Quote from: Seanchai;366966I asked myself when I read your comments what a product that catered to the roleplaying side of things would look like.

Trying to make a "roleplaying" product means it will probably fail. The trick is to make sure that what you have in there has an interesting backstory that is essential to why the combat is taking place. That for as many combat encounter you have, you have roleplaying encounter that advance the player's understanding of what going on or invest them in the upcoming combat.

For mechanics "roleplaying" means that a portion of the word count is set aside to explain how all these neat powers and abilities can be used in situation that doesn't involve beating the hell out of an enemy and taking their stuff. A previous poster noted that while Wizards puts in some interesting flavor text for their powers they have zero words devoted to how it may work outside of the combat mechanics.

Quote from: Seanchai;366966At first I thought it might be system-less, such as some of the Freeport offerings, then I realized people just take system-less materials and add a system to them. Then I thought it might focus on advice on how to roleplay a character, provide examples for various types, etc., but then I wondered just how much advice people actually need and want along these lines and how much such advice you could put in a product.

What do you see a product that caters to the roleplaying side of things looking like? What's it's function? How would folks use it?  

It not a specific product rather it is a pervasive attitude that is woven through everything you write for the line. That combat and conflict happen for a reason, that players can discover this reason, and use it to their advantage.

For example the primal power writeups for the PHB 2, space should have been devoted to explain why the flavor texts were written the they way where and how they would impact play outside of combat and be used in situation other than combat. I am not talking a lot here between a page to 4 pages worth of writing.

One of the goals of the Majestic Wilderlands was to serve has a high level overview of the setting. So that with later products I create the reader has a place to get an overview of the specifics I will be talking about.

I could just written it as a systemless Tolkien style history appendix. But experience and observation has shown that bores a large part of the gaming audience to tears. So I choose to couple it with the rules that I use for the Majestic Wilderlands  while playing Swords & Wizardry.

I put the rules first because that is why most will be buying the product for. But rather just keep all the history and culture i.e. roleplaying stuff in the back section I made sure that it was woven through all the rules stuff. You not only got the stats for a mage of the Order of Thoth but also a little history and a little of their culture.

Each rule section had only a little of the details but by the time you got to the last section which was nothing but history and roleplaying info you had a pretty good sense of what the Majestic Wilderlands is about and a better understanding of what the rest of the material was about.

Some RPGs do this well and other doesn't. D&D 4e is one where they need to put more work into the roleplaying side of things. What I am talking about is not taking a roleplaying sledgehammer and  smashing it into the reader's face. But rather a seasoning that you add to your existing product to make them appeal both to the combat gamer and the roleplaying gamer.

Quote from: Seanchai;366966Immersion has just become a nigh meaningless buzz word. First it was dissociative, now it's immersion.

That bullshit, immersion in the context I am talking about it one of the hallmark of roleplaying and sets it off from other types of games. Individual character, advancement, plus a setting gets a player hooked to play the game for years. It is similar in spirit to how Soap Operas manage to endure for years.  The effect can be seen with other forms of entertainment that have individual characters and advancement like MMORPGs and LARPS.

Quote from: Seanchai;366966Who is responsible for the "combat gaming culture," however? Answer: your fellow gamers. Who are the only ones who can change it (if the desire a change, which I doubt): your fellow gamers.

It also about leadership. What the company that makes the roleplaying game does is just as important as what the market does. The two work in tandem to produce the culture that surrounds the game.

Just to nitpick, estar, there are at least 3-4 different types of immersion applicable to tabletop RPGs, and they all offer good explanations for why we encounter a variety of players and playstyles in our hobby, even "back in the day."

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366987The official modules are (of course) going to have combat encounters in them (this is for D&D, which is a game about adventure, not exploring our feelings and improv theater techniques), but from what I read, the requirement for two battles mentioned in the article is regarding the sample you send in in order to even get your official writers guidelines (he mentions how mad he is that Shawn won't send him a copy of the writers guidelines, when basically the guy just wants to post it on his blog and complain about them). It is also worth noting that the blog post here is outdated (July 08). There's a newer process now. I think the official adventures generally *do* have a minimum of 2 battles in them, though that can be made optional in various ways (the links above shows two examples).

