Why is the hatred for "metagame mechanics" (rules that interact with the players but not their characters, like arranging dice sets for different results, managing whatever version of fate points you use, deliberately having misfortune befall your character for fate points, expending encounter/daily powers, making declarations about the lore of the game world, risk vs. reward based on fairness as a game rather than simulating what would really happen, etc.) much more vocal than the support for them on /tg/?
Is there something about metagame mechanics that causes people who like them to silently nod their heads in approval, while people who hate them go into a frothing rage? Is it because D&D is the ur-RPG that 99% of people play, and D&D teaches that metagaming is worse than Hitler?
It's pretty much that. Most modern RPGs have some sort of meta-mechanics in them and most people with broad RPG experience are perfectly fine with them. It's the same sort of people who raged and hated D&D 4e (Despite it being a wholesale improvement over 3.PF) just because it was unfamiliar and different. They want to keep playing the same games they've always played, and anything unusual scares and disturbs them.
>>43900537
"hey, instead of cake, here is this bag of dogshit!"
"oh I dunno man, I kinda would rather have cake actually..."
"Waaah, you just hate new and different!"
>>43900570
4e wasn't great, but at least it more or less did what it intended to.
3.PF is awful and has ruined an entire generation of gamers.
>>43900570
Cry more 3aboo. The grognards won with 5e anyway, you can stop bitching now.
>>43900435
I like metagame mechanics. They put an extra degree of control into the hands of players and players themselves can work together instead of relying on the game mechanics to resolve problems, and since the game mechanics are overwhelmingly combat-oriented, you can guess at what directing PC interaction slants towards when game mechanics are relied upon for IC stuff.
Mutant Chronicles and the Infinity RPG use a system that's very basic and barter oriented. You start with very limited Fate points, and spend and garner new ones in the usual way, but you can also give the GM Heat tokens which the GM uses to make your life harder in order to get a short term advantage, and you can cut them off so they can't abuse it.
I throw in my own rule where you can trade tokens between players, so bribery isn't just between the GM and players, but can be between players and players. Really, it's all a system of bribery to smooth over character interaction and give the players just a little narrative control to grease things along.
>>43900804
>and you can cut them off so they can't abuse it.
Systems that assume no trust between players and the GM are the worst.
>>43900846
Systems that count on it unfortunately fall prey to abuse.
It's not to say that there isn't trust, but even people you trust can try and abuse things. I've seen it, I was it once, until the GM kicked my shit in-game and I straightened out. Generally, you might not need those guidelines, but they're mostly there to say "GM gets last word if things is getting ridiculous."
>>43900435
metagame mechanics are not that bad and dont cause that, what does cause rage or silent nods is games build around them. take pathfinder, its full of them, but nobody bats an eye at rerolls and hero points or the like. some people don't play with them, but theyre hardly shit storm worthy.
>>43901136
Pathfinder has VERY few metagame mechanics and most of them are optional rules.
>>43900435
Those sorts of mechanics are harder to discuss as they're more abstract than just simulationist rules. They require keeping both the game world and the narrative you're trying to create in mind. There's more room for misunderstanding there, and is in general more difficult to do.
The easy miscommunication makes online disucssion harder, and trolling easier. The difficulty in actually implementing this kind of game means less people actually do it, so there's fewer people able to actually discuss the experience. It's fairly obvious a lot of Fate/PbtA/rules-lite-narrativist trolling comes from people who've read the rules but never really tried to engagement with the game.
And yeah /tg/'s major demographic are wargamers and DnD players.
>>43900435
Its because people here are negatively-charged and thus much more likely to express hatred, and less likely to express support for something.
Most recent example, though not an RPG, is all the party game BS baked into the Scrolls for Age of Sigmar.
All of the "someone is the secret badguy" games are shitty as games because they are built on metagame concepts.
>>43902738
Hey, good mechanics can be executed like shit. See; a lot of games. Though it's also GW and also AoS, so the result is not surprising. It's basically a Cards Against Humanity rule to make a joke of the old characters.
I don't disagree with your second line, though someone may have executed it good somewhere, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
I hate metagaming shit like this: I use my character intellect to solve the problem/puzzle.
>>43900435
>Is it because D&D is the ur-RPG that 99% of people play
Nope.
