is provide lots of _data_, so hold that thought for a second.
> 
> 2.	Caveat: We are pattern-seeking apes. Where no pattern exists, we try to invent them.
> 
> 3.	There have been a number of appeals to science by historians over the past two centuries. Comte had a positivist model; the French and German academics who established the modern practice of history in the 19th century saw themselves as “scientists;” Ranke’s (completely debunked) historiographical theories; Bloch; the _Annales_ school of historigraphy; more recently, human cycles theory and cliodynamics have attempted to model “big picture” historical processes. None of this makes history science, either; but it starts to move things in the right direction. Most importantly, it describes the _recurring human desire to construe history in objective, measurable terms which can then be used predictively._ Humans are also nothing, if not tenacious apes.
> 
> 4.	Verifying historical data is inherently problematic. Because we cannot observe history directly, all historical pronouncements are probabilistic inferences. Bayes’ theorem – and probably others, of which I have no understanding – offer ways to frame these pronouncements.
> 
> 5.	Further caveat: Bayes’ can also be used to justify all kinds of whacko pseudoscience.  Garbage in, garbage out, and all that.
> 
> 6.	We need big computers to crunch lots of data.
> 
> 7.	Prediction: History-as-science – if achievable – will concern itself (initially, at least) with large, long-term processes. It will involve predicting the interactions of fields with varying degrees of uncertainty. Perhaps it will resemble quantum theory more than history-as-we-understand-it-today.




http://blog.yalebooks.com/2011/08/10/history-as-art-not-science/

https://vridar.org/2010/10/14/history-as-science-not-only-art-history-for-dummies-2/


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> Well, for what it's worth, I don't think this is just about manners.
> 
> There's a small matter of usage - if everyone in his day described Joseph Banks as a scientist, and made him President of their most important scientific society for more than 40 years, it seems odd to deny that he is one.
> 
> But there's also the issue of accurately describing a human practice. Science is a human practice aimed at generating a body of knowledge that is systematised and (in part because of that) disseminable and usable. Hypothesis formation, and testing by way of experiment (= controlled observation and measurement), is one way of generating such knowledge. Careful observation and measurement of natural phenomena is another. Such observation and measurement does at least three things:
> 
> (i) in itself, it may produce systematised, disseminable and usable knowledge (think of how important scientific cartography, surveying, etc is to much of contemporary life, from road maps and GPS to urban planning to international trade);
> 
> (ii) it may help with hypothesis formation (eg it seems unlikely that anyone would start thinking about plate tectonics without first having the data provided by scientific cartography);
> 
> (iii) it may help with hypothesis confirmation or enrichment (eg the way that Joseph Banks' collection and classification of botanical data helps show the utility of, and further develop techniques of, biological categorisation, which are themselves a, perhaps _the_, major part of biological knowledge before the invention of modern biochemistry over the past 50 to 100 years).​
> The idea that _science_ is equivalent to, in some confined, sense, _the scientific method_ as that is taught in high school or first year lectures, is inaccurate as a matter of history, is misleading about the nature and richness of the bodies of scientific knowledge that have been developed over the past 400-odd years (much longer for astronomy, of course), and leads to a type of methodological fetishism that generates distorted descriptions (eg astronomical observatin gets described as "experimentation" when it obviously is not) and prioritises a certain privileged set of means (the classic chemistry or physics lab) over the actual _ends_ of science (a body of systematised, disseminable and usable knowledge).




Again, if you say that systemic collection of observations of natural phenomenon is science, you run into the problem of baseball scorekeepers being scientists.  This is why you previously added a profundity layer to your argument, which doesn't work because nothing requires any kind of science to be profound -- look at the nature of middle school science fair projects, many of whom actually are science but certainly aren't profound.  Verification of previous knowledge isn't profound, but it can still be science.

Overall, your argument is outcome based:  was the observation recording useful and/or did people call you a scientist.  This puts the definition of science as subjective according to who's calling who a scientist or subjective as to which form of formal data collection rises high enough to be science:  bird watching notes in the 1700 from far away places is science, but not last nights detailed observations of the baseball game.  This cannot be right -- science cannot be defined subjectively and still be a useful tool to find truth.  If you wish science to be a useful tool to find truth, then it must be process-oriented not outcome based.  This should be self-evident. 

