Quote from: LordVreeg;768228The object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible.  That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible.

This is not an universal truth about roleplaying. The idea of immersion isn't even approached in early D&D texts, so anyone just picking up first edition and reading it would be hard pressed to even know immersion was the supposed goal of the game, as opposed to the numerous admonitions to play intelligently and carefully. There is nothing stopping an Intelligence 3 character's player from solving a dungeon puzzle (thank God) although by "immersion" standards that player is not even attempting to emulate his character. All this talk of immersion sounds like the preamble to a Vampire LARP rulebook.

Quote from: mcbobbo;768276But do note that zero time spent with B means you fail at D&D.  While zero time spent with A means almost nothing, except to those who prefer A, who aren't the target for Inspiration anyway.

Since I specifically said every roleplay session includes both then by definition I understand that 100% of one isn't a Roleplaying Game.

Quote from: mcbobbo;768276Why not add a house rule that in order to pass your Inspiration to another player you have to say something inspirational?  Wouldn't that bring you closer to A, as desired?

The only use I may have for Inspiration is...
1. Divine Inspiration calling on a god for aid during a moment of crisis.
2. Inspiration granted by a bard or some kind of in-game ability.
3. If I did use a Personality Mechanic (freqnently called Passions when used in this manner), it sure at hell wouldn't be transferrable or capable of being stored as a metagame economy.

Quote from: mcbobbo;768276Or as others have said, fine, don't use it.  Just stop short of advocating that nobody uses it and there's nothing left to discuss.

I never advocated no one use it, I said it surprised me that is was in Basic and it should have been an optional module, not in Basic.  I also disagreed when it was put forth that Inspiration was something that could teach roleplaying.

Disagreeing and stating opinions is still allowed as far as I can tell, and believe me, when I'm advocating for you to not do something, you'll know it.

Well looks like I'll be getting a new group member come August maybee who has zero RPG experience.

If she turns out to be a wallflower then I may start using and encouraging inspiration use and see what happens. If it doesnt seem to be working as intended then easy enough to drop.

Otherwise it will probably not see any use

Quote from: matthulhu;768285This is not an universal truth about roleplaying. The idea of immersion isn't even approached in early D&D texts, so anyone just picking up first edition and reading it would be hard pressed to even know immersion was the supposed goal of the game, as opposed to the numerous admonitions to play intelligently and carefully. There is nothing stopping an Intelligence 3 character's player from solving a dungeon puzzle (thank God) although by "immersion" standards that player is not even attempting to emulate his character. All this talk of immersion sounds like the preamble to a Vampire LARP rulebook.

You have a lot of reading to do, and hopefully, a lot more playing in front of you.

Roleplaying, as a term, existed before this hobby.  The term is defined by an IC perspective, in psychological, theraputic, acting, and then in our games.  The metagame perspective you speak of, i.e, and specifically your example, of having a 3 int problem solve a puzzle their character would not is actually a perfect description of gaming without roleplaying.

All this talk of immersion has been going on for decades and can often exist with intelligent gaming. But Roleplaying, as a definition, means playing the role from the perspective of the character.  In rulebooks, the exact example of solving a 'dungeon problem' with OOC is derided as metagaming and note roleplaying.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768228no.
Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.

One cannot be 100% in the immersed position, but the object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible.  That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible.  The goal is not to expect a 100% in character mind-swap, the goal is to get as much of an in-character mindset as possible.
Ever mechanic that removes you from the in-character position removes you from the 'in-character' position and into the 'player controlling the character' position.

No.  Thank god for parallel processing.  

Metagaming is not the opposite of roleplaying.  But you're not even using the word right.  Metagaming is the act of transcending the rules by using external factors to influence play.  For instance, if I knew that the DM loved cats and I was speaking in character that some party antagonist was seen killing cats the other night in order to get some mechanical advantage over the antagonist based upon the DM's out-of-game feelings about cats - THAT is megagaming.  What you're talking about is simply "gaming".

Ok, now that that's dealt with, let's talk about the actual gaming aspect of inspiration, one more thing to consider during an encounter...

Human beings are capable of thinking about multiple things at one time.  I can imagine myself as a sinister, callous wizard with a long black beard in red robes while, as a player, desiring my fireball singe the bastards our party is up against.  I can do all that while remembering how many dice I have to roll, optimum positioning, possible dangers, that I haven't eaten this morning, that my character just had deer jerky an hour ago, and that later in the evening I'd like good sex and a cookie.  

