Quote from: Bill White;418279Hold on a second. CRK can tell me to take a bat penis out of my mouth and I don't get to say shit? What kind of crap is that? Fuck you, too, Sigmund.

You're not my type, too much of a superior bitch, it's reminding me of my ex-wife. CRK isn't coming in here with a holier than thou attitude saying shit like "I think there's probably room for an interesting and fruitful albeit probably two-fisted discussion between the Forge and therpgsite on the merits of their respective aesthetic commitments, but the vast differences in communication styles and game-related ideologies of play means that there's probably little chance of it happening." and then telling people to "shut the fuck up", although I probably shouldn't have expected anything different when you, in the same post write "the way some of you guys bounce around when someone says the word "story" is something to see". So why don't you go fuck yourself.

QuoteIt might be fun to start a scene in the middle of the action--the guards burst in!--and go from there, since being presented with a stark situation and having to react to it can be powerfully immersive. The problem you raise is real, though--but it could be dealt with via flashback ("But I would have bribed the steward to let me keep my dagger!"). But the sense I'm getting is that you consider temporal linearity and continuity to be important to your sense of immersion.

I don't want to deal with it in a flashback. Immersion is not the only goal of roleplaying for me. Like I said, stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. You seem to be assuming that none of us have ever set up any of our games like what you're describing. We've even used flashbacks a time or two. We just choose not to use them on the fly or a whim. I've played a session of Alternity where we started out as prisoners aboard a prison transport ship that was attacked and heavily damaged, the guards and crew killed or gone, and we had to break out of our cells, find some way to either abandon the ship or restore power, and then make it to the planet below. However, we discussed it beforehand and we also just don't use that device very often, it's very easily over-used.

QuoteHow fucked up? Is that about not being fair to the players or about skipping over in-game events?

I explained how fucked up. It ignores an opportunity for the players to shine (or royally screw up, either way can be fun). It takes the choice of how the character behaves out of the player's hands. It springs details on the player that the character would have been aware of already.

QuoteSigmund, now you've hurt my feelings. I'm not trying to trap you, and I'm not trying to score points for the Forge--fuck that noise. I don't give a shit about fixing your game; I don't think it's broken and it shouldn't matter to you even if I did.  I want to talk about rpgs and what happens when people play them, and I have as much fucking right to be here as you do.

That's how you're coming across. Rather than coming across as making suggestions or asking if anyone's tried these things you're coming across as if you're either under the assumption that none of us poor Plebs have thought of anything like this before or trying to get us to admit to doing things that you could label as "narrative control" or something and then sit back smugly and point out how you guys have all this stuff figured out already.

Of course you have a right to be here, just because I said I didn't think you'd gain any traction around here doesn't mean you can't try. Just don't take this tone of being better than we are and assume we're all a bunch of idiots just because we refuse to adopt the same jargon and way of looking at things as you have.

Quote from: Bill White;418282So could an immersive game work if the sort of mechanism I described--PCs allowed to add some kind of minor setting-elaborating detail when it would arguably enhance the immersion of other players--was an optional thing you could do, like in Amber where you get extra build points for writing character background?

Honestly, most of us have been doing this all along already. We just choose to not call it something fancy and create some specific mechanic for it.

QuoteOkay, but why is breaking immersion to add minor setting detail worse than breaking it to make an attack roll? I mean, I suppose you could say that making the attack roll somehow represents or "emulates" a character action, but why wouldn't adding minor setting detail ("this is called lembas") represent or emulate the character's native knowledge?

Because it might conflict with what the GM has already determined the "lembas" is called (like "graham crackers"). Honestly though, in many games I've played in we already do this kind of thing, still not choosing to call it something different or make a specific mechanic for it. It's also once again best used sparingly to avoid stepping on the toes of the GM or annoying the other players.

Quote from: Bill White;418286Also, you say that it's the GM's job to create minor details, but it's not clear to me why this is necessarily so, since the goals of coherence and consistency could be achieved by giving the GM veto-power over player contributions, and allowing players to introduce minor character-relevant details might give some players a greater sense of really "being there."

Because we like it that way. Why do you do the things in games that you do?

