I think lordvreeg's post pretty much captures why I can handle HP and vancian spells but Healing Surges or martial encounter and daily powers. It is that they force the disruption. Eventually with my style of play, i am going to describe a physical wound that has to vanish because of HS or i am going to wonder why my fighter can only do something once per encounter.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;568324Yes, 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.

Boring? Perhaps for some, reality is after all rather boring.

But the key here is that "Not Here" is information the character has immediate access to. While "Why Not Here" is information that character certainly doesn't know up front- and in fact may never know.


I will say chaosvoyager that you're doing a good job in general with your side of the debate with a couple of exceptions. In part this is due to the fact that most of your opponents are attempting to claim D&D is well suited to immersion. That makes things a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, for they are using the same sort of appoarch to the game that you are in many ways. But in general, you're doing well.

Still I can't help but wonder if you're overstating your side just for the debate. You don't come across to me as dumb by any means, nor lacking in awareness of how people approach gaming. Are you really unaware of the difference between mechanics intended to simulate (no matter how poorly) a characters PoV, and those intended to simulate a Story's PoV? And if you're aware of that, are you really unaware that people may react differently to these two approaches?

Quote from: Glazer;568401On 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.

Which just goes back to what I mentioned before though. Could it not be that the issue is simply familiarity? Things very familiar can fade into the background. Fate points are no more intrinsically meta-gamey than a lot of more traditional mechanics, like turn-based combat, HP, Classes, etc. They may facilitate a different sort of immersion than you're after, but Fate Points are no less part of the game world than many old FRPG standbys.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568435Could it not be that the issue is simply familiarity?

No. Familiarity helps, certainly, but it's not even close to the whole issue. It's about if I can think as my character and choose my actions from my character's perspective or not that matters. And that means rules either have to support that, or be able to be ignored.

QuoteThings very familiar can fade into the background. Fate points are no more intrinsically meta-gamey than a lot of more traditional mechanics, like turn-based combat, HP, Classes, etc.

Yes, they are, as has been explained several times now, because they absolutely require someone to think in a very specific metagame fashion outside of the character's perspective in order to make decisions in the game, which is antithetical to Immersion. I don't need to think about classes or turns in order to decide what course of action I want to pursue, but I absolutely need to think about Fate Points, Aspects, Compels, Invokes, etc when playing FATE and that means I have to think from the perspective of a story-teller or author rather than from the perspective of a "real" person in a "real" world. One is unable to stay completely in the mind of the character during the decision making process and interaction with the game world while engaging with those parts of FATE. The rules do not support acting as the character and are front-and-center and cannot be ignored.

QuoteThey may facilitate a different sort of immersion than you're after

At which point they're useless, at best, for my enjoyment of the game, and disruptive at worst, because the kind of immersion I'm after is the entire point of playing the game in the first place for me.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568435Which just goes back to what I mentioned before though. Could it not be that the issue is simply familiarity? Things very familiar can fade into the background. Fate points are no more intrinsically meta-gamey than a lot of more traditional mechanics, like turn-based combat, HP, Classes, etc. They may facilitate a different sort of immersion than you're after, but Fate Points are no less part of the game world than many old FRPG standbys.

This will depend on the setting for me. If fate points represent something actually imbedded in the setting somehow (like a metaphysical force) sure, but if they are just there to make the pcs special, it is more of an issue for my style.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568439This will depend on the setting for me. If fate points represent something actually imbedded in the setting somehow (like a metaphysical force) sure, but if they are just there to make the pcs special, it is more of an issue for my style.

That's a good point; they'd have to represent something that exists in the world that the character is aware of and knows they can call on or invoke, so the decision to use one has an in-game analog.

Quote from: gleichman;568431Boring? Perhaps for some, reality is after all rather boring.

But the key here is that "Not Here" is information the character has immediate access to. While "Why Not Here" is information that character certainly doesn't know up front- and in fact may never know.