Again, systemic data collection is necessary for science, it is not sufficient to be science.  

You know, it just occurred to me that others may be taking my argument to be pejorative about what is and isn't science.  If so, you're wrong.  I've already held out that science isn't the other way to find 'truth' of our existence in this universe.  To me, science is just another tool in the box, to be brought out when it applies.  So saying something isn't science doesn't, for me, imply that it isn't valuable, but rather it's no subject to scientific method and subsequent verification via that method.  Statistics, on the other hand....


----------



## Ovinomancer

Sepulchrave II said:


> FWIW, here are my 4a.m. insomniac thoughts. I won't make any ambitious prophecies about eternity, though :
> 
> 1.	History is an intrinsically trans-disciplinary discipline; I would argue that in order to practice “good” history, reasonable fluency is required in sociology, psychology, anthropology, philology, climatology etc. Further, history makes routine use of data gathered by scientific methods: carbon dating, materials science, dendrochronolgy, core samples, DNA evidence, molecular archaeology etc. This does not make history science, as historical judgements still proceed from inference; what it does do, however, is provide lots of _data_, so hold that thought for a second.
> 
> 2.	Caveat: We are pattern-seeking apes. Where no pattern exists, we try to invent them.
> 
> 3.	There have been a number of appeals to science by historians over the past two centuries. Comte had a positivist model; the French and German academics who established the modern practice of history in the 19th century saw themselves as “scientists;” Ranke’s (completely debunked) historiographical theories; Bloch; the _Annales_ school of historigraphy; more recently, human cycles theory and cliodynamics have attempted to model “big picture” historical processes. None of this makes history science, either; but it starts to move things in the right direction. Most importantly, it describes the _recurring human desire to construe history in objective, measurable terms which can then be used predictively._ Humans are also nothing, if not tenacious apes.
> 
> 4.	Verifying historical data is inherently problematic. Because we cannot observe history directly, all historical pronouncements are probabilistic inferences. Bayes’ theorem – and probably others, of which I have no understanding – offer ways to frame these pronouncements.
> 
> 5.	Further caveat: Bayes’ can also be used to justify all kinds of whacko pseudoscience.  Garbage in, garbage out, and all that.
> 
> 6.	We need big computers to crunch lots of data.
> 
> 7.	Prediction: History-as-science – if achievable – will concern itself (initially, at least) with large, long-term processes. It will involve predicting the interactions of fields with varying degrees of uncertainty. Perhaps it will resemble quantum theory more than history-as-we-understand-it-today.




I appreciate this post, it's well laid out.  I disagree, of course.   History doesn't need to be science to be useful.  A historical model with some predictive skill isn't science, it's statistics.  That's not to say that some history might not one day feed a scientific theory and be tested via the method, but I don't see how at this point without a lot of science fiction involved.

On Bayes -- excellent points.  It's still statistics and can be abused just as easily.  However, those abuses are far more apparent using Bayes' methods and don't hide in the choice of parameterization as well as when using frequentist methods.  It's just slightly more honest about how it does what it does because you can't hide your assumptions of priors.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, if you say that systemic collection of observations of natural phenomenon is science, you run into the problem of baseball scorekeepers being scientists.  This is why you previously added a profundity layer to your argument, which doesn't work because nothing requires any kind of science to be profound -- look at the nature of middle school science fair projects, many of whom actually are science but certainly aren't profound.  Verification of previous knowledge isn't profound, but it can still be science.



Middle school science projects can model or deploy the scientific method, but (at least in my experience) they generally are not science - they don't contribute anything to human knowledge. They are training exercises.



Ovinomancer said:


> Overall, your argument is outcome based:  was the observation recording useful and/or did people call you a scientist.  This puts the definition of science as subjective according to who's calling who a scientist or subjective as to which form of formal data collection rises high enough to be science:  bird watching notes in the 1700 from far away places is science, but not last nights detailed observations of the baseball game.  This cannot be right -- science cannot be defined subjectively and still be a useful tool to find truth.



