What's your point here, LVR?

Some of those definitions are radically different from one another in meaning. Some of them are extremely close to my own definition, for that matter, while others are not.

If you're trying to show how there's a consensus on what the term means out there, I would like to know how "anachronisms" are the same thing as "having your character act on knowledge they do not have" is the same thing as "to calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows.".

Those strike me as three very different things, at least if I take them at face value. The latter two are similar, but not the same, because one is too broad and vague, while the other is usefully precise.

My own position is closest to (though not identical to) the RPGGeek definition because neither my version nor its confuse things like knowledge of genre conventions or the preunderstanding required to participate in the game at all with "metagaming". I think the more broad and vague versions offered previously on this thread, and in some of the links you posted, are in fact pernicious because they entail absurdities if taken seriously and applied rigorously.

I'll restate my concerns, since they have not yet been addressed and I mean them seriously:

The understanding of "metagaming" as just any influence of OOC knowledge on IC behaviour leads to absurd conclusions if we take that statement seriously. It includes trivial and irrelevant elements like knowing the other players are there which I don't think counts as metagaming, and I don't even think most people who use the current definition intend to be meant by it.

It includes using any of the rules. I think it's absurd to say that merely using the rules counts as metagaming, but the rules are certainly not something that characters know, so they, and the decisions they adjudicate the outcomes of, are certainly OOC information that is affecting character behaviour. They would therefore certainly fall under the overly broad definition.

It also includes things that I don't think ought to be considered metagaming because they help to harmonise character behaviour with the world. This includes elements like a knowledge of genre conventions or of the historical period the game takes place in.

However, I am led to believe that many people, myself included, who use the term metagaming use it specifically to knowledge and actions that drive the character's behaviour and the in-game expectations about what is appropriate further apart.

I think that using the same word for two kinds of knowledge-driven behaviour that do opposite things is confusing and unnecessary. I think we should use the term "metagaming" to refer to knowledge and actions that delink the mechanical substrate of the game from the imaginative world, and that we should either get some other term or just speak in plain language about what is going on.

So let me throw the ball back to you, LVR:

Why is it useful to lump player knowledge and actions that harmonises a character's actions with the imaginative world (harmonisation that wouldn't happen without that knowledge) together with player knowledge and actions that destroy the link between the character's behaviour and the imaginative world?

If you think it is useful to distinguish them, then why insist that they be referred to collectively with a single term?

If everything OOC is "metagaming", then what is "gaming" or "playing the game" that metagaming sits above or in reference to? Is it merely describing actions and receiving counter descriptions from other players? If so, why is this "gaming" but using or referring to the mechanics is not?

These are not rhetorical questions. I would like answers to them from one of the Immersion people.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389181Some of those definitions are radically different from one another in meaning. Some of them are extremely close to my own definition, for that matter, while others are not.

If you're trying to show how there's a consensus on what the term means out there, I would like to know how "anachronisms" are the same thing as "having your character act on knowledge they do not have" is the same thing as "to calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows.".

Those strike me as three very different things, at least if I take them at face value. The latter two are similar, but not the same, because one is too broad and vague, while the other is usefully precise.

In context, the "anachronisms" term refers to "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress" and as quoted on the blog refers to those behaviours of the author that trigger calls of "metagaming" from a disruptive player. Inappropriately.  

The second version "Having your character act on knowledge they don't have" is by implication using player knowledge...using information obtained by other characters that the character doesn't know.
The third version "to calculate success/failure" is again using player knowledge as characters aren't aware of the dice rolling going on above.

I have seen these two forms differentiated as "player knowledge" and "metagaming" (from memory, the 3rd Edition DMG considers metagaming only to be the latter - player actions in character based on the player's knowledge that its a game). In general usage, I've very frequently seen "metagaming" applied to either.

Quote from: StormBringer;388879Of which, there appears to be a metric fuckton

I have often wondered if "rocky super-earths" (which, lets face it, sounds like the title of Sly Stallone's 1976 smash hit translated into chinese then back into english) are just that - the cores of gas supergiants exposed after their parent star goes red giant.

There's some Hot Jupiters not that far away that leave me wondering if they'll be "rocky super-earths" in a few hundred million years or so.

Quote from: JasperAK;389164Call me when someone invents Chess the RPG.

I wish i knew how to multiquote to put your comment in context.

Well, he used to play a lot of other games, and then would try to turn it into a diplomatic affair, playing appropriate roles to try to convince other players to work in his favor.  Not quite an RPG, but it led to him experimenting with individual "characters" when using Chainmail.  

The origins of the hobby are pretty fuzzy, especially since it exploded before it was "refined" by Gygax.  I've heard a lot of weird stories about play variations, and even Arneson's own game had quirks that would make it seem more in-line with what we associate with "indie" games.