As I said, getting people to do things differently than they have always done them (whether DMs or players or writers or whoever) is a struggle.  What I want to show here is that it really isn't so simple as "oh, it's ALL this certain way I have imagined in my mind, and heard about on from some other dude on the internet..."

Yes, but you make it sounds as if there's something wrong with WotC or anyone wanting combat in modules. People like combat. That's why it's there.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;366988Why are you the only person that doesn't understand this?

Actually, there's hordes of us. Everyone who likes 4e basically understands that there isn't something terribly, objectively wrong with the system.

Quote from: Sigmund;366988This expectation has been developed playing many RPGs over many years.

Exactly. And if you were a different person, with a different personality, different preferences, etc., 4e's system might not bother you, right?

Thus it's not the system that's at the root of this, it's your personal preferences. It's you. Not you and the system, just you. You.

Quote from: Sigmund;366988Then what exactly did you mean when you wrote, "It seems to me that it's a bit my like grandmother and cell phones. She's convinced that every time she tried to call a cell phone, she has some kind of problem. It's all very real to her, but it doesn't indicate some kind of objective problem with cell phones for every one else."

Why didn't you claim I was suggesting you were old? I'm sorry, but when I realized what you were going on about, I laughed. It's an analogy about people being convinced something is real when it's just their own subjective reality.

Quote from: Sigmund;366988Ah, so what you are saying is that what I'm saying are the tools 4e offers are not actually the tools it really offers, is that right?

People claim all sorts of odd things about what's in 4e and what's not.

Seanchai

Quote from: estar;367189The trick is to make sure that what you have in there has an interesting backstory that is essential to why the combat is taking place. That for as many combat encounter you have, you have roleplaying encounter that advance the player's understanding of what going on or invest them in the upcoming combat.

Okay. Reading the rest of your post, it seems we have very different ideas about what roleplaying is. To me, roleplaying is play acting. Acting out a scene. What you're describing to me as roleplaying is something I would call flavor text. You're suggesting WotC needs more flavor text in their products.

Quote from: estar;367189It also about leadership. What the company that makes the roleplaying game does is just as important as what the market does. The two work in tandem to produce the culture that surrounds the game.

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that WotC go out of business to suit your desire for "roleplaying products."

We both seem to agree that combat/mechanics sell. It's what the people want when they pick up a D&D. Of course, it's not what everyone wants, but that's what their core audience wants.

And you don't want them to produce that so they can be a leader in the market.

I think there's some kind of disconnect here...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;367200Thus it's not the system that's at the root of this, it's your personal preferences. It's you. Not you and the system, just you. You.

And that right there is the heart of most of the flamewars here.  You honestly believe that, because you don't view immersion as important to the roleplaying experience as others here do, or when you play, you don't immerse into the settings as much as others do.  Your suspension of disbelief threshold is lower.  Because of those reasons, you look at 4e and really see no difference between other editions.

For others, however, we can see that the rules were written with no real setting integration in mind.  In 4e no one cares why or how a power works, just what effect is has and is that effect balanced.  That's basically choosing to toss setting immersion out the window for the sake of mechanical considerations.  For many of us it's plain as the nose on our face to see, it's painfully obvious.  For you it is not, because you don't look for the same things we do.

That's why you say the word immersion has no meaning, that's why the 4e players scoff at my definitions of Tactical Roleplaying vs. Immersive Roleplaying when it makes perfect sense to others.  It's easy to understand mechanical concerns or narrative concerns even if you don't agree with them.  Levels of immersion is completely different.  You either do it, or you don't.  You either get it or you don't.  Some do, some don't.  You don't, which is fine, but don't tell us we don't know what the hell we're talking about simply because you don't see it or experience it.

If you're not an immersive player, then the only different is the rules got tighter, it's easier for GM's to make encounters, and the gameplay on the table is more fun.  It's a better version all around.

If you are an immersive player, none of that matters because without any setting cohesion or setting logic behind the rules, it may as well be a boardgame for all the good the ruleset does us.

So while you are right in a sense when you say "It's you.", we are also right when we say "It's the game."

Quote from: Peregrin;367193Just to nitpick, estar, there are at least 3-4 different types of immersion applicable to tabletop RPGs, and they all offer good explanations for why we encounter a variety of players and playstyles in our hobby, even "back in the day."