I don't really know what you mean by "subjective", as it is a term you deploy quite liberally!

The question of what counts a science isn't always straightforwardly answereable. Sometimes we mightn't know until after the event. Sometimes it might be contested. That can happen.

But that it isn't always easy to tell what constitutes a systematic, disseminabl and hence usable contribution to human knowledge, grounded in careful observation and measurement, doesn't meant that making such contributions is not a useful way to find the truth about the natural world, or even some aspects of the human world.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> Middle school science projects can model or deploy the scientific method, but (at least in my experience) they generally are not science - they don't contribute anything to human knowledge. They are training exercises.
> 
> I don't really know what you mean by "subjective", as it is a term you deploy quite liberally!
> 
> The question of what counts a science isn't always straightforwardly answereable. Sometimes we mightn't know until after the event. Sometimes it might be contested. That can happen.
> 
> But that it isn't always easy to tell what constitutes a systematic, disseminabl and hence usable contribution to human knowledge, grounded in careful observation and measurement, doesn't meant that making such contributions is not a useful way to find the truth about the natural world, or even some aspects of the human world.




You're claiming that it's only science if if meets an standard of usable contribution to human knowledge, but you cannot define usable contribution in any sufficient manner.  This means that the standard is arbitrary and subject to the opinions of it's reviewers.  I'm sure you'll enact some standard of majority opinion as the arbiter of the standard, but this flies in the face of history, where wrong opinions are widely held to be true based on careful observation and measurement but paired with a wrong theory that is later overturned by an initially highly unpopular alternate theory.  Your argument has the former as science until it's not and the latter as not science until it is.  That's ridiculous, arbitrary, subjective, and more akin to a label of approval rather than a method of inquiry.

Science is a method of inquiry - a means with which to inquire about the universe.  Your definition places it as only valid if it returns an outcome to an arbitrary standard of useful.  This then discounts all inquiries that don't result in useful knowledge.  You dismissal of middle school science fair projects as not-science not because they don't follow the method but because they don't meet your definition of useful contribution make it absolutely clear that your definition is about your opinion, not about inquiry.  Science cannot be about the results, it must be about the process.  The results are what they are, and they may not be useful, profound, or even interesting, but they are still science.  Similarly, things not using the scientific method can be useful, profound, and interesting.  These things are not definitional of science -- they cannot be, or many things are science, such as baseball stats (collected in a systemic and carefully defined way, and very useful and interesting to people who follow the sport).


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Middle school science projects can model or deploy the scientific method, but (at least in my experience) they generally are not science - they don't contribute anything to human knowledge. They are training exercises.



Yet, oddly enough, assuming the projects are done correctly they are in fact contributing to science in a trivial-yet-relevant way; in that a fundamental tenet of science is that to be "proven" an experiment must be repeatable to the same conclusion...which is exactly what these projects are doing. 



> But that it isn't always easy to tell what constitutes a systematic, disseminabl and hence usable contribution to human knowledge, grounded in careful observation and measurement, doesn't meant that making such contributions is not a useful way to find the truth about the natural world, or even some aspects of the human world.



The bit about "contribution to human knowledge" is a red herring, in that science can also quite legitimately repeat itself (see example re school projects above) which instead of contributing to knowledge merely shores up that which is already known.

Lan-"yet in contrast this post might contribute to human knowledge without being the least bit scientific"-efan


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, if you say that systemic collection of observations of natural phenomenon is science, you run into the problem of baseball scorekeepers being scientists. This is why you previously added a profundity layer to your argument, which doesn't work because nothing requires any kind of science to be profound -- look at the nature of middle school science fair projects, many of whom actually are science but certainly aren't profound.  Verification of previous knowledge isn't profound, but it can still be science.



