# Three Levels of Play



## fusangite

I'm re-posting the message I sent to my current game's mailing list during our debate on the awarding of bonus experience because I'm curious to hear how other GMs and players react to my theory on the three levels of play in an RPG.

I think one of our problems here in this discussion is the eccentricity of
my GMing style.

My games run on three levels: the metatextual, the textual and the
mechanical. Many GMs, including some authors of D&D 3.x attempt to collapse
these levels into a single level of play. Those who seek to collapse all
three levels into the textual are considered "role players"; those who seek
to collapse all three into the mechanical are sometimes pejoratively called
"roll players." (For the purposes of this discussion, I am deliberately not
using the term "metagaming" which is problematic and imprecise.)

Unlike most GMs, I am not interested in collapsing my games to a single
level; to offer an entertaining game to people with various styles of play,
I try, instead, to keep these levels all operating independently of one
another rather than organizing them into some kind of hierarchy of good
play. Therefore, I expect my players to turn up with all three selves when
they come to my games.

I encourage and appreciate those who _as players_ try to decipher the big
world puzzle on a metatextual level. Everyone, regardless of their
character's intellectual faculties and culture should be able to participate
in those process unfettered by textual and mechanical concerns of the game.

I encourage and appreciate those who _as players_ conduct their characters
in action in a credible way. Offering credible justifications for character
actions, however, is not the same as having characters act solely based on
knowledge in their possession. For instance, a shaman or cleric might rush
over to a character who is on the verge of death and heal her in the nick of
time because the character's player informed the caster's player that she
had only 1 hit point left; the fact that this action was decided-upon based
on a mechanical play of the game doesn't matter to me -- what matters is
that a textual justification is provided, ie. "he looked like he was about
to pass out from blood loss." Similarly, an illiterate character might
choose to search in a particular spot for an item the player knows is there
from a close study of manuscripts that the cannot read; I have no problem
with the fact that this action was decided-upon based on a metatextual play
of the game, provided that a post-facto justification is offered to explain
how the character decided to do this.

I encourage and appreciate those who _as players_ make maximum use of their knowledge of the rules both on their own characters and on other players'
characters. Everyone, regardless of their knowledge of the rules, should be
able to take advantage of tactical insights gained by those studying them.

Now, to the question of experience as described in the DMG: this gets right
to the heart of why I am running a D&D game. I deliberately use the oldest,
most primitive D&D experience mechanic because I want to tell a particular
kind of story. Over the years, my players have become very cautious and fear
engaging in violent confrontations. Essentially, I have chosen to use D&D in
the past two years because I want to tell stories that contain violence.


----------



## Particle_Man

So how does this work again?

If someone has memorized the monster manual and is playing 3.0, and knows that a Rakhasa is vulnrable to blessed crossbow bolts, he could say "hey, my character thinks this beast is evil, and wants the priest to bless his weapon before he enters combat...the weapon happens to be a crossbow this time...yeah, that's it...a crossbow..."

Or do you mean something different.

This is not meant to be negative.  I am just confused.


----------



## Mark

I normally wait for a thread to get up to or near ten posts before adding it to the DMing Advice thread but there's just no sense in waiting for this one by the often provocative fusangite...


----------



## fusangite

Particle_Man asks, 



> If someone has memorized the monster manual and is playing 3.0, and knows that a Rakhasa is vulnrable to blessed crossbow bolts, he could say "hey, my character thinks this beast is evil, and wants the priest to bless his weapon before he enters combat...the weapon happens to be a crossbow this time...yeah, that's it...a crossbow..."
> 
> Or do you mean something different.
> 
> This is not meant to be negative.  I am just confused.




Is this a "credible justification"? I would argue that this qualifies as a _barely_ credible justification. If someone tried this in my campaign, people would probably groan.


----------



## Desdichado

OK, you complain that metagaming is imprecise and problematic, but you have no problem making up the terms metatextual vs textual and applying them to gaming?    What the heck?  You do know that everyone pretty much knows what metagaming is?  That it's defined in the DMG?

I guess I don't see what the deal is.  The metatextual game you're describing is abhorent to me.  I avoid it like the plague.  I have no interest in it.  Although I'm well aware that D&D and other RPGs are indeed games, I don't want them to feel like games, I want them to feel like stories unfolding.  The rules are there to facilitate that.  They are not to be something to valued for their own sake.  In my opinion at least.  Metagame knowledge is even worse.

I have no interest in what you call the mechanical game, beyond how well it facilitates what you call the textual game, and what you call the metatextual game is anathema to me.

Anyway, I'm not sure if there was a question in your post or not.  I can understand what you're doing with the terms you use, but I don't understand why you value metagaming.  I have yet to see you say anything about why it is desirable.

I'm also not sure what violent confrontations have to do with the rest of your post.


----------



## MarauderX

Sounds like you have your own gaming style working for you.  Keep it going Master Fusangite.


----------



## fusangite

Mark calls me, 



> the often provocative fusangite




I'm thinking of including that in my sig file. How very complimentary -- that's exactly who I'm trying to be.

Joshua Dyal says, 



> OK, you complain that metagaming is imprecise and problematic, but you have no problem making up the terms metatextual vs textual and applying them to gaming?    What the heck?  You do know that everyone pretty much knows what metagaming is?  That it's defined in the DMG?




The term metagaming is a catch-all category that doesn't really make sense. That's what makes it imprecise. It encompasses all playing based on information the character doesn't consciously have. I'm suggesting that this is too broad a category. It also suggests that you can actually situate yourself in your character's mindset given the minute amount of information you have about the campaign world.



> I guess I don't see what the deal is.  The metatextual game you're describing is abhorent to me.  I avoid it like the plague.  I have no interest in it.  Although I'm well aware that D&D and other RPGs are indeed games, I don't want them to feel like games, I want them to feel like stories unfolding.




Much as I am loath to compare RPGs to novels, I think the metaphor might be useful here. When you read books, don't you enjoy anticipating what might happen next based on symbolic and mythic clues in the narrative? When I read GRR Martin's _Song of Ice & Fire_ series, from the moment King Robert died, I was wondering how things would play out in Tyrion's temporary wardship of his nephews and how it would involve imprisonment in the tower. For me, being swept up in a story includes not only being carried along by the characters but also by the symbol system the author uses. 



> The rules are there to facilitate that.  They are not to be something to valued for their own sake.  In my opinion at least.  Metagame knowledge is even worse.




But D&D rules aren't designed to facilitate being swept up in the story. If you want to be swept up in the story, you are using the wrong rules. If story is your primary goal in a game, I'm all for that. I've run such games. But I would never, in a million years, use D&D if that were the game I wanted to run. Classes and levels -- that's a ridiculous mechanic if your priority is story. Rules grafted to a system of physics based on Victorian-era spiritualism? How does that facilitate storytelling? Alignment!? Need I go on?