I will say chaosvoyager that you're doing a good job in general with your side of the debate with a couple of exceptions. In part this is due to the fact that most of your opponents are attempting to claim D&D is well suited to immersion. That makes things a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, for they are using the same sort of appoarch to the game that you are in many ways. But in general, you're doing well.

Still I can't help but wonder if you're overstating your side just for the debate. You don't come across to me as dumb by any means, nor lacking in awareness of how people approach gaming. Are you really unaware of the difference between mechanics intended to simulate (no matter how poorly) a characters PoV, and those intended to simulate a Story's PoV? And if you're aware of that, are you really unaware that people may react differently to these two approaches?

Hm.
Who are the people trying to say D&D are well suited?  I think we covered that recently.
"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"

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568435Which just goes back to what I mentioned before though. Could it not be that the issue is simply familiarity? Things very familiar can fade into the background. Fate points are no more intrinsically meta-gamey than a lot of more traditional mechanics, like turn-based combat, HP, Classes, etc. They may facilitate a different sort of immersion than you're after, but Fate Points are no less part of the game world than many old FRPG standbys.

wow.  Amazing how applicable cut and paste is today.  
"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"
Yes, they ARE more intrinsically metagamey.  Because while some of these other mechanics may actually represent the 'within-setting' logic, but that they MIGHT not, whereas Fate points HAVE TO force a metagamed perspective.

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.

Why do you think that everyone in favour of actual roleplaying games here plays D&D, or holds GG as some sort of demigod? I haven't played D&D in decades, and have no desire to. Its not, in my opinion, a great ruleset. Attacking D&D rather than the concepts being put forward is something of a strawman.

Enjoy that pissy lunch though.

Incidentally, with that said, I'd be curious to hear what you would consider a "realistic" magic system...

Quote from: The Traveller;568447Why do you think that everyone in favour of actual roleplaying games here plays D&D, or holds GG as some sort of demigod? I haven't played D&D in decades, and have no desire to. Its not, in my opinion, a great ruleset. Attacking D&D rather than the concepts being put forward is something of a strawman.

Enjoy that pissy lunch though.

Incidentally, with that said, I'd be curious to hear what you would consider a "realistic" magic system...

No kidding.  
I played D&D and T&T and RQ and C&S heavily from 76-82/83, at the end of 83 started building my Guildschool rules, and have played a ruleset with mechanics that were suited directly to the setting logic of my game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568307What games are on their like list?

Which games are on their don't like list?

Well, on the trad side they are avid CoC fans, and they also play and love Pendragon, RuneQuest 3, Trail of Cthulhu, 7th Sea, MRQII, Stormbringer 5th, nWoD and Vampire (Masquerade and Requiem), also Mutants in Shadows, Aquelarre and Nobilis. My girlfriend is heavily into 007.

Trad games they don't like, AFAIK: Anima or Exalted (because of the rules bloat), D&D 3.0/3.5 (same reasons). Generally speaking, they're not much into d20 systems (possible exception Star Warsm though) because they see them as too crunchy. Note that I haven't played this games with them, it's what I gather from talking to them. Also, my girlfriend doesn't like the typical dungeoneering D&D game. Probably because I haven't run a proper one for her yet. We'll see.

Indie games they like: Sorcerer (highly popular), Burning Wheel (loved it), Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, Don't loose your head, Universalis (though some of them  had a harder time with the GMless part). They are very interested in the Mouse Guard because of the BW system. They also tried and liked Lady Blackbird, as long as it is run on a longer campaign.

Indie games they don't like: they have tried and not liked The Mountain Witch, Bacchanal, 44, and they are generally not interested in games that feature a very limited situation, or that are good only for a single session.

If I had to sum up my crew's preferences: they want medium to long campaigns, systems that are not very complex, and are amenable to a variety of moods, from gritty and bloody to cinematic and flamboyant. They are OK with both system-as-physics and system-as-narration-control, but they tend to prefer to have a GM. For them, there is not a significant difference between playing CoC or Dogs in the Vineyard. They are RPGs for them all the same, and they play them all the same. We look for immersion and exploration, mostly, and we are not overly concerned about story.

