The dialectic of the recent discussion in this thread has been somewhat interesting.  :cool:

Justin Alexander and LordVreeg have advanced well reasoned explanations of how game mechanics can facilitate or impede immersion.  In response, Seanchai has tried to connect a concern with immersion with mental illness, whereas Abyssal Maw (in addition to some gratuitous mental illness remarks) simply dismisses such points as 'bullshit,' without any meaningful argument or explanation.  Is this how 4e advocates always engage in such discussions?  (I usually ignore 4e threads here.)

The fact is that no game can be all things to all people.  A game can be a very, very good game but nonetheless be full of 'disassociative mechanics', or indeed, be completely 'disassociative' in nature (chess, anyone?).  Likewise, a game can be very good with respect to immersion, but poor in other respects (lacking robust mechanics to handle combat or other situations, etc.).

Two of my favourite games are Call of Cthulhu and Rolemaster 2e (now published as 'Rolemaster Classic').  It seems uncontroversial, indeed, obvious to me that the former game is far more 'immersive' in nature than the latter.  During play, the mechanics of CoC, for the most part, 'fade into the background' far more than they do in RM.  That doesn't mean that CoC is a better game than RM, as RM has certain virtues that CoC does not (e.g., detailed combat information, including colourful critical hit charts, a more nuanced magic system, etc.).    

I don't understand why people who like 4e feel so defensive about the matter of immersion, either dismissing it entirely (as a sign of mental illness, or whatever) or arguing that immersion is purely subjective (without giving a remotely plausible explanation why, but simply asserting this).  

(I do think that one's ability to 'immerse' him or herself in a role depends on that person's personality to a great extent.  Some people are natural actors or storytellers, have especially vivid imaginations, and so forth.  Nonetheless, I also think that a game's mechanics can facilitate or impede such immersion, and that this is not 'subjective'.)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388072... 4E is just as "immersive" as any game that uses dice and character sheets, and the distinction itself is bullshit...

Consider Justin Alexander's comparison of Arkham Horror and Call of Cthulhu.  Both games use dice and character sheets.  Do you really think that AH is just as immersive as CoC?  

If so, then I guess that what you mean by 'immersion' is fundamentally different from what I mean by 'immersion' (and I have no idea what you mean by it).

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388072It's tragic in that nobody actually needs an invented excuse not to like anything. People can simply like what they like (and dislike what they dislike..) and there's no need for any conflict.

Of course people don't need an excuse to like or dislike anything.  As I understand it, the point about the disassociative mechanics of 4e is being offered as an explanation for why some people don't like 4e.  The point that they are making is that the disassociative mechanics of 4e prevent them from having the kind of role-playing experience that they want.  It's not that hard to understand.  And it doesn't mean that 4e is not a great game for people who want different kinds of experiences.  4e is quite successful, so it obviously is appealing to something that gamers like.  But it seems perfectly plausible that 'immersive role-playing experiences' is not one of those things (or relatively low on the list of priorities of most 4e gamers).

I know thread morph over time, but I suspect some part of the reason for the defensiveness of 4e supporters on this thread can be found in the title of the thread itself.

I guess I can sum up my impressions thusly: I like 4e just fine. It is fun, but it is not like my traditional experienced with D&D (or any other RPG) in the past 30-odd years. I guess that was the intent, to make something dramatically different, and in that I think they succeeded. There are some things about it that I find odd, but if I keep them within the context of the game and rules as written, and don't worry so much about "what has come before", then I don't have a real problem with any of it.

I think 90% of the criticism of the game could have been avoided if they didn't label it "D&D" (really - if you look at the rules objectively, I think they're ok overall), but since they own the copyright to the name, I guess they have the right to use it as they see fit. Thus are the flames of war stoked.

So, I don't know if that makes me a "supporter" or not, but there ya go.

Quote from: Akrasia;388132Consider Justin Alexander's comparison of Arkham Horror and Call of Cthulhu.  Both games use dice and character sheets.  Do you really think that AH is just as immersive as CoC?  

One of those is a board game. Now, I realize that's a popular slur that the haters like to use about D&D4e..but a slur is all it is.

Quote from: Akrasia;388132Justin Alexander and LordVreeg have advanced well reasoned explanations of how game mechanics can facilitate or impede immersion.  In response, Seanchai has tried to connect a concern with immersion with mental illness, whereas Abyssal Maw (in addition to some gratuitous mental illness remarks) simply dismisses such points as 'bullshit,' without any meaningful argument or explanation.  Is this how 4e advocates always engage in such discussions?  (I usually ignore 4e threads here.)

