Quote from: Benoist;367269Well 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.

I have to agree.  This is what appears to happen most of the time.  Someone comes along and makes a positive assertion that 4e (in this case) is a fantastic floor wax and the best dessert topping, so someone points out that, hey, a lot of people on their own message boards and conventions grumble about their floors not being really shiny, and the designer posts a message requesting some ideas about how to improve the product so floors are shinier.  It's a counterpoint to the positive assertion, that it is a fantastic floor wax, not a condemnation of the product as a whole.

For example, some people are still touting the skill challenge system in 4e.  This is after Stalker0 proved mathematically that it doesn't work the way WotC said it did, and WotC themselves published a couple attempted fixes (that also didn't work well, as I recall).  So, if someone keeps stating that the skill challenge system works for their group, that's great for them.  But they are clearly tweaking it heavily, or perhaps not using it very often, or seeing it through the lens of confirmation bias (as we are all wont to do), or something.  For myself, especially since WotC claimed to have a mathematician on board to insure it works, the rest of their claims about mechanical balancing are certainly suspect, but not broken by default.

So, when you hear a bunch of people saying the same thing, it's probably time to re-evaluate your initial premise.

I doubt it Benoist. [EDIT: actually I may have been reading too fast. If so, apologies to Thanlis.]

"Immersion" is used to mean a number of things, as Peregrin points out--even though I'm going to argue with him in a moment.

What I believe happens--a lot--in RPGs, though, is: some word ("X") gets used to describe what a given person thinks is key to their enjoyment, and what works against that. Opinion coalesces around both the aesthetic category and around the positive effect it has. In general, people who value "X" enjoy some games "P", but they also tend to dislike other games "Q".

Then a bunch of other people can't deal with the judgments that arise from this and mistakenly confound "X", which has a specific and concrete meaning in the context of earlier discussion, with the abstract notion of "enjoyment". They then argue that "X" is a property of "Q", after all, instead of accepting that there are differences of taste. Or if they accept there are differences of taste they prefer to mystify them as "purely a matter of taste", instead of engaging with investigation of the underlying reasons for sharing or not sharing certain tastes. (Variation: treating "matters of taste" as purely social phenomena, or purely related to familiarity/unfamiliarity.)

You see it with "immersion", you see it with "sandbox"--even to an extent with "Narrativism". Although in that last case, it's often in an inside-out way.

Now for Peregrin...citing video game designers as authoritative for tabletop RPGs is common these days...and also the source of considerable misunderstanding, for several  reasons. First, video games and tabletop RPGs are different media. Second, the two genres haven't generally shared the same culture of criticism--while there's been some overlap, the discussions have involved distinct groups of people, distinct fora, etc. Third, video game designers and theorists are at least as guilty of unclear thought as tabletop theorists.

I wrote more in relation to this issue in my blog here. (Never got past preliminary discussion, in case anyone's wondering.)

While I agree about game-theorists being unclear or vague, El, that's specifically why I said I was excluding the types of 'immersive experiences' not possible with tabletop as a medium (spatial and sensory).  However, I do think the other types, even though they were originally designated for criticism/improvement of video-game design, are applicable to tabletop since the way in which someone engages with it is similar, since certain types of immersion are much more dependent upon the psychological state of the subject rather than auditory or visual aids.

The only reason I even felt comfortable applying those few definitions of immersion to the current discussion is because they match similar definitions of ways to engage with the game that some tabletop theory covers.  But going into that things get even more muddled.

Suffice it to say, I think that different people engage with RPGs on different levels in different ways, which gives rise to different player types and group dynamics, and certain games work better for some people than others based on their own preferences for how and when they engage directly with the game.  That's basically what I mean, without all the fancy talk.  

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.

That's not how Rodney Thompson phrases his concern in the OP to that thread (parallel thread on tbP). Thompson straight off addresses that there's a widespread perception in their customer base that WotC' current modules 'suck'. He wants to change that. Note that he didn't say, 'I agree with you, we ought to change that.' He rather says, 'Tell me why you perceive it thus, and I'll try my best to change that in future product'. The parallel I'm groping for is this:

Quote from: Scot Rouse, WotC PR and Brand Manager for D&D 4E until late 2009Overall our strategy for 2009 will be to continue to market to the existing D&D fans. Lapsed players, current players of other editions, and fans of the brand who participate in other ways like novels and video games. Our hope is that as D&D becomes a multi-generational brand with players now becoming moms & dads, the next generation starts being recruited with in existing playing families. we also will get some halo effect acquistion through our efforts focused on core fans. In 2010 we'll start to focus more on pure acquisition on non-players.

