Quote from: Akrasia;389386It's not clear to me what exactly you're demanding here.  Do you want detailed campaign summaries with full game mechanical explanations of what happened in order to help you evaluate whether my group's judgement that one game system facilitated immersion more successfully than another system is sound or not?  That sounds like an inherently flawed endeavour.  I could describe what happened when we played game x in setting z, and then what happened when we played game y in setting z, and why we reasonably concluded that the difference in our experiences with games x and y were because we were, um, playing different games.  Nonetheless, I'm sure that you could come up with some explanation that we somehow were misjudging our own experiences of applying the mechanics of game x and y in order to support your hypothesis that game mechanics play no 'intrinsic' role in facilitating/impeding immersion.

Frankly, that kind of endeavour sounds like a real waste of time.

It is clear you don't want to debate the idea, merely declare it and have it accepted by others as true. Simply put: I don't do that shit.

For record yes, I have had fairly detailed write-ups of campaigns I've been in here appear (Iron Heroes for Bad People and the Dessinger Campaign, both of which are partial but fairly extensive). And I encourage fairly free commentary on them. I talk extensively about actual play experiences, I design worlds on here so people can see how I do it, and I invite comments and analysis on them.

So I don't think it's somehow unfair of me to insist that people who are going to say things like "I believe X because of Y experience" actually tell me in detail about Y experience so I can evaluate whether I think their judgment is correct or not.

QuoteOf course "the rules don't exist in the game except in their application."  But presumably the rules determine, at least in part, "their application."  We read 100+ page RPG manuals for a reason, viz., to help to determine what to do (at least in part) when we actually play the game!  So obviously different rules will result in different experiences at the table.  (Unless we simply choose to ignore the rules.)

Sure, rules contribute somewhat to the experience at the table. I don't deny that. But I think the soft factors surrounding the rules are more important. Like I've said earlier, familiarity, taste, willingness to adhere to or depart from RAW are at least as important as "The ordinary human range for stats goes from 3 to 18" or "Roll under the percentile score of your skill to succeed on this task".

Quote(a) Rules of the game + (b) Players (including their knowledge of the rules, personalities, tastes, etc.) = (c) 'Actual game experience' (Players applying the Rules in their Games).

1+ 10 = 11. Sure.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389419Really?
I am sorry to know that is your opinion, and that you don't see the utility.
I disagree, as it is a useful descriptor for me.  

But since I think you are trying to be fair, I will also.

It amounts to giving far more hot air than is needed to a simple concept to make it appear to possess some form of academic rigor or intelligence.

"If I'm thinking about the mechanics at the moment, I might not be thinking in character" is a simple fucking concept that really doesn't need 30,000 words written on it.  

If Einstein can write the Theory of Relativity in less words than it takes you to explain a far simpler concept, you need to consider that maybe you just don't know how to write clearly.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389389This...
There is a lot of hostility. For better or for worse, 4E D&D has produced a pronounced split in the community that people feel very strongly about. If you want the hostility to cease, the only option I see is for people upset by 4E to get over it and move on, to stop fighting for the soul of D&D in public forums.

There is AT LEAST one other option, 4e fans could simply admit that it is a very different game from all previous versions of D&D (especially the TSR versions that started it all) and that those gamers who don't think it really is D&D in anything but brand name have a position just as valid as the theirs. :rolleyes:

I suspect with a small amount of effort I could come up with more options.

Quote from: Benoist;389416Communication breakdown: there's no conversation to be had if you don't agree on its premise (and thus, definitions) first.

It's a controversy that is oft willfully undertaken to shut down debate.

I'm not trying to shut down debate at all. One of the reasons I propose counter-definitions and such is to help show people what kinds of definitions and terminology I find acceptable.

For that matter, you may notice that I am perfectly fine when people are using terms casually without pretending that they have anything beyond the an ordinary common-sense meaning.

It is specifically the pseudo-intellectual jargon that I target.

The problem, from my perspective, is that people make up bad definitions, use terms carelessly, and then are committed and unwilling to give up those bad definitions and that careless use of terminology.

I will happily talk directly about immersion on either of two conditions:

1) No one tries to make retard claims like Justin Alexander. "No, I defined a term! The definition means that can't happen!" We simply speak plainly in ordinary language and rely on common sense for what our words mean.

2) We coin an appropriately specific terminology, of sufficient rigour, clarity and coherency, and then use that terminology while making it clear that we are doing so.

