Quote from: Justin Alexander;388232There are both associated and dissociated ways of modeling "my character is going to try a little harder to accomplish this".

Not so sure. Okay, I see how the burning building might allow for a choice "how much damage do I take before I give up" , so let's make the example even simpler.

The person to rescue from the fire is stuck under some really heavy bit of rubble. In most games, without some sort of Fate point, all you got is your Strength trait (or lifeting skill) vs some sort of difficulty number based on the weight of the rubble. How much you care about the person stuck under the rubble has no effect on your Strength roll unless you can persuade your GM to give you a modifier -that is to say out of character social negotiation.

Spending a Fate point under such circumstances shows the character really throwing everything they've got at the problem, it is going the extra mile. And if you still fail at least you know you tired your best.

Now that is immersive for me. I appreciate it's not the same for everyone which is why making generalisations about how one kind of mechanic is necessarily more immersive than another is very, very dangerous.

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

Good Lord, No.  No one should infer that.  
There are levels of immersion, and other factors that play into this.  As I said before, a good GM, a good play group, a well made adventure...
It is not that game x or game y is impossible to immerse in.  There are just mechanics in some games that enhance or reduce immersion.

You can still be insane if you want, but being able to immerse here or there or anywhere doe not determine this, though, as AM and benoist mentioned, it can be a symptom.

A warm up reminder.

Quote from: LVThe players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite. It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.

Quote from: Saphim;388233

Quote from: JAAbsolute 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.

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.

1) This is really not a debateable point.  You are either metagaming or playing in-character.  If you are metagaming, you cannot be playing in character.  CANNOT.  One precludes the other.  
(not that the debateability or obvious logic has meant anything so far, so press on if you wish, the behavior certainly has precedent).
BTW, the popularity argument; i.e., a believe that many people feel the way thse same way, cuts little ice on the playing field of logic.  It's nice, and can be used for a little extra oomph, but it makes for a crappy foundation of an argued position.

2a)Terminology has had little to do with the level of immersion so far; as it is more subjective and so far, much of the argument has been on entirely objective issues (with some ridiculous comments and assorted expected insults thrown in to keep us on our toes).
I actually agree that much of the terminology is less than helpful here.  We try to use in-game terminology as much as possible when playing; things are not magic, they are 'void-sourced', and magic or the ways of magic are called the Wou (pronounced woo, for the curious).

2b) Action points, fate points, and the like are certainly disassociatve mechanics.  You can use them if you want, they can lead to a fun game for a lot of people.  They can represent luck or something in the game...but that does not change their status as a disassociative mechanic.  They promote metagame thinking, thinking of a rule instead of thinking in character.  The Player makes the choice to expend said action point, the character does not.  A person is not thinking of using luck, luck just happens, it is not a choice if you are immersed.

(I felt like using a capital I in the last use of 'immersion' just for the hell of it there)

Quote from: Saphim;388221@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.

There are plenty of people that claim the Earth is flat, also.  Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason.

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

That is it?  One item?  Even if we expand this to anything with a 'plus', it's still meaningless as an argument.  The vast majority of items do not have this, and no where does it say they must be referred to in this manner.  There is a good deal of encouragement, in fact, to give weapons names such as 'Glamdring' or 'Caledfwlch' or pretty much anything but 'longsword, +1'.  You confuse the shorthand players used with actual rules and consider your point made.  You are an expert at defeating strawmen, or you are intentionally debating in bad faith.

You just equaled people claiming to have an immersive experience with 4e to people who claim that the earth is flat and accused me of arguing in bad faith in the same post.
I'll just cut my losses here.

@LordVreeg: You cannot. Others apparently can. There is no reason to not believe them.
That has nothing to do with logic as immersion is a feeling and there is no way you can logically disprove over the internet someone feeling a certain way or another.
@types of mechanics: It might be a dissociative mechanic for you, for other people it might just be what the doctor ordered to be in there and feel what it means to be a hero and give everything at a certain moment. Preferences vary.

Inevitably all arguments have to be decided by evidence, and that's something that's lacking in almost any RPG discussion. You can label mechanics associative or disassociative, and claim that disassociative mechanics interfere with immersion, but without a statistically meaningful survey of people playing the game, it's all just intellectual exercise. Someone who comes along and says, "Nuh-uh, I immerse fine with these so-called disassociative mechanics!" is making a claim that is just as valid as the opposite.