I'm sort of with you on this one. As previously discussed, I'm not so quick to rule out the possibility that baseball scoring might _be_ science of a sort, but there are reasons to say it's not beyond the question of whether it's using the scientific method or "merely" data-gathering. (For instance, baseball scorekeeping is more of a subjective endeavor than most fans like to think it is: _errors_ are only the most common of the judgment calls a scorer has to make.) You're absolutely right that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s profundity criterion is arbitrary, and it seems unfair to say that middle schoolers are not doing science on that ground.

The thing is, language _is_ arbitrary. Words mean what we use them to mean, and some usages are subjective or inconsistent or otherwise wacky. There are terms we use which undoubtedly have a profundity criterion in their application - "literature", for example. So simply to point out a profundity criterion is not sufficient to establish that a definition is "wrong". And in fact, as far as my own linguistic intuition goes, it seems right to say that middle schoolers are doing _science_ but less right to say that they are _scientists_. And the same goes for baseball scorekeepers, even in a hypothetical world where scoring is an objective and otherwise scientific process. So, odd as it may seem, I think a profundity criterion may be in the latter word but not the former.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm sure you'll enact some standard of majority opinion as the arbiter of the standard



Why would you be sure of that? It seems like a silly idea, and independenty of that, as a proposition about me, has no evidentiary foundation in anything I've ever posted.

In any event: I'm sure that some people think that toddlers in art class are producing art. I tend to think they're learning some techniques that some people can use to produce art. That's not to say that calling it "art class" is a misnomer. English is a flexible language, and the adjective can describe the output of the class, the methods it teaches, its rationale, some conbimation of those three, probably other aspetcs too that I'm not thinking of.

Likewise, school kids in science class are (i) learning some facts that are part of a body of scientific knowledge, and (ii) learning some techniques that can be used to do science. I don't think that many of them are doing science, in the sense of adding to the boy of human scientific knowledge. My take on the terminology is as above.

What about a school kid who submits as his/her project the following: a careful record of the proportion of the angle of the sun over a certain patch of backyard at noon over a series of days, and of the temperature recorded by a thermometer stuck into that patch of dirt at 10 pm on each of those days? Without more it's a pretty marginal case, but it seems as closely connected to doing science as setting up an experiment from a set of instructions that someone else wrote already knowing what the outcome would be.


----------



## pemerton

I don't disagree too much with [MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION]'s post not far upthread. He has school kids _doing science_, I have them _learning to do science._ Kids in music class whose recorders are out of tune are probably not _making music_ in my view, but they're _learning how to make music_.

In reply to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]: repeatability is a key element of science, and is importantly related to systematisation and disseminabillity. But few school projects contribute to this process: typically the equiment, the method etc is adjusted in order to produce an already known result, and the kids (or parents) putting it all together aren't keeping the sort of record of the adjustments made and their relationship to changed outcomes that would actual connect the repetition to any sort of confirmation of uncertain results.

In my own high school science classes, I remember doing chemistry experiments that had a modest degree of validity, although they were confirming results already extremely well known (although not always well known to those of us doing the experiment - one of the features that contributed to validity). Conversely, in physics class where our equipment was terrible and friction a far from negligible factor in most of what we were doing, the experiments were worthless except as exercises in learning how to follow steps and measure results - the actual outcomes were connected to truth only because we did already know what they should be, and so toyed with our gear and approximated our results in order to fit those predetermined outcomes.

And finally, another example (which came up earlier in the thread) of careful, systematic observation and measurement being at the heart of science: the observation that burned material gains rather than loses weight (= mass, but when the experiment was done the distinction wasn't drawn) was central in rebutting the phlogiston theory of combustion. That would count as science even if the person doing the experiment had no conjecture, and no basis for conjecture, as to what the acquired weight consisted in and how it got there.


----------



## Maxperson

Well, if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is correct and something has to add to human knowledge in order to be science, then the predictions about who is going to be the next president fail to be science.  They add nothing.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Maxperson said:


> Well, if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is correct and something has to add to human knowledge in order to be science, then the predictions about who is going to be the next president fail to be science.  They add nothing.



The alleged science would be knowledge of techniques to make the prediction more accurately.