> Anyway, I'm not sure if there was a question in your post or not.  I can understand what your doing with the terms you use, but I don't understand why you value metagaming.  I have yet to see you say anything about why it is desirable.




When I read a novel, I'm experiencing the book on all three levels: I'm counting the pages between where I am and the end of the book and imagining what the author will do with only that many pages; I'm engaged in the characters' lives and the narrative of the story; and I'm engaged in deciphering the symbol sytem, guessing what inspired the author and discerning the themes.

I guess I assume that adding levels of sophistication to things is often inherently enjoyable.



> I'm also not sure what violent confrontations have to do with the rest of your post.




One of the reasons I chose the D&D rules system is that I found that my players had not been engaging in physical confrontations to solve problems. If I had just wanted to move to a rules-heavy system, I might have chosen Runequest or some other game in which combat is often lethal but instead, I chose to go with a game whose rules encourage combat. You're right. I suppose that doesn't directly bear on what I said above.


----------



## Wormwood

You raise some interesting points.

Unfortunately, I initially read 'metatextual' as 'metrosexual'.

It makes *much* more sense now.

Crab people indeed.


----------



## Mark

The "Provocative" fusangite said:
			
		

> How very complimentary -- that's exactly who I'm trying to be.




That's what makes the difference between Message Boards and Message _Boreds_... 


(Thanks, BTW)


----------



## Spatula

So how does this tie into the awarding of bonus XP again?


----------



## fusangite

Spatula said:
			
		

> So how does this tie into the awarding of bonus XP again?




Sorry. I just excerpted this part of the argument because it seemed interesting. I wrote it in response to someone who felt that bonus experience should be awarded based on good role-playing. I countered, suggesting that limiting bonus experience awards to role play was valuing one level of the game over others. So then I had to explain what I thought the other levels were.


----------



## Ragnar_Deerslayer

fusangite said:
			
		

> My games run on three levels: the metatextual, the textual and the mechanical.




I like your distinction and I have to agree with you.  One of the things that bothered me about the Forge's distinction between Gamist and Narrativist gameplay is that too often you wound up being forced to choose between the two.

I like crunchy rules for character creation and combat, but I'm not interested in merely wargaming.

I also like a good story, with well-developed personalities for the characters and an intricate plotline, but I don't feel comfortable with the vagueness and subjectiveness that plagues many "rules-lite" narrativist games.

I think that high drama can come from tactical battles where the DM lets the dice fall where they may.  Unfortunately, this often leads to character death, which is sometimes (but not always) dramatically appropriate.  And this one reason why I like D&D:  resurrection is always possible, although (through cost and scarcity) by no means guaranteed.

Metagaming just comes naturally.  It's hard to keep from using outside knowledge to help play the game, especially in combat, where your character's life is on the line.  That's why I like your "in-game justification" idea.  It allows the best of both worlds:  the players can make gameplay decisions in combat based on their knowledge of the rules, but to use it, they have to get "in character" and justify it.  They can make roleplaying decisions based on what would be "dramatically appropriate" according to the story as a whole, but must justify it from the limited perspective of their character.  This synergy is hard to beat.

Ragnar


----------



## hong

fusangite said:
			
		

> Over the years, my players have become very cautious and fear
> engaging in violent confrontations. Essentially, I have chosen to use D&D in
> the past two years because I want to tell stories that contain violence.







Hong "I never metatext I didn't like" Ooi


----------



## clark411

Although I may have missed it, before this discussion blows over the heads of many or results in lots of different interpretations..

can we please have a concrete definition of what "metatextual" is?

I mean... maybe I agree with your idea, maybe i dont- right now, I can't make that decision based on a couple examples and secondary interpretations of what the term may mean.


----------



## Desdichado

fusangite said:
			
		

> The term metagaming is a catch-all category that doesn't really make sense. That's what makes it imprecise. It encompasses all playing based on information the character doesn't consciously have. I'm suggesting that this is too broad a category. It also suggests that you can actually situate yourself in your character's mindset given the minute amount of information you have about the campaign world.



I suppose metagaming can be broad, but I don't see how your term metatextual (which; granted -- I haven't seen defined yet anyway) means anything different.  I don't see how it's catch-all or that it doesn't make any sense, though, unless you're looking for something more precise.  If so, I can't imagine what kind of precision you'd be looking for.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Much as I am loath to compare RPGs to novels, I think the metaphor might be useful here. When you read books, don't you enjoy anticipating what might happen next based on symbolic and mythic clues in the narrative? When I read GRR Martin's Song of Ice & Fire series, from the moment King Robert died, I was wondering how things would play out in Tyrion's temporary wardship of his nephews and how it would involve imprisonment in the tower. For me, being swept up in a story includes not only being carried along by the characters but also by the symbol system the author uses.



OK, this I can see.  In my case, this is something I do subconsciously.  I don't actually give metatextual considerations much thought beyond the occasional "how is he going to get out of this in two more chapters?" kind of thing.

And personally, I like to compare RPGs to novels.  Although I'm well aware that what makes a good novel doesn't make a good game and vice versa, its because of my love of fantasy novels that I got into RPGs in the first place.  The closer the game emulates the novel experience, the happier I am.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> But D&D rules aren't designed to facilitate being swept up in the story. If you want to be swept up in the story, you are using the wrong rules. If story is your primary goal in a game, I'm all for that. I've run such games. But I would never, in a million years, use D&D if that were the game I wanted to run. Classes and levels -- that's a ridiculous mechanic if your priority is story. Rules grafted to a system of physics based on Victorian-era spiritualism? How does that facilitate storytelling? Alignment!? Need I go on?



I could have you go on.  I think d20 (or even D&D, although that makes the assumption that the default "setting" of D&D works with the story/game) works just fine at facilitating the story.  Character creation is relatively complex, but that just means you have more detail about your character to start with.  The game itself is not nearly as complex; in play you just roll d20s and look up your modifiers on your character sheet.  This leads to (especially with familiarity) the rules being transparent and unobtrusive, which is what facilitates the story.  GURPS is similar in many regards, as it also has complicated chargen but relatively simple task resolution beyond that.  However, GURPS also tends to promote extremely cautious play, and that's not the story I want to have my group develop.

If you're refering to games that have Narrativist rules that are specifically story-oriented, I'm not a fan of such systems, and my experience with them is that they are more intrusive rather than helpful.  They also tend to work on a metagame level, which leaves a sour taste in my mouth.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> When I read a novel, I'm experiencing the book on all three levels: I'm counting the pages between where I am and the end of the book and imagining what the author will do with only that many pages; I'm engaged in the characters' lives and the narrative of the story; and I'm engaged in deciphering the symbol sytem, guessing what inspired the author and discerning the themes.
> 
> I guess I assume that adding levels of sophistication to things is often inherently enjoyable.



