A partially self-aware/meta game setting: thoughts, experiences?

[Jowgen]

An X level rogue isn't supposed to know how many d6 of sneak attack he deals (not to mention that he deals damage in d6s), or know what knowledge check results he need to know a certain piece of information. That is metagaming, which hurts immersion and goes against part of the games core spirit.

What if that weren't the case though?

What about a D&D setting where knowledge of game mechanics were common and a natural part of daily lives? Each commoner would know that is what he is, has at least a rough idea of his stats, and knows that he can invest "ranks" in Profession (Gardener) to be better at his job.

I see several advantages to running a game like this. For one, it would eliminate the bulk of the implicity metagaming present in game without the need for convoluted explenations. It would make complex-design character be far more natural within the game world, and similarly make effective strategy on all sides similarly more believeable. In effect, it naturalizes the playing of optimized characters and actually removes a big chunck of metagaming and immersion.

Now this sort of game does make the in-world a tad less realistic. You are no longer playing in fantasy pseudo-mideval magic land, but in pseudo-mideval magic land with game-like rules replacing common sense and physics. Then again, considering how clunky the game simulates many real world things, doing away with some of that might actually beneficial.

To use a currently (in my opinion deservedly so) popular show as an analogy: in the Overlord anime world, the average person doesn't know their class levels (though those with talents do know them) or any of the "game" mechanics that govern their lives; but Ainz and his merry... monsters... do. In this sort of setting, everyone would know what Ainz knows about how the world works (well, minus the hard-to-acquire intel like how world items work).

So, what are your thoughts and experiences on this? Have you ever run or played in a game like this? What up/downsides do you see in such a "meta-setting"? All input welcome.

[JeminiZero]

An X level rogue isn't supposed to know how many d6 of sneak attack he deals (not to mention that he deals damage in d6s), or know what knowledge check results he need to know a certain piece of information. That is metagaming, which hurts immersion and goes against part of the games core spirit.

What if that weren't the case though?

What about a D&D setting where knowledge of game mechanics were common and a natural part of daily lives? Each commoner would know that is what he is, has at least a rough idea of his stats, and knows that he can invest "ranks" in Profession (Gardener) to be better at his job.
I don't think there is consensus on whether a character knowing parts or all of his own sheet is considered meta-gaming. But I have been wrong on such things before.

It depends a lot on the DM's view. OOTS certainly does not subscribe to it (they openly discuss skill ranks and what not).


Now this sort of game does make the in-world a tad less realistic. You are no longer playing in fantasy pseudo-mideval magic land, but in pseudo-mideval magic land with game-like rules replacing common sense and physics. Then again, considering how clunky the game simulates many real world things, doing away with some of that might actually beneficial.
If you think about it from the character's perspective, since this is the ONLY world they know, and they have nothing else to compare it against, then the fact that the rules of the world are game-like is simply the way things are. No matter what the rules of your reality, if that is the only reality you know, then that reality is necessarily "realistic" to you.

Consider it this way: what if our universe were in fact just a computer simulation? One whose rules don't conform to the rules of our simulation makers? We would have no idea.

And if there are rules, then it stands to reason that it is perfectly feasible for the characters to learn them, and openly discuss them. (At least so long as they are smart enough to comprehend and research the rules, as genius wizards/archivists/psions should be).

Thats not to say the average commoner knows his character sheet. For example, the geniuses of the world might be able to infer the existence of skill ranks. But it may takes time/gold to actually measure individual skill ranks. Which the commoner may not be able afford. In this case, the commoner (if sufficiently educated) knows about skill ranks and knows that they are what he uses for skill checks, but he may not know his exact rank. Just as we know we use muscles to move, but not the exact muscle cell count.

[ryu]

I don't think there is consensus on whether a character knowing parts or all of his own sheet is considered meta-gaming. But I have been wrong on such things before.

It depends a lot on the DM's view. OOTS certainly does not subscribe to it (they openly discuss skill ranks and what not).


If you think about it from the character's perspective, since this is the ONLY world they know, and they have nothing else to compare it against, then the fact that the rules of the world are game-like is simply the way things are. No matter what the rules of your reality, if that is the only reality you know, then that reality is necessarily "realistic" to you.

Consider it this way: what if our universe were in fact just a computer simulation? One whose rules don't conform to the rules of our simulation makers? We would have no idea.