Pretty much, yeah.  The 4e likers do all their meaningful threads on 4e gaming on other forums (with the exception of AM, who has done some constructive posts on 4e gaming here.)  Here they basically defend 4e against all comers on any possible criticism, some valid defenses, some not.

Quote from: Akrasia;388132I don't understand why people who like 4e feel so defensive about the matter of immersion, either dismissing it entirely (as a sign of mental illness, or whatever) or arguing that immersion is purely subjective (without giving a remotely plausible explanation why, but simply asserting this).

Because on therpgsite, that's how the 4Eers roll for the most part.  By taking the ideologue position, they make anyone who disagrees look like they are ideologues also.  It creates a false equivalency of arguements (the Fox News vs. MSNBC effect).

Quote from: Akrasia;388132(I do think that one's ability to 'immerse' him or herself in a role depends on that person's personality to a great extent.  Some people are natural actors or storytellers, have especially vivid imaginations, and so forth.  Nonetheless, I also think that a game's mechanics can facilitate or impede such immersion, and that this is not 'subjective'.)

Of course you see it easily, you're a person who can immerse themselves in a role to a greater extent then Seanchai, so you can look at 4e and easily see that it's very non-immersive compared to previous versions of D&D.  Seanchai, however, doesn't see it and thus thinks we're all asshats or crazy or both, or he's pretending to act like that and is the asshat himself.

AM's whole "excuse to not like the game" is just his way of shifting the argument from the central point we've reached : some people immerse more then others.

Quote from: CRKrueger;388152Of course you see it easily, you're a person who can immerse themselves in a role to a greater extent then Seanchai, so you can look at 4e and easily see that it's very non-immersive compared to previous versions of D&D.  Seanchai, however, doesn't see it and thus thinks we're all asshats or crazy or both, or he's pretending to act like that and is the asshat himself.

AM's whole "excuse to not like the game" is just his way of shifting the argument from the central point we've reached : some people immerse more then others.

I guess the answer to that is.. you've reached your "point" based on no evidence whatsoever. how would you even know? People do this- they assume that they're experts, that they know better than everyone else, that their experiences are more significant or whatever, but how on earth would you even know?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388155I guess the answer to that is.. you've reached your "point" based on no evidence whatsoever. how would you even know? People do this- they assume that they're experts, that they know better than everyone else, that their experiences are more significant or whatever, but how on earth would you even know?

Well you have people, like Akrasia said, logically and completely detailing how dissociate mechanics can be less immersive then associative ones, and you have the actual feedback of people who are saying that the dissociative mechanics of 4e do in fact support a level of immersion lower then the level they experienced in earlier versions of D&D (I am one of those people).  

Then you have the other side which basically says "Nope, not possible, you're just coming up with that as self-justification or you're insane."  Of course, such behavior is 100% expected if what I am saying is true, namely that you and Seanchai immerse on a lower level when you roleplay.You are actually incapable of experiencing immersion at the level we are talking about, therefore you think we are assholes, insane, or just coming up with some justification for 4e putting sand in our collective vagina.


Which do I believe?  Akrasia, Lord Vreeg, Justin Alexander, Benoist, myself and others are fooling ourselves or insane or... that you and Seanchai simply don't immerse as deeply.  Which is more probable?

"Fourth edition sucks."

Cool, I'm part of a faceless, nameless mass with no relation to my actual behaviour or position.

Akrasia> This forum is nearly useless for discussing 4e in a reasonable way, either pro or con. There's too much bad blood and too much talking past one another and all sorts of pseudo-intellectual production and bafflegab intended just to make one group feel better at the expense of the other.

I think immersion has far less to do with rulesets and far more to do with individual capabilities and tastes, and the group dynamics which mediate the expression of those capabilities and tastes. Talking about 4e as having "disassociative mechanics" and such is just an expression of a particular taste or set of experiences.

And of course, having made this point many times before (including, IIRC, on this very thread), it hasn't altered discussion one bit because it's not particularly useful as a rhetorical weapon.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388162Talking about 4e as having "disassociative mechanics" and such is just an expression of a particular taste or set of experiences.

