Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388072Well, that seems pretty conciliatory, but I still disagree. 4E is just as "immersive" as any game that uses dice and character sheets, and the distinction itself is bullshit.

Your argument appears to be, "Nuh-uh, 'cause I say so."

That's not a particularly compelling argument. Allow me to boil down my post to its core logic:

(1) Immersive roleplaying, at a bare minimum, requires the player to make choices as their character.

(2) Dissociated mechanics do not allow the player to make choices as their character.

(3) Therefore, dissociated mechanics are fundamentaly incompatible with immersive roleplaying.

Which of these three points are you disagreeing with, exactly? Be specific. Explain why it's wrong. Otherwise you're just hurling around insults because you like to hear yourself talk.

QuoteSkill challenges were held up as the central dissociative theme and implied as mandatory parts of 4E  a second ago,

I'm assuming you're referring to my post, so allow me to point out a couple of things:

(1) I have no idea what a "central dissociative theme" is supposed to be. I suspect it's pseudo-intellectual nonsense which indicates that you have no idea what we're talking about.

(2) I didn't say that they were a mandatory part of 4E, I said they were one of the games core mechanics. Which is indisputably true.

Quote from: Seanchai;388075Or you can recognize the fact that all games are "dissociative" by their very nature

That's obviously untrue. Do attempt to educate yourself on what the most basic terminology of the discussion means before making yourself look like a complete fool in the future. It doesn't take that much effort.

In addition, the difference between an associative mechanic and a dissociated mechanic is factual and demonstrable. Disputes may still arise, but that doesn't make it subjective any more than the statement "the earth is flat" is a subjective statement.

The conditions required for immersion, OTOH, can be quite subjective. But, as I mentioned before, the fundamental aspect of immersion (and roleplaying in general, IMO) is the making of decisions as if you were your character. I can't tell you what will let someone achieve immersive roleplaying (if they ever will); but I can tell you with absolute surety that they are NOT immersed if they aren't making decisions as their character.

It's kinda like sex: I can't tell you what will personally satisfy your sexual needs. But I can say with absolute surety that if you're having sex then you're not a virgin.

EDIT: To fix stupid typo. Thanks, Saphim.

I've found, in my limited subjective experience, that those capable of a higher degree of empathy are more likely to immerse themselves within a role, while those less capable are the type of players that usssually own a character like any object, (rather then playing that character). 4e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained. The character, meaning characterization possible, is ancillary to the accomplishment of reaching the next goal, of surviving to get the mcguffin, the next plus bonus, the next level, or whatever. The point is, that it is the sense of ownership and not roleplay that drives the new edition, bringing the tyranny of fun, with its limits to destruction and no, about. At least this is my opinion on the matter, (not that anyone asked or cared).

Take a day away from the office, and see what happens?  

Quote from: AMWell, that seems pretty conciliatory, but I still disagree. 4E is just as "immersive" as any game that uses dice and character sheets, and the distinction itself is bullshit.
Skill challenges were held up as the central dissociative theme and implied as mandatory parts of 4E a second ago, but all they really are is a way arrange plain old skill checks, and (perhaps more importantly) aren't in any way mandatory...I've seen and run plenty of games where no skill challenges took place. Wish lists were held up as a central immersion breaking theme yesterday and those are also completely not mandatory.

Though even the guys in EN world living 4e seem to get what we are saying.
ENworld about wishlists ruining immersion

No rules are mandatory; but it is a rule.  It's in the rulenbook.You can skip any rules, but these are the rules as written.  Saying that rule 'x' is in the rulebook but you don't have to use it is not really a good excuse.  But by telling me that the best defence for wishlists not breaking immersion is that you don;t have to use that rule, you have said all you need to.
I think that a good GM and a good group and a good adventure have just as much to do with it as the mechanics.  So in that sense, 4e can be just as immersive as any other RPG.  I think a great GM makes up for a multitude of mechanical sins.


So far, I have defined immersion, and gotten mainly agreement and a few responses of, "uh-uh" without providing any logical discourse to back up their statements.
(

Quote from: LVImmersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player

. )
I stated that metagaming was the antonym/opposite of immersive gaming.  Again, mainly agreement and  absolutely no one giving me any reason to think I was not dead on.  