And if there are rules, then it stands to reason that it is perfectly feasible for the characters to learn them, and openly discuss them. (At least so long as they are smart enough to comprehend and research the rules, as genius wizards/archivists/psions should be).

Thats not to say the average commoner knows his character sheet. For example, the geniuses of the world might be able to infer the existence of skill ranks. But it may takes time/gold to actually measure individual skill ranks. Which the commoner may not be able afford. In this case, the commoner (if sufficiently educated) knows about skill ranks and knows that they are what he uses for skill checks, but he may not know his exact rank. Just as we know we use muscles to move, but not the exact muscle cell count.

To expand on this literally every rule can be determined by a mixture of experimentation and divination to most accurately observe results. In a world working with a set of rules that govern all reactions, all moving parts can and will be found. Most of them aren't even that hard.

[Echch]

I actually read a campaign log where every character is aware that they come from a game and can interact with the "real world". This went on to the point where they literally find different rulebooks for the settings they go to and exploit them. To be fair, the setting had some very questionable design-choices, but other than that it was a really good read (save for the occasional cringe).

So yeah, that can clearly work. I mean, it does so with OOTS too, right?

[Raz Dazzle]

To expand on this literally every rule can be determined by a mixture of experimentation and divination to most accurately observe results. In a world working with a set of rules that govern all reactions, all moving parts can and will be found. Most of them aren't even that hard.

Indeed. The experiments don't have to be very rigorous to demonstrate that one wizard can hit targets with magic missile at max range 100 feet, another 110 feet, and a third at 120 feet, and that the third one fires two missiles instead of one, and can cast more powerful spells. It's simple to extrapolate that people operate at discrete levels of skill. Boom, now people know what character levels are.

[Afgncaap5]

Yeah, like Echch points out this is very much the case for Order Of The Stick's world.

I mean, I don't know if they know *everything* on their character sheets, but they definitely know that their day to day lives are governed by dice rolls, they're aware of the results of those rolls ("I got a two! Guys, I got a two!"), they know the differences between kinds of rolls ("One saving throw at a time..."), and there are also one or two places where they suddenly remember something about the adventure and their reality subtly (or not-so-subtly) changes around them.

So... I think it's definitely *possible* to play this, and I think it could be played well. I don't necessarily know that it'd be for everyone, but it might be an interesting mechanic for some game in the future.

[Erit]

I'm in a campaign set in the OOTSverse right now, actually. It makes for great fun if your players have a sense of humor and nobody minds the fourth wall being so much vapor.

The only "downside" I can think of, and I use that term loosely, is that it makes it harder for people to say "no you can't do that because it's unrealistic" in this game about wizards, dragons, and gelatinous cubes. In case it wasn't obvious, I hold that way of thinking in great contempt because it's pretty blinkered. We left realism behind a few editions back, thanks; now let me play my Halfling Knight and Half-Minotaur Rogue.




If you think about it from the character's perspective, since this is the ONLY world they know, and they have nothing else to compare it against, then the fact that the rules of the world are game-like is simply the way things are. No matter what the rules of your reality, if that is the only reality you know, then that reality is necessarily "realistic" to you.

Consider it this way: what if our universe were in fact just a computer simulation? One whose rules don't conform to the rules of our simulation makers? We would have no idea.

And if there are rules, then it stands to reason that it is perfectly feasible for the characters to learn them, and openly discuss them. (At least so long as they are smart enough to comprehend and research the rules, as genius wizards/archivists/psions should be).

I don't get why this seems so hard for some people to grasp, but thank you for putting it into a concise package I can now bludgeon a few people with at my earliest convenience.

[Droopy McCool]

In all our games, classes and class abilities are explicit, but nothing else.

For example, in our current game my character (the first warpriest to exist in this world, 3rd level right now) was subjected to interrogation because the religious order he served noticed his powers didn't line up with the natural ability progression they found among their followers, namely paladins and clerics.

"You've been able to cast spells ever since you started your training to become a paladin, but paladins can't do that until they've reached a certain point in their career. Also your ability to heal people with a touch seems to be lacking, even compared to a weak paladin." (He was imprisoned for gaining his heretic powers from another source, but I'll leave it at that.)

This is equivalent to dipping your toes in the water compared to what you're proposing. However, it's not hard to imagine people noticing trends in special abilities, and labeling everyone who can use a specific set of abilities as a "paladin", or a "bard", or a whatever.