Fair enough.  As I said above, I do those things primarily subconsciously rather than on purpose, but I can see your point.  Be that as it may, the examples you use of non-literate characters knowing where to look for something because of text that the _players_ could read, for instance, don't seem to be the same kind of metatextual experience you're describing in this post.  I see a real disparity between enjoying a book because you can discern the pacing, symbolism, or what have you the author uses, and being OK with players making decisions for their characters that are completely irrationaly _from their characters' point of view._  Although granted, you did make the caveat that in-game justification is a requirement.  Of course, if you do that, I don't see what the big deal is.  You can never completely excise metagame considerations from play, so it seems to be an implicit assumption of anyone who wants to minimize it that you don't really have a problem with it per se as long as your decisions are justified in game.  Maybe some people want to push even beyond that where possible, but I don't really see how that could be done anyway.


			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> One of the reasons I chose the D&D rules system is that I found that my players had not been engaging in physical confrontations to solve problems. If I had just wanted to move to a rules-heavy system, I might have chosen Runequest or some other game in which combat is often lethal but instead, I chose to go with a game whose rules encourage combat. You're right. I suppose that doesn't directly bear on what I said above.



Agree, I like games that feature some combat.  I want combat to be scary, but not so scary that players look for any way to avoid it (unless that's the character's schtick, of course.)  Again, as I said above, one of the reasons I picked d20 as well.


----------



## Bagpuss

Are you allowed to turn up and just have fun without thinking to hard about it?


----------



## Particle_Man

fusangite said:
			
		

> Particle_Man asks,
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a "credible justification"? I would argue that this qualifies as a _barely_ credible justification. If someone tried this in my campaign, people would probably groan.




And if someone tried it in my campaign, Rakhasas (or at least that Rakhasa) would suddenly be immune to blessed crossbow bolts and vulnerable to something else.  I wouldn't reward metatextual gaming -- I would penalize metatextual gaming.    But that is just my style.  I think I would need to know more about your criteria for what passes as metatextual and what is "mere" metagaming, or disallowed.  How credible does something have to be to be credible justification?

Btw, if you want more combat-heavy stuff, you might want to look at Savage Worlds as a game system.  Apparantly, it allows for more use of tactical maneuvers, as opposed to "Stand there and swing my sword".


----------



## fusangite

Bagpuss asks,



> Are you allowed to turn up and just have fun without thinking to hard about it?




Absolutely. The game is a failure if it requires metatextual or mechanical play. The whole point (for me) is to write games that are fun no matter what level(s) you're experiencing them on.

clark411 asks,



> can we please have a concrete definition of what "metatextual" is?




A metatextual reading of a novel or a a campaign world is about decoding the symbol system the author/GM uses in order to hypothesize about what is going on. 

Example #1:

When I began reading George R R Martin's _Game of Thrones_, I was struck by the emerging civil war between the Lannisters and the Starks and its obvious echoes of War of the Roses. Given that I knew Martin was referencing the War of the Roses, obviously the character of Tyrion was some kind of figure of Richard III. I then wondered what aspects of Richard III, aside from physical appearance Martin would invest in him. Obviously, the character wouldn't be an exact correspondence because Richard III was a York not a Lancaster. So, when he ended up in charge of King's Landing and his two nephews' care, I was quite delighted, especially the way Martin ended up inverting the Richard III myth and having Tyrion end up imprisoned in the tower.

Of course, all this got more complicated when we met the Dornishmen later in the series and realized that what Martin was actually doing was overlaying the Seven Kingdoms of the Reconquista overtop of the Seven Kingdoms of the Heptarchy so that Cornwall and Granada were synthesized into Dorne. 

Example #2:

This is my favourite long gaming anecdote that I have tried to reduce so that it doesn't take 30 minutes to tell. This is the experience which sold me on metatextual gaming.

I played in a game in which the characters lived in a world called Midgaard. It was one of the nine worlds which were, in this specific order, Vanaheim, Elfheim, Midgaard, Asgaard, Jotunheim, Svartelfheim, Niflheim, Utgaard and Hel. There is no way I can replicate the incredible richness and genius of this campaign-- it is the second-best campaign I have ever been in. There were many stunning realizations that I cannot do justice to. But eventually, we the players figured out that the nine worlds actually corresponded to the outer nine planets of our system; once we removed Mercury from the model, suddenly, we saw the alphabetical correspondence. *V*enus, *E*arth, *M*ars, *As*teroid Belt, etc. The only thing that didn't fit was Hel. This profoundly informed our reasoning as players-- the home of the gods was not a planet. Had it been destroyed in Raagnarok as our myths implied?

We hypothesized like mad about this, as players, because our characters lived in a magic-rich medieval-style society on Midgaard. Our characters could not experience the realization that the adventure was taking place sometime in the past or future of our solar system. 

Eventually, our characters were captured and enslaved by Dark Elves and taken to a special building they had discovered that they needed our magical affinity to understand. The building was millions of years old; the back room was occupied by some kind of enormous magic engine that seemed to affect time in some way. The front room was occupied by a series of high seats looking out at the sky through an enormous bay window and spread out infront of the seats was a huge computer system which seemed to glow in all colours of the spectrum that we couldn't figure out either. 

We went away puzzled from the session, feeling like we were on the verge of figuring out what was happening. In the shower, 5 days later, it occurred to me that even though the building was rooted to the ground, the engines in back indicated that it was not a building but a ship. And what is that part of the ship faces out into space? The bridge. And what colour is the computer? ...Obviously, we had located the Rainbow Bridge -- the building's purpose, therefore, was to take us to Asgaard!

Sure enough, armed with this understanding of the significance of where our characters were, we focused all our energy on getting the computer to run because we knew it was the Bifrost Bridge. (We later discovered the Dark Elves' code name for their archaeological dig was Project Heimdall.) Sure enough, the building transported us back in time to when (based on the Russian Phaeton hypothesis) the Asteroid Belt was a planet; and, living there were the creatures our characters called the gods. At every stage, our characters' motivations were justified in terms of their own world's events but, as players, our choices were based, to varying degrees, on our understanding of the world's metatext.

[/end examples]

Most fantasy worlds resist a metatextual reading because they are not designed to be figured out in this way. Most people who create fantasy worlds use the Jungian/HP Lovecraft method of reaching into the collective unconscious and pulling out whatever jumble of myth, history and invention they find. But I think the best writers and GMs create worlds that can be understood on both a textual and metatextual level. In my best games (ones where I'm not hampered by the D&D rules system), every puzzle I create is solveable on both a textual and metatextual level. The brilliance of the Midgaard campaign is that we still could have used the ship to take us to Asgaard without the realization of what it was.

