Quote from: Shazbot79;387846In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.

Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.

I'm not sure I agree. 'Exception-based' doesn't really mean characters are breaking physics, exactly...virtually EVERY ability a character has in ANY game system has to be an 'exception'. For an ability to be worth mentioning, it has to be something a character can't already do - unless another character could do it without a bonus. In 3.5 you example Combat Reflexes is an 'exception' because it lets you do something you normally couldn't - make an AoO when flat-footed.
4e may have a supers feel because the word 'power' floats around alot, but 3.5 characters have more setting-breaking powers by a substantial margin. Whether you consider that a feature or a bug is up to you.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387849Take John McLean from Die Hard. He looks perfectly normal, its only when everything goes to shit and people are shooting at him that you see he's different.

Die Hard only makes sense once you realize that Unbreakable is its prequel.  

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387859Yeah. The uselessness of fighters in 3.5, the need for extensive buffing before combat and the dominance of save-or-dies really clashed with the kinds of games people wanted to play (the descriptions of which always seemed to include the words "deadly" and "low magic"). 4e handles those problems really well.

The "low magic" part of 3.5e complaints was about setting breaking magic(mostly non-combat) and magic that reduced non-spellcasters to sidekick status. This problem was mostly a creation of 3E, as these issues were theoretically possible in earlier editions but rarely happened at the table. That sort of magic has been almost entirely removed in 4E. I'm not sure what you mean by deadly. Most of the complaints on that score I remember were complaints about random death to dice, of which save-or-die was the most obvious example. Despite what people say about 4E, death is very possible in 4E. I've killed a number of PCs as DM, and our local RPGA has produced more than its share of casualties. It requires a series of dice rolls to go against you in 4E to die though, and its difficult to die without making some bad decisions to help those dice rolls along. Every death I've seen in 4E was somebody's fault(either the dead PC or their friends), as opposed to a die roll.

Quote from: jormungand1;387701But then again, I'm taking that out of context, so maybe Yahtzee means something else, but to me its a clear warning to steer clear of the tyranny of fun trap.

There's not much context to get -- it's a blurb from an ad.  

Coming from the cultural context of video-games and the "Developer's Paradox", it means everyone who is a fan that bitches.  It is not exclusionary.  It doesn't mean you shouldn't try to change things, nor does it mean you shouldn't keep some things as they are.  Any alteration to a franchise will result in bitching from any part of the fandom.

It's not a call to a certain style of design, it has nothing to do with Melan's own personal views on this supposed "tyranny", it's merely making the statement that you, as the developer, will never be able to do anything right, no matter what, whether you're developing Melan's dream game or catering to AM's personal tastes.  A group of people will always be unhappy.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387865The "low magic" part of 3.5e complaints was about setting breaking magic(mostly non-combat) and magic that reduced non-spellcasters to sidekick status. This problem was mostly a creation of 3E, as these issues were theoretically possible in earlier editions but rarely happened at the table. That sort of magic has been almost entirely removed in 4E. I'm not sure what you mean by deadly. Most of the complaints on that score I remember were complaints about random death to dice, of which save-or-die was the most obvious example.

While I have lost the occasional PC in 3.x, I never found it particularly deadly compared to other games (WFRP, BRP, even earlier versions of D&D, etc.). You get a lot of HP if you build your char right (or have the right spells on), it's easy to jack up your saves to resist most save-or-dies, and you're usually coated in layer upon layer of ablative defenses (deathward, spell turning, spell resistance, antimagic shell, etc.) and soaked in healing magic for most of combat anyhow.

Damage scales poorly in 3.x, so a fireball or other "blast" spell will only rarely kill an equivalent level monster. Frex, a 5th level fireball will deal about 18 points of damage on average (if the saving throw for half is failed, for that matter), while a CR5 monster with a d8 HD has on average 23 HP. A hardy CR5 monster (d12 HD) has on average 33 HP. It was because of this problem with damage that save-or-dies became so important.

The situation also works in reverse for monsters attacking PCs, but is exacerbated because PCs usually have easier access to healing magic than monsters do (Wands of Lesser Vigour in particular were basically game-breaking).

And despite the above, I still see people regularly say that they want their 3.5 games to be "deadly" and for "damage to mean something" and so on.

Quote from: Werekoala;387755Hm. A GURPS background advantage or patron is a hook if the GM wants to use it. Letting the players come up with their own quests may be a hook too, but it hooks the DM, not the player, IMO.