I would be interested in hearing what you think those different types would be.  I think the common use of 'immersion' is a little bit amateur-thespy 'talking in a funny voice' stuff, but mostly it is approaching the problem with 'how would a fighter with this and these pieces of equipment resolve this situation' instead of 'how can I use Power X to slide/pull/push that figure closer to the Ranger so they can use Power Y to the best advantage?'

But don't take it as a challenge; I would be interested in exploring the other facets of immersion you are thinking of for its own sake.

Quote from: Seanchai;367200Exactly. And if you were a different person, with a different personality, different preferences, etc., 4e's system might not bother you, right?

Thus it's not the system that's at the root of this, it's your personal preferences. It's you. Not you and the system, just you. You.

No, that is solipsistic bullshit.

But look who I am talking to.

Quote from: StormBringer;367222I would be interested in hearing what you think those different types would be.  I think the common use of 'immersion' is a little bit amateur-thespy 'talking in a funny voice' stuff, but mostly it is approaching the problem with 'how would a fighter with this and these pieces of equipment resolve this situation' instead of 'how can I use Power X to slide/pull/push that figure closer to the Ranger so they can use Power Y to the best advantage?'

But don't take it as a challenge; I would be interested in exploring the other facets of immersion you are thinking of for its own sake.

Not what I think, what video-game developers think, and the concept of immersion is extremely important in movies and video-games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_%28virtual_reality%29

QuoteAccording to Ernest Adams, author and consulter on game design,[4]  immersion can be separated into three main categories:

Tactical immersion
    Tactical immersion is experienced when performing tactile operations that involve skill. Players feel "in the zone" while perfecting actions that result in success.

Strategic immersion
    Strategic immersion is more cerebral, and is associated with mental challenge. Chess players experience strategic immersion when choosing a correct solution among a broad array of possibilities.

Narrative immersion
    Narrative immersion occurs when players become invested in a story, and is similar to what is experienced while reading a book or watching a movie.

Staffan Björk and Jussi Holopainen, in Patterns In Game Design,[5] divide immersion into similar categories, but call them sensory-motoric immersion, cognitive immersion and emotional immersion, respectively. In addition to these, they add three new categories:

Spatial immersion
    Spatial immersion occurs when a player feels the simulated world is perceptually convincing. The player feels that he or she is really "there" and that a simulated world looks and feels "real".

Psychological immersion
    Psychological immersion occurs when a player confuses the game with real life.

Sensory immersion
    The experience of entering into the three-dimensional environment, and being intellectually stimulated by it. The player experiences a unity of time and space as the player fuses with the image medium, which affects impression and awareness.

Obviously spatial and sensory aren't applicable to tabletop, but I feel the others are, and involve different parts of gameplay people may find more or less engaging than others.

Tactical would apply to 4e's encounter design and how people could engage with it, narrative -- obviously story-games, and psychological would probably be a catchall for the "being there" a lot of people talk about.  Most trad games contain a mix of different designs that engage the player on different levels at different times, resulting in a more flexible type of play experience, which would probably be why it's so attractive to some people.

Of course, 4e does contain the same non-tactical bits that older editions did, they're just not as fleshed out or stressed in the design.  Also, this is ignoring that players often switch between modes fluidly in tabletop, since it's all in your head rather than a scenario being presented on a screen (Play game at point X, Watch cutscene at Point Y to get the story, etc.).

Quote from: Peregrin;367225Obviously spatial and sensory aren't applicable to tabletop

Weird. That's actually the one I thought fit most what I'm thinking of when describing "immersion" in a RPG. It is not an emotional investment in a story, but rather a perceived reality in my mind's eye, with the actual elements of the reality being imagined via words communicated/exchanged around the table, acting out various emotions in and out of character, various props used at the table, if any, etc.

Quote from: CRKrueger;367211For others, however, we can see that the rules were written with no real setting integration in mind.  In 4e no one cares why or how a power works, just what effect is has and is that effect balanced.  That's basically choosing to toss setting immersion out the window for the sake of mechanical considerations.  For many of us it's plain as the nose on our face to see, it's painfully obvious.  For you it is not, because you don't look for the same things we do.

No, actually, I'm looking for the same thing you're describing. The only reason you don't believe that it because you can't understand that some people react to the 4e rules differently than you; you're stuck in your own viewpoint.

I do get why you can't immerse in 4e, on the other hand. It makes sense to me. I'm not the one trapped inside his own head.