----------



## Maxperson

TheCosmicKid said:


> The alleged science would be knowledge of techniques to make the prediction more accurately.




Each election requires completely different calculations.  Tens of thousands(if not many more) of variables change every 4 years.  If kid science isn't science, this isn't either.  Too much changes from one election to the next.


----------



## Kobold Boots

If I'm reading this thread correctly, we have high school science teachers and college mathematics and science professors debating the definition of science.  This explains quite a bit to me as the lens being looked through is different from each side.

High school science teachers are not doing research but are applying techniques in class 9 months out of the year.  
College professors doing research are operating at the edge of application and producing theory for similar amounts of time.

Bias for either is going to create the discussion that we're reading here.  

Be well
KB


----------



## Emerikol

Sword of Spirit said:


> The best way is to look at current hit points as your ability to soak up immediate trauma, and HD as representing the rest of your hp. Basically, you can only handle taking about half of your total resiliency's worth of damage in a short period of time, but if you rest up, you can get back into the action.



I probably have a radically different preferred way of doing hit points but that is far easier to houserule.  It is pretty easy to revert back to even pre-3e.  Just throw away the whole HD construct.  Now that preference has nothing to do with metagaming and more to do with other preferences.




Sword of Spirit said:


> I don't think it's _too_ much of stretch to say they can only pull these off occasionally and that they might be choosing the moment of when to do them. But it is more difficult to explain than the HD, and no optional rules are provided.



Being able to effectively only pull off certain maneuvers so many times a day has never been the issue.  Choosing when you can pull those off is the issue.  




Sword of Spirit said:


> I just go with it, and it works fairly well as an in-character choice.
> 
> Mechanically, however, Second Wind can be problematic because a fighter can just sit around for a few hours doing it repeatedly and recover all his hp (though not HD). I've house-ruled that a character can benefit from no more than 4 short rests per day, primarily to address Second Wind, but it also works for other things that might be problematic.. So far, we've never run up against a situation where we would exceed those 4, and it does fix the conceptual problem.



The problem you are dealing with here though is a game balance issue.  It's not really a metagame issue.  I agree it could be abused but I can deal with those sorts of issues and always have.   Also, it doesn't really work as an in character choice for me.



Sword of Spirit said:


> You didn't mention Battle Master maneuvers, which are similar to Action Surge and Second Wind.



Probably because I'd just ban that whole construct right out of the gate.  Not that many of my fighter players would think to choose it anyway.  



Sword of Spirit said:


> You have a single pool of Superiority Dice you spend on the maneuvers which replenishes on a short rest, so at least it isn't by maneuver recharging. By the book, you don't have to declare using the maneuvers until you hit (or it otherwise comes up). That is simple to fix however. You just say the player has to declare what maneuver they are attempting, and if they fail to hit then the opportunity to complete the maneuver just didn't occur, and hence the full effort wasn't expended (so the die isn't lost). Battle Master's are masters of this stuff, so they know when not to overexert themselves. Of course, you could go hardcore and say the die is expended whether or not the maneuver succeeds, but I think that's unnecessary. The simpler method rarely changes the way the way the game goes (or balance) to any noticeable degree.
> 
> In fact, I've decided not worry about it and just let the player declare after success...but my player rarely remembers that and usually declares before taking the action anyway.



I agree with you that making the player declare before they hit is a no brainer.  Same for the rogue.  Still I'm probably more in the camp that prefers to have manuevers if they even exist activated by events not directly under the player's control but still reflective of the character's fighting ability.  



Sword of Spirit said:


> Another potentially problematic one is the rogue's Sneak Attack, which you don't have to declare until after the attack hits (though based on other rules, I do believe the intent is that you do declare before you roll damage, thus not allowing you to see if an opponent dies before deciding to use Sneak Attack, so there isn't that particular problem) but you can only use 1/turn. However, when they fail on the first attack and get to try again on the second one, that's where it is weird.
> 
> One interpretation is to say that the rogue can spot when the opportunities are there to make a hit be a really good hit. You could say the player has to declare that their character is going for a Sneak Attack before the roll, which shouldn't change how things play out.
> 
> Another interpretation of why this is once a turn is that it takes more focus than you can consistently pull off when you are stabbing quickly. I can relate to that general sort of restriction from playing action video games. It really does take more focus than I can maintain to play "at my best" every moment. It doesn't work as well as the first, but works well in combination with the first.
> 
> Sneak Attack in 5e works against everything, so it needs to be interpreted a bit differently anyway.



