Quote from: TomatoMalone;568350How they're playing isn't really relevant is it?

I'm afraid it is,

QuoteIf you get --immersed--, does it matter if the guy across from you doesn't? Or if he's just immersed in killing beholders?

Yes, because immersion is fragile, and if people aren't all on the same page it leads to those who aren't immersed in the same way I am doing and saying things which are immersion-breaking for me. They aren't playing the same game I am. And having people who aren't playing the same game try to play together is the number one source of conflict at the game table.

So I only will play with people who play the way I do, and enjoy that sort of play above all else. That's absolutely a requirement of my enjoyment. This doesn't strike me as odd in the least.

It's a Geek Fallacy that we have to include everyone in our games or else were an evil ostracizer. It's ok to just play with people who like the same things you like.

QuoteThis is true. What games do you tend to play? It sounds like FATE would be a decent match for this style.

And this is where it is clear to me you have no idea what I mean when I say "immersion".

FATE is actually antithetical to me. FATE is a terrible game for someone like me, because it relies heavily on meta thinking on the player level via tagging, invoking, compelling Aspects, making story declarations, and other Author Stance activities which are directly opposed to Immersion.

I play a wide variety of games which are generally labeled "traditional" by those who label such things. I began with B/X and consider that to still be a solid ruleset, and play a number of OSR games and some more modern games as well. I have played about three dozen different RPGs and own over a hundred distinct rulesets (I am a collector and connoisseur) What I don't play are story-games (and I consider FATE to have strong story-game components) and any game with shared narrative rules.

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

As I've been gaming since 1982, of course I am familiar with Paranoia and I enjoy it as the parody and subversion of RPGs that it is. It's always good to laugh at ones self from time to time.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568354I'm afraid it is

Huh, interesting. Care to elaborate?

QuoteYes, because immersion is fragile, and if people aren't all on the same page it leads to those who aren't immersed in the same way I am doing and saying things which are immersion-breaking for me. They aren't playing the same game I am.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I mean, for example, you say 'fragile' like it's very easy for you to lose focus on the game. That sounds more like ADD than immersion. Like with the Fate Aspects thing--if the GM tagging your Suave aspect to put a gaggle of attractive women between your character and your goal, that breaks your immersion? If something within the story world can do that, then what about someone slurping their coca cola or crunching too hard on the chips? It seems to me that real world things are a lot more distracting than really unobtrusive game mechanics.

And maybe it's a minor quibble, but Immersion is, by definition, not fragile. Otherwise it's not so much immersion as getting caught up in the moment.

QuoteAs I've been gaming since 1982, of course I am familiar with Paranoia and I enjoy it as the parody and subversion of RPGs that it is.

Ah, cool. I'd love to actually play the damn thing myself, but getting my group to try new stuff can be... difficult.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568357Huh, interesting. Care to elaborate?

Already did.

QuoteNot sure exactly what you're getting at here. I mean, for example, you say 'fragile' like it's very easy for you to lose focus on the game. That sounds more like ADD than immersion.

No. Clearly you don't understand Immersion in this context. It's not just a question of focus. Focus isn't the issue. It's Assuming the mindset and personality of a fictional person who lives in a fictional world without your own mind, personality, and world I intruding to the extent that they break the illusion.

QuoteLike with the Fate Aspects thing--if the GM tagging your Suave aspect to put a gaggle of attractive women between your character and your goal, that breaks your immersion?

Yes, because all of that is happening on a game level and not in the game world. We're negotiating, the GM and I, with a metagame currency. I'm thinking and acting as me, the player, about what I want or need from the game and not thinking as my character. It is impossible for me to think or act as my character, because my character doesn't know what a fate point even is.

QuoteIf something within the story world can do that, then what about someone slurping their coca cola or crunching too hard on the chips? It seems to me that real world things are a lot more distracting than really unobtrusive game mechanics.

Slippery slopes are logical fallacies for a reason.

QuoteAnd maybe it's a minor quibble, but Immersion is, by definition, not fragile. Otherwise it's not so much immersion as getting caught up in the moment.