I can do all that in the space of a couple seconds while still feeling like I am that wizard.  In fact, advanced levels of immersion can only be had by game mechanics like a Vampire's need/use of blood.  Take that away and you're either playing Batman or Gothic Punk: the RPG.  Does blood as a resource within the game require players to think about their blood pool from both an as-character perspective, as well as, an out-of-character perspective?  Yes!  That's roleplaying.  Part game, part simulation, part storytelling and all roleplaying.

The kind of immersion you're talking about sounds more like LARP camping out in the woods behind the renaissance fair, looking for steam tunnels and demanding that everyone in the party wear period-authentic underwear.  To me, that's not roleplaying.  That's akin to civil war reenactments or something.

VS

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it does.  Or at least, in terms of roleplaying games.
and as if this is a new conversation or has not been gone over ad infinitum...spend some time doing some reading, you'll find a lot about this. Let me just do a little search engine work..



"In role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

"Meta-gaming is roughly the antonym of immersion, in which decisions are made from the stance of a character or the conception of a game."
 http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Meta-gaming

Very specifically, since we are talking about D&D, in the 3.0 DMG it is described as the use of OOC information to solve IC situations...Out of Character being the operative idea.  

"Metagame (link / top)
 Technically, any game-related concerns that are not part of the game itself, such as out-of-character or rules discussion, but more often used in reference to a player who uses knowledge not possessed by their PC to their advantage (in which case it has a negative connotation)."
http://www.gnomestew.com/tools-for-gms/gnomenclature-a-diminutive-rpg-glossary/#m

"Metagame - 1) Things discussed about the rules by the GM and players as opposed to things happening in-game (by the characters). 2) 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."
http://rpggeek.com/wiki/page/RPG_Glossary#M

And.This explains it pretty well, from just up thread.

Quote from: CRKruege

Quote from: LordVreegno.
Metagaming is the opposite of roleplaying.

One cannot be 100% in the immersed position, but the object in a roleplaying game is to create the most amicable situation towards an immersed, in-character mindset as possible. That's roleplaying, playing from the position of the character as possible. The goal is not to expect a 100% in character mind-swap, the goal is to get as much of an in-character mindset as possible.
Ever mechanic that removes you from the in-character position removes you from the 'in-character' position and into the 'player controlling the character' position.

In other words, every single RPG session includes time X divided into...
A: Amount of time spent thinking in character
B: Amount of time spent thinking out of character

Every metagame decision increases B and decreases A.

The percentage of A to B that seems fun will be subjective and different to each person.
Whether a certain decision is A or B is not subjective.

Now, you can go on thinking and believing whatever your little heart desires, VS.   Your definition is not wrong, it is merely incomplete and missing, as is obvious by our quick search, the most important part; the understanding of 'in-character' vs. 'out-of-character' information.

I also like this particular thread on stack exchange, as they don't just have definitions or pronouncements from designers; readers and contributors vote on the answers...and here...
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7500/suggestions-for-decreasing-metagaming-and-increasing-player-immersion
(and by the way, note, even in the title, the dichotomy between metagaming and immersion)

QuoteYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

I thought about using that line for you in my last post but then realized I was no longer 12.

Those definitions (except for maybe this, "2) 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." which would be a wrong understanding of the word if taken to an extreme, only serve to strengthen my argument and weaken yours.  Read them again... slowly this time.

Also here are some more...

QuoteMetagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

From here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

QuoteIn role-playing games, metagaming is an "out of character" action where a player's character makes use of knowledge that the player is aware of but that the character is not meant to be aware of. Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.

From here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

If you can claim that "metagaming" is everything besides believing for a split second that you are actually that character, then pretty much every single aspect of roleplaying is "metagaming"... which it, of course, isn't.  


VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis;768568I thought about using that line for you in my last post but then realized I was no longer 12.

Those definitions (except for maybe this, "2) 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." which would be a wrong understanding of the word if taken to an extreme, only serve to strengthen my argument and weaken yours.  Read them again... slowly this time.

Also here are some more...

From here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming[/urlFrom%20here:%20%20[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

If you can claim that "metagaming" is everything besides believing for a split second that you are actually that character, then pretty much every single aspect of roleplaying is "metagaming"... which it, of course, isn't.  


VS

Right.  I took the definitions for a roleplaying game, you took the ones for non-RPGS.  Since this is a thread for RPGs, I think we know which is more pertinent.  
Cherub, I'm sorry.  I took the time to read your blog, and I get it...
but in an RPG, it's IC vs OOC knowledge.  
I didn't look hard, I found those in the first 2 pages of looking.  ANd I quoted stack exchange (as you never could) since it defines an accepted definition, as opposed to looking hard for one generalized enough not to include the specialized RPG mindset.

from the 3.0 DMG, page 13, already mentioned (I was posting from work before)...
"Any time the players base their character's actions on logic that depends on the fact that they are playing a game, they are using metagame thinking.  This should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief".