Clarification - to me a "quest" is mandatory (almost like a geas or something) rather than just an interesting background quirk - that might just be my personal interpretation.

By the current definition, Quests aren't mandatory. They're just .. goal centered adventures. In AD&D1e, they offer the same advice for an assassin who decides to independently undertake the study of poisons, for example.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387865That sort of magic has been almost entirely removed in 4E.

The Rituals break a setting pretty throughly. Phantom Steeds, recalling a chest, teleport, etc.

If you use the 4e ritual system there are a lot of implications for a setting in there.

Quote from: Shazbot79;387846In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.

Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.

That was kind of what I was saying to AM.

Quote from: CRKrueger;387750...you don't really know what Immersion is, because you haven't experienced it to the same degree some of us have, you're just not wired that way.  Which is fine, but it makes it really pointless discussing things like Immersion with you.

So Immersion is something that you can't explain to others, only exists in the minds of those who HAVE experianced it to the same degree as some of you have (and presumably as a result agree with you), and has no obligation to be discussed with nonbelivers?

When did Immersion stop being a term of discussion and start being a prop for religious enlightenment?

Ps, I would define the opposite of the metagame, the game itself, playing without paying attention to the meta environment. It would (in 4th edition ) include things like not taking the so called "patch" feats and playing Skill Challenges directly as they are in the DMG1. It would best perhaps be called Naive or Good Faith (in the system and your fellows if you want to get specific) Gaming.

Quote from: Logos7;387926So Immersion is something that you can't explain to others, only exists in the minds of those who HAVE experienced it to the same degree as some of you have (and presumably as a result agree with you), and has no obligation to be discussed with nonbelievers?

When did Immersion stop being a term of discussion and start being a prop for religious enlightenment?

As soon as you put a capital "I" on it.

People believe what they want to believe. But yes, this is the exact same tactic that has been used to justify the forgie supremacist/brain damage complex when they had that going on. But then, as now, it turned out that we were talking about people who simply had no fucking idea how other people game, or why things work.

I think people gloss over the fact that personal taste has as much or more to do with immersion than the system. If you dislike a system, you're going to have trouble being immersed, simply due to your dislike. If you like a system you'll put more personal effort into immersion.

Quote from: Logos7;387926When did Immersion stop being a term of discussion and start being a prop for religious enlightenment?

It's not a prop so much as an argument of convenience.

"This game is bad."

"Why? I like it."

"It's not immersive."

"What does that mean?"

"I can't explain it. It means different things to different folks. You have to experience it to know what it is."

"So...the game is bad because of something you can't even really define or that folks agree on?"

"Yep."

"..."

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;387946It's not a prop so much as an argument of convenience.

"This game is bad."

"Why? I like it."

"It's not immersive."

"What does that mean?"

"I can't explain it. It means different things to different folks. You have to experience it to know what it is."

"So...the game is bad because of something you can't even really define or that folks agree on?"

"Yep."

"..."

Seanchai

OK, i'm busy and at work, but the stupidity-level on this thread just went through the roof.
The only people who think Immersion cannot be defined are the folks who don't like how it has been defined so far.  For example, certain posters who keep posting on a subject but avoid answering this exact question.

Quote from: Vreeg

Quote from:  AM

Quote from: LordVreegNo. It's not about handholding. It is simply that some rules are written to certain things better than others. Very purely and simply. In-game logic helps immersion, and immersion is the opposite of metagaming.

I disagree.

with what part, exactly? I was not trying to be difficult, or for once, elitest. Are you disagreeing that Immersion and Metagaming are opposites?

And for some definitions,
here is an old one, that is useful in seeing the earlier incarnation of the term.
here is a more recent one


And Seanchai, I have NEVER declined to give a definition for Immersion, nor have most people on this thread.  Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.  
Not hard to explain at all.

Quote from: LordVreeg;387949And Seanchai, I have NEVER declined to give a definition for Immersion, nor have most people on this thread.  Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.  
Not hard to explain at all.

Maybe I'm stuck on the definitions here, but beyond a certain point (the ability to "play" the character imaginatively) I would consider that the sign of a serious delusion.

Quote from: LordVreeg;387949And Seanchai, I have NEVER declined to give a definition for Immersion, nor have most people on this thread.  Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.  
Not hard to explain at all.

Ditto.