Ergo, mechanics that encourage metagaming must reduce immersion.  Not in any one game, not in and edition of D&D, in any game, in any ruleset.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388162Cool, 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.

No, you're not.  Or at least, not to everyone.

I do disagree with you about the lack of objective truth here....not talking about any game in particular, but there are rules that promote metagaming...this is the opposite of in-game thinking, so it certainly reduces immersion.  I don't find this fact subjective at all.

However, as I have said, a good GM, a good group of players, and a good adventure make up for a lot, and as I do not believe that 100% immersion is
ever possible.  All games we play allow us to create some immersion, some are better than others, and some that may not be as good may offer other game benefits.

Quote from: raeth;388203I've found, in my limited subjective experience, that those capable of a higher degree of empathy are more likely to immerse themselves within a role, while those less capable are the type of players that usssually own a character like any object, (rather then playing that character). 4e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained. The character, meaning characterization possible, is ancillary to the accomplishment of reaching the next goal, of surviving to get the mcguffin, the next plus bonus, the next level, or whatever. The point is, that it is the sense of ownership and not roleplay that drives the new edition, bringing the tyranny of fun, with its limits to destruction and no, about. At least this is my opinion on the matter, (not that anyone asked or cared).

Dude it's alright. Welcome to theRPGSite. Good post.

Quote from: raeth;388203I've found, in my limited subjective experience, that those capable of a higher degree of empathy are more likely to immerse themselves within a role, while those less capable are the type of players that usssually own a character like any object, (rather then playing that character). 4e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained. The character, meaning characterization possible, is ancillary to the accomplishment of reaching the next goal, of surviving to get the mcguffin, the next plus bonus, the next level, or whatever. The point is, that it is the sense of ownership and not roleplay that drives the new edition, bringing the tyranny of fun, with its limits to destruction and no, about.

Good points all around.

QuoteAt least this is my opinion on the matter, (not that anyone asked or cared).

If we all just sat around waiting to be asked our opinion, there would be no internet message boards anywhere.  

Quote from: raeth;3882034e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained.

There are those of us who are able to gain satisfaction from role-play regardless, just as we did with 3e, even though that system generally rewarded you for being a mechanics monkey rather than really delving into a character.  I don't see much of a difference, culturally, between 3e and 4e, other than players of one edition may really dislike the other.  The adventure-path, charop, "give me the shiny" mentality was what almost drove me away from role-playing when I first started with 3.0.

If I really want to get in-character and not have to worry about being pulled out of that perspective, I'll choose a more (relatively) rules-lite, flexible system that allows for GM/player improvisation (OD&D/Basic, BRP, Savage Worlds, etc.) with very low handling time.

IMO, the more game you throw on the player's side of the screen, the more you're forced out of the role and more into a director's role because the machinations are clear as day in front of you.  Not all mechanics are dissociative, but consciously manipulating the system is another way that you can be pulled out of a role (rather than having the GM adjudicate, or making a simple check for success/failure, etc.).

Take Exalted, for example.  Nearly everything on the character sheet has an in-game analogue -- the strict world emulation is by design.  But the minute you hop into combat (whether social or physical), you're forced to game the system as a player because you're constantly tracking modifiers and action speeds, and if you don't do that you're most assuredly going to lose.  Less "Tell the GM what you want to do and then someone makes a check" and more "Ok, so if I Aim for 3 turns I get 6 extra dice to my pool, add in my charm for this, he's definitely wearing X armor so I should have enough to penetrate..."  Sure, you can justify all of those decisions based on in-game knowledge, but the state of the mind of the player is very different.

That's not to say I didn't get "immersed" while playing Exalted, but like 4e, the answers to when and how are substantially different than playing something with less player-side crunch.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;388185That's not a particularly compelling argument. Allow me to boil down my post to its core logic:

(1) Immersive roleplaying, at a bare minimum, requires the player to make choices as their character.

(2) Dissociated mechanics do not allow the character (I am assuming you mean player here) to make choices as their character.

(3) Therefore, dissociated mechanics are fundamentaly incompatible with immersive roleplaying.