Not to be mean, since you mention age 12 (1978 for me, when I'd been already playing D&D for 2 years), I understand when you get older, say 15 or 16, you'll understand the value of recognizing when you are plain old wrong and moving on.

Quote from: LordVreeg;768588Not to be mean, since you mention age 12 (1978 for me, when I'd been already playing D&D for 2 years), I understand when you get older, say 15 or 16, you'll understand the value of recognizing when you are plain old wrong and moving on.

The guy worships Cthulhu and once cast a spell on rpg.net, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768622The guy worships Cthulhu and once cast a spell on rpg.net, I wouldn't hold my breath.

And Pundit believes in magic, Jibba believes that Dnd is some real life simulator and you act like you actually played with Gary and OG in 1978, and I love football at least as much as rpg's. What's your point?

Quote from: Marleycat;768632And Pundit believes in magic, Jibba believes that Dnd is some real life simulator and you act like you actually played with Gary and OG in 1978, and I love football at least as much as rpg's. What's your point?

In the words of Bill's Avatar, Obvious Troll is Obvious.  That's my point.

For example, if you weren't drive-by trolling with zero thought because you're bored again, you'd realize that you know Jibba hasn't played AD&D for decades and enjoys pointing out issues with it whenever he can, I haven't played D&D for years either, and AD&D was my game, not Oe.

But once football starts you won't be bored, we can only hope, so this kind of drive-by board-egging will cease.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768649In the words of Bill's Avatar, Obvious Troll is Obvious.  That's my point.

For example, if you weren't drive-by trolling with zero thought because you're bored again, you'd realize that you know Jibba hasn't played AD&D for decades and enjoys pointing out issues with it whenever he can, I haven't played D&D for years either, and AD&D was my game, not Oe.

But once football starts you won't be bored, we can only hope, so this kind of drive-by board-egging will cease.

No, because it seems you've suddenly decided to take up Ben's mantle I've decided to stay around somewhat because you've lost your sense of humor and dare I say it....some perspective. I could be wrong but it's unlikely truthfully. It's sad watching you literally calcify about certain things but it happens to everyone at some point.

If I'd taken up Ben's mantle I'd form a company and start putting out RPG product.

As far as calling bullshit on the liars who claim "One-True-Wayism" when all someone is doing is drawing a distinction, I've always done that, always will do it.

This whole "there's no such thing as association/disassociation", "metagame mechanics don't exist", "RPGs are a literary art form", etc. are all bullshit memes that come around every once in a while with a new round of forumgoers, and some of the older members join in to toss their little barbs.  Some of us just stand there and say "Nope".

Then it all dies down.

The current state of the forums are proof that 5e is succeeding on bringing players of all editions to the forums.  Most of them though come from a place where their special game gets unchallenged due to mod enforcement, so there will be an adjusting period, and then people will get along as best they can.

Quote from: CRKrueger;768649In the words of Bill's Avatar, Obvious Troll is Obvious.  That's my point.

For example, if you weren't drive-by trolling with zero thought because you're bored again, you'd realize that you know Jibba hasn't played AD&D for decades and enjoys pointing out issues with it whenever he can, I haven't played D&D for years either, and AD&D was my game, not Oe.

But once football starts you won't be bored, we can only hope, so this kind of drive-by board-egging will cease.

Like I asked Ben years ago. If I take AD&D and I remove demi-human level limits and replace with XP multipliers, add a vitality/wounds mechanism with rapid recovery of vitality, tweak priests, avoid dungeons, remove multiple attacks for fighters vs 0 level foes and forbid multiclassing am I still playing D&D?
If no then yes its been decades. If what you end up with is still D&D then well .... well about 1/2 a decade .

D&D's strength was its simplicity and flexibility to me. So I always go back to an iteration of it because it lets you do so much (some people disagree of course) provided you are prepared to take a scapel to it and fix it up some.

Actually, the point is that I'm using specific roleplaying metagame definitions and LordVreeg is still wrong.  My religion can be ridiculed in another thread.  Metagaming isn't using actual game rules to play the game. All you have to do is look at the root words "meta" and "game".  

Meta means after or beyond.  Game means game.  

Again, I'll state for the record that if "metagaming" means everything that come between you and pretending that you're actually your character without any distraction or reference to the game not being the real world, then 90% of every RPG would be "metagaming".  That's simply not the case.

However, if you do wish to use that personal definition, that's fine.  Go right ahead.  Just know that your argument about inspiration/backgrounds being metagaming is like complaining that there's ice contaminating your water.  

VS