(...) We really want to counter the perception that D&D is a tactical, combat focused war game. We want to show off the roleplaying potential with the system. I have been told Robin [Laws] has written an excelennt chapter on storytelling inthe DMG 2 and we hope to demonstrate the RP potential of the system in other ways including a 4e version of Village of Homlet.

Rouse later clarified his post here on two things:

Quote from: RouseQ: You're saying that "existing D&D fans" = lapsed players, players of other editions, and fans of the brand.
Yes, typed in haste. D&D Fans: lapsed players (played but stopped typically due to a file change like starting a career), current players of older editions (e.g. OD&D *cough* Dialgo *cough*), novels readers (FR, Dragonlance etc), and people who have interacted in other ways like video games. Basically people who we don't need to explain what D&D is.


Q:Who are the core fans? Does this mean current 4e players?
People who play D&D or read D&D novels


Q: Am I understanding correctly that lapsed/prior edition fans aren't currently considered core?
No, I would say a core fan is someone who is actively engaged with the brand in some way. Reading books, playing games, etc.

And on 'changing perceptions' (this is the key bit for me how to understand Thompson's OP):

Quote from: RouseQ: Hmm. I would not have guessed that among brand fans, the perception that it was a tactical combat game was the problem. D&D has always been a tactical combat game. I think 4e certainly highlighted/enhanced that existing "core brand experience."
Combat is a key element of D&D for certain. After all, it is "Kick in the door, kill the monster, take it's stuff" but RP is also part of the game. Personally, I don't buy the ['you need] rules for roleplaying' argument (don't pounce on this and start an edition war) but perception is reality and if people believe that then we need to manage to alter that perception.

Last sentence crucial. So, returning to Thompson's soliciting input for current 4E modules... While this is purely anecdotal evidence from a friend of mine visiting a half dozen of game stores in NYC some months ago, 4E-sales wise the books and power cards did exceedingly well while the modules were keepers. I don't think it's an unreasonable guess that sales of WotC modules were lagging while other products were and are doing extremely well for WotC. If so, then I'm not surprised that the company turns to their customer to basically ask for advice on how to increase sales.

Otoh, WotC already do regular product surveys without such a background of 'oh, our product sells poorly, so we need to solicit customer feedback'. Some time ago they asked in such an online survey how customers would change 4E Monster Manuals. After a high percentage said 'more background information, please!' (not an opinion I share, btw) WotC announced that they will follow suit.

On the whole, then, I think that WotC is simply interested in increasing their sales by winning back customers they lost or by simply gaining new customers.

Which gets me to this quote:

Quote from: CRKrueger;367283Somewhere 4e crossed a fundamental line on the immersion axis.  They did it by design and now they are trying to pull it back.

This makes it nearly (though not quite) sound as if WotC regrets their current ways and comes crawling back to the customers they deserted. Not quite the case, I think, though I see the appeal in terms of wishful thinking. I rather interpret it thus:

1. Up to very recently, WotC catered very exclusively to a particular type of gamer. They built up a strong relation of purchase loyalty to that type of gamer, since getting regular purchase from 1 out of 5 guys is better than getting irregular (especially, highly irregular) purchases from 3 out of 5 guys. Just to put this into perspective: regular means 'will buy 10 out of 12 hardcovers a year', and highly irregular means 'may buy the starter kit or the first PHB and never play a single time until a year later'. Which translates into 10-12 sales vs. 1-3 sales, respectively. In Abyssal Maw's language, I think that irregular purchasers are currently "not relevant" for WotC' marketing. I also think that 95% of posters on this site qualify as irregular or even highly irregular purchasers as far as 4E product is concerned. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2. The changes we're currently seeing (greater customability to classes in PHB 3, upcoming Essentials line to present the game in an even more accessible format, soliciting input to make adventures better) could thus be a way to strenghten their loyalty ties to extant customers in reaction to negative feedback or waning sales, as per 1., or it could be extending that loyalty base to new types of gamers and thus loosen their current exclusive focus on regular purchasers. I think Warthur put it best in another thread:

Quote from: Warthur;366524Hmm. Between this [ed. PHB 3 hybrid classes], the interview with the D&D With Pornstars guy (which included a positive depiction of someone running a game with pre-4E - and even pre-Wizards! - influences, and a link to an old school module), and the new BECMI-like box set series, I wonder if we aren't seeing some sort of shift in philosophy on the part of Wizards.

The question is... what shift it is. If the Rouse quote is accurate, then DMG 2 and 'Village of Hommlet' were WotC' 2009 efforts to regain people actively playing D&D but older editions (as you can see, it wasn't planned that Hommlet was to be available to RPGA-reward people only), and the 'Essentials' line is addressed to people who've never played D&D or a pen & paper RPG before.

Gotcha, Peregrin, and by the way on my first go through I missed the fact that the Wikipedia article referred to two sources, not just the Adams article.

