Quote from: Justin

Quote from:
Originally Posted by LordVreegWe talked about it until I asked her what kind of beer it was. She said she could make that up as well. I answered that first, " do you see where this is going? Once you stop receiving and start projecting, it changes the way we naturally perceive the world. And secondly....how do you know that beer and wine production has not been seriously thought out and that you are actually fucking with the setting?". And then I proceeded to link the beer and wine page of celtricia to the argument...

I see the point you're making and largely agree with it. However, this can get really fuzzy at the edges when you look at it too closely. There is a natural process of closure which is not only intrinsic to a verbal description but necessary for verbal descriptions to be meaningful.

For example, if I'm playing Call of Cthulhu and the GM says, "You enter a Qwik-E-Mart." That statement is going to automatically cause me to go through a process of closure in which I imagine the interior of a Qwik-E-Mart. If I then say, "I grab a Snickers bar." it would be misleading to say that I'm exerting narrative control in asserting the presence of the Snickers bar. Rather, I am still reacting to the mental picture created by the GM's statement.

Now, it is true that the GM did not say anything about this particular Qwik-E-Mart having Snickers for sale. And it's also true that the image I've created in my own head based on the GM's description isn't an exact match for the image he has; nor is it a match for what the other players around the table have in their heads.

But in practice, when I say "I grab a Snickers", the same process of closure will occur with the other players: They, including the GM, will visualize the location of the Snickers bar in the Qwik-E-Marts they're imagining in their heads.

This only becomes problematic if our visions of the Qwik-E-Mart end up mutually contradicting each other. (As in your example of someone reaching for a specific brand of beer that doesn't exist in your setting.) That's the point at which you discover who actually controls the game world: In an RPG it's the GM; in an STG there'll be a narrative control mechanic to determine it.

I don't see this as a problem.  I agree with your last statement especially.
Because there is a fundamental difference in the exception you have created.  Your example assumes a familiarity and a 'within-setting knowledge'.  Because in your example, the character is asumed to have thie same 'in setting knowledge' as the player, and in my example, that is not the case. That is the caveat.  So I see very, very little disconnect.

Quote from: gleichman;567530

QuoteOriginally Posted by silva  
This 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:

QuoteOriginally Posted by Glazer  
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.

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.

Very nicely put. Makes perfect sense to me.

 (only now noticed this post, sorry for the semi-necro )

Quote from: Justin Alexander;568157That's not how it was conceived. That was not how it was written.

The presence of the drow is hinted at through all of the modules, so the idea that they no idea where this was going as they wrote them is a stupid.

Quote from: silva;568209Very nicely put. Makes perfect sense to me.

Really? The idea that adjudication is left to the referee only because the game is borked makes "perfect sense" to you?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568214Really? The idea that adjudication is left to the referee only because the game is borked makes "perfect sense" to you?

Well, Silva is just getting to that post, he might not have read the many comments about it.

Quote from: noisms;565689The way some RPGers organise themselves is sort of reminiscent of those left-wing revolutionary cliques who are at the absolute extreme of human political thought, and in a tiny minority to boot, and yet manage to divide themselves into even smaller groups who despise each other more than anything else. Like those Jewish revolutionaries in The Life of Brian.

I run a game of straight-up classic D&D right now, after closing up a Cyberpunk 2020 campaign, but in the past year have also played Lady Blackbird, Apocalypse World, Ghost/Echo, and other games from the forge and story-games. So I think I'm fairly well placed to say IT IS THE SAME HOBBY.

I find myself in the same situation. I find all kinds of RPGs, and I find that they're the exact same thing. My players cannot find a difference, other than, of course, they will  like some games more than others.

Quote from: Gib;565692The whole phenomenon, and to a lesser extent the reaction people get when they ask the 'wrong' sorts of questions about AD&D 1e, reminds me of something I learned long ago: when you're mad you are the center of the universe, everything revolves around you and your anger. If you like the taste of self-importance, you gots to have something to be mad about. Forever.

Quote from: Gib;565695Dude, nobody posting multiple times a day on an RPG forum gets to accuse anyone else of wasting their life.

Lots of wisdom here.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;567922If I'm playing D&D then its because I want to roleplay an adventurer in a fictional setting. If I want to roleplay a storyteller and tell stories then I will play a game suited to that.

Or play D&D... as a Bard

Quote from: Imperator;568232My players cannot find a difference, other than, of course, they will  like some games more than others.

What games are on their like list?

Which games are on their don't like list?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;567690I used to do a bit of sports and i would compare immersion to being in the zone, where everything is just naturally flowing. But i dont think a sports analogy is all that apt since the goal of a sport is to play it and win, but rpgs are more about getting into a character.