(Oh, and for multiquote, just click on the little pieces of paper next to the quote on each post you want to include)

Quote from: Peregrin;389197Well, he used to play a lot of other games, and then would try to turn it into a diplomatic affair, playing appropriate roles to try to convince other players to work in his favor.  Not quite an RPG, but it led to him experimenting with individual "characters" when using Chainmail.  

The origins of the hobby are pretty fuzzy, especially since it exploded before it was "refined" by Gygax.  I've heard a lot of weird stories about play variations, and even Arneson's own game had quirks that would make it seem more in-line with what we associate with "indie" games.


(Oh, and for multiquote, just click on the little pieces of paper next to the quote on each post you want to include)

Ahem.  An even earlier prototype with which Mr Arneson was involved.

Quote from: Peregrin;389197Well, he used to play a lot of other games, and then would try to turn it into a diplomatic affair, playing appropriate roles to try to convince other players to work in his favor.  Not quite an RPG, but it led to him experimenting with individual "characters" when using Chainmail.  

The origins of the hobby are pretty fuzzy, especially since it exploded before it was "refined" by Gygax.  I've heard a lot of weird stories about play variations, and even Arneson's own game had quirks that would make it seem more in-line with what we associate with "indie" games.

I think I remember reading somewhere that MAR Barker's favoured method of roleplaying was, in a given situation requiring a resolution, to simply have the DM and player each role a d6. Whoever had the highest score was the one whose "version of reality" turned out to be correct. If the scores were equal the parties would negotiate what happened.

It does sound very story-gamish.

Quote from: noisms;389247I think I remember reading somewhere that MAR Barker's favoured method of roleplaying was, in a given situation requiring a resolution, to simply have the DM and player each role a d6. Whoever had the highest score was the one whose "version of reality" turned out to be correct. If the scores were equal the parties would negotiate what happened.

It does sound very story-gamish.

To a degree, but this was also a time when 'story-game' had no meaning, and in fact, RPGs themselves were very nebulous concepts with no real defining or unifying foundation.

On the other hand, Prof Barker is one crazy motherfucker.  

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389066I don't think the mechanics I mentioned are properly called "dissociated mechanics" because I don't think they bear on immersion at all. I also think calling them "dissociated mechanics" falsely ascribes some sort of essential quality or property to them that they do not have. It is a semantic trick on your part, as most of your arguments surrounding definitions have been so far.

I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the elegance of what the troll is doing here:

(1) He creates yet another completely new definition of "dissociated mechanics", allowing him to continue his attempts to sow confusion through the use of deliberate miscommunication.

(2) But he's also simultaneously creating a strawman by ascribing this definition of "dissociated mechanisc", which he just created out of thin air, to me (despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing in common with the definition I've posted in this thread or elsewhere).

(3) To tie the whole thing together, he attacks the strawman as a "semantic trick", which is brilliant because he's the one actually engaged in making the discussion about semantics (by constantly trying to redefine the basic terminology). By anticipating the criticism and pre-emptively hurling the first stone he attempts to deflect it from himself.

I mean, this is really nice stuff. Very well done. He's clearly got a lot of experience doing it and I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the master working in our midst.

But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.

Just wait two or three months until the dust settles and watch how he will refer back to his "victory" over you here, or on other boards.

Guy's pretty adept at obfuscation, and needs to be called out over it.

Quote from: Melan;389265Just wait two or three months until the dust settles and watch how he will refer back to his "victory" over you here, or on other boards.

Guy's pretty adept at obfuscation, and needs to be called out over it.

Why wait? He was already writing fake posts supposedly by me, then arguing with his own sock puppet, then declaring victory over them on this thread.

-Frank

Quote from: Justin Alexander;389264But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.

I agree. There can't be much more in life that is more unedifying than arguing over definitions on the internet.

Quote from: StormBringer;389250To a degree, but this was also a time when 'story-game' had no meaning, and in fact, RPGs themselves were very nebulous concepts with no real defining or unifying foundation.

On the other hand, Prof Barker is one crazy motherfucker.  

Sure, I just find it more than a little ironic that the real Old School probably weren't doing anything all that much different to what the people at story-games.com are doing right now and pretending is hip and new.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;389264I mean, this is really nice stuff. Very well done. He's clearly got a lot of experience doing it and I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the master working in our midst.

But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.

He's providing you with serious debate and all you can do is flee the argument, calling him a troll?

Listen. You have stupid, self-glorifying, amateur theories and you can't defend them. You have a few guys who will come by and validate you, but be aware these same dudes will agree with anyone they think is anti-4E, for any reason whatsoever. If someone were to show up here to tomorrow and prove 4th Edition D&D is somehow bad or wrong by a completely opposing theory, they'd agree with that too.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389181What's your point here, LVR?

Some of those definitions are radically different from one another in meaning. Some of them are extremely close to my own definition, for that matter, while others are not.

