Quote from: Benoist;389554It's not like there's much to salvage at this point.

THis thread is like loading up an old GTA:SA savegame and taxiing the fighter jet up and down the freeway blowing up civilians at this point.

Grand Theft Auto is shit.

Quote from: Peregrin;389576Grand Theft Auto is shit.

Fuck you!  That...thing...you like is...also shit!

There, got you.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;389573Okay...is this on?  Can I get a level check?  One-two-two-two-one-check-check.  Okay.  We're good.  Ahem:

WHYYYYYYYY SHOULD I HAAAAAAAAAAVE TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

I swear!  It's always the same thing: "Oh man recompiling your kernel is Soooo easy, it takes like two mintues..." WHY DO I HAVE TO???

Note the implied humor here, but come on!

Honestly, how much time do you spend tweaking Windows, downloading updates, waiting for security patches, installing new software, praying the latest patch doesn't blow up your system, etc.?

I'll admit, mythTV should probably have at least the utility to install MySQL for you.  But it's a security issue; you don't want software running around that has essentially root access to stuff, even if it is only itself.

Quote from: LV

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine

Quote from: Originally Posted by Benoist 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.

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.

Or until long after they are answered, substantiated, proven again, and reproven.
or at least that's my take.
it's your turn again.

So much for that.  
Tune in next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel (but different bat-thread...)

Quote from: LordVreeg;389580So much for that.  
Tune in next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel (but different bat-thread...)

Uh, pardon me, but we're trying to have a discussion about Linux here?  Could you guys move the RPG stuff to another thread?  Thanks.

I find Windows far more immersive than Linux.  Dealing with the command line all the time just to get my system the way I want it?  I need to run a program just to install apps?

That shit just pulls me out of the experience.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389546define swinery, then, since we don't have enough definitions issues yet.  Really.  More, please.

I think it is the definition of metagaming, but I don't know if it can be proven to be against immersion, either.  I think that its a good conversation.
BTW, the above example with diease?  Sounds to me more like the mechanics modelling IC info. I may not know the mechanics of getting a cold or the flu or Mono, but I sure know the exist and what they can do.

The point is, (and stop thinking about realism for a second, this isn't about mono or the flu, it's more about vamprisim or filth fever): your character can catch diseases in the game, but  you won't know how to roleplay them until you have the OOC affects explained.

You know what the difference is? The order things happen. Because your entire concept of metagaming seems to suggest that the players are playing along and the mechanics come along after the roleplaying part as applied by yon snowy-bearded GM to "model the simulative reality". The thing you seem to have a problem with is that players might take advantage of OOC info.

In my version of events, it's quite often the mechanical things happen first as part of the rules, and you find the roleplaying hook therein. So yes, the PC absolutely gets to "take advantage" of the OOC info that the mechanics provide- and that creates immersive opportunities, depending on how good or talented the players are. So if a monster has an attack that causes a player to "take 6 damage and be slowed", that gives the player the chance to say "I twisted my ankle!" or the Dm to make something up, or any combination.

It requires a willingness to creatively and vividly interpret and translate mechanics and conditions into descriptive detail on the part of the players and the DM, and also the cognizance on everyone's part to realize that games can be descriptive and imaginative experiences without being strictly realistic simulative models, psychotherapy sessions, misery exploration, or improv theater.

Quote from: Peregrin;389586I find Windows far more immersive than Linux.  Dealing with the command line all the time just to get my system the way I want it?  I need to run a program just to install apps?

That shit just pulls me out of the experience.

Jesus, you don't need to use the command line all the time, and even if you were, it is just as immersive as the GUI.  I am constantly typing stuff in the shell, and I feel every bit as immersed in the experience as the GUI.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389590The point is, (and stop thinking about realism for a second, this isn't about mono or the flu, it's more about vamprisim or filth fever): your character can catch diseases in the game, but  you won't know how to roleplay them until you have the OOC affects explained.

You know what the difference is? The order things happen. Because your entire concept of metagaming seems to suggest that the players are playing along and the mechanics come along after the roleplaying part as applied by yon snowy-bearded GM to "model the simulative reality". The thing you seem to have a problem with is that players might take advantage of OOC info.

In my version of events, it's quite often the mechanical things happen first as part of the rules, and you find the roleplaying hook therein. So yes, the PC absolutely gets to "take advantage" of the OOC info that the mechanics provide- and that creates immersive opportunities, depending on how good or talented the players are. So if a monster has an attack that causes a player to "take 6 damage and be slowed", that gives the player the chance to say "I twisted my ankle!" or the Dm to make something up, or any combination.

