Quote from: Benoist;735856What is not okay from my point of view is to pretend the distinction doesn't exist and that those who don't like this or that should just go along for the ride and "get on with the times" when games like D&D, Warhammer, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu or whatever are changed in order to pander to the story-building crowd because since the distinction isn't supposed to exist, "the game remains the same," right? Right. That's just not cool with me.

Agreed, when I am roleplaying my character I am focused on pretending that I am in the setting reacting to whats around the character. I intensely dislike metagame mechanics because they force me to think of what going as a player.

For example if I don't want to be worry about whether I have enough Fate Points to have a mug of milk "handy" to throw on the barbarian. Either it is there or is not. Just tell me when I ask. If not then I will make due or come up with another plan.

Also I feel metagaming invariably leads to making the game less of a challenge. It all too human to use the mechanic to make something easier rather than worse. And good forbid you get to use the metagame mechanics on other players. All too often the game devolves into silliness or harsh feeling.

Despite my personal view it obviously many find story games and metagame heavy mechanics fun. More power to them. But I heartily agree there is a big difference between the two styles of play.

Quote from: estar;735893Agreed, when I am roleplaying my character I am focused on pretending that I am in the setting reacting to whats around the character. I intensely dislike metagame mechanics because they force me to think of what going as a player.

I also dislike RPGs that use of metagame mechanics whilst playing my character, such as FATE, for the same reason.

However, I am a big fan of RPGs with metagame mechanics that are used primarily outside of the session, such as during character creation and during downtime phases, such as The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, or Atlantis. I find that such mechanics boost communication by players and help the GM create a world and story that the players will enjoy more, without interfering with being in character.

Quote from: robiswrong;735873And yet you ignored *my* suggestions on how I would/have done similar things using collaborative world building . . .

Yes, you are correct, in a blog post and comments that I wrote back in June 2013, I ignored what you wrote yesterday.

Do you often suffer from temporal distortions?

Quote from: Skywalker;735898I also dislike RPGs that use of metagame mechanics whilst playing my character, such as FATE, for the same reason.

However, I am a big fan of RPGs with metagame mechanics that are used primarily outside of the session, such as during character creation and during downtime phases, such as The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, or Atlantis. I find that such mechanics boost communication by players and help the GM create a world and story that the players will enjoy more, without interfering with being in character.

I also find meta mechanics and overly crunchy core mechanics, and even huge piles of dice to all negatively impact my immersion.

I also have a theory that many players don't immerse, and probably think immersive players are on crack.

Quote from: Ralph The Dog;735866And aren't all games telling stories?

In traditional tabletop, the story is you describing what you experienced as your character. The only things you can do are the things that you can do as if YOU ARE THERE AS YOUR CHARACTER.

In storygames the focus is on collaborative storytelling, often with the players focusing on an individual characters. In addition to mechanics that resolve character actions there are a range of metagame mechanics that allow elements of the settings to be created on the fly. With the intent that it furthers the unfolding story.

For example in a traditional tabletop If Bob the Bard wants to throw milk on the Billy the Barbarian the first thing the player does is the same thing as if he was really there. Look around to see if there is a mug or jug of milk to throw. The referee mostly likely doesn't have this detailed. So he looks at what notes he does have, probably the inn pricelist, and rolls to see if there some milk with in reach. If the roll is successful he tells Bob that yes there is some milk nearby. The player then describe how Bob the Bard picks up the milk and proceed to roll to-hit. If there no milk then Bob has to make a decision whether to throw ale instead or just forego the whole idea.

In a game with metagame mechanics then the situation unfolds like this.
The player decides that having his character Bob the Bard throw milk on Billy the Barbarian would add some nice comedic conflict to the unfolding story. The players know that so far there has been no description of what drinks are nearby. But the player considers that is very plausible that there would be a mug of milk. So he burns a plot point  and describes how Bob the Bard reaches over and picks up the mug of milk and throws it on Billy the Barbarian. If the player had no plot points left then he would be forced to use the mugs of ale that already been described or forego the comedic conflict.

While the two methods produced similar results, the prospective of the player is completely different. In the first Bob throw the milk because that what the player wanted to do as if he was really there as the character. The player is thinking and acting like Bob the Bard.

In the second, the player is thinking how the overall story would be effected. Thinking that what the story needs right now is some comedic conflict. That an interesting comedic conflict would to be have his character, Bob the Bard, throw milk on the Billy the Barbarian.