However if you go ahead and look at the Google Books preview of the second source (Björk and Holopainen), searching on "psychological immersion", you find "Although claimed as one of the greatest dangers with playing games, psychological immersion, or confusion of the Game World and the real world, has not been verifiable under rigorous examination [...]."

In short B & H are talking about something that many tabletop "immersion" fans can't possibly identify with. They suggest that psychological immersion would be harmful, if it existed, but it doesn't. Of course that doesn't match any subjective impression, so it's basically a non-category. When you aggregate all the categories put forward in the Wikipedia article, you still don't quite capture the sense that John Kim gives for the rec.games.frp.advocacy usage, "trying to cut out all meta-game information and view things from the Point-of-View of your character". This is fairly unique to games, and not exactly the same as the narrative/emotional immersion that games can and often do share with movies or books.

So...it might be worth engaging with video game theorists but they don't have their house in order any more than tabletop theorists, and they can lead tabletop astray if they're allowed to lead the discussion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;367283Actually 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.

Dunno what to tell you. The other day I was playing D&D, middle of a fight, my little sorcerer was charging off across the map to finish off a vulnerable opponent. There's this bard he adventures with a lot. He has kind of a thing for her. The bard says "hey, you're leaving me alone with this monster!" Without thinking, I reverse course, plop the sorcerer back down in the middle of three monsters, and attack the one that's the most threatening to the bard. No analysis needed. It was the same emotional process I've gone through in every other game I've played where I've achieved immersion.

I can't say this any more plainly: you have no reason to doubt that I immerse as deeply as you do except that I'm playing a game you don't like.

I'm not insulted -- don't mistake Benoist's analysis for reality -- but I do find it nearly useless to engage in conversation when you're unwilling to accept my word for my experiences.

I guess I'll offer one more observation. In my experience, immersion is a matter of internalizing the rules. I can't immerse when I have to think about the mechanics. It absolutely took longer to internalize the 4e mechanics than it took to internalize, say, the Unknown Armies mechanics. But that doesn't mean it was impossible to do so.

Mmm... and hey, might as well explain the rogue power to you. When you walk past someone in 4e, you generally give them a shot at stabbing you. Cause, you know, you're getting from one place to another rather than defending yourself. You can avoid it, but you move more slowly.

Rogues are clever and crafty. With extreme effort, they can bob and weave as they pass, leaving their foes looking like idiots as they swing and go off-balance and wind up slicing open their feet, limbs, and so forth.

Now -- and this is important -- this is a really pulpy world I just described there. If you want to play a game in which non-magical people can't do that kind of thing, 4e is a lousy game for you. If you want to play a game in which PCs can't instantly divine a mundane opponent's battle plans, you should probably not play Amber. That sort of thing.

Quote from: Thanlis;367323I guess I'll offer one more observation. In my experience, immersion is a matter of internalizing the rules. I can't immerse when I have to think about the mechanics. It absolutely took longer to internalize the 4e mechanics than it took to internalize, say, the Unknown Armies mechanics. But that doesn't mean it was impossible to do so.

I simply can't internalize RPG rules that regularly produce results that I can't easily imagine in (what my mind considers) realistic for the game world ways. Every time the rules produce a result that I can't easily imagine in game world terms (without thinking in terms of the rules), I get pulled out the of imaginary game world to try to think of some way to rationalize what is going on. Too many of these events in a game session ruins my enjoyment of the game.

ALL RPGs have some issues like this, but 4e has a huge number of them for me (marking, lots of powers that make no game-world sense to me, battlemat pushing and shoving combat that does not map well to my real world knowledge of combat, etc.)  These things may not bother some people much as much as they do me, but for be they are enough to make playing 4e an experience I do not enjoy at all. The 4e rules for D&D have simply moved things beyond my ability to suspend disbelief -- a problem I have not had with the rules for previous versions of D&D.

Quote from: RandallS;367339I simply can't internalize RPG rules that regularly produce results that I can't easily imagine in (what my mind considers) realistic for the game world ways. Every time the rules produce a result that I can't easily imagine in game world terms (without thinking in terms of the rules), I get pulled out the of imaginary game world to try to think of some way to rationalize what is going on. Too many of these events in a game session ruins my enjoyment of the game.

This is completely understandable, but how is that you don't understand that this has everything to do with your own limits and not the game itself?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367341This is completely understandable, but how is that you don't understand that this has everything to do with your own limits and not the game itself?

It is a combination of BOTH. As all prior versions of the gamer called D&D did not do this and my tastes have NOT changed, the rules changes to this 4e version of D&D are the cause of the problem. I did not change, the rules to D&D did.  My tastes are no longer supported by the current edition of D&D because of the choices the designers made, not because of anything I did. They made choices that greatly narrowed the styles of play the game supports. Their choices made a game that had been playable for me for 30 years or so  unplayable for me. They changed the game, I did not change what I want out of the game.

