Quote from: soviet;567523In which storygames do you get to decide whether or not you succeed, and by how much? Because I haven't seen them.

Storygames in which rolls determine narrative control, as in InSpectres, for example.

Quote from: silva;567516This is a good point. Where did the Immersionist Party around here took the idea that D&D was meant to be played in full character immersion and all that crap ? Because the very rules dont support this and neither its own creator cared much for it, if Ben's posts are right.

Glazerl explains one possible way that it happened:

Quote from: Glazer;567499Most of us have grown up using the rules, so the mechanics become ingrained, we learn to ignore the game's quirks, and we play the game with ‘unconscious competence’ of the game mechanics.

Bolding mine.

This concept goes a long ways towards explaining the OSR crowd's reaction to the 4E, they finally read the rules and judged them objectively for the first time in perhaps decades.

If they ever got around to doing the same with the older versions with their "ingrained mechanics glasses" turned off, I bet a lot of them would have the same negative reaction. But I doubt they are capable of such an objective viewing at this point.


Another part of the puzzle explaining the disconnect is in the OSR crowd's love of "Rulings Not Rules", they know the game doesn't work and thus are willing to ignore rules and do whatever they want whenever they want. By breaking from the rules (i.e. cheating), they get to avoid the worst features of the game by in truth simply not playing it.

That they consider such behavior (unacceptable in almost any other human activity) to be a virtue is an insight to how dysfunctional they've become with respect to the game. It's not working for them, and yet they cheat (and then lie to themselves about it) to continue playing.

Even the avoidance of maps and minis is part of this mindset, by removing such clear and visible representations of what the game mechanics are in truth doing- they can better avoid that game reality and instead sub in their imagined and reworked vision more easily.




Lastly I should note that I consider it impossible to develop mechanics that 'support' immersion as such, but very possible to have mechanics (and play styles) that make immersion more difficult.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;567525Storygames in which rolls determine narrative control, as in InSpectres, for example.

That's not deciding whether you win or not, it's describing how. You still have to roll against the GM or against a DC or whatever.

Quote from: John Morrow;567473I would agree that character immersion is something that the players bring to the table themselves, and what happens is that the system either works with that perspective or it fights against it.  While I also agree that D&D has some rules that are so abstract that they can produce some pretty nonsensical results from an game world perspective, the rules are largely tolerable for immersive play because the choices made in the game can be made from the character's perspective.  What makes storygames toxic to character immersive play is that true storygames often require that the player look at the game from a perspective that's not focused on their character or from their character's perspective.  Even though it sounds like the people playing in Gary Gygax's original D&D games didn't do a lot of character immersion, either, they were still largely engaged in the game and solved problems from their character's perspective and the players didn't get to decide what happens beyond what their characters would reasonably have control over.

They did mainly solve problems from the character's perspective, though this developed as the games went on and the DMing starting rotating a bit more.
The idea of metagaming as cheating started very, very early, from what I read early on.

Immersion may be very important, and one of the reasons the 'immersion' crown pushes the idea that roleplaying is playing from within the eyes and knowledge of the character is that the 'inside-out' view of roleplaying aids immersion...
But Immersion is not the same thing as roleplaying.

Quote from: gleichman;567530If they ever got around to doing the same with the older versions with their "ingrained mechanics glasses" turned off, I bet a lot of them would have the same negative reaction. But I doubt they are capable of such an objective viewing at this point.

I guess we are brain-damaged then. Despite the fact many of us in the OSR referee and play RPGs with far more detail and complexity than older edition D&D (GURPS, Hero, etc)

Quote from: gleichman;567530Another part of the puzzle explaining the disconnect is in the OSR crowd's love of "Rulings Not Rules", they know the game doesn't work and thus are willing to ignore rules and do whatever they want whenever they want. By breaking from the rules (i.e. cheating), they get to avoid the worst features of the game by in truth simply not playing it.

What are the mechanics for picking a lock or finding a trap in the 1974 editions of Dungeons & Dragons? Or swinging from a chandelier? Or jumping across a lava pit?

Quote from: gleichman;567530Even the avoidance of maps and minis is part of this mindset, by removing such clear and visible representations of what the game mechanics are in truth doing- they can better avoid that game reality and instead sub in their imagined and reworked vision more easily.

Your statement is not supported by how people play. Avoidance of maps and minis is not a defining characteristic of older edition campaigns. Back in the day and continuing to the present there been a about a 50-50 split between those who use maps and minis and those who don't. Even among those that don't use minis only a small minority opt for a pure verbal approach.