Quote from: Peregrin;367225Not what I think, what video-game developers think, and the concept of immersion is extremely important in movies and video-games.

Agreed.  I think there are a number of very important video game design paradigms that would be very helpful in designing tabletop games.  I think more than a few current designers have focussed on the wrong ones, however.

QuoteObviously spatial and sensory aren't applicable to tabletop, but I feel the others are, and involve different parts of gameplay people may find more or less engaging than others.

Quote from: Benoist;367229Weird. That's actually the one I thought fit most what I'm thinking of when describing "immersion" in a RPG. It is not an emotional investment in a story, but rather a perceived reality in my mind's eye, with the actual elements of the reality being imagined via words communicated/exchanged around the table and various props used at the table, if any.

I would say these two can be lumped together as Benoist does, under a heading something like 'imaginative immersion', where it engages the imagination to construct the world in your mind.  Clearly, the video game designers have a more immediate physical goal in mind; ie, the graphics of the game or movie.  Even absent those considerations, I think it is an aspect to keep in mind when designing a tabletop game, although it would apply more to fluff or setting background material than mechanics.

QuoteTactical would apply to 4e's encounter design and how people could engage with it, narrative -- obviously story-games, and psychological would probably be a catchall for the "being there" a lot of people talk about.  Most trad games contain a mix of different designs that engage the player on different levels at different times, resulting in a more flexible type of play experience, which would probably be why it's so attractive to some people.

Using these terms then, I would say the 'psychological' immersion is what is taken as the common usage.  To a degree, the others flow from that.  If you aren't psychologically immersed, the narrative immersion will be all but impossible to achieve.  Tactical and strategic immersion would be more rules-oriented, so those can be attained separately from the psychological immersion, which is about where 4e stands, in my view.

QuoteOf course, 4e does contain the same non-tactical bits that older editions did, they're just not as fleshed out or stressed in the design.  Also, this is ignoring that players often switch between modes fluidly in tabletop, since it's all in your head rather than a scenario being presented on a screen (Play game at point X, Watch cutscene at Point Y to get the story, etc.).

I would say they aren't necessarily different modes so much as different aspects of the psychological immersion.  More like switching gears than switching cars, if that makes sense.  The intense focus on the rules in 4e feels like being stuck in 4-wheel drive when it is time to hit the highway, whereas earlier versions offered a somewhat smoother transition between off-road and highway driving.

Too much car analogy?  

Quote from: Benoist;367229Weird. That's actually the one I thought fit most what I'm thinking of when describing "immersion" in a RPG. It is not an emotional investment in a story, but rather a perceived reality in my mind's eye, with the actual elements of the reality being imagined via words communicated/exchanged around the table, acting out various emotions in and out of character, various props used at the table, if any, etc.

That would be the psychological I mentioned as a catchall for that sort of "mind's eye" immersion.

Spatial and sensory are explicitly about how you physically perceive things.  IE, you're either watching a movie or interacting with visual/auditory stimuli.

Quote from: Peregrin;367233That would be the psychological I mentioned as a catchall for that sort of "mind's eye" immersion.

Spatial and sensory are explicitly about how you physically perceive things.  IE, you're either watching a movie or interacting with visual/auditory stimuli.

Aren't you perceiving words, looking at other people acting their emotions out, or identifying yourself as the miniature on the table at times in a role-playing game? Isn't it spatial immersion as well? I'm kind of confused by these categories, or at least, I don't think they are as neatly categorized in practice as they are presented here.

I perfectly understand the concepts of Tactical and Strategic immersions. Narrative as well. It's the last three that seem very... mutable and in some cases, interchangeable even, to me, as they relate to a role playing game at least. :hmm:

Quote from: Benoist;367236I perfectly understand the concepts of Tactical and Strategic immersions. Narrative as well. It's the last three that seem very... mutable and in some cases, interchangeable even, to me, as they relate to a role playing game at least. :hmm:

They're about more pronounced phenomenon that are experienced with visual media, that's why I said they probably shouldn't apply -- psychological is the only one that really fits for a game where things take place in your head rather than on a screen.

Spacial and sensory you actually *feel*.  It's the difference between looking over a cliff and getting vertigo (and all of the physical sensations that come with it) and imagining your character getting vertigo.