It requires a willingness to creatively and vividly interpret and translate mechanics and conditions into descriptive detail on the part of the players and the DM, and also the cognizance on everyone's part to realize that games can be descriptive and imaginative experiences without being strictly realistic simulative models, psychotherapy sessions, misery exploration, or improv theater.

This is an excellent post.

I do believe that dissociation is not an on/off switch, by which I mean (not which witch is which, no, but instead) that it is a matter of degrees of dissociation, not whether a mechanic is dissociated or not. The question then becomes what the degree of dissociation of a particular mechanic is, and not whether it helps conduct immersion or not, but how many players find it conducive of immersion or not,  to which extent, and the degree of suspension of disbelief it requires to do so.

It seems to me that the more associated the mechanic, the less people will have problems finding interpretations for them in the game world and immerse themselves in said world. Conversely, the more dissociated the mechanic, the more people will have problem coming up with interpretations of what it means in the game world, and thus immerse themselves in the game world. There will still be players able to jump the obstacle, but the obstacle will be taller nonetheless.

Quote from: Peregrin;389586I find Windows far more immersive than Linux.  Dealing with the command line all the time just to get my system the way I want it?  I need to run a program just to install apps?

That shit just pulls me out of the experience.

It's all subjective, Windows can't be more Immersive then Linux, operating systems aren't by themselves immersive they only become immersive or not once operated by an actual user.  You're just feeling inferior and need an excuse to not like Linux.

Or else you're insane.

Quote from: Benoist;389609It seems to me that the more associated the mechanic, the less people will have problems finding interpretations for them in the game world and immerse themselves in said world. Conversely, the more dissociated the mechanic, the more people will have problem coming up with interpretations of what it means in the game world, and thus immerse themselves in the game world. There will still be players able to jump the obstacle, but the obstacle will be taller nonetheless.

Exactamundo, the dissociation itself isn't subjective, it's whether or not someone can have fun roleplaying a character at that reduced level of immersion or not.

The level of immersion we need to have fun roleplaying is what is subjective.  Some people can have fun roleplaying at the level of immersion 4e's high degree of dissociation allows.  Others need a higher level of immersion to get into that roleplaying headspace.

And no, before anyone posts, there's no fucking value judgment attached.

Quote from: Benoist;389609This is an excellent post.

I do believe that dissociation is not an on/off switch, by which I mean (not which witch is which, no, but instead) that it is a matter of degrees of dissociation, not whether a mechanic is dissociated or not. The question then becomes what the degree of dissociation of a particular mechanic is, and not whether it helps conduct immersion or not, but how many players find it conducive of immersion or not,  to which extent, and the degree of suspension of disbelief it requires to do so.

It seems to me that the more associated the mechanic, the less people will have problems finding interpretations for them in the game world and immerse themselves in said world. Conversely, the more dissociated the mechanic, the more people will have problem coming up with interpretations of what it means in the game world, and thus immerse themselves in the game world. There will still be players able to jump the obstacle, but the obstacle will be taller nonetheless.

I'm going to ask a question here. When it comes to immersion and association, association to what?

When it comes to the game world, what is the game world and what are its rules? Must how and why be strictly defined, or is simply what results more important?

To me, there isn't just one way to define these things. Some people talk about game world physics, I would ask why must the game be grounded in physics? What if a round isn't six seconds, but an indeterminate amount of time defined as the time it takes everyone to act. There is a lot more freedom in the second definition.

I'll give my take on two 4E aspects I've heard people complain about, Martial powers usable once per day and Action Points:

Martial Daily Powers--These are really spectacular techniques that are very difficult to pull off, and take an extraordinary application of will and opportunity to execute. A real life example would be the Haymaker in boxing, something that takes talent and an opening to execute, and something you can't just do at will. The game translates this into something usable once per day, and puts it in the players hands(in the form of narrative control) when this combination of will and opportunity will occur.

Action Points--To me Action Points are simple. They are the ability to go the extra mile when you really need to, to do a little extra in a dramatic moment, and like daily powers giving the player control over when the dramatic moment occurs.

Quote from: CRKrueger;389614Exactamundo, the dissociation itself isn't subjective, it's whether or not someone can have fun roleplaying a character at that reduced level of immersion or not.

The level of immersion we need to have fun roleplaying is what is subjective.  Some people can have fun roleplaying at the level of immersion 4e's high degree of dissociation allows.  Others need a higher level of immersion to get into that roleplaying headspace.

And no, before anyone posts, there's no fucking value judgment attached.

Remove immersion, and insert simulation of game world defined physics.

I prefer to be immersed from a dramatic standpoint, as opposed to one defined by how the world works.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389621I'm going to ask a question here.

I don't care about your questions. I know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, and I'm not interested in a pissing match with you. Go find targets for your trolling somewhere else. Thank you.