Joshua Dyal says,



> If you're refering to games that have Narrativist rules that are specifically story-oriented, I'm not a fan of such systems, and my experience with them is that they are more intrusive rather than helpful. They also tend to work on a metagame level, which leaves a sour taste in my mouth.




Here, we are in full agreement. Such rules systems are crap because they are actually designed to tell a particular story that is not necessarily the story you want to tell as a GM. No. If I want to run a story-oriented game, I design a small rules set specifically for that game.  



> I see a real disparity between enjoying a book because you can discern the pacing, symbolism, or what have you the author uses, and being OK with players making decisions for their characters that are completely irrationaly from their characters' point of view.




People keep putting these words in my mouth. If you cannot offer a _credible justification_ for your character doing something, they shouldn't do it. So no -- I don't think people's characters should make decisions that are "completely irrational from their characters' point of view." 

Well, I've blathered on enough. Thanks everyone for discussing this with me.


----------



## Particle_Man

Ok, now I think I understand where you are coming from.  It seems like it would be a nice feature, but a lot of work by the DM to set up, especially if the players don't "get" the metatext (on the other hand, sometimes players don't even "get" the main plot of an adventure, mistakenly killing the one person capable of saving the kingdom, etc., so this is not just a metatext issue).

I have never experienced it myself as a player, but I suppose it is possible that the DM did all sorts of metatextual stuff and we players just plodded on through at the "lower" levels.

How much time does it take to add the metatext details to a regular campaign, or else to do a metatext campaign from scratch, compared to a nonmetatext campaign?


----------



## Rel

I think you're provocative too, fusangite.  Keep it up.

I also think that I can buy into your trichotomy to a pretty strong degree.  I think few would dispute that the ideas of a Role-Playing focus and a Roll-Playing focus (to use just one pair of terms that are ascribed to those styles) exist.  But the metagame is important too.

When I say metagame, I don't mean in the derogatory sense where the player uses the blessed crossbow bolt on the Rakshasa even though his character wouldn't know a Rakshasa from a Were-Tiger.  I mean in the sense that there is a game going on outside the world in which the characters are immersed.  I find that my players are more happy when I pay attention to the metagame.

If they've just completed a lengthy diplomatic conversation that has provided lots of plot information, I will often try to move them expeditiously toward a combat.  Why?  Because it's fun.  And because I know that it will give the characters with fewer diplomatic skills and more head-bashing skills a chance to shine.  And because the combat itself may move the story forward.  And because I as the GM have to do a lot of thinking on my feet during the diplomacy and the combat will give me a break to assimilate what I made up on the fly during the diplomacy into the broader campaign picture.

My point is that the metagame is never far from my mind as a GM and I think it stays in the minds of the characters too.


----------



## Desdichado

fusangite said:
			
		

> People keep putting these words in my mouth. If you cannot offer a _credible justification_ for your character doing something, they shouldn't do it. So no -- I don't think people's characters should make decisions that are "completely irrational from their characters' point of view."



Well, if you'd quoted the other part of what I said in that paragraph, it wouldn't have come across as putting words in your mouth.  My real question was in the part you didn't quote:


> Although granted, you did make the caveat that in-game justification is a requirement. Of course, if you do that, I don't see what the big deal is. You can never completely excise metagame considerations from play, so it seems to be an implicit assumption of anyone who wants to minimize it that you don't really have a problem with it per se as long as your decisions are justified in game. Maybe some people want to push even beyond that where possible, but I don't really see how that could be done anyway.


----------



## BSF

Interesting mind food.

If I understand Fusangite correctly, he does everything he can to design the game to work on the character level as well as the player level as well as the rules mechanics level.  Multiple aspects to appeal to a variety of tastes.  

He is trying not to make a judgement value on who is playing the game "better".  He is just focusing on providing "fun" and yuo can pick the style(s) that suit you.   As a result, bonus exp for RP is inappropriate since it would imply a value system that he is trying to eschew.  Am I understanding this correctly Fusangite?  In that context, I _think_ I understand the difference between meta-textual, textual, and mechanical.

I am intrigued.  

As a DM, I do not do much to create a meta-textual game for the players to wonder about.  I would be very interested in picking up any tips in that regard.  Like Rel, I try to be aware of the metagame considerations.  Things like the CHA skill based character is not going to be happy in an all-combat game and the STR based fighter will get bored with constant political intrigue.  But, Fusangite seems to be referring to something outside my scope of experience.  So, if you have the time, would you be kind enough to elaborate on how you go about creating the meta-textual environment?

Thanks!


----------



## fusangite

BardStephenFox asks,



> Am I understanding this correctly Fusangite?




Yes. Absolutely.



> So, if you have the time, would you be kind enough to elaborate on how you go about creating the meta-textual environment?




In a similar vein, Particle_Man says,



> How much time does it take to add the metatext details to a regular campaign, or else to do a metatext campaign from scratch, compared to a nonmetatext campaign?




Hmmm. I don't think I've ever tried to express this in writing before. Please bear with me.

I see two main ways of doing metatext in games: story-based and world-based. Story-based metatext can be grafted onto an existing campaign world whereas world-based metatext requires a ground-up approach. 

Story-based metatext is pretty easy but somewhat less satisfying and more likely to impinge on the free will of player characters. For story-based metatext, what you need to do is find one or more classic archetypal stories (e.g. Beowulf); optionally, come up with a variation on the story and begin moving your characters along the tradtional narrative but with some kind of twist. Disguising traditional or archetypal narratives is actually pretty easy; usually just situating the story in your campaign takes care of that. 

All you need to do is figure out which parts of the story matter to you and proceed from there. If I were to do a Beowulf adaptation, the things I would keep would be: 
(a) the three part structure Grendel (Earth), Grendel's Mother (Water) and the Dragon (Fire)
(b) discovering his sword could not damage Grendel's mother and fighting her with his bare hands until he could steal an ancient magic sword from her hoard
(c) the dragon being wakened by someone raiding the hoard of an ancient and forgotten race
(d) Beowulf having to hold his breath a ridiculously long time to fight Grendel's mother

First, I would disguise the setting by moving it ahead into the high medieval period. Then, I'd probably change Grendel so that he was clever and more obviously some type of earth elemental. 

Second, I would probably connect Grendel to the evil water elemental creature some other way but maintain their objective: to destroy the human city that sits on the territory that was once theirs. Obviously, I'd also design some kind of special immunities and vulnerabilities for the evil water element creature.

I would probably also add an air element creature at the end because that is suggested by the way physics works in D&D. 

World-based metatext is challenging, exciting, requires research but actually doesn't take any more work than traditional world building. What _is_ different is when you do the work and what kind of work it is. But I'm going to pause here and resume my explanation once I've had dinner.


