Hold on, you say we can't talk objectively about immersion (on a thread that has become about immersion and where people are in fact talking about their experiences) and so you want to talk about emulation. Fair enough, go ahead but drop the fucking childish attitude.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: DeadUematsu;328094but we can objectively discuss if the mechanics model the virtual reality that the game is shooting for.

No, we can't.

Because the modeling actually occurs only in the course of play.  Which creates two problems:

1) Play itself, by nature, is subjective.

2) You are always playing every game wrong.

There are no objective conversations to be had here, anywhere.  Only interesting and instructive ones, and irritating and obnoxious ones.

By all means, be instructive on your chosen topic!  But let's not pretend that it's objective, please.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;327898Every chop wood or do some other long-running task, and you basically zone out and lose track of time entirely?

Right. That was flow.  Odd word, common experience.

Yes, that's a trance state. That's not what happens in Immersion.

RPGpundit

Quote from: Jeffrey Straszheim;328095OK, so I just read the Wiki article on flow, and I'm unconvinced that it is equivalent to IC immersive gaming.  Some of the "components of flow" (from the Wiki page) are present, namely 2, 3, and 4.  However, the rest don't seem to apply.

The link for folks who don't want to scroll up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

1) "Clear goals" are actually fairly common in RPGs. PCs want to overcome their enemies, recover the treasure, complete the story, whatever it happens to be for that group.

5) Direct and immediate feedback is obvious - not only every time you throw the die, but every time you so much as interact with another character, you get feedback from it.

6) The "balance between the ability level and the challenge" is fairly obvious in ordinary discussions about things like Killer DMs. People discuss whether a given combat was too difficult or too easy all the time, whether something was "fair" to throw at the PCs, or whether something will be too hard for new players, etc.

7) This one is fairly obvious. I have to feel like my character has some agency in the game world.

Games are fun. I don't know how more obviously intrinsically rewarding something can be than straight out fun.

9) This is similar to 4, and its effects can be seen in discussions about people concentrating around the table, or paying attention to these games.

When you read people's discussion and evaluation of games they played, they are often complaining about a lack of one or another of these features. #9, for example, crops up a lot in discussions about PCs not paying enough attention to the game and dicking around with off-topic OOC chatter.

Quote from: David RHold on, you say we can't talk objectively about immersion (on a thread that has become about immersion and where people are in fact talking about their experiences) and so you want to talk about emulation. Fair enough, go ahead but drop the fucking childish attitude.

Regards,
David R

Without addressing my point, you instead nitpick my (very appropriate) word choice. Now that you're calling me childish? Like I said, I rather not waste my time.

Quote from: LeviNo, we can't. Because the modeling actually occurs only in the course of play. Which creates two problems:

1) Play itself, by nature, is subjective.
2) You are always playing every game wrong.

There are no objective conversations to be had here, anywhere. Only interesting and instructive ones, and irritating and obnoxious ones. By all means, be instructive on your chosen topic! But let's not pretend that it's objective, please.

Oh yes, we can.

First, play is not entirely subjective. Just like there are good and bad games, there are good and bad campaigns and there are quantifiable elements why that can be observed, measured, discussed, and concluded upon.

Second, you can play a game right. Just because most groups out there are RAG (Rules As Guildelines) doesn't mean RAW groups do not exist and individual groups cannot reason out what the rules actually result in divorced from feelings and fluff.

What you're advocating is people not caring at all about the rules because it's all a matter of opinion and you'll get the rules wrong anyway so doing whatever they want and just talking about is all you can do and that's fine BUT I'd recommend no one sincerely interested in improving their games or campaigns listen to you.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;328204What you're advocating is people not caring at all about the rules because it's all a matter of opinion and you'll get the rules wrong anyway so doing whatever they want and just talking about is all you can do

Nope.

Yes. You even said that there are no objective conservations to be had and that all we can do is have emotional discussions. So doing whatever you like is fine because there is nothing factual to discuss and talking about it exists mainly for catharsis is seriously what your stated position is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;327865Pseudo is, as usual, full of shit.

No, he isn't. At least from a psychological POV he's pretty spot on, and I think that the psychological POV is the main aspect to consider of all this stuff.

QuoteThis is not flow, which as best as I can see it is just a "good feeling" or some kind of sense of being "in the now", and is just new-age claptrap that has fuck all to do with the specific experience of Immersion, the one true real goal of any RPG Player who isn't filth. (just as Emulation is the one true real goal of any GM who isn't scum)
RPGPundit

No, not quite.