Quote from: Saphim;388275You just equaled people claiming to have an immersive experience with 4e to people who claim that the earth is flat and accused me of arguing in bad faith in the same post.
I'll just cut my losses here.

@LordVreeg: You cannot. Others apparently can. There is no reason to not believe them.
That has nothing to do with logic as immersion is a feeling and there is no way you can logically disprove over the internet someone feeling a certain way or another.
@types of mechanics: It might be a dissociative mechanic for you, for other people it might just be what the doctor ordered to be in there and feel what it means to be a hero and give everything at a certain moment. Preferences vary.

The internet can be a tough medium.  Your post
Stormy was giving you an example of Argumentum ad populum, which is a docuemented logical fallacy you were guilty of.  

And please stop moving the goalposts.  This is the conversation in question.

Quote from: saphim

Quote from: LV

Quote from:  Saphim

Quote from: Originally Posted by JAAbsolute 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.

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.

1) This is really not a debateable point. You are either metagaming or playing in-character. If you are metagaming, you cannot be playing in character. CANNOT. One precludes the other.
(not that the debateability or obvious logic has meant anything so far, so press on if you wish, the behavior certainly has precedent).
BTW, the popularity argument; i.e., a believe that many people feel the way thse same way, cuts little ice on the playing field of logic. It's nice, and can be used for a little extra oomph, but it makes for a crappy foundation of an argued position.

You cannot. Others apparently can. There is no reason to not believe them.
That has nothing to do with logic as immersion is a feeling and there is no way you can logically disprove over the internet someone feeling a certain way or another.

The comments in question were not dealing with the specific feeling of immersion, but metagaming vs staying in character.  What you are disagreeing with is the supposition that when a player is making a decision based on knowledge they do not have or have access to, that the decision is not being made as the character, but as the player.  The decision is not being made in-character.

Quote from: Saphim@types of mechanics: It might be a dissociative mechanic for you, for other people it might just be what the doctor ordered to be in there and feel what it means to be a hero and give everything at a certain moment. Preferences vary.

My friend, one does not preclude the other.  I'm not saying it is a bad mechanic.  I'm not saying it can't be part of a good game.  I'm not complaining about preference.  That's not why it is being catagorized as dissociative.
The criterion is based on whether the mechanic requires the player to make a decision out of character, based on a knowledge the Character would not have.  Preferences may vary, true,  but this is not an opinion, or a preference.

Quote from: two_fishes;388277Inevitably all arguments have to be decided by evidence, and that's something that's lacking in almost any RPG discussion. You can label mechanics associative or disassociative, and claim that disassociative mechanics interfere with immersion, but without a statistically meaningful survey of people playing the game, it's all just intellectual exercise. Someone who comes along and says, "Nuh-uh, I immerse fine with these so-called disassociative mechanics!" is making a claim that is just as valid as the opposite.

Now this is a little more like it.

I have to agree that while it seems to make almost routine sense, there is no way to prove that mechanics that take you out of character help you think in-character.

This is why I have been arguing the whole time that there are many factors that aid immersion, and that mechanics are just one of them.  I believe that a kick-ass GM and a good group and a good adventure might mean a higher score on the fictitious immersion-meter than better mechanics.
I am not saying that game x or game y precludes immersion.

I am not saying that AM has less immersion in his game as I do.  Because no one can prove this.


What I am saying is that some mechanics can be construed as producing metagaming.  Defined as not thinking in-game, defined as using knowledge not available to the character, or using rules knowledge outside the consiousness of the character.  Thinking as the player, NOT the character.
 You know, the opposite of immersion.

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

And, if we can agree that said mechanic causes the opposite of immersion...I think it is an obvious truism that mechanic reduces immersion.

I could argue any mechanic equally reduces immersion. Anytime I, as a player immersed in a character, must engage with the game mechanics to determine the outcome of an attempted task, I am removing myself from the character. If complexity is equal in all cases, whether the mechanics resolve the task via modelling physics of the world, or consideration of its value to the story, or competitively balanced odds, the outcome is the same--I must disengage with "immersion" and engage with rules and dice-rolling.

Quote from: Peregrin;388213IMO, 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.).