I'm using the rgfrpa definition of Immersion, which may (and by may i mean "absolutely does") have a different meaning than your using.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/rgfa/faq0.html

   "immersion":  This is a term for trying to cut out all meta-game
   information and view things from the Point-of-View of your
   character (or for GM's just look at the game world facts).  
   The player tries to feel what the PC is feeling, and develops
   a complex intuitive model of the PC.

And

  [D] In-Character Stance (IC) or Immersion Stance
   The view of the game from within the inside of the game world
    and its reality, usually from within the mind of a player
    character living within that reality.  The player is thinking
    *as* the character -- he doesn't acknowledge Out-of-Character
    (OOC) information and tries to concentrate on what the character
    is experiencing.  In theory, acting In-Character becomes second
    nature -- the player does not look at his character sheet and see
    "Weakness for Women".  Rather, he hears the GM describe a woman
    and reacts by saying a pass at her.  
   There are a lot of conflicting claims regarding this stance.
    Everyone agrees that it is difficult to get into.  Once there,
    some people talk about having different emotional responses or
    different personality types (see below).  In general, this is
    said to take much preparation effort to drop into -- making the
    character feel real in your mind.  It also is fragile:
    distractions can drop you out, making you uncertain of what the
    character would "really" do.  

  [?] ``Deep In-Character Stance'' (``Deep IC'')
   This is a possible deeper version of IC stance, where the
   player begins to "channel" her character and just *be* that
   person.  In theory, this is likened to certain mask work or
   experiences of spiritual possession -- that is, even though the
   character is not an external entity, the player feels as though
   something else were taking over, and she is unable to control
   what the character is doing in the game.

Not sure where I used a slippery slope falacy, but okay, I'll take your word for it I guess. Though I really don't see how it's even possible to lose yourself in the game to the level your describing here. Then again I'm relatively new to the hobby. Maybe your a Zen Master  of RPGs or something.

Edit: also, I'm not saying that you're wrong to ostracize players who don't share your goals. I just didn't quite get how the lack of sharing your goals affected your own fun.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568361Though I really don't see how it's even possible to lose yourself in the game to the level your describing here. Then again I'm relatively new to the hobby. Maybe your a Zen Master  of RPGs or something.

No not a zen master. For example, the number of times I've hit the "deep IC" defined in my last post have been very few. My wife, however, can achieve it much more easily (and I envy her). And I know I am not alone, as I said everyone I played with for the first decade of my gaming were like this. I'm not unique, but I accept that I am a dying breed.

QuoteYes, because all of that is happening on a game level and not in the game world. We're negotiating, the GM and I, with a metagame currency. I'm thinking and acting as me, the player, about what I want or need from the game and not thinking as my character. It is impossible for me to think or act as my character, because my character doesn't know what a fate point even is.

What about treasure per monster? Do your character inside the game world finds it normal that monsters carry actual money or jewels or gold pieces with them?

And what about this strange underground place ? How can it be so full of monsters and these monsters dont eat themselves or something? How they actually see here below? Oh those torches you say, but how those are even lighten up after all this time?

And this "level" thing? And the fact that those guys with high level have so much "life" that they can take three times the physical punishment as you, even though they didnt even trained on the gym lately or something ?

And those spells per day? Dont your character find it a really strange cosmic law, huh? Who would think magic would work exactly like some weapon ammunition!

And what about raising your thieving skills with the xp you earned bashing something in the face? Dont your character find it, you know, weird? Shouldnt him actually train in the specific skill he wants for it to improve?

And while we are at it, what about xp? Dont you character find it strange that there is this metagame currency of progression in place?

Man, how can you achieve immersion with all these those metagame shit in place? I know I cant.



Serious now. The fact that fate points disrupt your immersion but things like xp per monster or spells per day dont sounds completely nonsensical to me. Its like a guy who eats shit for breakfast criticizing another one who drinks piss at lunch.

RPGA?  Umm, no.

rec.games.frp.advocacy - a Usenet group (newsgroup).  Look up the terms, if unfamiliar. Usenet has been supplanted in the mainstream by websites, blogs, forums, etc, just like the old e-mail lists have been.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568377RPGA?  Umm, no.

rec.games.frp.advocacy - a Usenet group (newsgroup).  Look up the terms, if unfamiliar. Usenet has been supplanted in the mainstream by websites, blogs, forums, etc, just like the old e-mail lists have been.

woops, I misread, my apologies.