Inmersion and flow are really attached and intertwined. Actually, I think that inmersion is an outcome of the flow state.

Now, your one-true-wayism  about which should be the real goals of people is bullshit, as usual.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;327901Challenge at the limits of competence is the paradigmatic (though possibly not sole) cause of flow.

Absolutely. That's why I zone out the most while writing or playing videogames.

Quote from: jadrax;327940I think an inconsistent universe can act as a barrier to immersion, simply as it makes it you constantly come out of character to worry if the laws of physics are different to what you might expect.

Absolutely agree on this. D&D is been a great enemy of inmersion for this very reason, despite Pundit's claims. A game in which crossbow bolts at point blank range ceases to be a threat after you kill enough people and take their stuff is going to fuck with many people's inmersion.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;3281691) Play itself, by nature, is subjective.

2) You are always playing every game wrong.

There are no objective conversations to be had here, anywhere.  Only interesting and instructive ones, and irritating and obnoxious ones.

By all means, be instructive on your chosen topic!  But let's not pretend that it's objective, please.

I also agree on this. That's also the reason for me to think that system really matters more than setting. Setting usually equals GM, and that's really a highly subjective factor.

While setting is largely about the GM (not "equals", but is largely about), so is system. Few GM the game entirely RAW, there are house rules, rules followed to the letter in one session then glossed over in another to keep things moving, rules forgotten, and so on.

Just as the player is the main determinant of the character, the GM is the main determinant not only of setting but of system. But none of those facts tell us whether character, setting or system are more important to the success of a game session, except insofar as they tell us that the people involved are more important than any of the other things.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;328221Yes. You even said that there are no objective conservations to be had and that all we can do is have emotional discussions.

Again, no.

There is no objective discussion to be had.  But subjective things can still matter, and can benefit from being exposed to multiple viewpoints - especially ones that differ from your own, if you're willing to actually listen to them.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;328221So doing whatever you like is fine because there is nothing factual to discuss and talking about it exists mainly for catharsis is seriously what your stated position is.

This, though?  So far as I can tell, you pulled this directly out of your asshole.

Except there are objective discussions to be had and although subjective things can matter, there is virtually no point in having a discussion about them unless I can and want to recreate your state of mind and for that to be effective, you need to objectively tell me what you did mentally to get there.
 
Also, if you want to say I'm full of crap then fine but I'm done talking with you. You didn't even suggest one way about how talking subjectively might work to improve games and campaigns (although I did just now) so why are you wasting my time again?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;328225While setting is largely about the GM (not "equals", but is largely about), so is system. Few GM the game entirely RAW, there are house rules, rules followed to the letter in one session then glossed over in another to keep things moving, rules forgotten, and so on.

That's why I try to make clear that system is more important as long as is knwon and agreed by everyone. Houserules are no different from book rules, for that purpose. They're objective, you can say "OK, this rule is fucking stupid and makes no sense."

That's harder to do with setting as many times setting is not known equally by the players, specially when we deal with homebrewn settings.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;328204Without addressing my point, you instead nitpick my (very appropriate) word choice. Now that you're calling me childish? Like I said, I rather not waste my time.

If you take the time to read replies before posting you would realize that I did reply to your point :

QuoteAlso, emulation makes characters develop substance by establishing the various parameters by which important decision-making can be made against.

[/I]

I just didn't think it applied to everyone.

However reading your replies to Levi esp this part:

QuoteSecond, you can play a game right. Just because most groups out there are RAG (Rules As Guildelines) doesn't mean RAW groups do not exist and individual groups cannot reason out what the rules actually result in divorced from feelings and fluff.

[/I]

I don't want to waste my time on you.:

Edit: I also kinda of like Pseudoephedrine's flow angle. Of course I'm also about the hustle....

Regards,
David R

There is a right way and many wrong ways of playing a game. If you want to play a game one of the various wrong ways, that's fine but you're still doing it wrong.

Levi, before we waste any more time here, why don't you restate your fundamental question in terms of what you're trying to accomplish, practically, or what audience you're trying to reach? If immersion per se isn't equivalent to your goal, then please avoid getting sucked into using it in your problem statement. If it is, then please be specific in what you mean by the term in a functional sense. For example if you want to reach the audience of people who look for strong "in character" play, then you're not going to get much help from people who talk about "flow" in a general sense.