Quote from: two_fishes;363481But regardless of the intent of the player--and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up. Who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.
 *snip*
But I don't know. Maybe I am missing something.

Yes.  You are.  Suspension of disbelief.  You've lost your ability to step out of the meta for one bloody minute, and actually imagine yourself in a place, instead of simply manipulating a story.

That's what immersion is.  Hell, that's what "playing pretend" is.  I'm not thinking about it as "describing imagined events", I'm imagining myself in the moment and in the mind of the character, and simply reacting.

You're missing something, because like the rest of the Forge, and like you so demonstrated in that other thread with the movie analogies, you're too far gone to actually be there anymore.  You're playing at being Syd Fields, while the rest of us are playing at being young Tolkien.

Quote from: David R;363486Must...not..take..easy...counterattack....

don't worry, someone's bound to jump on it. but really, i feel vaguely frustrated, like there might be something here, something you're trying to say that i'm simply unable to see.

Quote from: David R;363486Intent is important.

That's it, to me. There's a difference in terms of make-believe.

There's a difference between imagining the events in-game actually occuring in your mind's eye, OR thinking "hey, I am imagining events as they occur right now!", which in fact confirms to me that you are in fact not imagining at that precise moment but focus on this consideration instead.

Edit - what J called Suspension of Disbelief just above.

Quote from: two_fishes;363489don't worry, someone's bound to jump on it. but really, i feel vaguely frustrated, like there might be something here, something you're trying to say that i'm simply unable to see.

What do you like about role playing games ? I'm not asking about the social aspects. Tell me what you like about playing. If you don't mind.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: J Arcane;363487Yes.  You are.  Suspension of disbelief.  You've lost your ability to step out of the meta for one bloody minute, and actually imagine yourself in a place, instead of simply manipulating a story.

That's what immersion is.  Hell, that's what "playing pretend" is.  I'm not thinking about it as "describing imagined events", I'm imagining myself in the moment and in the mind of the character, and simply reacting.

You're missing something, because like the rest of the Forge, and like you so demonstrated in that other thread with the movie analogies, you're too far gone to actually be there anymore.  You're playing at being Syd Fields, while the rest of us are playing at being young Tolkien.

well I'm enjoying my gaming immensely, so i guess i'm okay with that.

p.s. lord of the rings is long and boring.
EDIT: it has too much bloviating.

Quote from: David R;363491What do you like about role playing games ? I'm not asking about the social aspects. Tell me what you like about playing. If you don't mind.

Regards,
David R

Oh I'm totally a story guy, I'll cop to that--driving toward exciting, dramatic conflicts and seeing how they fall out. And I like finding character while in play. You start with a sketch of a personality, run with it, build on it, and then something found in play strikes right to the heart of the character, profoundly changes them or drives home what's really important to them.

Quote from: two_fishes;363492p.s. lord of the rings is long and boring.

Not if you drink every time any hobbit cries, twice every time Frodo in particular cries and three times for Sam. Also, it helps to do a line of coke every time Gandalf withholds important information from his friends.

Obviously, you've been doing it wrong.Drunk and coked up is the default way to enjoy LoTR.

Quote from: two_fishes;363482Am I speaking moon speak or something? figuring out what you take for granted, what your assumptions are, why you hold them, what other people think, what their assumptions are, why they think the way they think--that's exactly what interesting discussion is to me.

It's been done. People told you, you're ignoring them. Now you're just bloviating and playing martyr.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363505It's been done. People told you, you're ignoring them. Now you're just bloviating and playing martyr.

bloviating? really? that's your idea of a criticism? outdated 19th century slang? what planet are you from?

Still ignoring the issue, I see.

Quote from: Peregrin;363479I really wouldn't consider filling in minor details to be telling a story about an elf.

True. The point of this discussion, though, is that we aren't filling in minor details. We're bypassing elements of the setting by taking a "whatever" approach to dealing with a challenge. This approach, by the way, is characteristic of many Forge games which substitute mechanics and conflict resolution for actually engaging the setting. The integrity of the setting, suspension of disbelief, character-immersion--they're all subordinated to "say yes or roll the dice". I.e., it doesn't matter how the player suggests that his character will do something; only the announced goal really matters, and the GM is strongly urged to accept the player's narration, however lame it might be.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363514True. The point of this discussion, though, is that we aren't filling in minor details. We're bypassing elements of the setting by taking a "whatever" approach to dealing with a challenge. This approach, by the way, is characteristic of many Forge games which substitute mechanics and conflict resolution for actually engaging the setting. The integrity of the setting, suspension of disbelief, character-immersion--they're all subordinated to "say yes or roll the dice". I.e., it doesn't matter how the player suggests that his character will do something; only the announced goal really matters, and the GM is strongly urged to accept the player's narration, however lame it might be.