I am not going to tell people there is one way or a best way to do it, but for me the fun starts when you feel like you are the character (even as a gm playing npcs this is where i start to enjoy myself). Again it is primarily about feel for me than what may actually bd going on.

This is exactly how I feel. For me, there's no real point to playing the game without that. It's not really fun for me until those barriers melt away and we're so completely wrapped in character, in the world, in the moment. Without that, I can't see why I'd bother with RPGs. I'd just play Descent or CRPGs something instead, since they do the non-immersive, purely game-based, hack-n-slash mechanical bits so much better.

I'd have more fun shopping for a new sword in an immersive game when I'm in character than I would fighting a dragon (sorry - telling a story of dragon-fighting) in a pure story-game.

The thing is, everyone I knew played this way, to a deeper or shallower extent, for the first decade or two I played RPGs. I am not really sure when that changed, but I do know it's harder to find immersive roleplayers today than it used to be.

For a while I was worried this thread would be nothing more than an example of just how far theRPGsite rabbit hole goes, but now we're getting to some seriously good stuff.

Quote from: John Morrow;568153Actually, you don't do the same thing because you aren't imagining yourself as your character being THERE.

Yes I am. Are you saying my immersive experience is a lie and doesn't exist?

Quote from: John Morrow;568153Yeah, it does, because I've seen it in action.

No it doesn't, as I've seen the opposite.

I have a better example.

I was playing Sydney Bristow in the Night's Black Agents tournament, where I was undercover as a maid in a hotel. Anyway, a bunch of us are in a hallway where Jack Bauer is being sucked dry by a Vampire, and bullets don't seem to be having much effect. So I run up to the vamp with a lighter and a bottle of Aerosol cleaner and burn her face off, which she apparently was so embarrased about that she melted on the spot.

Now I wasn't thinking about what would make a cool scene for anyone. I wasn't thinking about what would be the most dramatic action I could take. I wasn't spending points to dramatically edit in the lighter and Aerosol can. I wasn't calculating what the optimal use of my action points would be. I wasn't rolling for initiative.

No, what I was thinking was completely from the perspective of my character. It was "Oh shit, Bauer's down and bullets don't seem to work. What is there around me that I can make into some sort of improvised weapon before Bauer is dead? Wait, I can access the cleaning supply closet and get something flammable." And that setup action wasn't even announced before I made the attack, because it wasn't necessary, as nobody saw me take it from their character's perspective.

Now there were turns, but if this action sequence had been ordered by initiative and divided up into second by second combat rounds, it would have completely destroyed the flow and my immersion. And the game worked fine without all that cruft.

More importantly, the only difference between adding those scene elements immersively and adding them authoritatively was the current mindset of the player.

Quote from: CRKrueger;567974Immersion into what, exactly?

First person PoV.

(* BTW, your story just gave a great idea as to how to resolve this sort of conflict of expectations through 3rd person narration. *)

Quote from: The Traveller;567979And there's that surprise thing I was talking about before.

Yes, but is the surprise "There is no Shotgun', or is the surprise "Here's WHY there is no Shotgun"? Because the former is just boring.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;568001Is someone implying that unless the players dictate the scenario/surroundings/NPCs, it breaks immersion?

To a certain extent, yes.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;568001I thought it was the DM who decided those things, not the players.

They both do.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;568001What happens when you expect a shotgun to be under the bar, and your buddy who is playing character B expects a baseball bat?  Whose immersion gets broken in that scenario?

Neither, because it's all about who gets there first.

Basic improv. First one to declare a reasonable unestablished fact establishes it.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568004I answered that first, " do you see where this is going?  Once you stop receiving and start projecting, it changes the way we naturally perceive the world.

But this process is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. In fact, for immersive play, the difference is effectively invisible.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568004And secondly....how do you know that beer and wine production has not been seriously thought out and that you are actually fucking with the setting?".

You don't.

But if the GM has to correct almost every assumption the player makes from their character's PoV, then there's a disconnect that really should be addressed before further play.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568202Your example assumes a familiarity and a 'within-setting knowledge'.  Because in your example, the character is asumed to have thie same 'in setting knowledge' as the player, and in my example, that is not the case.

Then it would be very difficult to play your game immersively from a character's PoV, because there's nothing in the character's head that's shared with their player.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568005Or, you stop the action, and go through Task Resolution, Determine the actions you can take This Round, roll for Initiative, and then roll to to see how well you succeed.  However, with Critical Failures the shotgun might be unloaded, so you should make sure all the players know to always go for the Louisville Slugger, even in eras before Baseball.

Fixed your spelling

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568006Yeah, as a player I want to explore the setting, not create it as I go.

You can't do one without doing the other.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;568012Well, if the player decides what is and isn't in the game world, what's to stop them from saying they find a plasma rifle?

The logic of the fiction.

You don't run into this problem when the players share enough of the same expectations about the game setting.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568079Yeah...so there is no 'in setting' logic in that scenario.