----------



## Thomas Hobbes

Yowza!  Really interesting stuff.  Like others here, I've only ever really thought about entertaining my players on the mechanical and textual levels.  I never thought "metatextual" was a word I'd hear outside of a literature class, let alone one that I'd use in a D&D context.

So anyway, thanks a lot for posting this, and I eagerly await the rest of your advice on how to incorporate the metatextual.


----------



## Teflon Billy

Fusangite said:
			
		

> ...In my best games (ones where I'm not hampered by the D&D rules system), every puzzle I create is solveable on both a textual and metatextual level...




Your D&D games are way better than those "System Designed to Mirror the Works of William Blake" games.

Your _best_ games, however, are Gamma World games.


----------



## cptg1481

*Oldest, most primitive D&D experience mechanic*



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> ...Now, to the question of experience as described in the DMG: this gets right to the heart of why I am running a D&D game. I deliberately use the oldest, most primitive D&D experience mechanic because I want to tell a particular kind of story. Over the years, my players have become very cautious and fear engaging in violent confrontations. Essentially, I have chosen to use D&D in the past two years because I want to tell stories that contain violence.




Dude, while I may agree and disagree with you on some levels, I appreciate the depth of thought put into your statements and find it provocative.  I think it is funny to watch the squirming posts of those who must somehow feel threatend by your interpretations as if they would somehow be bound by them if they just said "not my style but I appreciate your points". 

I was just wondering what the oldest and most primitave D&D experience mechanic that you refernce is?  Is it the AD&D EXP system where one gets EXP based on the gold he takes from the dead enemies? Or is it just the recommended method in the DMG without bonuses for roleplaying and plot advancement?  

Totally, not a critique, just a question.  

Captain G.


----------



## fusangite

> I was just wondering what the oldest and most primitave D&D experience mechanic that you refernce is?  Is it the AD&D EXP system where one gets EXP based on the gold he takes from the dead enemies? Or is it just the recommended method in the DMG without bonuses for roleplaying and plot advancement?




I meant, generally, a system that involves both experience points and levels, with experience points based solely on physical danger. But yes, right now, I'm using the DMG CR method without the roleplay and plot advancement bonuses.



> Totally, not a critique, just a question.




Hey -- if there is one thing I'm not online, it's sensitive. I wouldnt especially mind being berated if someone felt like giving me a hard time.


----------



## fusangite

Thoughts on creating a metatextual campaign...

First off, I'll begin with my metaphor. Imagine that you're looking at an attractive abstract pattern on your computer screen. It may be that someone has carefully drawn this pattern pixel by pixel or it may be that the pattern is actually a Julia set-- an infinite abstract pattern generated by a single complex equation. 

Most campaign worlds are constructed pixel by pixel -- some gigantic bitmap that someone has lovingly created; let's call that the imaginative campaign world. The kind of world I find most exciting is one which is, instead, generated by a single complex equation; let's call that the mytho-poetic campaign world. The difference between the two types of world is what happens if you zoom in or move off the screen. If you zoom in on a section of the imaginative campaign world, depending on its resolution, you will either find a carefully hand-drawn scene or blocky pixelated images. On the other hand, if you zoom in on a section of the mytho-poetic campaign world, you will initially see blocky pixelated images-- these will then resolve to images as detailed at the larger image. If you move off the screen of the imaginative campaign world, there will either be nothing or another, adjacent bitmap. If you move off the mytho-poetic campaign world, you will experience much the same thing as if you zoom in: blocky images resolving into smooth detail. Of course, the speed with which the image resolves is based on two things: the speed of the processor and the difficulty of the equation.

Sorry for the lengthy extended metaphor. So, what does a good campaign world equation look like? A good mytho-poetic world is constructed much the way you make a conspiracy theory: substitute correlation with causation. Examples of good world equations: What if the 7 angels of the 7 churches of Asia plus the Son of Man are the same people as the Eight Immortals of the Tao? What if Arthur's original quest for the Holy Grail described in _Spoils of Annwfn_ took place in the Americas and the key grail artifacts were actually the key artifacts described in the _Book of Mormon_? What if the nine worlds of Norse myth were actually the outer nine planets of the solar system? 

Start with one preposterous instance of a myth system, science, historical event or epic story appearing symetrical to some other myth system, science, historical event or epic story and you'll soon find other correspondences. In the Eight Immortals story, there was the text in the Book of Revelations that only someone whose name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life could enter the New Jerusalem taking on new meaning when it was noted that one of the ways the Monkey King of Chinese myth became thrice-immortal was to erase his name from the list of fates of all mortal beings. With the Holy Grail thing there were the different forms of the grail corresponding to different Mormon artifacts: the Lance of Longinus/Javelin of Teancum, Sword of Laban/Excalibur, the grail carved from the emerald which broke from Lucifer's crown when he was cast down from heaven/one of the Seer Stones of Zarahemla. 

So, to write a mytho-poetic campaign, you come up with your conspiracy theory-like idea. Then you do heaps of highly selective research to find little facts which, taken out of context, make your theory appear credible. Then, you should be able to deduce roughly what each part of your world is like based on the interplay of these ideas. Of course, you still have to do work when characters do something unexpected and you need to do some episode prep but I find that I do 50% of my total campaign prep at the beginning while I'm fashioning my conspiracy theory and the other 50% preparing for individual episodes. But I find my total campaign prep time is about the same. 

OK -- all for now.


----------



## Particle_Man

This is interesting!  I think it would be cool if you wrote up some adventures/campaign worlds and sold them, actually.

That said, does the metatextualness rely upon at least one player having read the same books as the DM?  Because otherwise, except in some "big myth"/"big fact" cases like Norse myth and the planets, I don't see how players will get the correlations.  For instance, I don't think any of my group would have gotten the whole Beowulf/Elementals thing.  Does that happen a lot with metatext?  Or can one use more "obvious"/"popularly accessable" metatexts, like what if "Star Wars" were mapped onto "Lord of the Rings"?  Maybe this is a case of tailoring it to shared knowledge between the DM and at least one player.

On the other hand, even if there is no "light going on" in the players, I could see that borrowing two ideas and smooshing them together can make a good framework to hang a world on.  It follows Koestler's theory of creativity in humour, science and art, which holds that you have two matrices, well, smooshed together.  Like the respected professor that sits on a chair that collapses under him.  The "show respect" matrix meets the "physical bodies that are unsupported fall to earth" matrix, and humour results.

I am not sure I got how the pixel metaphor maps on to the mythopoetic world.  Do you mean that the whole world has a metatext, a country has the same metatext, a city has the same metatext story, etc.?  Or do you mean that the world has one metatext plot, a country has one chapter of that plot, a city has a few metaphors in one chapter of that plot, etc.?