McCool

[Yahzi]

What about a D&D setting where knowledge of game mechanics were common and a natural part of daily lives?
You may be interested in the book and game guides mentioned in my sig. :smallbiggrin: In the world of Prime, levels are real, concrete things - characters actually say stuff like "I was thinking of taking a rank of Cleric next."

I humbly suggest realism and drama do not suffer at all from this treatment. Indeed, there is an added layer of drama - the divide between nobles (those with levels) and commoners (those without) is now more than prejudice, education, and diet. It is an iron law of the universe.

I did change one thing to make it work: XP is now a tangible quantity, like gold or gems.

Speaking purely as a game, it works brilliantly. All the weird bits of player behavior now make perfect sense. The high-level fighters know they can walk through a burning building; the Baron rules not just because he got a fancy hat from his dad but because he can smash single-handed through whole army units; side-quests for XP are normal, murder-hoboing is a legitimate career even while pockets of civilization are safe from them, and trading gold for magic items actually happens (because the wizards can trade the gold for XP).

For example: it is traditional that players resent the XP the DM assigns to their cohorts and followers. But in my game, the players voluntarily pour far more XP into their hirelings than any rule ever asked for. D&D is a resource management game, and XP is the most important resource. Letting the players manage it empowers them.

Speaking as an act of literature, you can judge for yourself; but Publisher's Weekly described it as "gritty," so there's that. :smallsmile:

[SangoProduction]

...in this game about ... gelatinous cubes.
#GelatinousCubeMasterRace!

[nettle3305]

You may be interested in the book and game guides mentioned in my sig. :smallbiggrin: In the world of Prime, levels are real, concrete things - characters actually say stuff like "I was thinking of taking a rank of Cleric next."

I humbly suggest realism and drama do not suffer at all from this treatment. Indeed, there is an added layer of drama - the divide between nobles (those with levels) and commoners (those without) is now more than prejudice, education, and diet. It is an iron law of the universe.

I did change one thing to make it work: XP is now a tangible quantity, like gold or gems.

Speaking purely as a game, it works brilliantly. All the weird bits of player behavior now make perfect sense. The high-level fighters know they can walk through a burning building; the Baron rules not just because he got a fancy hat from his dad but because he can smash single-handed through whole army units; side-quests for XP are normal, murder-hoboing is a legitimate career even while pockets of civilization are safe from them, and trading gold for magic items actually happens (because the wizards can trade the gold for XP).

For example: it is traditional that players resent the XP the DM assigns to their cohorts and followers. But in my game, the players voluntarily pour far more XP into their hirelings than any rule ever asked for. D&D is a resource management game, and XP is the most important resource. Letting the players manage it empowers them.

Speaking as an act of literature, you can judge for yourself; but Publisher's Weekly described it as "gritty," so there's that. :smallsmile:

These are some pretty great observations. I'd guess the tone of these games typically lend to the 4th wall comedy route. But with careful structuring of the world and dialogue, the DM could cast XP in the same light as Dark Souls with souls or Bloodborne with blood echos.

[ryu]

These are some pretty great observations. I'd guess the tone of these games typically lend to the 4th wall comedy route. But with careful structuring of the world and dialogue, the DM could cast XP in the same light as Dark Souls with souls or Bloodborne with blood echos.

Or salt in salt and sanctuary. You should totally try that if you're a fan of the series by the way. It's like if dark souls and symphony of the night had a love child. You're much more mobile especially if lightly armored, and still fairly durable if you build for it, but this also makes shields feel a lot less useful for how much they slow you down. You also can't parry without shields, but that's a small loss.

[Yahzi]

I'd guess the tone of these games typically lend to the 4th wall comedy route.
No more than any other table (which is to say, one never escapes Monty Python jokes, but the campaign was otherwise plenty serious). D&D really does treat XP as a tangible resource - it says right there in the DMG that 1 XP = 5 GP - and the earliest edition explicitly gave you XP for treasure (you weren't even supposed to kill the monsters - you got beans for XP for that - just steal their stuff).

It's always been a part of the game. Making it explicit just makes everything smoother.

[Echch]

No more than any other table (which is to say, one never escapes Monty Python jokes, but the campaign was otherwise plenty serious). D&D really does treat XP as a tangible resource - it says right there in the DMG that 1 XP = 5 GP - and the earliest edition explicitly gave you XP for treasure (you weren't even supposed to kill the monsters - you got beans for XP for that - just steal their stuff).