Although, I suppose I shouldn't have removed the whole statement, just edited it to suit the more detail-oriented.

I don't approve of definitions like that.  It feels like someone is trying to put brackets around the experience or limitations on someone's ability to either play or run.

Quote from: silva;568369Serious now. The fact that fate points disrupt your immersion but things like xp per monster or spells per day dont sounds completely nonsensical to me. Its like a guy who eats shit for breakfast criticizing another one who drinks piss at lunch.

On the face of it this might seem true, but I'm with Dr Jest on this, those things you mention don't interfere with immersion for me nearly as much as the mechanics in the Fate system do. I think it's because Fate yanks me out of being a player and puts me into the position of being a sort of mini-DM. I know that I never seem to immerse as much when I'm the DM as I do when I'm a player player.

On the iPad in the am and not really able to cut and paste...but cutting through the BS and other suppositions from Chaosvoyagers well broken up responses...
Yes, your immersion is a lie, in my mind.  I am not claiming to be the one true gamer, or that I know what is in your head better than you.  But most of your answers devolve into you saying that if the players dictate a fact that is not already established, they are not breaking immersion.  (or in one case, trying to tell me that the player knowledge vs character knowledge disconnect somehow breaks immersion)
But when you are playing a character, the fundamental, base level immersion is to feel and act as we, the player does in the real world.  Everything else is layered on that.  Because our character/role needs to respond and react as we do in the real world.
And in the real world, we experience the setting we call reality in the 'receptive' mode.  We see the room around us, we feel the keyboard or sword, we smell the guano or village, we hear the animals or wind...
We do not decide any of it.  So from a fundamental, human experience, yes your immersion is a lie.  Because below any rules or mechanics or other interferences you can throw up as barriers, at a basal level, your immersion does not reflect the human experience.  
Entering the omniscient position at any level removes the player from the 'inside looking out' mode.  
More later when I am in the office.  Hope that made some sense to some people.

Quote from: silva;568369Serious now. The fact that fate points disrupt your immersion but things like xp per monster or spells per day dont sounds completely nonsensical to me. Its like a guy who eats shit for breakfast criticizing another one who drinks piss at lunch.

Quote from: silva;568369What about treasure per monster? Do your character inside the game world finds it normal that monsters carry actual money or jewels or gold pieces with them?

And what about this strange underground place ? How can it be so full of monsters and these monsters dont eat themselves or something?

A well designed game world will have a logical, internal consistency to it. You're making the assumption that I roleplay in some generic "dungeon" setting like something you'll find in a CRPG, and that's simply not the case.

QuoteMan, how can you achieve immersion with all these those metagame shit in place? I know I cant.

See, none of those things you listed are things I have to think about when thinking in character. I don't need to engage with XP or levels or what have you while I'm deciding on a course of action, ever. I can just think as my character and that's what really matters. I can ignore rules and just think as my character "what should I do now" and respond based on that character's thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the world. XP doesn't enter into it; my character never has to think about XP, as a player, I don't think about XP until after the session is over, which is the only time XP comes up, AFTER I'm finished immersing, so I'm never dealing with that mechanic while in character.

Some rules are are more suited to some games than others. Some rules threaten Immersion more than others, and those that jump up front and center and require me to think about them for more than a fraction of a second rank on the top of that list. Metagamey things like Fate Points break it entirely for me. Maybe there's others with a higher threshold who can slip in and out of immersion more easily, but I can't.

And only being able to memorize so many spells at once made perfect sense to me when I read Vance's The Dying Earth where it was a key part of the setting, so I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to me when playing a game directly influenced by that work. That's not metagamey whatsoever. It's mirroring the source material.  (Seriously, have you READ the source material for "Vancian Magic"? No one reads anymore, I swear, they just bandy about the term "Vancian" without actually knowing what it MEANS).

And for settings where that DOESN'T make sense, I use a different game.

QuoteSerious now. The fact that fate points disrupt your immersion but things like xp per monster or spells per day dont sounds completely nonsensical to me.