Number 2 is an absolute statement which needs you to look into the heads of other people and into their gaming tables to verify, which you can't. Let's reduce it to a point which you can actually claim without resorting to guesswork:
Dissociative mechanics make it more difficult to make choices from the point of view of the character.

Well, to be frank, this is true for every edition of D&D, they are all full of mechanics that either poorly emulate the genre, a character or break the immersion by being poorly thought out or designed for different things.
It starts with Hitpoints proceeds to saving throws and ends with ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot. And we all know, there is plenty of more (well at least those of us who actually play roleplaying games). The same is true for all roleplaying games and I really don't see a reason for 4e to be singled out there.

Quote from: Saphim;388215Number 2 is an absolute statement which needs you to look into the heads of other people and into their gaming tables to verify, which you can't.

It doesn't require that at all.  'Disassociated mechanics' and 'immersion' are simply not two things you can have at the same time.  If you are thinking as a player and deciding if it is better to slide an opponent three squares or to push them one square and stun them, by definition, you are not thinking like the character; you are not immersed.  Your statement is the logical equivalent of claiming that rolling a nine in Monopoly could mean they also rolled ten, but if you aren't at the table, you can't possibly know.  Your claim is that A = ¬A.  Or, more generously, that A might equal ¬A, but it's entirely subjective, so no one can say for sure.

Guess what?  It's not subjective.  A = Immersion.  ¬A = Disassociated mechanics.  As soon as people start trotting out arguments that something straightforward is 'subjective', it means they can't mount a coherent counter-argument, but desperately want the argument to be wrong or discredited.

QuoteLet's reduce it to a point which you can actually claim without resorting to guesswork:
Dissociative mechanics make it more difficult to make choices from the point of view of the character.

So, you fully understand that dissociative mechanics are the antithesis of immersion, but you contin-

QuoteWell, to be frank, this is true for every edition of D&D, they are all full of mechanics that either poorly emulate the genre, a character or break the immersion by being poorly thought out or designed for different things.
It starts with Hitpoints proceeds to saving throws and ends with ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot. And we all know, there is plenty of more (well at least those of us who actually play roleplaying games). The same is true for all roleplaying games and I really don't see a reason for 4e to be singled out there.

Oh, it was so you could follow up with utter bullshit and false equivalences that show you have no idea what people are talking about.  Got it.

Seriously, what the fuck does "ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot" even mean?  Does 'gold piece' take you completely out of the game?  A 'scroll' totally breaks your ability to imagine?  'Helm of Brilliance' shatters your suspension of disbelief?

And this part right here?  "...well at least those of us who actually play roleplaying games..."  Shut the holy fuck up.  You wrote the sentence "ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot" about earlier editions of D&D.  That means you probably haven't so much as seen a cover of anything before 3.5 in person, let alone read or played any of them.  The very fact that you didn't realize that the Apparatus of Kwalish demolishes your statement all by itself, without having to mention any other magic item, is cold hard proof that you have been involved in RPGs for no more than a decade, and likely around five years.  

Of course, there could be other reasons you want to use the 'non-4e gamers are irrelevant' style of argument.

@Immersion: There are plenty of people who claim to have immersive experiences while playing D&D4. That makes absolute statements about the 4e mechanics completely preventing immersion wrong by default.

@unimmersive loot names: Longsword +1. Or do you think that is what the weaponsmith engraved on the blade?

Quote from: Saphim;388215

Quote2) Dissociated mechanics do not allow the player to make choices as their character.

Number 2 is an absolute statement which needs you to look into the heads of other people and into their gaming tables to verify, which you can't.

Absolute nonsense. If you are making a choice about something which the character is completely unaware, then you are NOT making that choice as the character. QED.

This doesn't require telepathy. It's common sense and basic logic.

Quote from: StormBringer;388217Seriously, what the fuck does "ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot" even mean?  

I'm going to take a guess that he means "+1 longsword" on the basis that the characters don't know what the +1 means. But I would make two points:

(1) That assumes that "+1" or "1st level spell" don't actually have established meanings in the game world. But characters in my game world know about the "nine circles of magic"; and all the weapons we refer to as +1 in game mechanics are known as "mage-touched". The mechanic is associated directly to a property of the game universe.