I agree and in this case since it is every turn but only once in that turn it is fine.  It takes a level of concentration that precludes it happening more than once in a few seconds period.



Sword of Spirit said:


> I don't worry about requiring a pre-declaration on this one. I assume the character is always trying to make the best hit they can (ie, they use Sneak Attack at the first opportunity--which my players actually do, so it works), and they just can't maintain the focus on every attack.



Any other interpretation besides yours is really nonsensical.  I know people use feints etc.. but those aren't rolled attacks.  An attack is a serious attempt to do damage.



Sword of Spirit said:


> Yeah, it's definitely unapologetically metagame. Ignoring it works perfectly fine.
> 
> Overall, 5e design seems to have embraced more metagaming than most D&D, but not really done what 4e did. Or at least when they borrowed ideas from 4e in those regards they attempted to tone it down so you could creatively interpret it (like I described above).
> 
> If you can work with the sorts of explanations I gave above, you can probably work with pretty much all of the metagame elements in 5e without a serious problem.



Actually you seem very reasonable and I really appreciate a serious answer to my question.  I think though you may be talking me out of it.  I know that is not your intention and I'm glad it works for you.





Sword of Spirit said:


> Probably one of the biggest things that bugs me is how learning cantrips works. You are limited to only ever knowing a small number of what are supposed to be the simplest spells, even when you can know everything else on your class list automatically (clerics/druids), or theoretically learn them all, including _wish_ (wizards). Drives me crazy. My house rule is that prepared casters can use a spell preparation slot to prepare other cantrips (which means wizards can add them to their spellbook like any other spell). Prepared cantrips can still be cast at-will. It's not really a problem with casters who know a limited number of spells anyway, though I would allow them to switch a cantrip when they level up, since they can do so with spells of other levels.



One idea I've played with is having cantrips be first level spells.  You cast the cantrip which lasts for so many hours and gives you the effective ability.  Another is just getting rid of cantrips.  I really feel like the original concept for the core classes is something I like.  The wizard should be holding their powder.  But that is again not a metagame taste but just a general taste on the class.  But if you give the wizard one extra first level spell and then make all cantrips first level spells that when cast give you the ability for 8 hours you will maintain the vancian concept if that is your goal.  Keep in mind though that things like dispel magic will cancel a cantrip spell immediately which I like.  Cantrips also get more powerful which to me doesn't make sense.  Instead just have persistent spells at varying levels the wizard can prepare if he so chooses.   So the really good cantrip is a 4th level spell instead of a 1st level one.



Sword of Spirit said:


> This one bothers me so much from a suspension of disbelief perspective that if I'm playing a prepared caster in someone else's campaign I would actually be so bold as to _request_ my house rule be in effect. I'm not sure I could stomach playing a wizard otherwise.
> 
> In practice, no one has ever used my house rule for that. Spell preparations are so precious that my players just haven't wanted to take up a slot with a cantrip, even though it would add an at-will spell to their complement.



It's always interesting to see what others view as intolerable.  We all have our tastes and desired views on the game.  Agree or disagree I can respect the concept.



Sword of Spirit said:


> I haven't looked at Pathfinder 2 yet. Too crunchy for me, though I'll probably at least scan the SRD to look at the design elements.




Well I haven't seen the game yet but I will definitely download the pdf.  I'm leaning that way at this point.  I think the core structure will be non-dissociative and each feat will then be in or out.  When you have a system, it's easier to throw out individual items without otherwise wrecking the game.  It's easier to put new ones in too.