It's always been a part of the game. Making it explicit just makes everything smoother.

Well, to be fair, that's partially because Wealth = Power wasn't really that much of a thing back then outside of XP.

[Lord Raziere]

An in character metaphysical model where one attains ultimate power through a series of levels of initiation based on how much they've unlocked about their power? In a medieval fantasy setting?

Sounds like a religion based on seeking enlightenment. Just have some temples where a bunch of priests proclaim that that are twenty stages of being that lead to ultimate enlightenment and twelve core paths to reach that enlightenment. in character class and levels? done.

WBL? Have them believe that fate has proscribed that those who walk such paths of enlightenment will eventually gain that exact amount of wealth as a sign that they are walking along the right path, and that if you don't gain that certain amount of wealth, something has gone terribly wrong and clearly some kind of curse.

Level Adjustment just means that some races just start a little farther on the path of enlightenment than others.

to include other classes, one simply must make off-shoot sects devoted to paths they invented, with beliefs as to why they like these benefits over others.

Multiclassing: now here is where things get fun. combining multiclassing with how religions view paths of enlightenment, and you have a good explanation for why not everyone is optimized and multiclassed or whatever. Simply put, multiclassing while possible can be seen by many members as a form of heresy, deviating from a pure path to enlightenment, but how its heresy can depend on the sect, some only dislike multiclassing into steps upon the path of enlightenment with paths outside the sect, some don't like it all, some only thinks it heresy for certain classes and not others, there is a whole treasure trove of potential conflicts from such disagreements.

But of course there is always the evil members of these paths of enlightenment, who view that it doesn't matter how pure your path is, it only matters that you are strong and as far along the path of enlightenment as possible and that anyone who isn't is beneath you, but of course recognize that some paths grant more actual powers than others and lord their power over others. but of course Good walkers of the path disagree, and saying that only enlightenment matters and not the path you choose to get to it.

Their knowledge that these things exist while there, are also their lives and thus they interpret it differently from it being a game. Their knowledge is the same, but they'd interpret all this in way that would make them come to very different conclusions. What we see as physics, they would see as divine laws, and level ups as a religious experience and getting more in touch with the divine.

[Yahzi]

An in character metaphysical model where one attains ultimate power through a series of levels of initiation based on how much they've unlocked about their power?
But that doesn't solve the ultimate problem of D&D, which is: why doesn't everyone gain levels?

Sure, in the Real World, most people are lazy. We can't all be Olympic athletes, but we could all get into better shape. Not everybody can be a doctor, and not even everyone who could be, wants to put in the work. Maybe the people in the D&D world just want to sit around and drink ale instead of working on their personal development.

But.

In the Real World, gaining those rarefied heights of accomplishment means a shiny gold medal or a Lexus and a vacation house in the Hamptons.

In the D&D world, those high levels mean things like bringing back the dead. And the ability to defend your loved ones from things that will eat them, or eat their souls, or worse. Given the number of monster attacks, or just the sheer number of monsters, there are massive incentives for people to do something about it.

And mere personal enlightenment does not explain why people go on quests, why the King is in charge instead of Joe the 20th level bartender, why magic is rare enough that it doesn't change everything, why people fight with swords when fireball wands are just a meditation away.

D&D needs some way to regulate the flow of XP. My answer is to make it a feature of the environment, like gold or wheat. Except it is harvested from sentient or dangerous creatures (hence CR).

The primary source is peasants, which makes building a castle and ruling a domain a thing you want to do, instead of a sucker's bet - why would any high-level character expose himself to murder hobos like that if there wasn't some kind of pay-off at the end of the day? Far better to live in a hidden tower and only go out to hunt big monsters. Defending peasants is just dangerous duty with literally no upside in regular D&D.

But when you realize that each peasant is worth 1/2 CR when he dies, even if it's from old age... now you want to be King. When every magic item has to be paid for out of multiple people's souls, when monsters hunt people for the XP they need to spawn new monsters, when levels are purchased not just through hard work but with oceans of blood - then you have the D&D world we all play in.

And having a rule set that naturally generates the game we're already playing just makes everything smoother. :smallsmile:

[Jay R]

In this game, I'm not role-playing a person with abilities and opportunities I don't have. I'm trying to play a mind completely alien to mine.