If a player makes a decision based on the fact that a +2 weapon is better than a +1 weapon, that is not a decision dissociated from the character's reality: +2 weapons are better in the character's reality, and that relationship can be determined by a character in a number of different ways.

(2)) As I've said before, all mechanics are abstracted and metagamed to one degree or another. But "abstracted" and "metagamed" are not synonymous with "dissociated".

A character wouldn't go around saying, "I have a Strength of 18." But that doesn't mean that the Strength score mechanic is dissociated: It is directly associated with the game world. Characters in the game world can tell that character A (Strength 18) is stronger than character B (Strength 10): Character A can carry more stuff; he hits harder; etc. etc. etc. There is a direct association between the mechanic and the game world. If a guy playing Character B decided not to arm wrestle with Character A because his Strength score was higher; that decision would be directly associated with the character's decision not to arm wrestle with Character A because he's stronger.

By contrast, take a simple "action point" mechanic: You, as a player, can choose to spend an action point in order to re-roll a missed attack.

This mechanic has no association to the game world: You are using one game mechanic (the action point) to manipulate another game mechanic (a die roll). The character is aware of neither the existence of action points nor the existence of the die roll. The decision to use (or not use) the action point is dissociated from the game world and has no analog in the character's decision-making process.

The distinction between associated and dissociated mechanics is apparently quite subtle for some people. For others (like myself), it's huge, blatant, and significant.

Quote from: Peregrin;388213There are those of us who are able to gain satisfaction from role-play regardless...

No doubt that is probably true. Even I have managed to have some fun role-playing moments while playing 4e despite my views about the system as a whole. The point though, and I think you grasp this as well with your post, is that system is going to matter in terms of role-play opportunity. That said, I feel that 4e has taken away from role-play by catering to those who find immersion in character and world to be of less value then other elements of the game.

Then again, there are some ... well, me .. who think that what makes a game immersive is not the how my character does something but the why he does something, or in  other words it comes down to character motivation.

And that's for me things like Fate or Actions hep immersion, because they allow character motivation to be expressed mechanically in the game. I just cannot accept whether I want to rescue a random civilllian from a blazing building, I still roll the same dumd d20 against the same dumb odds as if I were tryring to  rescue my baby daughter. In many systems I have no mechanical way to reflect that just maybe I care more about saving my daughter and might just put that extra bit of effort into it. All I have is social negotiation, the art of persuading the GM that this really important to my character.

Yeah, that is really immersive.

Note I am not asking for a guarantee that my character can save his daughter or that that everything always goes my way, but I do think want a way to express the that when it really matters to the character, he can dig deeper and try harder.

There are both associated and dissociated ways of modeling "my character is going to try a little harder to accomplish this".

With an associated mechanic you may or may not enter into your character wholly -- to immerse yourself in the character -- and (for example) choose to burn yourself horribly if it means you might be able to fight through the flames to your baby's crib.

But with a dissociated mechanic you are not immersed in your character. You are exiting the character, making a decision external to that character that you want to model their desperation, and then applying that decision mechanically in a way that has no analog to the character's decision-making process.

There's nothing wrong with entering that sort of authorial stance. But it's quite distinct from any sense of immersing yourself in a character. Quite the opposite, in fact.

When you say you're immersing yourself in the character, you appear to be meaning something completely different than what the term has typically been used to mean when it applies to roleplaying games. Further, I'm not sure how it relates to the common English meaning of the word. In what sense do you feel that you are personally immersing yourself in your character while using a dissociated mechanic? What do you mean when you say "immersion" if you are not, in fact, immersing yourself in the character or making decisions as if you were your character?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;388222Absolute nonsense. If you are making a choice about something which the character is completely unaware, then you are NOT making that choice as the character. QED.

This doesn't require telepathy. It's common sense and basic logic.

And yet people state that they do. So either all of these people lie or your insight isn't as profound as you think it is. I am going with the second option here as I don't think all those 4e players have a reason to lie.

@magic items: So your gamemaster looks up and says "in the hoard are three mage touched swords, 2 glaives that were majorly mage touched and a two handed sword that was really touched by a mage"? Really? That is the first time I hear of this. We always say +1 Sword/Axe/Whatever.
@action points: So there is no luck or heroic effort or any other of multiple of possible labels for such a thing in your gameworld? I don't believe that.