I agree. That's one big thing in favor of OD&D and AD&D to me. In one case (OD&D) you basically have an interpretive system, with mechanics that are as incidental to the actual game play as you pretty much can get, and in the other (AD&D), you have what I call the Wizard of Oz effect, where most of the rules can be dealt with on the DM's side of the screen, rather than the player's side.

@Saphim and Twofishes

It's not a question of whether someone can immerse in 4e despite the dissociative mechanics.  It's a question of whether those dissociative mechanics can allow someone to immerse to the degree that you could in a game without those dissociative mechanics.

As I keep saying, it's not a question of kind, but one of degree.  If I played 4e, I'm sure at times I could be immersed and other times I would not be.  However, based on the highly dissociative mechanics, anytime I interfaced with the combat system I would be not immersed to the level I prefer.

The high degree of dissociative mechanics in 4e preclude a high level of immersion, as Lord Vreeg and Justin Alexander have been proving, post after post, this is simply a logical fact.

If you immerse in 4e and I don't, it's because I prefer to immerse to a higher level then you do.  Which is just fine, but don't tell me 4e is less immersive then other editions of D&D.  It is far less immersive by design.

I am a big fan of sub-dividing the term RPG into different categories because it's obvious that the term role-playing means different things to different people, hence the term becomes so general as to be meaningless without qualifiers.

I'm starting to think the same can be said for immersion.  A lot of people think of immersion as "losing yourself in something" ie. you get engrossed in what you are doing, then you realize 5 hours have gone by.  You can certainly be having so much fun in 4e that you become totally ingrossed in it.  You can certainly be so caught up in the story you're creating in a narrative game that the time flies by without realizing it.

What the "immersion crowd" in this thread are talking about however, is different, it's immersing into a setting, Lord Vreeg's "World in Motion".

Simulationist has been tainted by Uncle Ron, immersive unfortunately is becoming a "blanket term" because game designers do refer to different types of immersion.

So what the heck do we call it?  I get the feeling that if we came up with better terminology we could avoid some of these 600 post knockdown drag outs where the real reason we're fighting is that we're essentially debating a term using different definitions.

Quote from: two_fishes;388284I could argue any mechanic equally reduces immersion. Anytime I, as a player immersed in a character, must engage with the game mechanics to determine the outcome of an attempted task, I am removing myself from the character. If complexity is equal in all cases, whether the mechanics resolve the task via modelling physics of the world, or consideration of its value to the story, or competitively balanced odds, the outcome is the same--I must disengage with "immersion" and engage with rules and dice-rolling.

Again, a good point and one that Justin does an admirable job with.  All mechanics that a player must contend with are at some level dissociative.  
However, I have two points that need to be considered when judging this.  The first is that I do not think all mechanics reduce immersion equally, as some of them require out-of character thinking BEFORE you engage in the game mechanic to determine the outcome of an attempted task.  All character actions can be seperated into the decision to take an action and the mechanical interpretation of thataction. If the decision phase of the action BEFORE the mechanical interpretation is compromised, it is double-whammy, so to speak, eaning less time in-character.

In other words, I agree that the decision having your mage decide to cast a fireball at approaching enemies can be made in-character, and of course, there is a stepping back from immersion when you roll for damage.
But if the same player made the decision to cast a fireball because the player knew that that particular enemy is especially vulnerable to fire, and if the character had no way to know this, one would say the player was metagaming, and never acting in-character.  
Please note that the decision phase is the only phase where one can be immersed, BTW.  Every RPG mechanic is dissociative to a degree when you have to go through the mechaical interpretation.  
So if the mechanic in question compromises the decision phase, I would consider that a less immersive mechanic, like Fate/action points.

More important, to me, are the GM rules for the game/adventure/setting encounters, treasures, etc, that have NOTHING to do with mechanical interpretations, but reduce use of in-game logic.  
Wishlists and encounter parity remove the internal logic of a setting.  If a player can assume that the difficulty level of an encounter is based on their ability level, it negates the need to use in game logic.  These rules are dissociative without the Player every having to go through the mechanical interpretaion phase.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;388185That's obviously untrue.

Actually, it's quite true.

Seanchai

Quote from: two_fishes;388137I 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.

Pretty much. Lack of "immersion" and "dissociative mechanics" are just some of the latest volleys by folks who don't have the balls to just come out and say, "I don't like 4e. Thus you shouldn't like or play it either."

Seanchai