Now I admit that is a pretty long winded explanation explaining my point of view on the subject. For something that in the end resulted in the same course of action. However in the first the players was dealing with the situation as it was presented to him. In the second he got to use metagame mechanics to make something up.

Which approach sounds like the more challenging one to you as a player?  

Which one winds up being more creative over the long run?  The one where you are forced to think up something despite the limitation of your circumstance. Or the other where you get to create whatever you need to do what you want?

By how I phrased my question you can see where my bias are. Perhap 30 or 20 years I would be mocking storygaming because I perceive as less challenging and less interesting than the games where I forced to deal with the circumstances as is.

But today I really not everybody thinks like I do. That what I consider to be a challenge is considered uninteresting by other. So today I can see storygames have a good reason to be form of entertainment for many. But recognize that the two approaches are largely incompatible and result in different types of games.

Quote from: Skywalker;735898However, I am a big fan of RPGs with metagame mechanics that are used primarily outside of the session, such as during character creation and during downtime phases, such as The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, or Atlantis. I find that such mechanics boost communication by players and help the GM create a world and story that the players will enjoy more, without interfering with being in character.

Is really metagaming? Or just different set of mechanics that simulates or abstracts the downtime or character creation process? Ars Magica comes to mind with all their research and covenant rules.

I agree that well designed subsystems can really add to a RPG. For me the canonical example is Traveller with their merchant rules, starship creations, animal creation, world creation, etc.

Quote from: Bill;735904I also have a theory that many players don't immerse, and probably think immersive players are on crack.

It been my experience is that many gamers basically play themselves with the capabilities of their characters. That for most roleplaying is just one or two quirks or behaviors.

Long ago, I said to myself this was OK. The only requirements of my game is that you roleplay as if you are there as your character. Even if it just in essence you. The main practical effect is that I discourage speaking about your character in third person.

I have, and currently have, groups that actively avoid what they consider "plot complications". Which is again fine, I take it into account in the events of the setting. The practical effect is that they have little control over their circumstances. Shit just happens when they run across it from their point of view.

For the current group, it worked out well for them. They have no real place of their own and keep all their stuff in Bags of Holding. All their wealth is plowed into magic items and gear. So far they haven't run into anybody they can't handle although there has been a few challenges.

Quote from: estar;735910Is really metagaming? Or just different set of mechanics that simulates or abstracts the downtime or character creation process? Ars Magica comes to mind with all their research and covenant rules.

I would consider it so. The frequency of metagaming mechanics is like a spectrum and everyone will have a point at which they find their use intrusive:

- never
- just a character creation
- between campaigns
- between adventures
- between sessions
- between scenes
- within scenes

The only part of that spectrum where there is a fundamental difference is IMO "never" which eschews all player input into the world and story.

On saying that, systems for actions such as trading or research aren't necessarily metagame mechanics. They are just a mechanical abstraction for player actions that operate on a larger scale.

Quote from: Benoist;735880I do. What should be okay IMO is to acknowledge the difference, all along with the idea that from there it's a matter of degrees and grey areas, rather than fences, the two play styles or takes on the object of the game blending into each other in a number of games. Likewise, personal takes, and how particular game structures and mechanics will resonate with this or that player, this or that game master, will be different depending on a whole host of things, like the way you envision the game world, the type of tools helping to realize these visions, and so on.

What's not okay, to me, is to basically wave the distinction away and pretend that it doesn't exist.

I don't pretend there's no distinction.  I just find the distinction in the games I mentioned far less, in practice, than I find the distinction in games like Fiasco, PTA, etc.

AW can be played in a "players, tell me what's going on" fashion - I've been a player in such a game.  I find that incredibly jarring.  That's not typically how I've seen it played.

Certainly my experience with Fate (and with most people I've met online that play Fate), the GM/player division is far closer to a traditional game than it is with something like Fiasco, MLWM, etc...

Maybe that's because I'm playing AW/Fate/etc. 'wrong' and playing them too much like a traditional game.  Maybe it's because the folks here that have played them are over-focusing on the non-traditional/meta mechanics.  I dunno.

Quote from: Benoist;735880That completely depends what the participants in the game are searching for in playing the game, IMO. Besides, it's not because something has been done for a long time that it can't rub some people the wrong way.

I've never claimed it is, or that disliking things like CWB is some kind of entrenched unwillingness to change.

Quote from: Benoist;735880I don't like games where every player comes up with a chunk of the setting - this is design by committee, and it usually sucks hard, from my standpoint.

My experience with CWB is generally that specific points are come up with, and that those are then used by the GM as seeds for the overall world.  I agree - design by committee is almost universally a bad idea.