Right this very second though I am working on a sci-fi campaign using a modestly houseruled N.E.W.  Mostly I will just remove the limited use powers as options.  Modify the underly flavor of luck (or drop it).  I've been hankering to try something besides fantasy for a while but have yet to see a game that really tickled my fancy.  I really liked the core of N.E.W. for that sort of game.  I'll definitely add a lot of setting based fluff / skills / professions etc...


----------



## pemerton

Emerikol said:


> Well I haven't seen the game yet but I will definitely download the pdf.  I'm leaning that way at this point.  I think the core structure will be non-dissociative and each feat will then be in or out.  When you have a system, it's easier to throw out individual items without otherwise wrecking the game.  It's easier to put new ones in too.



PF2 has a core notion of "encounter mode" which I think is pretty metagame/"dissociative".


----------



## Shasarak

pemerton said:


> PF2 has a core notion of "encounter mode" which I think is pretty metagame/"dissociative".




Encounter mode does not seem that dissociative if you have played any version of DnD: Encounter mode = combat mini-game.


----------



## pemerton

Shasarak said:


> Encounter mode does not seem that dissociative if you have played any version of DnD: Encounter mode = combat mini-game.



Having your Wind Walk spell end (an ingame event that your PC is fully aware of) because you entered "encounter mode" (which is a purely at-the-table event about mechanics) seems pretty meta to me.


----------



## Satyrn

pemerton said:


> Having your Wind Walk spell end (an ingame event that your PC is fully aware of) because you entered "encounter mode" (which is a purely at-the-table event about mechanics) seems pretty meta to me.




I think that depends on what causes that encounter mode. It should be fine if the wizard could say "my spell will end if you attack something, so don't go throwing tomatoes when the bard cracks a joke about joining the mile high club, like we know he will." Or something lke that for each instance that initiates encounter mode.

Regardless of that, I do think it's weird that getting attacked ends a spell lke wind walking. Especially since I just pictured a flock of fiendish seagulls smirking as they watch an adventuring party lift off the ground. One seagull says to another, "We wait until they're way up there, then bomb them with our poop."


----------



## pemerton

Satyrn said:


> I think that depends on what causes that encounter mode. It should be fine if the wizard could say "my spell will end if you attack something, so don't go throwing tomatoes when the bard cracks a joke about joining the mile high club, like we know he will." Or something lke that for each instance that initiates encounter mode.
> 
> Regardless of that, I do think it's weird that getting attacked ends a spell lke wind walking. Especially since I just pictured a flock of fiendish seagulls smirking as they watch an adventuring party lift off the ground. One seagull says to another, "We wait until they're way up there, then bomb them with our poop."



Your examples make the point, though - does heckling a performer and throwing a tomato at them count as "encounter mode"?

And for clarity (and with a shoutout to [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION]), I've got nothing against RPG mechanics that are based around scenes, including different sorts of scenes - I GM MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, which uses a contrast between action scenes and transition scenes to manage the progression of ingame events.

But (1) the fact that I don't mind those mechanics doesn't stop them being metagame, and (2) you don't see anything in Cortex+ Heroic, or even (that I recall) in 4e as weird as PF2 Wind Walk:

When you cast this spell, all targets transform into a vaguely cloud-like form and are picked up by a wind moving in the direction of your choice. You can Concentrate on the Spell to change the wind’s direction. The wind carries the targets at a Speed of 20 miles per hour, but if any of the targets make an attack, Cast a Spell, come under attack, or otherwise enter encounter mode, the spell ends for all targets and they drift gently to the ground.​
_The targets_ must be ingame entities, because they are _picked up by a wind_, and that's clearly not happening in the real world. It follows, therefore, from _if any of the targets . . . otherwise enter encounter mode_ that "entering encounter mode" is something that happens to ingame entities!

