Well, this gets to why I try to be careful with my use of the term, frequently qualifying it with "in-character POV". If you use mechanics like these and still have fun in some special way, you might call it "immersing". But if you say that you use these mechanics without having them interfere with IC-POV, I'll look at you funny. It still could be, but I think it's more likely you either don't pay attention to IC-POV in the first place, or you're editing the breaks in IC-POV out of your consciousness. Either of those are fine--I can enjoy myself with a variety of mechanics and narrative stances, and everyone is welcome to their taste of course. But I should be careful to acknowledge that the distinction of mechanics which operate on an OOC level is in fact a valid one, which matters to a lot of gamers.

Quote from: Arminius;872106Well, this gets to why I try to be careful with my use of the term, frequently qualifying it with "in-character POV". If you use mechanics like these and still have fun in some special way, you might call it "immersing". But if you say that you use these mechanics without having them interfere with IC-POV, I'll look at you funny. It still could be, but I think it's more likely you either don't pay attention to IC-POV in the first place, or you're editing the breaks in IC-POV out of your consciousness. Either of those are fine--I can enjoy myself with a variety of mechanics and narrative stances, and everyone is welcome to their taste of course. But I should be careful to acknowledge that the distinction of mechanics which operate on an OOC level is in fact a valid one, which matters to a lot of gamers.

As you rightly point out. There is a difference between "It doesn't bother me when I play" and "That's not a resource that the character can actually use, an action that they actually take in the game world, or information that they would really possess." Tracking hit points isn't something that especially bothers me in play, but it's clear to me that in real life we don't run about with exact health meters nor did my real life shoulder separation heal up like any damage recovery system I've ever seen in an RPG.

Great help guys. Thanks a lot. I wasn't expecting everyone to be so helpful.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;871918I found FATE depends on how you play it.  The one time I played, instead of saying "I spend a whatever point to tap that player's "Military Experience" aspect so she stops killing that guy and goes to the shuttle"

I just tossed a marker into the middle and said "SOLDIER!  Move out!  NOW!"

That's the way you do it!  I call that superb role playing.  Use the mechanics as a guide, not the narrative itself.

.

Quote from: Xanther;893796That's the way you do it!  I call that superb role playing.  Use the mechanics as a guide, not the narrative itself.

.

Thankee.  We've done that since day 1, which is why I frankly think this whole thing is a tempest in a pee pot.  How is "using a fate point" any different from "rolling to hit?"  All the same to me.

You don't have to roll to hit. Anyone at the table could do that for you because rolling to hit is purely procedural once you say "I attack him".

Using a fate point isn't procedural. You have to say or indicate that you're using a fate point.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;872058And here we have two perfect examples of things that someone is still trying to sell as "absolutely and objectively immersion breaking".

Probably a good time to remind people that the word "immersion" doesn't actually mean anything when you're talking about RPGs and is, in fact, far more likely to cause confusion than illumination.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;893905Probably a good time to remind people that the word "immersion" doesn't actually mean anything when you're talking about RPGs and is, in fact, fare more likely to cause confusion that illumination.

A-fucking-men.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;893867How is "using a fate point" any different from "rolling to hit?"  All the same to me.

Quote from: Arminius;893871You don't have to roll to hit. Anyone at the table could do that for you because rolling to hit is purely procedural once you say "I attack him".

Using a fate point isn't procedural. You have to say or indicate that you're using a fate point.

It's not different from using a spell or a scroll in D&D to cause something to happen; a resource is consumed and so not later available.

Many games have forms of attack that involve a tradeoff (reckless attack, aimed shots, etc) or that consume a resource (class features or feats usable a limited number of times). The player has to say they're using it; some involve a further random determination (a different chance to hit or a saving throw). I can imagine a game in which a player says "I attack him" and is told "roll to hit", or says "I hit him" and is told "mark off a fate point and roll damage", or says "I hit him with a mighty blow" and is told "mark off two fate points and report your maximum damage"; those all seem equally procedural to me.

Quote from: rawma;894276It's not different from using a spell or a scroll in D&D to cause something to happen; a resource is consumed and so not later available

So it is supposed to go like "You search the dead orc high priest and find 16 GP, a+1 mace, and (make a perception-test) two fate points hidden in his boots"? Dammit, I've been doing it wrong.