Quote from: silva;567516This is a good point. Where did the Immersionist Party around here took the idea that D&D was meant to be played in full character immersion and all that crap ? Because the very rules dont support this and neither its own creator cared much for it, if Ben's posts are right.

Silva, it came in very, very early.when you talk about something being 'meant to be played', you reduce the creative scope nearly to absurdity.  The game developed quite a bit in the first few incarnations, and many things were brought in and out that could be considered part of the origin of the game.   And there was more than one 'creator',  and many greatly influencing forces early on.

Or, to make it more clear, playing from within the role and scope of the character came first, using only the knowledge available to the character.  And I am sure that even this was fuzzy for a lot of early games, but this grew into the more immersive ideas very quickly.

 the 'Immersionist Party', as you call it, prioritizes Immersion as a goal partially because it came from playing the 'in character, non-metagamed' perspective.  Immersion comes from in-character roleplaying.

Quote from: silva;567516This is a good point. Where did the Immersionist Party around here took the idea that D&D was meant to be played in full character immersion and all that crap ? Because the very rules dont support this and neither its own creator cared much for it, if Ben's posts are right.

People don't need to be actors to play a roleplaying game. Any RPG works fine with the players esstentially playing themselves (with the character's stats) adventuring in a fantasy world.

The minimum needed for immersion is that that they react to events as if they were really there. The consequences of doing that will lead to the character developing naturally within the campaign just as if they started with a defined personality and a detailed background.

This is true for all RPGs because it is a result of the game being moderated by referee adjudicating the actions of the players not the specifics of the rules or the genre of the game.

Quote from: LordVreeg;567539the 'Immersionist Party', as you call it, prioritizes Immersion as a goal partially because it came from playing the 'in character, non-metagamed' perspective.  Immersion comes from in-character roleplaying.

That, and its the most fun you can have with a group of people without actually getting naked. Although technically you could game naked if you wanted I suppose.

Keep your cold and distant shared control socially adjusting powergames, as the once and future Kyle put it, we'll be gaming on, motherfuckers.

Quote from: Glazer;567499Part of the reason D&D games works well is its ubiquity.  Most of us have grown up using the rules, so the mechanics become ingrained, we learn to ignore the game's quirks, and we play the game with 'unconscious competence' of the game mechanics. This makes the rules pretty much invisible to us during play, making immersion much easier.

i agree and disagree.

I agree that familiarity helps make the rules more invisible.  It is almost a 'lingua franca' thing.

But I left D&D decades ago, and have no desire to move back.  I personally find many of the rules don't model the type of game or the setting details I enjoy.  

That being said,

Quote from: Originally Posted by gleichmanIf they ever got around to doing the same with the older versions with their "ingrained mechanics glasses" turned off, I bet a lot of them would have the same negative reaction. But I doubt they are capable of such an objective viewing at this point.

Pardon me, but really?
I left the game years ago, as mentioned above.  4E? I left as 2e was coming out.  And have read and looked at every version since then.
Almost everyone you are 'talking' to here plays many different games.  So they have a very complete understanding of the differences in the rules because they compare them to other rule sets, consiously and unconsiously.  I write all my own rulesets from scratch, though I do occasionaly take a break to try new games and see what makes them tick.

And yet this does not change my view that there is a fundamental difference between the type of game where the mechanics and game style are based on a inside-looking-out, non-metagame play style and a game where the mechanics might allow for or actually require a metagamed, outside looking in perspective.

Yes, there are personal preferences and different rule ideals.  But basing so much of an argument on the idea that everyone who feels differently than you do is blindly following one ruleset or is somehow less sophisticated then yourself is laughable.

Quote from: estar;567540People don't need to be actors to play a roleplaying game. Any RPG works fine with the players esstentially playing themselves (with the character's stats) adventuring in a fantasy world.

The minimum needed for immersion is that that they react to events as if they were really there. The consequences of doing that will lead to the character developing naturally within the campaign just as if they started with a defined personality and a detailed background.

This is true for all RPGs because it is a result of the game being moderated by referee adjudicating the actions of the players not the specifics of the rules or the genre of the game.

Ther amount of immersion being on a scale?  Perfect Immersion not being the only accepted model?  How crazy and non-confrontational.

You're a good man.  
(and I am working on a seventh rule of setting/game design, based on the differences in a long-term ca,paign and the rules that support it better...might send something later if there is time)

Quote from: LordVreeg;567547I left the game years ago, as mentioned above.  4E? I left as 2e was coming out.  And have read and looked at every version since then.
Almost everyone you are 'talking' to here plays many different games.  So they have a very complete understanding of the differences in the rules because they compare them to other rule sets, consiously and unconsiously.

