Quote from: Peregrin;367238It'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.

Isn't that the point of a role playing game to confuse the two?

Quote from: Benoist;367239Isn't that the point of a role playing game to confuse the two?

To a point, but physical stimuli generally have a more profound effect on people. When I imagine myself looking over a cliff in a game, I empathize with the feeling of vertigo, but when I'm looking over a cliff IRL (or through a simulated image that looks real), I get all of the physical sensations that come with it firsthand (*real* fear, dizzyness, possible loss of balance, etc.)

I certainly don't get dizzy while playing an RPG, or get any actual falling sensations.

Quote from: Benoist;367239Isn't that the point of a role playing game to confuse the two?

It might be for some people, but I don't think what you are talking about is the universal draw of roleplaying games in any way.

Quote from: Peregrin;367240I certainly don't get dizzy while playing an RPG, or get any actual falling sensations.

I actually can feel comparable sensations when I am immersed enough in the make-believe. Feeling my character's shame, or anger, or the sense of dread or nausea in an horror game, et cetera. Dizziness and falling sensations, I may feel, when playing the game. You may get to the point in a role-playing game where you *are* playing a game and *yet* "are" your character. That's immersion, to me.

Am I making any sense here? It's hard to explain.

Anyway, I'm not saying that every player should feel that way or anything of the sort. It seems to me that the feeling of interchangeability between "you" and "your character" and feeling like you "are" somehow your character is what role playing is about, however. In this sense, blurring the lines between sensory and spatial immersions, at least to some extent, seems to be the point of a role playing game, to me. Otherwise, I might as well play Warhammer 40K or Scene-It, really.

Quote from: Benoist;367248I actually can feel comparable sensations when I am immersed enough in the make-believe. Feeling my character's shame, or anger, or the sense of dread or nausea in an horror game, et cetera. Dizziness and falling sensations, I may feel, when playing the game. You may get to the point in a role-playing game where you *are* playing a game and *yet* "are" your character. That's immersion, to me.

Am I making any sense here? It's hard to explain.

Anyway, I'm not saying that every player should feel that way or anything of the sort. It seems to me that the feeling of interchangeability between "you" and "your character" and feeling like you "are" somehow your character is what role playing is about, however. In this sense, blurring the lines between sensory and spatial immersions, at least to some extent, seems to be the point of a role playing game, to me. Otherwise, I might as well play Warhammer 40K or Scene-It, really.

For most people, what you describe draws the line at the emotional level (which is alos alluded to in Peregrin's truly excellent post.)  When you saqy above "sense of Dread or Nausea", you are splittting the emotional and physical, which may be part of the differfence for many people.

"Becoming the character" in immersion means resopinding as the character would withoutany delay needed to wonder how the character would act.  Intrinsically, you respond or react as the character would.  Even though I play a pretty rules-heavy game, I understand that having to tranlsate this reactions into the rules can break immersion.

Quote from: Seanchai;367200Actually, there's hordes of us. Everyone who likes 4e basically understands that there isn't something terribly, objectively wrong with the system.

You are absolutely right, and I'm one of them.

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

And if 4e were a different game, with a design that provides a different experience, it's system might not bother me, right?

QuoteThus 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.

Thus you are still wrong. You.

QuoteWhy 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.

Who the fuck cares? No matter what you are suggesting by going on about grandmothers and cell phones, it's irrelevant and stupid. You are once again revealing that your only goal is to attack and belittle anyone who posts anything you don't agree with, no matter how silly or dishonest your objections are.

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

Seanchai

That might very well be true, but unless you can demonstrate how I'm one of those people the point is completely irrelevant.

Quote from: Seanchai;367196Yes, 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

Then why are even regular players and fans often dissatisfied with the modules WotC is putting out, to the point that the guy in charge of making them better has asked an online community for advice about what would make their modules better?

Quote from: Thanlis;367230No, 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.

I'm not trapped inside my own head, the fact that you think that's what I am just proves my point.  

You look at all the different powers that have little rationale for existence when actually applied to a setting and don't have a problem with the "why" or "how" of a power, all you care about is the "what", "when" and "who".  The fact that you can accept that level of abstraction of setting logic doesn't mean you can break out of some mind trap I'm stuck in, it means you don't immerse yourself in a setting as much as I do.  Period.  Which is totally ok.  I can accept that level of abstraction when I'm doing something like Necromunda for example, I can't do it when I'm scratching the roleplaying itch.

You and I accept different levels of abstraction, but 4e by design requires a higher level of abstraction due to its focus on mechanical over the immersive, quite a bit more then even 3e, which was pushing it.

Yes, we are talking about subjective differences in perception, but there is also an objective difference in game design that is apparent.  It is the least immersive version of D&D yet, by design.  They moved the bar.  The bar still lies within your immersion zone, it went out of mine.

Quote from: Thanlis;367230No, 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.

You couldn't possibly be looking for the same thing I am, otherwise you wouldn't like 4e any better than I do. You might be looking for the same type of  thing, but you're at the very least looking for it in different places than I am. Once again, I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, just that we're looking for something different... no, let me rephrase that... you're at the very least willing to accept something different from an RPG than I am. I think it's this difference that CRKrueger is posting about. The labels might be getting muddled, but the difference is there all the same.

Quote from: LordVreeg;367253For most people, what you describe draws the line at the emotional level (which is alos alluded to in Peregrin's truly excellent post.)  When you saqy above "sense of Dread or Nausea", you are splittting the emotional and physical, which may be part of the differfence for many people.

"Becoming the character" in immersion means resopinding as the character would withoutany delay needed to wonder how the character would act.  Intrinsically, you respond or react as the character would.  Even though I play a pretty rules-heavy game, I understand that having to tranlsate this reactions into the rules can break immersion.