Quote from: CRKrueger;735892Why?
Why always yes?
What is wrong with...
Player - "Is there a rope around that I can use to climb down the wall?"
GM - "No."

Agreed.  I don't buy into the "always yes" philosophy, especially about "is there a rope there?"  Sometimes it's no, sometimes it's yes.  Deal with it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735901Yes, you are correct, in a blog post and comments that I wrote back in June 2013, I ignored what you wrote yesterday.

Do you often suffer from temporal distortions?

You quoted your blog post here, *after* I made my post, to point out why CWB can't work.  In doing so, you completely ignored the posts that I had made which offered (I believe) much better ways of handling the "yakuza" issue than the comments on your blog post.  At best, that's a strawman.

You're *still* ignoring those ways of dealing with it, in favor of a cheap shot.  Presumably, you're here to discuss things, and not for a two-minute hate.  If you're really just out to discredit anything resembling CWB because it's bad or for stupid storygamers who don't understand 'real' roleplaying, well, that's fine, and good to know, because then I know not to continue this discussion.

And the fact that there are ways of dealing with the "yakuza" example that don't utterly suck still doesn't mean that CWB is right for every group or every game, as I've pointed out multiple, multiple times in this thread.  I'm not one of htose jackholes that uses any visible crack or movement off of a position as a way to "gotcha".  I'm very familiar with that type of behavior, and I completely understand reactions to it.  It annoys the shit out of me.

And just to reiterate, I've acknowledged the following things about CWB:

1) It's not for all types of games.
   a) Specifically, games where the GM already has a strong idea of the setting in mind won't work.
   b) Games where there's an open-table type structure, it's less usable for, since the setting has to work for more than just 'the group'
   c) It's kinda pointless in games that are primarily about overcoming a challenge/puzzle, as the world is kinda irrelevant anyway
2) It's not for all groups.
3) If done on a consistent basis, rather than at scenario creation, it could be very jarring or completely change the nature of the game.

Quote from: Skywalker;735917I would consider it so. The frequency of metagaming mechanics is like a spectrum and everyone will have a point at which they find their use intrusive:

I think metagaming, detail and complexity are separate issues. Too complex or too detailed can have the same effect as too much metagaming on a player's interest.

Making rolls on how your covenant is doing to me is a abstract simulation not metagaming as it reflects something within the game world. Plot points don't simulate anything.

I guess if you consider metagaming thinking like a player then in that case managing your covenant could be metagaming as you are largely think as the player not the character. Or are you? Since you are not doing anything that your character couldn't do.

Quote from: estar;735919I guess if you consider metagaming thinking like a player then in that case managing your covenant could be metagaming as you are largely think as the player not the character. Or are you? Since you are not doing anything that your character couldn't do.

It depends on the specifics. If the system was to model your PC managing the covenant, then its probably not a metagame mechanic. If it includes control over the covenant members or have player input into what happens in the coming year, then it may be. What makes it more tricky is that many metagame mechanics are cast from the viewpoint of the character to make them less intrusive in play. I think that this all just adds to the fact that the boundaries here can be very blurry.

No, I do understand why people play games for different reasons.  What I don't understand is the pissing contest over terms, please explain.

Quote from: robiswrong;735918I don't pretend there's no distinction.

I don't pretend you don't. Trust me, this time, I made sure I understood what you were talking about before answering, and I did not intend my response to you as a finger-pointing rebuttal, but really a response to the specific points you raised. Peace.

Quote from: robiswrong;735918You quoted your blog post here, *after* I made my post, to point out why CWB can't work.

Usually your reading comprehension is much better than this. or maybe I just haven't been reading your posts closely enough, but what I wrote was, CWB involves trade-offs, not that it doesn't work, and that some of those trade-offs may be unwelcome to some gamers.

Again, using the example of secret societies, some players like the idea of collaboratively creating a secret society, with or without knowing any details beyond its existence. That knowledge is a trade-off, and its one that I don't care to make. As a player, I don't want to know about secret societies until I ferret them out in-game, and as a referee, I choose not to broadcast them to the players, which is why, if you click on the Secret Societies page of my campaign wiki, you get this.

Quote from: Ralph The Dog;735923No, I do understand why people play games for different reasons.  What I don't understand is the pissing contest over terms, please explain.

When you start by assuming that the only difference is in the terms being used, rather than the substance of what people want out of their games which then informs the terms that are being used to describe it, there's no conversation to be had. You basically assume it's just a lexical slap fight, so you're missing the point. Game over.