----------



## fusangite

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> This is interesting!  I think it would be cool if you wrote up some adventures/campaign worlds and sold them, actually.
> 
> That said, does the metatextualness rely upon at least one player having read the same books as the DM?  Because otherwise, except in some "big myth"/"big fact" cases like Norse myth and the planets, I don't see how players will get the correlations.  For instance, I don't think any of my group would have gotten the whole Beowulf/Elementals thing.  Does that happen a lot with metatext?




It does sometimes. There are ways around it -- hinting at what the texts are, picking, as you suggest, accessible and recognizeable texts, not caring whether the players "get it"; if the game is in an alternate earth, you can always have the characters discover references to the texts you're using, if not, you can import your own versions of these stories into your campaign world and write your own variants on these myths or pieces of fiction. Obviously, how much you want your characters to engage the metatext will condition what kind of source texts you use.



> Or can one use more "obvious"/"popularly accessable" metatexts, like what if "Star Wars" were mapped onto "Lord of the Rings"?  Maybe this is a case of tailoring it to shared knowledge between the DM and at least one player.




It's important to find points of symetry that look superficially obvious and are not a stretch in the mind of the DM. I'm guessing the way in is the istari/jedi: Radagast/Yoda, Gandalf/Kenobi, Saruman/Vader. And what of the two Blue Wizards?



> I am not sure I got how the pixel metaphor maps on to the mythopoetic world.  Do you mean that the whole world has a metatext, a country has the same metatext, a city has the same metatext story, etc.?




Yes. Every place, every city, every character is derived from the single central equation. You're only inventing part of it when the characters decide to go there; many of its features are implicit in the metatext of the campaign. 



> Or do you mean that the world has one metatext plot, a country has one chapter of that plot, a city has a few metaphors in one chapter of that plot, etc.?




This is also often true. Or rather, it is true of the places the GM intends for the party to go. But when the party chooses to go somewhere else entirely, the GM doesn't simply invent the place they go to, he also deduces it from the big campaign equation.


----------



## BSF

Hmm, I can see how that might work.  I am going to have to give it some thought and figure out how well I might be able to pull it off.  

Thank you for the explanation.  Please, feel free to share more!    I am intrigued, but I think I need to sleep on it to really digest it.


----------



## RSKennan

fusangite said:
			
		

> Thoughts on creating a metatextual campaign...
> 
> First off, I'll begin with my metaphor. Imagine that you're looking at an attractive abstract pattern on your computer screen. It may be that someone has carefully drawn this pattern pixel by pixel or it may be that the pattern is actually a Julia set-- an infinite abstract pattern generated by a single complex equation.
> *Snipped well-put analogy*




It's late, so if I've misinterpreted what you've said here, please, let me know. 

I agree with you; that the more compelling story is reflected into itself, but I don't see Jungian archetypes or usage of Campbellian deconstruction to create story as a bad thing. IMHO, modeling a campaign on the synthesis of two or more specific myths/stories is a fine way to find a creative direction, and I don't see that as exclusive to the idea of using a broader approach, and filling in the blanks. Certainly it takes a lot more work to do that with broader concepts (say the "Mythic Hero" rather than specifically honing in on "Rama" ), but the reward is (at least the perception of) more degrees of freedom. It's a trade-off, and either method, if carefully executed, can work well.

Synthesis is one method of story design, but something you've also hinted at is a pure "What-if" question. I call it the interrogative method. What if:

Humans were mutated orcs? 

Magic was nanotech? 

All sentient beings were actually the pets of a greater being, and the world was the cage?

The game world was actually the place where bad folks go when they die? (One I once considered using)  

This kind of questioning might not result in the same strength of story direction, but can result in a world every bit as vibrant as one built around the synthesis of two or more ideas. Either one can be self-reflective; the themes can hold on the macro scale as well as the micro. 

For the record, Morningstar uses both methods. 

I've started rambling a bit, but this is a fun discussion. I'll stop for now, but I'm enjoying this.


----------



## Rel

Hmm, by now I'm seeing that the words "metagame" and "metatext" are more divergent in meaning than I originially thought.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I have run a few games with metatext elements over the years.  The one with the most powerful (and heavyhanded) metatext was a Mage game where the campaign started with the characters being kidnapped to a "pocket world" built around the world of The Wizard of Oz.  They didn't realize it at first, but as soon as they found Munchkinland, complete with the conniving mercantile members of the Lollipop Guild (subtle, huh?) they were on to it.  It didn't take them long to figure out that they had to make their way to the Emerald City to meet the Wiz if they wanted to get back home.

Now in that case, one could argue that this was actually character knowlege because their characters were from the modern world and presumably had a chance to see the movie or read the books.  Regardless, they had a lot of fun dealing with the various elements of the pocket world from the flying monkeys to the apple-throwing trees to the poppy fields.

This sort of metatextual basis for a story or world helps lend it structure and I think it can be an aid to the GM in determining what sorts of challenges the party will encounter over the course of the campaign.  But, like any sort of structure, it can also be confining.

Sometimes, especially if they haven't yet identified the metatextual basis for your story or world, the players want to take things in directions that will make it difficult to continue the thread of your metatext.  This will of course depend heavily on how tightly the story is bound by that metatext and it may not present a problem at all.  You can also try to invent alternate paths that they can follow that still maintain the concept of your metatext.  For example:

Let's say that your metatext is following some myth that calls for the heroes to confront a "powerful dragon".  You dangle the following plot threads in front of the party:  

A powerful dragon is terrorizing the Black Peak mountains and must be stopped.

The lord of the Serpent Isles has been building up his navy and appears as though he may be readying for an attack on the western coast of the kingdom.  The king has asked that you pay him a diplomatic visit to determine his intentions.

The new head of the Thieves Guild, Manny the Viper, is much more violent than his predecessor.  Violent crimes, some directed at the City Watch itself, have skyrocketed and this needs to be dealt with.  Killing The Viper or simply arranging for his overthrow by a less violent Thief are both options.


Those are pretty blatant, but I haven't finished my morning coffee yet.  Anyway, I think the big question you should ask when thinking about adding significant metatextual elements to your game is:  Will this enhance the experience for the players (including me) or at least not hurt it.  It's ok to do it even if you have players who haven't read the source material and won't pick up on it.  But I'd be careful about anything that required specific events to occur in specific order or at a specific time for the campaign to be a success.

And, if any of my players are reading this, there is no metatext to the current campaign.  I'm just making that crap up.

Or maybe I'm lying when I say that (muhahahahah!).


----------



## ST

fusangite --

Interesting stuff. I recommend you drop by The Forge (www.indie-rpgs.com) They're very heavy on discussion of RPG theory, and in fact have discussed many of the things you bring up. It'd likely be mutually beneficial for you and them for you to bring some of these ideas over there.

in fact their discussions of GNS (Gamist, Simulationist, Narrativist) theory seem to map to mechanical, textual, and metatextual. 

