Quote from: soviet;567779If this isn't deep immersion what is?

It is, no question about it.

The full quote here now:

Quote from: Benoist;567627That's our disconnect right there. I can feel Ernest Wheldrake's feelings. I am him in Vampire the Masquerade, and part of the excitement of playing a character in a role playing game is this "blurring of the lines" that occurs to me in actual play. Beyond the subject of characterization, to me, being 'in situation', live, in the game world, whether I am assuming a character's identity or role playing myself in the hypothetical situation, is a defining factor of a table top role playing game. If I am not immersed in the situation, I am not playing a role playing game. I am engaging in some other activity instead (building a story, playing a tactical boardgame... w/e).

What you reacted at was the first part: "That's our disconnect right there. I can feel Ernest Wheldrake's feelings. I am him in Vampire the Masquerade, and part of the excitement of playing a character in a role playing game is this "blurring of the lines" that occurs to me in actual play."

What I'm saying here is that playing a character and feeling a blurring of the lines between me and my character, is part of what interest me in playing said character in a role playing game. Note that I am not saying this part is a sine qua non condition to a role playing game. I'm saying this is part of what excites me when playing a character in a role playing game.

Now the second part clearly states: "Beyond the subject of characterization, to me, being 'in situation', live, in the game world, whether I am assuming a character's identity or role playing myself in the hypothetical situation, is a defining factor of a table top role playing game. If I am not immersed in the situation, I am not playing a role playing game. I am engaging in some other activity instead (building a story, playing a tactical boardgame... w/e)."

Which is basically the part where I am talking about immersion and making a difference between what I was just talking about which excites me when playing a character (i.e. characterization etc.), and immersion per se, which does not require an alternate character identity (read the quote), and IS a defining factor to me to determine whether I am playing a role playing game or not.

Which I've explained again here for what? The third time now.

Quote from: gleichman;567780I sense what we call here in Texas crawdading. What scared you off?

Actually it's just that I keep explaining something I've been saying all along. See above.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567778Any metagame system that removes you completely from your character POV can interrupt your roleplaying.  However, surely you see it's a continuum, not a binary switch if you don't really get into your character all that much, and are thinking most of the time outside the character anyway, then a game mechanic that requires you make that decision outside your character probably will not bother you that much.

A player running a character from third person may be as concerned with remaining true to that character as any 1st person or immersive player is. And thus a metagame influnce will break his gaming experience as completely and totally.

There is a continuum here, but it's not related to (what in r.g.f.a terms would be called) stance- it's a purely subjective personal one reflecting how easily the player can be disrupted from reaching his gaming goals.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567778It's a little ridiculous for a guy going to the movies once a month by himself to tell a guy going 4 nights a week with 5 people that the price hike at the local theater is nothing to be concerned about, don't you think?

If something is by your own admission kind of outside your perception and experience, then you probably shouldn't be so invested in telling people other people that their experience isn't going to be affected by something.

It's really a very simple concept.

Wait, who has been arguing that? Here's where I am coming from:

Some people really value immersion. For those people, even a hint of  metagame stuff or POV shifting seriously interferes with their enjoyment.

Some people value immersion but not as much. For those people, a bit of metagame stuff or POV shifting is fine, and can improve their enjoyment if it's in the name of some other benefit. Some of these people are storygamers, some of them are traditional roleplayers (like Gary Gygax!).

I just wish some of the people in the first camp would stop saying that the people in the second camp are not real roleplayers.

Quote from: Benoist;567781Now the second part clearly states: "Beyond the subject of characterization, to me, being 'in situation', live, in the game world, whether I am assuming a character's identity or role playing myself in the hypothetical situation, is a defining factor of a table top role playing game. If I am not immersed in the situation, I am not playing a role playing game. I am engaging in some other activity instead (building a story, playing a tactical boardgame... w/e)."

Which is basically the part where I am talking about immersion and making a difference between what I was just talking about which excites me when playing a character (i.e. characterization etc.), and immersion per se, which may or may not require a character (read the quote), and IS a defining factor to me to determine whether I am playing a role playing game or not.

Which I've explained again here for what? The third time now.

OK, well the bit I don't understand is how traditional gamers can be immersed in the game but not in a character and still be roleplaying, but somehow storygamers cannot. What is the traditional gamer doing or feeling that the storygamer is not?

Sometimes you watch a movie and it's enjoyable.  Sometimes you watch a movie and you're literally on the edge of your seat, or you're pissed off or crying or cheering.  Does that mean you're not watching a movie when you're not totally drawn in and engrossed? No.  Is it going to be harder to be engrossed if the movie includes a lot of 4th wall-type scenes? Yes.

Sometimes you read a book and it's enjoyable.  Sometimes you read a book and literally cannot put it down even though it's the early morning and you have to get up in 3 hours.  Does that mean you're not reading a book when you can easily put it down? No.  Is it going to be harder to be drawn into a book when there are distractions and your mind is on other things? Yes.

Sometimes you roleplay and it's enjoyable.  Sometimes you roleplay a character and you think it, you feel it, yes, for a short time, even just moments, you live it.  Does that mean you're not roleplaying if you haven't totally suspended all disbelief and are "in the zone"? No.  Is it going to be harder to get into the zone if the mechanics of the game are specifically designed for you make decisions outside of your character. Yes.

Quote from: soviet;567789OK, well the bit I don't understand is how traditional gamers can be immersed in the game but not in a character and still be roleplaying, but somehow storygamers cannot. What is the traditional gamer doing or feeling that the storygamer is not?