Obviously I disagree. These are your limits, and there's nothing wrong with them, but they are your limits.

QuoteTheir choices made a game that had been playable for me for 30 years or so unplayable for me.

No, they made a new edition of the game that just didn't appeal to you. (Is that too subtle of a difference? I have no idea..)  It's not a question of whether it is unplayable "by you", it's that you decided you'd rather not play it. But you still have previous editions to play with so it's a wash, isn't it? Once again, your limits are your own responsibility.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I just don't get why 4e is so hard to immerse in.  Seriously, it seems like the only complaint, over and over again, has to do with encounter and daily martial powers.

Personally, letting the fighter do cool maneuvers seems way more immersive to me (and in line with genre fiction) than being stuck saying nothing but "I roll to hit" over and over and over again.   How is that really role-playing the character?  How does that really help imagine yourself in the fight?

There sure is a lot of angst over WotC trying to make combat interesting for everyone.

And seriously, you can't get over martial powers but you are A-OK with AC and HP, two of the most un-immersive mechanics ever invented?  And Vancian magic was just peachy but daily powers for anyone else is pure fail?  I just can't understand that POV.

Quote from: jgants;367352Personally, letting the fighter do cool maneuvers seems way more immersive to me (and in line with genre fiction) than being stuck saying nothing but "I roll to hit" over and over and over again.

Spamming a character's at-will powers round after round once dailies and encounter powers are blown is the functional equivalent to saying nothing but 'I roll to hit' over and over again, IMHO.

Quote from: Thanlis;367323I'm not insulted -- don't mistake Benoist's analysis for reality -- but I do find it nearly useless to engage in conversation when you're unwilling to accept my word for my experiences.

Two things here: 1/ You might not realize it, but you feigning apathy and disinterest in the conversation actually reveals much about the way you feel. The wording you are choosing participates to it. I can actually feel your frustration in what you write, and am only left guessing at the feelings you do not write about. I may be wrong on the diagnostic, but the symptoms are here in plain sight. You are getting frustrated in this discussion right now. It is visible.

2/ In the way you are talking about your game, some people might object to the notion that the type of immersion they have in a role playing game is as similar to yours as you believe it is. Consider:

QuoteDunno what to tell you. The other day I was playing D&D, middle of a fight, my little sorcerer was charging off across the map to finish off a vulnerable opponent. There's this bard he adventures with a lot. He has kind of a thing for her. The bard says "hey, you're leaving me alone with this monster!" Without thinking, I reverse course, plop the sorcerer back down in the middle of three monsters, and attack the one that's the most threatening to the bard. No analysis needed. It was the same emotional process I've gone through in every other game I've played where I've achieved immersion.

What I personally noticed immediately is that you used the expression "my little sorcerer" like you were talking about a miniature or doll instead of a character or even better in terms of immersion, an avatar, yourself. Granted, you shift to the first person in mid-paragraph, but that's something I caught on, personally. Maybe it's just the way you're feigning apathy for the topic at hand that affected the way you described your experience, but I did not feel at all your investment, or "emotional process" as you put it, in the character as I read this, which will lead me to believe that we are not experiencing the same type of immersion when playing RPGs.

Hence potential misunderstandings.

Here's my own immersion conundrum in AD&D:

1 minute rounds. These equal a lot of parrying, thrusting, loss of luck, general fatigue, etc. I get that.

But then you fire an arrow. ONE arrow. One arrow is marked off. (Or two if you happen to use the rate of fire rules). In Basic D&D, you don't get rate of fire. You just get the one arrow. That also takes a whole minute.

But did I just get over it? Well, yes, I did. Because we were somehow, in our precociousness, able to acknowledge that it was a game and we were having fun...

And in any case,I also think that 4E's martial powers are flavorful and interesting- My warlord for example has a maneuver called "Diabolic Stratagem" which involves a feint that intentionally makes himself seem vulnerable.. but if an enemy is lured into attacking, it triggers a retaliation from nearby allies. It fits his personality- he's wiley and unpredictable, and (as a half-orc) he's not above sacrificing a little blood in order to win a battle. Warlords have an "inspiring word" power that helps lead their allies to victory and his is "Come on you mugs, you want to live forever? Let's go!"

Averngers have an "Oath" power that can help them make attacks against their chosen target- as a DM I often encourage the player to say "Let's hear your oath!".. and that gets players a hook for roleplaying.

Powers relate directly to roleplaying if you let them.

Quote from: Benoist;367367What I personally noticed immediately is that you used the expression "my little sorcerer" like you were talking about a miniature or doll instead of a character or even better in terms of immersion, an avatar, yourself.

It's little because his character is a halfling.