Depends on the game.  In Dogs, yeah, there's that roundtable approach.  In Burning Wheel, the GM dictates and narrates the consequences.  Most games I'm aware of limit player ability to narrate aspects of the world or let a die-roll dictate it.

As far as immersion, I think most games follow a change in stance dependent upon what part of the game you're engaged in.  Sometimes you unconsciously switch, other times consciously, based on the need/want to either engage with the mechanics or with the situation in-character.

I don't think "immersion", however a particular player defines it, and more "meta" concepts are always at odds, I think they just occupy different instances during play, with one or the other taking precedence in certain styles of play.  There's definitely a "sweet-spot", but I think that's highly dependent upon personal preferences.  My experience with most gamers IRL is that there are just as many people who ignore immersion in favor of the metagame as there are who try to get really into it, even among people who aren't aware of theory, the Forge, whatever.

As far as intent and task are concerned, I think that happens in every game.  Sure, your character succeeded in their lock-pick skill, but exactly how did they disable the trap?  If your aim is for full player-to-character immersion with absolutely nothing in the way, you'd go back to OD&D, no skills, and you'd have players describe exactly what they're doing and the GM would determine the outcome.  Again, I have no problem with that style of play, and I enjoy it, but how many games are actually like that, even those we consider traditional.  But the fact that there are people who dislike 3.x because they feel skill-checks pull them out of the game, make it about the "metagame", whatever, indicates to me this isn't just an issue of Forge design vs. what people here call "traditional" design, but just different people's opinions on where game and imagination should intersect.

As far as shared narration...when I used to play pretend as a kid, it was more collaborative, and it didn't make it any less engaging, so I'm not really sure.  I love immersion, but I don't necessarily think using my own imagination to fill in gaps is any less immersive, it depends how I feel going into it.  Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to pretend I was an army grunt on the beaches of Normandy as a kid and "immerse" myself in it, since I was dictating what was going on in my own mind's eye.  Was that any less "playing pretend" than if I were to have had someone else telling me what I see and here rather than dreaming it up myself?

I completely understand where you guys are coming from, though, since I've been there myself, and it's my preferred style of play, but a lot of this talk is about something that you feel and can't measure at all, so it's really almost pointless.  If someone hasn't really experienced immersive play, they won't understand, just like those who don't get "story" focused play won't ever understand it, because it's all based on what we feel is the most important part of play and what makes it fun and exciting for us.

I understand what you're saying, Peregrin, I really do. Skills as abstraction, yes. We could get into it in more detail, but for purposes of this discussion, we can leave it at "sweet spot". The main issue in this thread is the examples quoted, and those are taking us far out of minor setting elements.

When I hear minor setting elements I think of stuff like the GM describing a warehouse and the player assuming there's a crowbar available...or if not a crowbar, then something else that can improvise as a weapon or a lever. It follows very naturally from the setting and I think most GMs would at least allow a percentage chance of scrounging something unless they had a very good setting-based reason for asserting that the place is utterly bare. The alternative for the GM would be to annotate every location in excruciating detail.

But the critiques of the examples here (at least the first one) have pretty clearly shown how the player's suggested improv has broad implications for the established setting, potentially undermining elements that the GM has in fact determined.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;363520But the critiques of the examples here (at least the first one) have pretty clearly shown how the player's suggested improv has broad implications for the established setting, potentially undermining elements that the GM has in fact determined.

Then couldn't the GM just handle it the way they would any other meta-aspect (a rules debate, dictating out-of-game procedures, etc.).  Sure, you'd get pulled out of game for a minute, but then once all is said and done, you could then progress back into an immersive mode, just like you would after finishing up a big tactical minis fight or something.  Determine the best course of action through discussion, then proceed back into RP.

Yes. Somehow I don't think that is what's being suggested here, in the quoted examples. It seems more like the GM is being encouraged to incorporate anything the player improvises. Take the most extreme critic of the examples actually under discussion, and ask them if they'd automatically shoot down any & all player attempts to improvise. I doubt you'd find one who would--who wouldn't in at least some circumstances roll dice or say "yes" to a player's request to fill in some detail. (The ones who wouldn't are most likely GMs who rigidly plot ahead or who feel a need to guide plot.)

But the way things usually go in these discussions is then to say, "Well, if you can let a player improvise a crowbar then why not a knightly order?" And that's nonsense; the person explained why (it harms immersion) and no amount of slippery-slope or salami-slicing rhetoric is going to overcome that.