Immersion. If you are playing the game from an author's standpoint building a story, you are ipso facto not immersed in the situation.

Quote from: Benoist;567781Which I've explained again here for what? The third time now.

You're still coming off as a drunk with an empty wine bottle claiming he didn't touch a drop.

Or perhaps you're saying that you want to be an immersive player ( you did say that "feeling a blurring of the lines between me and my character, is part of what interest me in playing said character") but generally can't manage it for some reason.

In that case you're a drunk wishing he had a full wine bottle, but lacking the funds to buy one.

Quote from: soviet;567767Well, because it communicates intent and shares expectations. It adds extra suspense to the dice rolls (because we know exactly what's at stake) and ensures that the story moves forward every time (because failure is never 'nothing happens'). And finally, because we find doing so doesn't really affect our overall immersion (or whatever you want to call it). In fact it's fun.

That is not, however, a universal experience.  Knowing what's at stake doesn't create suspense for me.  It's like watching a movie with the comment track turned on.  The reason why most people hate literature classes is that nothing sucks the joy out of fiction for most people like analyzing the story while one is reading it.  I like it when nothing happens, at least every now and then.  And stopping to think about story utterly destroys immersion for me.  I don't want to see the artifice.  I don't watch movies with the comment track turned on.

Quote from: soviet;567767Honestly, a lot of the time stake setting is just a slightly more formal way of doing what lots of 'traditional' gamers do anyway. 'If I make this Athletics roll I'll grab the key and leg it down the steps', 'If I make this Diplomacy check I'm hoping to convince the king to let us go'. In fact I have many fond memories of old D&D games where someone would attempt a fancy combat manoeuvre or the like and everyone would be making suggestions to the GM about what kind of roll it should be, what the penalties/bonuses were, and what the consequences of success or failure should be. That's basically what CR looks like in play.

The reason why I use map grids even when I'm using very light systems is that timing matters.  When a player can both grab the key and run down the stairs in one move, it makes it difficult for the other players to add, interrupt, or stop something from happening.  

Quote from: soviet;567767I've also seen a lot of trad play where GMs have let players describe their own fumbles or crits. My group sometimes did that before we'd even heard of storygames, and I've been in other (pre-storygame) groups that have done it too.

I have no problem with someone doing it if they want to, so long as they do it well.  What I object to it is it being mandatory.  I have no interest in describing my own fumbles and would find doing so an unwelcome chore.

Quote from: soviet;567767I can see that these things would not fit well with a deep immersion style of play. But I think most other people (trad and story) quite enjoy them.

In my experience, most people are casual players and the relationship that many (of not most) casual players have with the rules are "I rolled a 15.  What happens?"

One of the people that I've known since college recruited co-workers to role-play with, many of whom had never role-played before.  For the most part, they didn't want to learn the rules.  They wanted to describe what their character did, roll some dice to produce a number, and then have the GM tell them what happens.  Those people don't read online role-playing message boards, nor are they represented in conversations like this, but there are a lot of them out there, and if the hobby wants to get larger again, it needs to be friendly to that sort of player and the GMs who like to run for that sort of player.

4th wall denying edge-of-your-seat moments?  Nah.  Play Eternal Darkness.

Quote from: soviet;567785I just wish some of the people in the first camp would stop saying that the people in the second camp are not real roleplayers.

I just wish some of the people in the second camp would stop saying that there is no difference between a game that you can play by making choices either in-character or out-of-character, and one which gives you no choice, by using metagame mechanics.

Quote from: Peregrin;5677944th wall denying edge-of-your-seat moments?  Nah.  Play Eternal Darkness.

How did South Park put it?  I'm startled, I'm very very startled.  

BTW, if it was intentional, nice arguing the words while ignoring the point.

In his thread over on RPGnet, Old Geezer (talking about his experiences playing with Gygax) was asked the following question:

"To what extent were character decisions driven by tactics and player knowledge as compared to characterization? For example, how would the table react to a player saying "Yeah, it's really weird that there's a treasure chest just standing there and it's probably a trap or a mimic or something, but my guy Grolgnar *is* pretty dumb and we haven't found *any* treasure so far so he's going to walk up to the chest and open it"?"

He replied:

"100% the former."

Quote from: Benoist;567791Immersion. If you are playing the game from an author's standpoint building a story, you are ipso facto not immersed in the situation.

What standpoint is the Gygaxian player playing from and why is it different?

Quote from: soviet;567777Maybe, I don't think I've read any but it sounds plausible. Surely in those games this is represented as some kind of willpower leading to pyrrhic victory thing, which is not only optional on the part of the player but also perfectly translatable into an in-character POV?

Not really.  The real world isn't perfectly balanced to provide the sort of Karma that systems like Dogs in the Vineyard or even Fate using Fate Points to activate traits present.

Quote from: soviet;567777It's for stuff that doesn't matter. If the player thinks it matters, or wants a roll, then it's a roll. In any event the decision to say yes or not is in the GM's hands, not the players. GMs have this power in I think all RPGs.

I don't necessarily want a yes or a roll.  I'm fine with the GM just saying no.

Quote from: soviet;567777Yes, by having NPCs spill the beans or having the PCs spot clues etc. But I don't see how that is the player deciding whether or not he succeeds. That's the GM cutting to the chase is all.

It's replacing uncertainty with choice.  Intent becomes automatic success.