Sure there is, because it's about an undecided fact which is supported by and doesn't contradict previously established facts.

Quote from: John Morrow;568153Don't know enough about any of those to know for sure.

Well, you asked

Quote from: John Morrow;568153I'm quite happy with, "I jump over the bar and look for a shotgun or other weapon." and I would also have no problem with a GM telling me to make a roll to see if my character actually jumps the bar cleanly, the GM telling me that there is no shotgun there, or the GM asking me to make a Perception roll to see if my character spots a shotgun that may or may not be there.

I have no problem with this either, but it does take me out of my immersive stance. I even like how you phrase your question in the form of an action.

Quote from: John Morrow;568153Their emphasis is on the role-playing, not the game.

If these are not one and the same, then it isn't an RPG.

Quote from: John Morrow;568153Read more non-fiction.

I've read a lot of non-fiction where the people being written about believed that karma or god was the reason they succeeded. Are they wrong?





...and finally...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;568157There is a natural process of closure which is not only intrinsic to a verbal description but necessary for verbal descriptions to be meaningful.

This.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568310This is exactly how I feel. For me, there's no real point to playing the game without that. It's not really fun for me until those barriers melt away and we're so completely wrapped in character, in the world, in the moment. Without that, I can't see why I'd bother with RPGs. I'd just play Descent or CRPGs something instead, since they do the non-immersive, purely game-based, hack-n-slash mechanical bits so much better.

I'd have more fun shopping for a new sword in an immersive game when I'm in character than I would fighting a dragon (sorry - telling a story of dragon-fighting) in a pure story-game.

The thing is, everyone I knew played this way, to a deeper or shallower extent, for the first decade or two I played RPGs. I am not really sure when that changed, but I do know it's harder to find immersive roleplayers today than it used to be.

Immersion isn't a binary variable, though. Some of my most immersive experiences in media have been in film, or in 2D side-scrolling games. Just because some people don't have any interest in getting immersed in the thespian or 'thinking like your character' aspects of RPGs doesn't mean they're not immersed in the game.

Also another huge problem I think a lot of people have is that mechanics naturally only 'get out of the way' as some say when you're really familiar with them. If you're very familiar with a particular system or style of play, you can forget that it's often extremely clunky or kludgy to learn. God knows that OD&D was a mess as far as presentation goes, and Gygax himself loved to ramble on and on and belabor the point. The old school mechanics that facilitate immersion for some gamers are a brick wall for new school gamers, and vice versa. Since I began playing D&D with 3.5 (which, admittedly is a terrible system) the first time I encountered THAC0, it was like a brick wall of obfuscation.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568326Immersion isn't a binary variable, though. Some of my most immersive experiences in media have been in film, or in 2D side-scrolling games.

That isn't the same kind of immersion as I am talking about. It is analogous, but not the same.

QuoteJust because some people don't have any interest in getting immersed in the thespian or 'thinking like your character' aspects of RPGs doesn't mean they're not immersed in the game.

But they are still playing in a way that is incompatabile with how I play.

QuoteAlso another huge problem I think a lot of people have is that mechanics naturally only 'get out of the way' as some say when you're really familiar with them.

Or if, as a player, you don't really need to know them but can describe your action in natural language and have the GM adjudicate the mechanics. Then only the GM need know them well, and then only insofar as to make rulings. Rulings not rules games fit this well.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;568324Neither, because it's all about who gets there first.

Basic improv. First one to declare a reasonable unestablished fact establishes it.

In the act of improv and collaborative fiction yes.


If you get to a store an hour before it opens and there is no one else around to say otherwise, can you just declare it to be open?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;568324More importantly, the only difference between adding those scene elements immersively and adding them authoritatively was the current mindset of the player.

if the player has a mindset they are acting on independent of the character, then the player is not actually immersed in the sense being discussed. They are on a meta level above the character playing a game and taking Godlike Actions to create a fiction to accommodate the character, instead of being in the game world experientially.

You don't go to a supply cabinet and conjure an aresol can, you go and look if there is an aresol can. there may or may not be. Your need for one doesn't make it magically appear.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568333But they are still playing in a way that is incompatabile with how I play.

How they're playing isn't really relevant is it? If you get --immersed--, does it matter if the guy across from you doesn't? Or if he's just immersed in killing beholders?

QuoteOr if, as a player, you don't really need to know them but can describe your action in natural language and have the GM adjudicate the mechanics. Then only the GM need know them well, and then only insofar as to make rulings. Rulings not rules games fit this well.

This is true. What games do you tend to play? It sounds like FATE would be a decent match for this style. Strip out things like named stunts and discrete zones, maybe.

Or if you want something silly, Paranoia. Since technically knowing the rules for the game is against the rules.