Quote from: Bill White;418293Good, good--that makes me happy. To systematize that, I suppose you'd have to establish basic parameters for what kinds of details a given PC could introduce, within the broader guidelines of staying within the character's perspective and maybe not overlapping with other characters. I suppose if you were worried about overlapping, you could do an Amber-like auction if you thought there was widespread interest in a particular area ("I bid 100 background points to be the Elf!"), or you could just look at each PC's backstory and hand-wave it.

Why do you feel the need to systematize it?

Quote from: Bill White;418266You're the one who doesn't understand immersion. Also, you're a cunt.

Wow, talented comeback there, dude. You sure put me in my place by a rigorous defense of your intellectual position.

Weak. I expected you'd put up more of a fight, but I guess you're "i know you are but what am I" response is tantamount to a concession that you have no rebuttal for my points about immersion, meaning that you did not, in fact, understand how sudden breaks in the sense of Powerlessness to Determine the Cosmos could somehow be detrimental to the immersive experience.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John Morrow;418271No, they aren't the same thing at all for many people.  When I "immerse" (and that word has become all but useless), I am thinking in character (as opposed to thinking about my character).

Well of course you are, because THAT'S WHAT IMMERSION MEANS.

Of course, you can try to explain that to these fuckers till you're blue in the face, and they either won't get it or won't EVER admit to it, because to do so would be to violate one of the most sacred dogmas of Forge Theory: That "Immersion" is impossible, and that attempting it is mentally damaging.

So really, when Bill is talking about Immersion, he can't even bring himself to accept the same basic premise, and remember, boys and girls: he's lying through his teeth! Deep down, he not only doesn't give a shit about Immersion, he thinks that its a serious problem and a danger. He momentarily talks about it in semi-accepting terms because he's convinced that if he can just get you to drink the Kool-aid of Forge Theory, you will later be "re-educated" out of worrying about stupid things like Immersion and Emulation.

Its like a hardcore Maoist talking about religion. He might say "yes, in the glorious revolutionary government we'd have room for your faith", but he's really saying that just to get you to go along, convinced that later when the Revolution comes, you will either see that the benefits of material positivism make such faith un-necessary, or you will be purged.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Imperator;418288After all, the Pundit was a teacher in Compared Bullshit, with great expertise in comparing imaginary frinds throughout the world. I don't seewhy that is less laughable that a guy who studies animals.

One involves the word "penis"; the other mostly doesn't.  
But actually, there's no particular reason to mock Ron Edwards for his job, silly as it sounds to be a Professor of Bat Penises.  
The thing to mock him for is his constant attempts at insinuating that his job somehow would make him a great expert on RPGs, or that his job somehow makes his "Theories" into something authentically "academic":

So yeah, the difference between his job and my job is that I don't claim that my job makes me any better an expert on RPGs.  Or try to make use of my job to give me false authority in the RPG hobby. "Professor Ron" constantly does.  Remember, just because he's a real academic at his job doesn't mean he's not just pretending to be an academic at rpgs. There's NOTHING academic about the Forge, its all pseudo-academia.

RPGPundit

yeah, hardcore maoism... or some guy trying to discuss roleplaying on an internet forum. It can be hard to tell them apart.

Quote from: TristramEvans;418295Do you happen to recall the names of the systems? I ask because I can see how that can happen because of a GM running a game that way, but I can't conceptualize in my mind a system that would specifically encourage this. At the very least out of morbid curiosity, I'd like to see how this is done.

Yes, I do, however, I'm not up for particularly sharing, if only to keep the other retards away from games that damage the hobby as a whole. If they don't know about it, they sure can't play it... can they?

Quote from: TristramEvans;418295Morality is very subjective these days, at least insofar as how various people I've interacted with define it....

Mmm'kay... so you (and your peers) don't understand Morality. It's only subjective, if you don't understand it. For you (and your peers), it's like some sliding scale where people can only be damaged a little if you vary just a bit from a moral standard, and they can be damaged alot if you vary alot from a moral standard. However, each person gets to define his or her own morale standards, right? So some people just won't be morally corrupted, because they have simply adopted a different standard that is not used by everyone else.  

Quote from: TristramEvans;418295Just so I understand; you're saying that since morally ambiguous systems already exist there is no reason for any more games to explore that or offer that opportunity? I can't imagine why. Are you certain that you are not just applying your own game preferences to the gaming community at large?