It's because they're very-often done poorly. But I like how you don't present any specific examples of what you're talking about, so that they can't be addressed directly, while at the same time presenting specific examples of the thing you want to bash.
It's a nice way of setting up an argument that can't be lost, because you've got a target and anyone who disagrees with you doesn't.
Wanna know why some people dislike some rules? Post the rules you're talking about, specifically, and let's discuss them.
>>43903028
>arranging dice sets for different results, managing whatever version of fate points you use, deliberately having misfortune befall your character for fate points, expending encounter/daily powers, making declarations about the lore of the game world, risk vs. reward based on fairness as a game rather than simulating what would really happen
Not specific enough for you?
>>43903141
Name a game you're talking about a rule in the context of.
>>43900741
>3e
>Grognards
Anon, 2003 is not oldfag years. AD&D grognards definitely did not win in 5e
>>43902849
>I don't disagree with your second line, though someone may have executed it good somewhere, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
Shadows Over Camelot works because it is an actual boardgame that is already tough to win. That one player might actually be working to to cause a loss doesn't hurt the game as badly as the social games of this sort.
>>43903196
Just off the top of my head:
>arranging dice sets for different results
ORE, Legends of the Wulin.
>managing whatever version of fate points you use, deliberately having misfortune befall your character for fate points
Fate, obviously, but this has bled into too many RPGs to count these days.
>expending encounter/daily powers
4e, Strike!
>making declarations about the lore of the game world
Fate again, Powered by the Apocalypse.
>risk vs. reward based on fairness as a game rather than simulating what would really happen
Powered by the Apocalypse.
>>43901850
>And yeah /tg/'s major demographic are wargamers and DnD players.
>>43905293
It's true.
>>43905293
Ever look on the Gamefinder threads? Wanna guess how many of them have a preference for 3.5/Pathfinder? It's up there with 40k RP as being the game system that likely popped many people's cherry; and because getting an entire group to learn, or even warm-up the idea of playing, a new system is hard enough as is, many people only play 3.5e compatible systems and refluff as needed. Yeah, it's unfortunate, but a lot of people don't either want to fight their entire group to swap to better systems, or simply don't want to leave that comfort zone.
And /tg/ isn't exactly like other boards, certain shitposting tripfags aside, there is hardly an elitist class here that vehemently refuse to play DnD. A lot of people are glad to just have a stable group.
>>43900435
>Is it because D&D is the ur-RPG that 99% of people play, and D&D teaches that metagaming is worse than Hitler?
But d&d is full of metagaming, especially inspiration points. Your whole shitty attempt as a point is retarded.
>arranging dice sets for different results
Takes way too long for so little advantage it gives over successes/roll and add 'em up. Combat already takes long enough, I don't want to add yahtzee into it too.
>managing whatever version of fate points you use
I honestly just don't like metagame currency, honestly. I find most systems that use it (FATE being the biggest offender) cause some sort of weird half-roleplay where people actually only play their characters instead of hypercompetent supersoldiers when they stand to benefit from it. Yes, that's better than them not playing their characters at all, but I'd rather just have people play their damn characters without having to be bribed for it.
>deliberately having misfortune befall your character for fate points
See above. There's nothing wrong with just failing and I don't like this weird 'I only fail when it benefits me' a lot of these systems have going on.
Now that I think about it, though, Tenra Bansho Zero did metacurrency well.
>expending encounter/daily powers
No problem with this, other than the fact that 'daily' can kind of be weird depending on how long you stretch out your game days.
>making declarations about the lore of the game world
I'm fine with this, so long as it a) takes place during character gen when the world's lore is getting fleshed out or b) is brought up between sessions so it can be discussed with everyone and, well, fleshed out. I like doing worldbuilding and love adding cool stuff to my world, but I like having the time to work out the ramifications of, say, elves being declared to be mustache-twirling steampunk pterodactyl riders instead of having it sprung on me right before elves become A Thing in my setting.
>risk vs. reward based on fairness as a game rather than simulating what would really happen, etc.
Super vague, so can't possibly comment.
>>43906121
Inspiration points are D&D's worst attempt at implementing fate points to date.
>>43906285
>I don't like this weird 'I only fail when it benefits me'
You know that Fate's success rates assume that you need to spend fate points regularly to succeed regularly, right?
>>43906369
I'm referring specifically to compels, as I assume OP was.