There's also the benefit that nobody posts responses like "I dunno man, I just like to have fun", because they're there specifically to discuss theory.


----------



## Desdichado

I don't see how fusangite's model maps to the GNS model, really.  Sure, his mechanical consideration and the gamist perspective are a close match, but what is textual?  Narrativist?  Then what's the metatextual?

No, I think the two models, while both are operative, can't be matched to each other.

Personally, I like the GNS model better, because it describes play styles, while the fusangite model are three overlapping layers.  I still think the metatextual layer is a bit dubious, at least in terms of how I understand it, though.


----------



## takyris

Hey, Fusemastah,

That's surprisingly similar to how I plan novels.  Or maybe not surprisingly.

Take two different mythologies, bounce them off each other, and whammo -- idea that PCs didn't see coming.

My current d20 Modern campaign -- which, arguably, boils down to "Secret Battle against Werewolves and Mermen Using Alien Tech" came from a ridiculous attempt (by me) to handwave a way for both the Land-bridge-from-South-America-to-Africa theory of Atlantis AND the Antarctica-used-to-be-temperate-but-the-crust-shifted theory of Atlantis to be correct (when, according to most scientists, neither theory is correct, by any stretch).

Long long time ago: Race of early humans found alien tech, advanced extremely rapidly.  Conquered its small continent, kept other humans as slaves, worked on plans to wipe out rest of humanity in order to wipe slat clean.  Alien tech included gene-resequencing and mass teleportation devices.  These guys were the Old Atlanteans

Long time ago: Slaves of these guys found out what was gonna happen and rebelled -- they teleported a large section of the continent of Atlantis partway across the world, also activating a doomsday device that would repolarize the Earth and shift Atlantis into the antarctic zone.

Some time ago: Old Atlantean survivors adapted themselves by resequencing DNA for cold-weather adaptation and survival without most of their technological resources (ie, they grew fur and resistant to common weaponry). Unable to mount an assault against the New Atlanteans (the descendents of the slaves, who established their own indomitable island with the best remains of the Atlantean tech), the Old Atlanteans opted for revenge, and used their teleportation device to rip New Atlantis from the middle of the Atlantic ocean and drop it to the bottom of the Pacific (where nobody is looking for it, where no research ever puts it, and where it is soley to make it easy for my PCs to get to it, since the campaign is based in California and Washington state).

A little while ago: The New Atlanteans survived briefly at the bottom of the sea, since they possessed energy shield technology, and were able to resequence their DNA before it failed and let the water crush them and most of their city.  They opted for a new form that would enable them to survive underwater (ie, gills and other amphibious features).

Today: The PCs scrounge around for all kinds of Antlantean ruins, trying to figure out why some sources say that Atlantis was Antarctica and some sources say that it was in the Atlantic ocean, but nobody ever says it was in the Pacific, which is where it seems to be now.  And werewolves and merpeople keep attacking the party to recover artifacts, and the PCs have no idea why. 

Two mythologies get smushed together, and voila -- metatextual campaign, sorta.


----------



## Storminator

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't see how fusangite's model maps to the GNS model, really.  Sure, his mechanical consideration and the gamist perspective are a close match, but what is textual?  Narrativist?  Then what's the metatextual?
> 
> No, I think the two models, while both are operative, can't be matched to each other.
> 
> Personally, I like the GNS model better, because it describes play styles, while the fusangite model are three overlapping layers.  I still think the metatextual layer is a bit dubious, at least in terms of how I understand it, though.




Oh My -Frickin- Lord!

Did anyone else just get hit in the head with the Mechanical-Textual-Metatextual <-------> Gamist-Simulationist-Narrative metatextual conspiracy-theory?!?

Smash those two together and you get the metatextual thread about RPG design where people post on all three levels! Some respond to the content, some respond to the metatextual construct and others just because it's on a message board!

PS


----------



## fusangite

RSKennas says, 



> I agree with you; that the more compelling story is reflected into itself, but I don't see Jungian archetypes or usage of Campbellian deconstruction to create story as a bad thing. IMHO, modeling a campaign on the synthesis of two or more specific myths/stories is a fine way to find a creative direction, and I don't see that as exclusive to the idea of using a broader approach, and filling in the blanks.




The Campbell/Jung approach is good for creating fantasy worlds. However, in such worlds, the metatext is merely allusive; it cannot be predictive. The advantage to more deliberate metatextual construction is that the players can use it to make deductions about current and future events in the campaign. 



> Certainly it takes a lot more work to do that with broader concepts (say the "Mythic Hero" rather than specifically honing in on "Rama" ), but the reward is (at least the perception of) more degrees of freedom. It's a trade-off, and either method, if carefully executed, can work well.




Agreed. I returned to D&D because it affords my characters a different kind of freedom. In an imaginative world, you can only go to cities the GM has already constructed. In a mytho-poetic world, you can go to any city you want but the problem is that wherever you go, it will become what the world structure requires it to be. 



> Humans were mutated orcs?
> 
> Magic was nanotech?
> 
> All sentient beings were actually the pets of a greater being, and the world was the cage?
> 
> The game world was actually the place where bad folks go when they die? (One I once considered using)
> 
> This kind of questioning might not result in the same strength of story direction, but can result in a world every bit as vibrant as one built around the synthesis of two or more ideas.




Yes it can. But, as you can see, only the text will allow people to "figure out" what is going on. A metatext of this nature does not provide for a third level of play or an alternate system of deduction. As such, while technically a metatext, it is only accessible to the players in hindsight. 

I don't wish to argue that mytho-poetic worlds are more vibrant than imaginative worlds. The reverse might well be the case; the problem of the imaginitive world (as you have described above) is that it only permits play on the textual and mechanical levels. For a level of play to work, there must be some predictive value associated with it. What you are creating above is a world which has a metatextual level in which the players are bystanders. All worlds have metatext (whether consciously placed there by the GM or coughed up via some "Jungian slip") but only some (ie. mytho-poetic worlds) permit metatextual play.


----------



## fusangite

ST says, 



> I recommend you drop by The Forge (www.indie-rpgs.com)... They're very heavy on discussion of RPG theory, and in fact have discussed many of the things you bring up. It'd likely be mutually beneficial for you and them for you to bring some of these ideas over there.




I just signed up this afternoon. Thanks so much for pointing me in this direction; it looks like my kind of board.



> in fact their discussions of GNS (Gamist, Simulationist, Narrativist) theory seem to map to mechanical, textual, and metatextual.




I've got to go with Joshua on this. Simulationist play and narrativist play are both textual approaches.

Takyris, your story sounds quite interesting but I'm not sure it would yield metatextual play. Archaeology and pre-history have pretty impoverished symbol systems. Are there ways for people to decode what is going on in a non-textual way? 