If you're trying to show how there's a consensus on what the term means out there, I would like to know how "anachronisms" are the same thing as "having your character act on knowledge they do not have" is the same thing as "to calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows.".

you know as well as anyone, just because most words have more than one definition in a dictionary does not negate the other definitions.  You are trying to base part of a position on one definition that was specifically applied to a certain book as spelled out clearly in the text as not being the primary, and ignoring the rest.  In other words, you are taking a pair of synonyms that have more than one definition, finding the definitions that are not synonymous, and declaring them not synonyms.
And in this case, you take that one which it says is specific, and don't just throw out one other definition, you throw out 20 if you add the online dictionary and wikipedia's that I first quoted.  
The clear point of agreement and consensus, which you either are not capable of seeing or have decided to avoid, is that one agreed upon defintion of metagaming can be boiled down to, "Using OOC knowledge to make IC decisions."
(I apologize for the term, "..have decided to avoid", but when three different conversations on the same thread boil down to you trying to change or twist the definitions as your only real position, one cannot help but to see a pattern).

QuoteThose strike me as three very different things, at least if I take them at face value. The latter two are similar, but not the same, because one is too broad and vague, while the other is usefully precise.


My own position is closest to (though not identical to) the RPGGeek definition because neither my version nor its confuse things like knowledge of genre conventions or the preunderstanding required to participate in the game at all with "metagaming". I think the more broad and vague versions offered previously on this thread, and in some of the links you posted, are in fact pernicious because they entail absurdities if taken seriously and applied rigorously.

they most certainly do not entail absurdities.

QuoteI'll restate my concerns, since they have not yet been addressed and I mean them seriously:

The understanding of "metagaming" as just any influence of OOC knowledge on IC behaviour leads to absurd conclusions if we take that statement seriously. It includes trivial and irrelevant elements like knowing the other players are there which I don't think counts as metagaming, and I don't even think most people who use the current definition intend to be meant by it.

I'm looking for the absurdities still.
"Knowing the other Players are there"?  Do you mean treating otherpeople's characters as if they are the other players at the table, this is probably a good example of metagaming.  Treating a newly met comrade as if he is the player you have gamed with for 10 years is a bit of an obvious IC/OOC disconnect.

QuoteIt includes using any of the rules. I think it's absurd to say that merely using the rules counts as metagaming, but the rules are certainly not something that characters know, so they, and the decisions they adjudicate the outcomes of, are certainly OOC information that is affecting character behaviour. They would therefore certainly fall under the overly broad definition.

Using game mechanics is NOT necessarily metagaming.  That is a false assumption.  Yes, the amount of HP as a number that a character has at that time is not something the character knows.  But the character knows how healthy they feel, so this is still IC knowledge.  The character does not know the damage dice of a fireball spell or the way the GM will calculate the blast effect, but the character knows the effects of the spell and how it works in the game world.  These rules/mechanics are actually modelling IC knowledge, so of course they are not metagaming.  

QuoteIt also includes things that I don't think ought to be considered metagaming because they help to harmonise character behaviour with the world. This includes elements like a knowledge of genre conventions or of the historical period the game takes place in.

Please define some examples.  It sounds like you are mereley talking about IC information about the physics/background of a setting, which is of course mainly IC info.

QuoteHowever, I am led to believe that many people, myself included, who use the term metagaming use it specifically to knowledge and actions that drive the character's behaviour and the in-game expectations about what is appropriate further apart.

Please try that paragraph again.  We all type quickly and make mistakes, but I cannot make heads or tails of this.

QuoteI think that using the same word for two kinds of knowledge-driven behaviour that do opposite things is confusing and unnecessary. I think we should use the term "metagaming" to refer to knowledge and actions that delink the mechanical substrate of the game from the imaginative world, and that we should either get some other term or just speak in plain language about what is going on.

So let me throw the ball back to you, LVR:

Why is it useful to lump player knowledge and actions that harmonises a character's actions with the imaginative world (harmonisation that wouldn't happen without that knowledge) together with player knowledge and actions that destroy the link between the character's behaviour and the imaginative world?

If you think it is useful to distinguish them, then why insist that they be referred to collectively with a single term?

If everything OOC is "metagaming", then what is "gaming" or "playing the game" that metagaming sits above or in reference to? Is it merely describing actions and receiving counter descriptions from other players? If so, why is this "gaming" but using or referring to the mechanics is not?

These are not rhetorical questions. I would like answers to them from one of the Immersion people.

I don't know if they are rhetorical or even legitimate questions.
But I'll try to answer as best I can.
I don't believe that any OOC information 'harmonizes' the character's actions with the setting.  So I don't believe there is a dichotomy.   There is stuff that creeps in, we are all playing a game, but I'll still define it as metagaming.  
Many rules, mechanics and pieces of data are actually specificall modelling IC information. this should provide the harmonization you are speaking of.

Other than a junkyard, does anyone know of a good parts source (online would be fine) for little accessories for car interiors?  The clamp-down bracket for the sun visor on my honda is broken (and has been for years now) and the spring-loaded door for the "accessory plug" in the wife's saturn vue (the one in the middle console on the back - kids kicked it off GRRRR) need replacing.