Yes, and I think in this discussion we've really been getting to the heart of this issue using our relative opinions of DnD 4e as compared to OD&D (and other games as well) as a sort of tool to put it into words. 4e comes across to me as an example of a game much closer to one end of the RPG spectrum relating to this "immersion" issue, where most games fall closer to the center, and some actually go the other direction. This is why Thanlis and I can both want immersion, but have different opinions about whether 4e can supply us with the immersion we want. We either want differing levels of immersion, or perhaps simply find a sense of immersion in different ways, so that 4e can be inadequate for my needs, but perfectly adequate for Thanlis (and others). I'm finding it very interesting and enlightening, and I've definitely gained an appreciation for how the fact that I have only been a player with 4e might make my POV of 4e different than if I were to try DMing it, as it seems that in the DMing arena 4e truly is a more effective or at least less obstructive tool. I'm even finding myself possibly interested in giving more play time to explore these issues at the game table. Other than the occasional interruption, I'm very grateful for such a civil and productive discussion, and I hope we can continue, thanks ya'all.

Quote from: Sigmund;367259Then why are even regular players and fans often dissatisfied with the modules WotC is putting out, to the point that the guy in charge of making them better has asked an online community for advice about what would make their modules better?

For reference: Rodney Thompson: "Help me make WotC adventures better"

Quote from: Sigmund;367261You couldn't possibly be looking for the same thing I am, otherwise you wouldn't like 4e any better than I do. You might be looking for the same type of  thing, but you're at the very least looking for it in different places than I am. Once again, I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, just that we're looking for something different... no, let me rephrase that... you're at the very least willing to accept something different from an RPG than I am. I think it's this difference that CRKrueger is posting about. The labels might be getting muddled, but the difference is there all the same.

If you'll go as far as saying that we are capable of getting what we're looking for out of different things, I'm with you. But that's not what CR's posting about. Read his last again:

"The fact that you can accept that level of abstraction of setting logic doesn't mean you can break out of some mind trap I'm stuck in, it means you don't immerse yourself in a setting as much as I do."

"you don't immerse yourself in a setting as much as I do. Period."

He's telling me how I think. I am not telling him how he thinks. I am, in fact, completely willing to accept his description of how 4e breaks his immersion. He, unfortunately, is not willing to accept my word that it doesn't break mine. He's forced to assume that I'm wrong.

Not for nothing, but you can maybe see where I get a little frustrated at times. It's not universal -- you and I disagree but I think we're having a useful conversation.

Oh, and parenthetically -- it's sort of a sad day when a company rep posts an honest, clean request for customer feedback and it's taken as evidence that his product sucks. I don't think there's ever a time when someone in his position shouldn't ask for feedback. I'm a manager; when I take over a group, first thing I do is one-on-ones with everyone to get their opinion about where things stand. Doesn't mean I think things are bad, I just like knowing what people think.

Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you never ask for feedback, you're an asshole who doesn't care about your customers. If you do ask for feedback, you're admitting that your stuff is no good.

Quote from: Thanlis;367268"you don't immerse yourself in a setting as much as I do. Period."

He's telling me how I think.

Sure. But at the same time, I'm seeing you getting offended rather than explaining to him how he's wrong in his assertion. What about trying to move on from the perceived offense and explaining to us how you immerse yourself in 4e despite what we would perceive as distractions, like the long tactical encounters, or the dissociated mechanics, et cetera?

That would help move the conversation forward.

Quote from: Thanlis;367268Oh, and parenthetically -- it's sort of a sad day when a company rep posts an honest, clean request for customer feedback and it's taken as evidence that his product sucks. I don't think there's ever a time when someone in his position shouldn't ask for feedback. I'm a manager; when I take over a group, first thing I do is one-on-ones with everyone to get their opinion about where things stand. Doesn't mean I think things are bad, I just like knowing what people think.

Well no, I honestly don't think there's any offense to take here. One person on the thread says "Why would there be a problem with combat in WotC adventures? People like combat" to which one replies "well, the issue comes up when a WotC representative asks what to do to improve WotC adventures", and indeed, it does. It's great that Rodney is asking for feedback, nobody's saying otherwise, I think. It doesn't somehow magically erase the fact that for some people a lack of background, or NPC depth, or immersion in the game world, are issues with WotC adventures, as referred to in the thread I linked.

Actually I'm not trying to tell you what you think, or that what you think is wrong.  What am I saying is that you and I accept different levels of immersion.  4e still lies within your acceptable zone, it does not lie within mine.  However, that is not just my perception, it is the design of 4e.  0e, 1e, 2e all fell within my level of immersion. Late 2e started to shift, 3e even more so.  4e left entirely.  You can accept a "Martial" power source that is the equivalent of Arcane or Divine, I can not.  You can just look at a rogue power like the one where he charges forward and every monster he passes has to hit themselves and not ask the whys or hows.  I cannot.  You accept a higher level of abstraction then I do, which means I require a deeper level of immersion.  Is that an insult to you?  I certainly don't mean it that way.

Some people accept less abstraction then I do, they require a deeper level of immersion and can't deal with games that have hit points or a class/level system.  I don't consider them superior or inferior, they just look for something different.

Somewhere 4e crossed a fundamental line on the immersion axis.  They did it by design and now they are trying to pull it back.  PHB3 is going to introduce hybrids that from early accounts can be sub-optimum.  WotC is asking on two websites how they can make their modules better, because even people who can deal with 4e are commenting on the lack of immersive setting context in their modules.  Yeah they are on top, they also realize that a lot of the anti-4e sentiment is not just edition wars, and it's also not going away.

Thanlis, you seem like you're truly trying to get to the center of these issues rather then bring up old blood or just fight for the hell of it.  Kudos. :hatsoff:

So we're all pretty much saying the same thing here.