None of that matters, human nature simply remains constant.

Once a player 'ingrains' (imprint is almost a good word here except we're talking about a process and not instinct. Still I like the term) a game system, it remains ingrained. Reading or playing other games doesn't change that, and it's very possible for one to imprint multiple games and even imprint in contradictory ways.

Such imprinting may or may not carry forward biases from one to another.

For example, having imprinted on Hit Points in original D&D it becomes easier to imprint on similar styles of Hit Points in other versions or games. But that doesn't always hold, one could imprint Hit Points for D&D (and it's offshoots) and imprint Wound mechanics for a different system. A person may not use a map for D&D, and use one for GURPs because the map reminds them of D&D's simulation failures and the same problem doesn't exist for them in GURPS.

The human mind isn't noted for complete consistency, it's noted for adjusting itself to deal what it encounters.

The process of imprinting (or ingraining) is mastering and approaching the rules in such a way that they no longer impede play. Thus imprinting (or ingraining) a game system is in general a positive thing.

Where I see an issue is (as in the case of many people on this board) is when such imprinting requires ignoring the game, i.e. they only way they can play it is by not actually playing it. Instead they make up rules on the fly, break them on whim, rush through combat as fast as possible (ignoring rules as they do so), and other acts of disengagement.

A rational person would say that they need to find a game that better fits their needs. However their 'imprint' has made all this seem acceptable- it's "how it's done" and they no longer consider objectively what they're doing.

It's this type of disconnect between what the Player is actually doing, and what the game actually is that drove early thought at the Forge. It represents one of their few real insights. Sadly they had few others.

Quote from: gleichman;567553It's this type of disconnect between what the Player is actually doing, and what the game actually is that drove early thought at the Forge. It represents one of their few real insights. Sadly they had few others.

The whole disconnect idea, or gamers smoothing over the rough parts through mental adaptation is interesting, but for those people who have gone the route of creating and using their own system for years like Lord Vreeg and you - you're never really done, are you?  You're always tinkering, always coming up with things to make it a better experience.

Most GMs do this to a certain extent with houserules, but there's only so far you can go with a system before you're changing core systems that significantly alter gameplay.

As a result, I would argue it's not really having something ingrained or imprinted, as much as delivering a certain experience.  If all we could do is play one game, and that was it, then people wouldn't smooth over much, they'd try to make damn sure that game did everything they wanted as perfectly as possible.

However, I can play as many games as I want, and none of them are perfect.  Which means I can enjoy D&D for what it is, enjoy Shadowrun for what it is, as well as WFRP, Runequest, a friend's custom d30 system, 40k d100, etc.

The more familiar you are with a game, of course the easier it is for you to smooth over the rough spots to enjoy what you're doing, however, the idea that you're doing that blindly is incorrect I think.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567554The whole disconnect idea, or gamers smoothing over the rough parts through mental adaptation is interesting, but for those people who have gone the route of creating and using their own system for years like Lord Vreeg and you - you're never really done, are you?  You're always tinkering, always coming up with things to make it a better experience.

Interesting thought. I'd have to say yes and no.

The fact that "one is never really done" does keep you always looking at the rules. After every game I ask myself if the rules covered everything they needed to cover, and if they did in fact work as I intended them to. That type of constant review is worth something.

However, I've ingrained my own rules to a large degree. After 30 years, multiple drafts, multiple review passes by multiple players, and a few weeks before I printed my first real book at Lulu- I realized that I had left out a critical rule. I did so because it was so ingrained that I forgot about it and never wrote it down.

That causes me to wonder how much else I left out. Add in the fact that I didn't include common RPG conventions (determining LOS on a hex for example), and I think the rules that I published may or may not really reflect the rules I play. And that disappoints me greatly.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567554As a result, I would argue it's not really having something ingrained or imprinted, as much as delivering a certain experience.  If all we could do is play one game, and that was it, then people wouldn't smooth over much, they'd try to make damn sure that game did everything they wanted as perfectly as possible.

I think a lot of people in the hobby (and on this board) have given up on that goal, considering it impossible. Thus what they've ingrained in themselves is to disengage from the game whenever it becomes a problem.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567554However, I can play as many games as I want, and none of them are perfect.  Which means I can enjoy D&D for what it is, enjoy Shadowrun for what it is, as well as WFRP, Runequest, a friend's custom d30 system, 40k d100, etc.