You'll be able to count on the fact I'm applying my gaming preferences to the gaming community at large. Also, until we address the question at hand, I'm not interested in exploring variations to the question I asked. I'm looking for your answer, as best you are able to articulate, so quit wiggling and answer already:

In designing or promoting morally ambiguous games, or games that promote heinous activity, how does this make the game better than the games that are already available?

Quote from: TristramEvans;418295I'm not sure a game necessarily needs to have "new" benefits.

Ahhh... so there's no need to improve new games. We should just be content with regurgitated pulp and be willing to expend time on it, and pay additional monies for something we already have, just for a different variation. Yes?

Games are largely about getting people past the variations and instead focus on the underlying patterns. Running over pedestrians, killing people, fighting lawmen or corrupt lawmen, fighting evil government, and eating dots while running from ghosts are all just stage settings, simply convenient metaphors for what a game is actually teaching.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;418322yeah, hardcore maoism... or some guy trying to discuss roleplaying on an internet forum. It can be hard to tell them apart.

When the Forge is involved? Its virtually impossible.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;418319One involves the word "penis"; the other mostly doesn't.  
But actually, there's no particular reason to mock Ron Edwards for his job, silly as it sounds to be a Professor of Bat Penises.  
The thing to mock him for is his constant attempts at insinuating that his job somehow would make him a great expert on RPGs, or that his job somehow makes his "Theories" into something authentically "academic":

So yeah, the difference between his job and my job is that I don't claim that my job makes me any better an expert on RPGs.  Or try to make use of my job to give me false authority in the RPG hobby. "Professor Ron" constantly does.  Remember, just because he's a real academic at his job doesn't mean he's not just pretending to be an academic at rpgs. There's NOTHING academic about the Forge, its all pseudo-academia.

RPGPundit

Well, on this we definitely agree. Also, GNS is terrible science.

Quote from: Bill White;418293What about the reverse? In many circumstances, there are things you could imagine that your character knows that you don't. I once heard a Finnish "larpwright" describe this is as the "hollow man" problem--sure, you may look like a Nazi soldier in your uniform (apparently they do a lot of WWII larping in Scandinavia), but inside you're still you. Do you have any techniques as GM or player for dealing with that?

Mostly that's handled by the game system itself.  Skills, knowledges, backgrounds, etc, coupled with judgement on the fly by a competent GM are enough to let the character have knowledge the player doesn't.

Quote from: Bill White;418293To systematize that, I suppose you'd have to establish basic parameters for what kinds of details a given PC could introduce, within the broader guidelines of staying within the character's perspective and maybe not overlapping with other characters. I suppose if you were worried about overlapping, you could do an Amber-like auction if you thought there was widespread interest in a particular area ("I bid 100 background points to be the Elf!"), or you could just look at each PC's backstory and hand-wave it.

Actually, I wouldn't systemize it at all.  The last thing I would want to do is introduce additional mechanics to accomplish Immersion, that's the new-school method and it doesn't work for Deep IC.  In the case of language, the character isn't editing anything really about the world itself he's going to interact with systematically.  It doesn't matter what the elven word for food is, it matters if he has any with him.  He can create the word for food if it hasn't been done already, he cannot create the food itself.

Quote from: Sigmund;418309Why do you feel the need to systematize it?

I'd say that not only is there no need to systematize that kind of thing, but that I find it counter-productive to my enjoyment of the game on several fronts, immersion being first and foremost.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;418337I'd say that not only is there no need to systematize that kind of thing, but that I find it counter-productive to my enjoyment of the game on several fronts, immersion being first and foremost.

Cheers,
-E.

I agree, which is what I went into in much more detail in the POV and thespianism thread, so I'm not going to do it here.

Quote from: GameDaddy;418327Mmm'kay... so you (and your peers) don't understand Morality. It's only subjective, if you don't understand it. For you (and your peers), it's like some sliding scale where people can only be damaged a little if you vary just a bit from a moral standard, and they can be damaged alot if you vary alot from a moral standard. However, each person gets to define his or her own morale standards, right? So some people just won't be morally corrupted, because they have simply adopted a different standard that is not used by everyone else.  

Just want to point out that this is not necessarily true. You might be a moral realist, but not everyone (myself included) shares that belief.