Traveller, i used D&D in the example because its of the systems that more disrupts my immersion. And while Runequest and Gurps and another simulation based systems dont do it so much, I think in the end its (like tomato put it) a simple matter of familiarity.

QuoteIncidentally, with that said, I'd be curious to hear what you would consider a "realistic" magic system...

I woulndt say "realistic", but RQ's always felt anthropologically correct for me, specially if you understand "magic" in its context as folklore and religion objectively manifested.

Quote"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"
Yes, they ARE more intrinsically metagamey. Because while some of these other mechanics may actually represent the 'within-setting' logic, but that they MIGHT not, whereas Fate points HAVE TO force a metagamed perspective.

Vreeg, while I agree with this (there really is a gradient for immersion-supportive rules, with things like Fate points and shared narrative more on the dissociation side than classes and levels) I think the exact positions on that scale will change from individual to individual - the point is not if this exists or not, the point is that this is purely subjective. As tomato put it, familiarity will have a strong influence here, as will simple preference and tastes. The same way the more "gamey" systems disrupts my immersion, a LARPer may have its disrupted by any rule, and a One Trick Poney player (those players who play only one system for all their lives, generally the one he learned first) may get immersion-disrupted by any ruleset different from that one.

Dont know if im succeeding in express myself here. Writing on the Ipad is terrible. TL;DR: its all subjective. The only rule objectively immersion-supportive is no rule at all. ( but then its improv theater, not rpg anymore).

Quote from: silva;568465Vreeg, while I agree with this (there really is a gradient for immersion-supportive rules, with things like Fate points and shared narrative more on the dissociation side than classes and levels) I think the exact positions on that scale will change from individual to individual - the point is not if this exists or not, the point is that this is purely subjective. As tomato put it, familiarity will have a strong influence here, as will simple preference and tastes. The same way the more "gamey" systems disrupts my immersion, a LARPer may have its disrupted by any rule, and a One Trick Poney player (those players who play only one system for all their lives, generally the one he learned first) may get immersion-disrupted by any ruleset different from that one.

Dont know if im succeeding in express myself here. Writing on the Ipad is terrible. TL;DR: its all subjective. The only rule objectively immersion-supportive is no rule at all. ( but then its improv theater, not rpg anymore).

Silva, there is still only one continuum we speak of, the % of producing a metagame feel.  And while I agree that there are many SUBJECTIVE input issues that can create an outcome on this continuum that may be closer or further from the 'metagame disconnect',  there are some rules that REQUIRE metagaming, so the rest of the input is immaterial.  It may be fun, it may fit better with your group, it may be used infrequently or at natural breaks from immersion anyways...but that is the continuum we are talking about.  Or at least this is how I see it.

Quote from: silva;568465I think in the end its (like tomato put it) a simple matter of familiarity.

Not really. Meta mechanics are outside of the "world" framework. The ideal is to keep them to a bare minimum, if they are needed at all. About as close as I come to them would be luck (limited pool, restored at the start of each game). This is a nod in the direction of the fact that the PCs are special, no monster or NPC gets luck. That, and my system is grittier than some.

To make meta mechanics a major and integral part of the experience isn't just a distraction, its missing the point of these games, hence the lengthy thread.

Quote from: silva;568465I woulndt say "realistic", but RQ's always felt anthropologically correct for me, specially if you understand "magic" in its context as folklore and religion objectively manifested.

I could say that spells only get restored upon the consumption of half a squashed prune wrapped in several yards of ladys nylons and it would be as realistic a magic system as any. There is no reason whatsoever why Vancian magic should be an immersion breaker. Once you've accepted magic within the game, any and all arbitrary rules related to magic within the game should likewise be acceptable. Big difference between that and metagaming.

Quote from: Imperator;568462Aquelarre

I want a translation so bad.  

QuoteAnima

*

QuoteExalted

*

QuoteBacchanal

Kudos to your crew for trying that game, because I doubt I'd ever play it.




*Why do all JRPG/Fantasy-anime-inspired RPGs suck?