I've attempted to do that, but can only manage it in short bursts as the problems build in importance the longer the game is played. Since most of my campaigns last years in real time- it just doesn't work out in the long run.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567554The more familiar you are with a game, of course the easier it is for you to smooth over the rough spots to enjoy what you're doing, however, the idea that you're doing that blindly is incorrect I think.

We're human, flawed and imperfect. Much of what we do, we do blindly.

Quote from: gleichman;567553Once a player 'ingrains' (imprint is almost a good word here except we're talking about a process and not instinct. Still I like the term) a game system, it remains ingrained. Reading or playing other games doesn't change that, and it's very possible for one to imprint multiple games and even imprint in contradictory ways.

Welcome to the Ron Edwards club of telling other gamers they are brain damaged. How arrogant and pompous.

Quote from: gleichman;567553Where I see an issue is (as in the case of many people on this board) is when such imprinting requires ignoring the game, i.e. they only way they can play it is by not actually playing it. Instead they make up rules on the fly, break them on whim, rush through combat as fast as possible (ignoring rules as they do so), and other acts of disengagement.

So again, exactly where are the rules for picking a lock in OD&D?

Quote from: gleichman;567553It's this type of disconnect between what the Player is actually doing, and what the game actually is that drove early thought at the Forge. It represents one of their few real insights. Sadly they had few others.

The disconnect that you and the Forge are noting are the result of RPGs being a imperfect simulation of life. The situations that the players can get their characters into are so varied that the only way to properly handle them is by having a human referee adjudicate.  Using his best judgement as to how to resolve the actions the players want their characters to perform. The rules aid consistency and provide expertise for the areas the referee lacks knowledge.

In order to remove the human referee you need to impose constraints on the scope of the campaign. For example in MMORPGs the environment is relatively static.

Quote from: gleichman;567553None of that matters, human nature simply remains constant.

Once a player 'ingrains' (imprint is almost a good word here except we're talking about a process and not instinct. Still I like the term) a game system, it remains ingrained. Reading or playing other games doesn't change that, and it's very possible for one to imprint multiple games and even imprint in contradictory ways.

Such imprinting may or may not carry forward biases from one to another.

For example, having imprinted on Hit Points in original D&D it becomes easier to imprint on similar styles of Hit Points in other versions or games. But that doesn't always hold, one could imprint Hit Points for D&D (and it's offshoots) and imprint Wound mechanics for a different system. A person may not use a map for D&D, and use one for GURPs because the map reminds them of D&D's simulation failures and the same problem doesn't exist for them in GURPS.

The human mind isn't noted for complete consistency, it's noted for adjusting itself to deal what it encounters.

The process of imprinting (or ingraining) is mastering and approaching the rules in such a way that they no longer impede play. Thus imprinting (or ingraining) a game system is in general a positive thing.

Where I see an issue is (as in the case of many people on this board) is when such imprinting requires ignoring the game, i.e. they only way they can play it is by not actually playing it. Instead they make up rules on the fly, break them on whim, rush through combat as fast as possible (ignoring rules as they do so), and other acts of disengagement.

A rational person would say that they need to find a game that better fits their needs. However their 'imprint' has made all this seem acceptable- it's "how it's done" and they no longer consider objectively what they're doing.

It's this type of disconnect between what the Player is actually doing, and what the game actually is that drove early thought at the Forge. It represents one of their few real insights. Sadly they had few others.

Yeah...in my world here.  Background in psych, and though I switched careers, I keep my hand in.

AS you notate, mutability, flexibility and evolution are what we do all the time.  So though we may passively 'ingrain' as you say, the contextual imprint can be changed by other context-specific imprintings.  We may not realize it, but it is actually one of the signs of measuring emotional intelligence, this ability to apply learnings from one discipline to another.  
There are levels of rigidity in learning, but mutability of knowledge/bleedthrough is a human condition.  So even earlier 'imprints' change, the same way that we actually recreate and change our memories based on later experiences.
 

In terms of gaming, assuming that people who play the earier games are misguided or are making up rules to avoid a disconnect between what the rules do and what they want their characters to do is ignoring the fundamental nature of those early rules.  One of their beneficial features is that a good GM was supposed to interpret the situation and make rulings.  It;s not ignoring the game, it's a feature of the game.  And it is a very 2 edged sword, a rule that really makes the level of play dependent on the ability of the GM.  

 but I am a big believer in matching system to setting and gamestyle.
Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."