>>43906360
I like them tough. They don't stand at the core of the game mechanic and are just a nice little addition in my eyes.
>>43906390
Fate has plenty of traditional "roll to succeed" going on.
You can definitely fail at those. Because of the bell curve, you WILL fail at those with a low skill.
>>43906417
We're speaking at two different angles, anon. I don't care about Fate's roll to succeed stuff, but I do not like compels.
>>43906360
Why worse ? It's done pretty well, doesn't allow blatant exploitation and encourages roleplaying while not being blatant bribery.
>>43900435
>Why is the hatred for "metagame mechanics" much more vocal than the support for them on /tg/?
They are? Is it particularly evident anywhere?
>>43900435
I don't know but I'm liking that pond of frolicking elf lolis
>>43906435
The implementation is literally just "roleplay good [note: no specifications or clarifications whatsoever], get inspiration."
>>43901235
You mean like the barbarian only being able to get angry a few times/day?
>>43907655
>what is AD&D Unearthed Arcana
I think it has more to do with the traditional roles of "player" and "Game Master" that different games have. In classic RPGs such as D&D, your DM is in a position of overriding power over the narrative, the gameworld, NPCs, the outcomes of actions etc. Metagame rules often take away from that, or recast them in different lights. Think about all the Apocalypse Engine games where the DM never rolls dice because it's entirely player focussed, and players choose when they take damage, or the GUMSHOE games where the players spend Investigation points to receive plot-critical information instead of having to roll dice for it, thereby giving them far more certainty and control over the investigation story.
As a lazy GM / someone who is actually friends with my players, I love anything that encourages collaboration. It doesn't just make my job easier but it hooks players in more, in my experience. If the city under siege is one we all had a hand in making, instead of one they sat there while I described, they fight harder to defend it.
>>43907827
>Think about all the Apocalypse Engine games where the DM never rolls dice because it's entirely player focussed, and players choose when they take damage
>players choose when they take damage
Okay, you've clearly never read any PbtA games, cocksucker.
>>43906844
Yeah but you can only have one at a time. It's not like you can stockpile them and just advantage your way through a hard encounter.
>>43907977
What's wrong with stockpiling them?
If you've been doing stupid shit to get lots of fate points, it's likely you're neck deep in trouble.
>>43907989
>What's wrong with stockpiling them?
D&D 5e rules say you either have inspiration or you don't. You only get one. There are no inspiration "points".
>>43908009
Not talking about 5e, bucko, hence "fate points."
>>43900435
The fun thing about Exalted is that your characters can know most of the game mechanics.
>>43907989
Personally, I'd put a hard cap on how many Fate points you could have at a time.
Luck you got through making stupid decisions can only go so far.
>>43906360
>>43906408
>>43906408
>>43908023
It's like you can't look up.
>>43903791
i like how he just stopped posting after you met his standards
>>43908256
I don't know what point that anon was making, but if there are so many systems with metagaming mechanics, what's the problem?
I've only tried the encounter/daily powers mechanic, and I thought it was pretty nifty. What is there to discuss?
>>43908044
Not in 3e. Motes aren't a measurable in-setting thing anymore.
Speaking for myself, I'm not fond of meta-game mechanics because they make roleplaying into a game rather than having me think of things from my character's perspective. They break immersion for me.
I'm also not fond of characters who break the fourth wall, books which are about the writing rather than the things happening in the story and all that other ironic, post-modern stuff.
>>43900435
>qt elf boys doing qt elf boy things will never be translated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46aqb_sPJ44
>>43908358
Well, that's a silly thing to change
>>43908508
Interesting. I like meta-game mechanics because they make you think about your character instead of their statblock. For example, let's take Fate's compel mechanic. You'll have to look at your aspects and think, how would this aspect come up and complicate my life in some manner in this particular situation? To pick an example from the rulebook, you might have "manners of a goat" so you compel to act boorishly in a social situation.
>>43900435
People that don't like [thing] are ALWAYS more vocal than people that like [thing] on the Internet.
>>43906423
Different anon, but I can see your point. When the compel is 'fail at this thing for a fate point,' it's pretty lame. I feel like compels are better when used to slightly complicate a situation or introduce a small obstacle. Then it's kind of like an interesting detour to get extra fuel, if you follow my metaphor.