I have been making the same point now for something like four years on this site, and every couple of months, a new bunch of intellectual faddist come rolling in with a new set of jargon and they throw a new set of hissy fits when you challenge them to justify the existence and uses of their jargon. I am not sympathetic to this latest batch, anymore than I was to their idiotic forebearers.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389369That would require people upset at the success of 4E and other games having the ability to move on.

Do you really think there are that many people who are upset at the success of 4e?

I have said on numerious occasions, and will reiterate, I wish financial success and continued growth for every RPG designer and manufacturer, whether I like their game or not.  This industry is too small and too fragile, I wish success and growth for all, no matter my critical opinons.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;389415Let's be honest here:

(1) Taking trolls seriously is not productive.

(2) Pseudoephedrine has already admitted that what we refer to as "dissociated mechanics" exist. So my "theory" doesn't really need to be defended. He's already admitted its validity. He just wants to call it something else. While simultaneously using "dissociated mechanics" to mean something completely different. (Or, apparently, several different things since he keeps offering up different "definitions".)

Nope! I've explained my position a couple of times. You don't appear willing to actually read it, so it's no wonder you don't understand it.

Also, aren't you still pretending to ignore me?

Christ, each time it's not only the same stupid shit, but the same whiny crap.

QuoteNow, even if he was actually interested in just arguing that it should be called, I dunno, "purple polka dot mechanics", I still wouldn't be all that interested in the discussion: The terminology has been accepted and used over dozens of forums for more than two years.

Dozens of unnamed forums for some period that's possibly an hour more than two years! I had no idea that such august authorities and traditions from time immemorial had given the august halo of truth to your made up words!

QuoteInsisting that mechanics which aren't associated with the game world should be called something other than "dissociated mechanics" just isn't going to be productive. It's not like there's somebody who "owns" the terminology and can send out a software patch. And using "dissociated mechanics" to mean "mechanics which are not associated [with the game world]" is pretty straight-forward and self-evident terminology.

The word "associated" in all those definitions is a weasel word.

QuoteBut that's not the reason he's a troll. You can tell he's a troll because of his mutually self-contradictory positions; his deliberate attempts to undermine valuable conversation (the tactics of which he admits he's doing); and his strawmanning (which he admits he's doing).

I've never "admitted" to "undermin[ing] valuable conversation". I've admitted that I think your vocabulary is bad, that it leads nowhere intellectually productive, and that I see little to no value in it.

I also have never "admitted" to "strawmanning". What on earth are you talking about now, you wretched liar and pretentious intellectual fraud?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389433I'm not trying to shut down debate at all. One of the reasons I propose counter-definitions and such is to help show people what kinds of definitions and terminology I find acceptable.

For that matter, you may notice that I am perfectly fine when people are using terms casually without pretending that they have anything beyond the an ordinary common-sense meaning.

It is specifically the pseudo-intellectual jargon that I target.

But you are doing the exact same thing by consistently turning arguments into rhetorical and lexical catfights. You know it PE. I know it. We're not the only ones.

Quote from: RandallS;389432There is AT LEAST one other option, 4e fans could simply admit that it is a very different game from all previous versions of D&D (especially the TSR versions that started it all) and that those gamers who don't think it really is D&D in anything but brand name have a position just as valid as the theirs. :rolleyes:

I suspect with a small amount of effort I could come up with more options.

I could say those things. In fact I agree withem them as stated, with the caveat that there is a profound difference between holding the opinion that 4e isn't D&D and pursuing a political campaign trying to ram that opinion down everyone's throats on public forums. I can respect opinions while taking exception to what people do with those opinions.

But really, does me saying that you have the right to your opinion really change anything for you?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425It is clear you don't want to debate the idea, merely declare it and have it accepted by others as true. Simply put: I don't do that shit.

Then, please, 'don't do that shit', or whatever.

I've simply summarized my own experiences and drawn what I take to be the most plausible explanation for them.  

In any case, you've already accepted my essential claim as true (see below).  

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425For record yes, I have had fairly detailed write-ups of campaigns I've been in here appear

Gosh – good for you!  Obviously you have considerably more spare time than I do.  I'm envious.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425I design worlds on here so people can see how I do it, and I invite comments and analysis on them.

I've looked at some of those threads in the past, and generally found them to be quite interesting.  Again: good for you!

But simply because you're happy to spend hours writing these things here, though, does not make it reasonable for you to expect others to do likewise.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425Sure, rules contribute somewhat to the experience at the table. I don't deny that. But I think the soft factors surrounding the rules are more important. Like I've said earlier, familiarity, taste, willingness to adhere to or depart from RAW are at least as important as "The ordinary human range for stats goes from 3 to 18" or "Roll under the percentile score of your skill to succeed on this task".