Exactly, the expression of having a taste for rules that are based in the reality of the game world as much as possible as opposed to rules that have very little to do with the actual game world itself and are almost completely metagame based to produce a tactically balanced experience.

In other words, some prefer a highly immersive experience (which 4e by design cannot provide) so don't like 4e, and others don't care as much about immersion, and love the balanced mechanics and tactical challenge and so love 4e.

But, of course, you can't say that.  You can say 4e is tactically more sound then other versions of D&D, you can say 4e is more balanced then other versions of D&D, both would be true, but god forbid you make the point that they got those benefits by reducing immersion, then you're insane or just fooling yourself into coming up with a reason when in actuality you don't like 4e "just because".

It's practically a form of political correctness at this point.

Quote from: CRKrueger;388066If you really get into immersion, 4e and it's highly dissociative mechanics aren't for you.  If you don't get into immersion as much, you probably can't figure out why 4e bothers some people so much.  40,000 threads aren't going to let one side see the other's position.  People are just wired differently.

No one's brain-damaged, no one's autistic, no one's insane, people just experience table-top role-playing in different ways.

Well obviously I'm insane if I'm able to immerse while playing 4e.

Quote from: Peregrin;388165Well obviously I'm insane if I'm able to immerse while playing 4e.

Degree, not kind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;388166Degree, not kind.

Well sure, but if I want "full immersion" the entire time, I'll go back to playing WoD rarely rolling dice with an eloquent DM who could act fairly well.  Those were my most immersive experiences, but what was the point of having rules?  Every time you pick up the dice or enter the "slow mo" of combat, it becomes difficult to immerse, so nearly any system can knock you back a pace.

That said, I'm perfectly able to throw together the necessary processes in my head to make "sense" of what happens in 4e, even when things become "dissociated".  If you dislike having to do that, then it can interfere with immersion, but if you're one of those people who see the mechanics as merely a way to adjudicate what happens in the game world and not a set of sim models, then immersion is perfectly doable.

I mean, we're not talking about real virtual reality, here, we're talking about tabletop games that happen in your knoggin.  As long as whatever the mechanics describe jives for you, there's no real barrier.  It's not a matter of whether it's the game's fault or the player's fault, but a combination of both factors (how the person approaches thinking about the game and how the structure of the game jives with their expectations).

Tight modelling in sim design and heavily abstracted stuff in "dissociated" design are techniques that I don't believe have to interfere with the ability to immerse, especially since immersion is not a single static state.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388162I think immersion has far less to do with rulesets and far more to do with individual capabilities and tastes, and the group dynamics which mediate the expression of those capabilities and tastes. Talking about 4e as having "disassociative mechanics" and such is just an expression of a particular taste or set of experiences.

I think they are more equal than you give them credit for.  Take Akrasia's example of chess:  You can certainly play the part of King Harold against your opponent, King Ogrek.  But you will be doing some seriously heavy lifting, because the chess game itself is little more than a 'scoreboard' or 'tally' if you will.  Obviously, the Rook can't actually move.  It's a building.  The 'movement' is an extreme abstraction of the political manoeuvring of the royal court.

It's not 100% subjective.  Chess is a shitty RPG because of the extreme abstraction or disassociation.  It is neither delusion nor mental illness.  Because of the rules, some games simply make it more difficult to maintain a 'role' consistently.  Piling on all kinds of fiction or explanation does not negate the fact that the underlying rules are not good for assuming a role.  It re-inforces that you have to essentially ignore the rules, or subsume them greatly, in order to take on this role and maintain it.

Chess is a very extreme example, obviously, but I would find arguments that 'immersion' is a binary state to be prima facie ridiculous.  I doubt further inspection would reveal them to be any less specious.  Hence, I think everyone can agree that there is a range that can be discussed, and different games will fall on this spectrum in different places.  Where those lie on the continuum as a matter of personal preference (to a degree) is non-controversial, but that is not an argument in and of itself.

In the tabletop rpg world, levels of mental illness doesn't seem to be much different than many other niches I've come across over the years.

With that being said.  In my own experience, the niches with the most number of mentally ill people I've come across are rock musicians (and wanna-be rock musicians) and artist types.  (I don't know whether this is just an anomaly specific to my experiences).  Though I can say from experience that logic and rational thinking are not the most useful tools in music and art, especially when it comes to creativity and writing new music.  I suppose I can see how the illogical and spontaneous weird thinking of various mental illnesses, sometimes can create very interesting new original music and art.