Fate Points are the opposite of the mechanics you listed; they require me to step outside of my character and consider what's happening to be part of a story and what would be "cool" to have happen, what story element I want to "buy" or try to take temporary control over another character by "Compelling" them to behave a certain way, rather than just acting in character. I am forced to act and make decisions as a player in a game or worse as an author or pseudo-GM, and therefore I cannot stay in character. I have to break immersion to engage in a metagame economic transaction about story elements. And that's antithetical to how I play.

I don't know if you're unwilling to understand the difference or unable to, but either way, if you don't get it by now, odds are you never will.

QuoteIts like a guy who eats shit for breakfast criticizing another one who drinks piss at lunch.

There's no need to be crass.

Quote from: silva;568369What about treasure per monster? Do your character inside the game world finds it normal that monsters carry actual money or jewels or gold pieces with them?

And what about this strange underground place ? How can it be so full of monsters and these monsters dont eat themselves or something? How they actually see here below? Oh those torches you say, but how those are even lighten up after all this time?

And this "level" thing? And the fact that those guys with high level have so much "life" that they can take three times the physical punishment as you, even though they didnt even trained on the gym lately or something ?

And those spells per day? Dont your character find it a really strange cosmic law, huh? Who would think magic would work exactly like some weapon ammunition!

And what about raising your thieving skills with the xp you earned bashing something in the face? Dont your character find it, you know, weird? Shouldnt him actually train in the specific skill he wants for it to improve?

And while we are at it, what about xp? Dont you character find it strange that there is this metagame currency of progression in place?

Man, how can you achieve immersion with all these those metagame shit in place? I know I cant.



Serious now. The fact that fate points disrupt your immersion but things like xp per monster or spells per day dont sounds completely nonsensical to me. Its like a guy who eats shit for breakfast criticizing another one who drinks piss at lunch.

1) You know, Silva, sometimes you make a sort of point in spite of yourself.  
Not the one you think you are, but still.  What you get wrong is that while all mechanics are somewhat dissociated, the level of dissociation can be pretty much also considered the level of metagaming.  A lot of things you describe CAN be somewhat dissoctiated, depending on the in-setting logic and how much care the GM has given to match the setting and the mechanics.  (more on that later, as it is a favorite subject).  Any time the mechanics and the setting clash, you are right that it forces the player to a metagamed perspective.
But yeah, fate points are different, since they force a metagaming perpective.  Whereas the other mechanics are issues only with a bad GM or a much lighter style game.  You conflate rules with metagame potential with mechanics that demand metagaming.  Sorry it seems nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense here.

2) How the fuck dare you assume that everyone of us is playing the same game or has not looked at their rulesets in this light?  I agree with you that those rules you mention are very, very setting specific and only match a tiny sliver of potential settings with any lack of disconnect.  But many of us change rulesets based on matching the mechanics with the setting and game style.  That post is no blinding flash of reality to many people.
It is because of the awareness of this very fact for decades that I understand the level of metagame potential in the rules you mention vs the necessity of metagaming in Fate points.

Quote from: LordVreeg;5684231) You know, Silva, sometimes you make a sort of point in spite of yourself.  
Not the one you think you are, but still.  What you get wrong is that while all mechanics are somewhat dissociated, the level of dissociation can be pretty much also considered the level of metagaming.  A lot of things you describe CAN be somewhat dissoctiated, depending on the in-setting logic and how much care the GM has given to match the setting and the mechanics.  (more on that later, as it is a favorite subject).  Any time the mechanics and the setting clash, you are right that it forces the player to a metagamed perspective.
But yeah, fate points are different, since they force a metagaming perpective.  Whereas the other mechanics are issues only with a bad GM or a much lighter style game.  You conflate rules with metagame potential with mechanics that demand metagaming.  Sorry it seems nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense here.

2) How the fuck dare you assume that everyone of us is playing the same game or has not looked at their rulesets in this light?  I agree with you that those rules you mention are very, very setting specific and only match a tiny sliver of potential settings with any lack of disconnect.  But many of us change rulesets based on matching the mechanics with the setting and game style.  That post is no blinding flash of reality to many people.
It is because of the awareness of this very fact for decades that I understand the level of metagame potential in the rules you mention vs the necessity of metagaming in Fate points.

Very well put. I agree 100%. As I mentioned, I play alot of different games and #2 is exactly why.