Finally, Joshua, I have no problem with the GNS model; it is clearly descriptive. What I am realizing, though, is that what I am really doing is describing the three _predictive_ modes for play. Mechanical, textual and metatextual play all work off distinctly different models for predicting how future situations will play out. I would tend to think that situationist and narrativist play both work off the textual model for predicting outcomes.


----------



## Desdichado

Speaking of predicting outcomes, I think now that I understand your model better and what you're trying to do, it seems that players catching on and finding the game predictable is one of the greater dangers of engaging in the type of metatextual layers you're trying to incorporate.


----------



## Mark

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Speaking of predicting outcomes, I think now that I understand your model better and what you're trying to do, it seems that players catching on and finding the game predictable is one of the greater dangers of engaging in the type of metatextual layers you're trying to incorporate.




How so?


----------



## BSF

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Speaking of predicting outcomes, I think now that I understand your model better and what you're trying to do, it seems that players catching on and finding the game predictable is one of the greater dangers of engaging in the type of metatextual layers you're trying to incorporate.




Actually, I think that the players figuring it out is the point.  It is another layer that you can play the game on.  It is quite possible for somebody to finally figure out the metatextual layer and have that gestalt moment.  However, it won't necessarily spoil the game.  You still want to play to see exactly what kind of spin has been placed on the "mytho-poetic" environment.  

There is simply another layer of mystery that engages the player into the game in a different manner.  It doesn't need to detract from the other two layers.


----------



## fusangite

Joshua Dyal says, 



> Speaking of predicting outcomes, I think now that I understand your model better and what you're trying to do, it seems that players catching on and finding the game predictable is one of the greater dangers of engaging in the type of metatextual layers you're trying to incorporate.




One doesn't "get" the whole model at once. A good comparison is a themed cryptic crossword puzzle; just because you have enough of an idea of the theme to fill in one word doesn't mean that the rest of the puzzle isn't worth doing. But you are correct insofar as mythopoetic worlds are designed to run one campaign, after which time, the world is as exhausted as the story arc. 

A good mytho-poetic world is sufficiently complex that players it should be able to soak up a minimum of 300 hours of game play before it starts feeling predictable or old.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

Well, this is a mighty interesting discussion.  Better than a lot of what I have seen on these boards in a long time, and from what I can tell I think that I am certainly attracted to metatextual issues as someone who thinks about RPGs and fantasy when I am not playing them.

I certainly have no trouble with the idea that there are multiple levels of play and that they should all be recognized, engaged, and rewarded.

I cannot help but feel, however, that there is something missing from this model.  Something that might provide flexibility to other styles of play and models of construction.  I cannot, however, articulate what it is at this point, aside from saying that it seems to me that this model inadequately addresses the dramatic and ensemble aspects, or potential aspects, of play.

It may also have to do with my inherent distrust of Campbellian attempts to limit and construct myth.

What, by the way, is the reference for the seven angels of the seven eastern churches?  I'm curious, I cannot place it as I can the other references.


----------



## Desdichado

fusangite said:
			
		

> One doesn't "get" the whole model at once. A good comparison is a themed cryptic crossword puzzle; just because you have enough of an idea of the theme to fill in one word doesn't mean that the rest of the puzzle isn't worth doing. But you are correct insofar as mythopoetic worlds are designed to run one campaign, after which time, the world is as exhausted as the story arc.
> 
> A good mytho-poetic world is sufficiently complex that players it should be able to soak up a minimum of 300 hours of game play before it starts feeling predictable or old.



Which means that the metatextual imprint has to be embedded really quite deep for the players to not catch on right away.  By burying it so deep, you also run the risk that the players _don't_ ever actually catch on.

Either way, it seems a tricky process to pull off -- potentially rewarding for the right group of players, but difficult nonetheless.


----------



## Desdichado

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> What, by the way, is the reference for the seven angels of the seven eastern churches?  I'm curious, I cannot place it as I can the other references.



If I recall, that's from the book of Revelations.   [flip, flip, flip]  Yeah, here it is: The Revelation of St.John the Divine, chapter 1 verse 16 and then 20. (King James version)



> 16. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
> ...
> 20. The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.


----------



## fusangite

Joshua Dyal says, 



> Which means that the metatextual imprint has to be embedded really quite deep for the players to not catch on right away.  By burying it so deep, you also run the risk that the players _don't_ ever actually catch on.
> 
> Either way, it seems a tricky process to pull off -- potentially rewarding for the right group of players, but difficult nonetheless.




Yep -- the risk that everyone will choose to play the game on the mechanical and textual levels is a very real one. In fact, the first such game I was in, I was introduced late into play and the GM was amazed that I actually got the rainbow bridge reference. He had just put it there for himself.

Which brings me to the most important thing I have to say as this thread winds down: I can, in no way, take credit for the theory of mytho-poetic construction and metatextual play of game worlds. The person who turned me onto this was Philip Freeman, the most brilliant person I have ever met.


----------



## ThoughtBubble

Ok. Just to see if I understand the basic concept. The metatextual component of the campaign would be the portion of the game that can be mapped on to a shared reference between the DM and players. The players can use this bank of shared knowledge to predict and understand the campaign world on a level as players, not just as characters within the world. As a DM it also has the advantage that, since the important elements have been planned in the reference, the world allready has a beginning set of scope.

That about right?


----------



## BSF

I think it also provides a themed framework for challenges that you can throw at the party.  See the metatext following a myth aspect in an above post.  The Powerful dragon could literally be a story hook about fighting a dragon, stopping an invasion from the Serpent Isles or countering the violent rogue running the thieves guild named Manny the Viper.  

You can create multiple story hooks that have the same theme, but are a different twist on the metatext reference.


----------



## Particle_Man

*4th wall down?*

Quote:Originally Posted by Particle_Man

    That said, does the metatextualness rely upon at least one player having read the same books as the DM? Because otherwise, except in some "big myth"/"big fact" cases like Norse myth and the planets, I don't see how players will get the correlations. For instance, I don't think any of my group would have gotten the whole Beowulf/Elementals thing. Does that happen a lot with metatext?

Fusangite: 

It does sometimes. There are ways around it -- hinting at what the texts are, picking, as you suggest, accessible and recognizeable texts, not caring whether the players "get it"; if the game is in an alternate earth, you can always have the characters discover references to the texts you're using, if not, you can import your own versions of these stories into your campaign world and write your own variants on these myths or pieces of fiction.


Back to me:  Does this mean that there is a chance that the characters (not just the players) could realize that the events in their world closely parallel the events of a text that the characters have stumbled across?  This might lead to metaphysical questions from the characters (Why would the Gods plan out our lives like a story in a book?)

Just a thought...


----------