Or rather, it follows that the rules are written in a way that runs together the fiction and the mechanics in some weird fashion that doesn't really appeal to me, and surely won't appeal to those who get anxious about "dissociated" mechanics.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> But (1) the fact that I don't mind those mechanics doesn't stop them being metagame, and (2) you don't see anything in Cortex+ Heroic, or even (that I recall) in 4e as weird as PF2 Wind Walk:
> 
> When you cast this spell, all targets transform into a vaguely cloud-like form and are picked up by a wind moving in the direction of your choice. You can Concentrate on the Spell to change the wind’s direction. The wind carries the targets at a Speed of 20 miles per hour, but if any of the targets make an attack, Cast a Spell, come under attack, or otherwise enter encounter mode, the spell ends for all targets and they drift gently to the ground.​



Yeah, that's a weird one.  The problem is the "come under attack" bit, as the wind-walkers don't have any control over that.  The rest kinda works the same as 1e invisibility - you keep it until you perform any offensive action (cast an offensive spell, shoot a missile, melee-attack someone, etc.).

The other weird bit here is that something happening to any target ends the spell for all.  I could see this being the case if the caster does something to end it - her concentration is shot and thus the spell ends for all - but not for someone else affected.  Pedantic: the use of the words "all targets" implies to me that the spell is targeting each person individually, meaning the loss of effect should also be individual unless the caster loses it...at least, that's how I'd rule it.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> PF2 has a core notion of "encounter mode" which I think is pretty metagame/"dissociative".




Actually, this "mode" as you call it is a DM construct.  It's just a way to efficiently manage time and turns appropriately.  The character still isn't doing anything the character couldn't do.  I think you must really be incapable of understanding what I'm talking about.  It's okay.  Your usefulness though at solving the problem is probably nil.  I still enjoy your comments on these boards in various places a lot so don't take my take on this singular thread as my view of you entirely.

I've downloaded the Pathfinder pdf and I think I will end up going that way.  I haven't went through every feat with a fine toothed comb but nothing seems to blatantly punch me in the face right out of the gate.  I would change the natural recovery time from level times con modifier to level plus con modifier.  That is pretty minor.  It is the advantage of being more systematic at the structural level.


----------



## Emerikol

pemerton said:


> Having your Wind Walk spell end (an ingame event that your PC is fully aware of) because you entered "encounter mode" (which is a purely at-the-table event about mechanics) seems pretty meta to me.




That is more an issue with that power and how it interacts with encounter mode.  I agree that is not desirable but the problem is not encounter mode inherently.  It's dissociative mechanics abusing the mode.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> But (1) the fact that I don't mind those mechanics doesn't stop them being metagame, and (2) you don't see anything in Cortex+ Heroic, or even (that I recall) in 4e as weird as PF2 Wind Walk:
> 
> When you cast this spell, all targets transform into a vaguely cloud-like form and are picked up by a wind moving in the direction of your choice. You can Concentrate on the Spell to change the wind’s direction. The wind carries the targets at a Speed of 20 miles per hour, but if any of the targets make an attack, Cast a Spell, come under attack, or otherwise enter encounter mode, the spell ends for all targets and they drift gently to the ground.​



I'm just thrown for a loop because it says "the spell ends" and then immediately thereafter says the subjects "drift gently to the ground", which is clear indication that some sort of magical effect is still active.


----------



## Lanefan

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm just thrown for a loop because it says "the spell ends" and then immediately thereafter says the subjects "drift gently to the ground", which is clear indication that some sort of magical effect is still active.



Of course.

Magic comes with training wheels now - didn't they tell you?


----------



## pemerton

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm just thrown for a loop because it says "the spell ends" and then immediately thereafter says the subjects "drift gently to the ground", which is clear indication that some sort of magical effect is still active.



OK, I think I missed that! But that seems more some sort of infelicity of drafting. Or perhaps "spell" has a technical meaning - eg you can dispel the main effect, but you can't dispel the gentle drifting because its not a _spell effect_ in the technical sense.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

pemerton said:


> OK, I think I missed that! But that seems more some sort of infelicity of drafting. Or perhaps "spell" has a technical meaning - eg you can dispel the main effect, but you can't dispel the gentle drifting because its not a _spell effect_ in the technical sense.



Really I'm just nitpicking in gentle mockery of what you guys are doing, but to take the silliness seriously: that fine distinction seems directly contrary to what the Paizo guys have stated elsewhere to the effect that "a spell is a spell" (might be paraphrasing).


----------