Sure, I agree with the claim that "soft factors surrounding the rules are more important" than the mechanics alone.  

But the mechanics do make a difference in the experience.  That has been my basic claim in this thread.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;3894251+ 10 = 11. Sure.

Okay.  But a factor that determines 9.09 percent of the final experience is pretty significant!

I suspect that the role played by mechanics is greater than 9.09 percent, but that's just a suspicion, and not one that I am that interested in debating at length (debating "9 percent versus 18 percent versus 27 percent" seems both pointless and epistemically dubious).

Even a mere 9.09 percent role for mechanics would be sufficient for it to be taken seriously as a variable that determines people's actual experiences.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389422There are people who post here, sometimes on this very thread, who being riduculed by is one of the highest intellectual affirmations I can think of on this site.

Seriously.

For better or worse, this isn't theCBG. It's been interesting seeing the stupidity of this place wear you out. I'm sure you'll feel a bit better when you realize you've got no obligation to educate or inform here, and that people won't always tip you off that they're being willfully ignorant by openly insulting you.

I'd say Pseudo's being a bit of a jerk by disputing "metagame." Seriously, it's got a pretty clear meaning. And while "associated" and "dissociated" don't have a hell of a lot of use outside of this particular discussion or something very very like it (hence the reactions you're getting), you did define your terms and point to examples in real life, and there was no pre-existing word that suited the concept better. New concepts get new words and language evolves. Even jargon and slang that are subculture specific. I don't see any nits worth picking with that. I should note that there was a reaction against the forge and RPG theory that partly had to do with their jargon, which had no connection with anything in real life or ran counter to gamers' real-life experience (and whose only purpose was to promote a specific style of play), so part of the reaction you're getting is simply on the basis of using gaming specific words.

 And after defining the terms, you went on to say something about them that more or less made sense. You said something to the effect that whenever mechanics are used that do not correlate to something in the gameworld, players can't be making decisions as their characters would. Pretty obvious, right? Like "water is wet." But you say it using a series of terms that promote one style of play and sort of damn a bunch of mechanics. So you're making an uncontroversial point with inflammatory language, even if phrases like "metagame" carry no connotation good or bad for you (which we all know isn't true based on what you've told us about your gaming preferences).

The reaction people are having is, for the most part, unwarranted. But do realize you can say something obviously true and still spark controversy on some other basis.

Seanchi, AM, and TCO: Seriously, quit spouting bullshit. Every time someone agrees with someone else you cry groupthink and every time someone disagrees with one of you (doesn't even have to be you personally) you cry persecution. I seem to recall AM saying something about people agreeing with each other over contradicting reasons why they don't like 4e. That's stupid. Different people can like or dislike different things about the same game. Take Trollman. Most people here don't think that balance is an okay goal for a game. Trollman is one of the few people here who think balance is a pretty cool idea, and instead he picks at the math of the game most of the time. So people will agree with him that... say... skill challenges suck FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. Here's a secret: Group opinions are usually internally inconsistent because different people think different things. And "people who aren't particularly fond of 4e" aren't even a group. It's just one quality many people who don't identify with each other happen to share.

Quote from: Akrasia;389450In any case, you've already accepted my essential claim as true (see below).

Yes, I don't deny the mechanics make some difference. But I don't think that leads anywhere as it currently stands. We have to investigate what kind of difference and why, and in what context they do. That strikes me as much more productive and interesting.  

QuoteSure, I agree with the claim that "soft factors surrounding the rules are more important" than the mechanics alone.  

But the mechanics do make a difference in the experience.  That has been my basic claim in this thread.

If that's all you want to say, that's fine.

Quote from: BeejFor better or worse, this isn't theCBG. It's been interesting seeing the stupidity of this place wear you out. I'm sure you'll feel a bit better when you realize you've got no obligation to educate or inform here, and that people won't always tip you off that they're being willfully ignorant by openly insulting you.

I'll feel better after a glass of wine tonight.  Wear me out?  Perhaps made me incredulous at a level of willful ignorance, but I can't say you are totally wrong.  We have online session #41 tomorrow night for the Steel Isle group.  SHould be good stuff.

Did I tell you I like your headings for success, failure, and crit failure on your spell descriptions?

Quote from: Benoist;389446But you are doing the exact same thing by consistently turning arguments into rhetorical and lexical catfights. You know it PE. I know it. We're not the only ones.

I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.

You folks should see me play Nomic, if you think you're getting the rough end of the stick here.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389462I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.

I don't think you are honestly interested in any form of discussion, aka exchanges.
You're in it to win, rhetorically speaking. The subject matter seems completely secondary to your MO.