Thanks, Baragei.

Quote from: baragei;894295So it is supposed to go like "You search the dead orc high priest and find 16 GP, a+1 mace, and (make a perception-test) two fate points hidden in his boots"? Dammit, I've been doing it wrong.

Jesus, I wish it were that easy.  My FATE GM is stingy as hell with the Fate Points.

Quote from: Arminius;893871Using a fate point isn't procedural. You have to say or indicate that you're using a fate point.

"You reach deep into yourself and find a power and purpose you've never felt before."






Oh, sorry, that was the refried beans...

Quote from: baragei;894295So it is supposed to go like "You search the dead orc high priest and find 16 GP, a+1 mace, and (make a perception-test) two fate points hidden in his boots"? Dammit, I've been doing it wrong.

So you've found restored spell slots and charges for wands and loyal allies and healing surges and luck points in the clothing of dead orcs? And you know no other way for characters to acquire resources than looting dead enemies? Why, yes, you have been doing it very, very wrong.

(Just to list a few of the resources in D&D 5e that are not found in anyone's boots: spell slots, ki points, second wind, action surges, diviner's foretellings, wild shapes, rages, bardic inspirations, sorcery points, channel divinity, hit dice, boons. And downtime days in organized play. You pretty much have to say you're using any of those, and it's just as procedural as an attack roll or ability check.)

Quote from: Arminius;893871You don't have to roll to hit. Anyone at the table could do that for you because rolling to hit is purely procedural once you say "I attack him".

Using a fate point isn't procedural. You have to say or indicate that you're using a fate point.

It is. Just a different procedure than rolling to hit.  There are many resources you have to say you use, such as spells.  And just because it doesn't have a tangible "in game" avatar, such as a scroll or gold coin, doesn't make it any less of a resource.  I mean if you find "luck points" in the game, I assume it comes in the same bag as experience points.  After all every creature, and in some cases every "spent" or "recovered" coin has them.

It's simply an abstraction for the very real and old genre concept of luck, of favor, of that certain extra something you can pull on from time to time.  Maybe it is too abstract for some.

There are those who find the D&D concept of hit points too abstract.  If it doesn't represent actual lacerations, bruises and contusions they don't like it.  That hit points rolls up all into one, in some undefined way, the concepts of skill, luck, endurance, and ability to sustain physical damage is just too much.  I mean how can you "find" Hit Points when you level up?  Yet I think it works well, as it creates verisimilitude and the benefits of this simplified abstraction far out weigh the lack of "reality."

Likewise with D&D armor class, that one there is to me a far bigger disconnect than the idea of luck points.  Yet the idea of AC works well even if it ignores the major effect of armor is to absorb damage not prevent a hit outright.  In the end it is the same thing, but the meta-game considerations do have an impact, as in the draw backs of armor are ignored, or have to bolted on with other concepts (such as touch AC), to avoid wonky in-game situations where the guy in thick plate armor can avoid getting touched (dodge better) than the naked guy.

I think the bigger issue is the disconnect in luck points is how mechanically they are implemented, which if you think of it too literally, reverses cause and effect.  That is, a luck point is used after "the fact" to change a "result."  But that's only for gaming convenience and only if you think of it that way.  Because there is no "reality" here with the game mechanic, it's simply words.  

If you need "reality" (which is a hard word to use when talking about a game that accepts magic and abstracts experience and ability with levels and hit points) the "result" was just one of many possible outcomes (the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) and you used your luck to push the outcome somewhere else.  If you are going to allow for magic, and invoke all kinds of gobbly gook to "explain" why it works the way it does, allowing for luck is a small step.

There is a quick fix of course, make people declare they will use a luck point before the roll if needed, that way there is never the "narration" that something occurred that would make it "reality" that your luck point is "undoing."  Or the referee could narrate the outcome in a manner that allows for luck point use, to wit, "The sword is coming towards your head, it looks like it will do massive damage if you are not lucky enough to dodge the blow."  Reality violation avoided.  I feel better already.

Yet I am a bit dumbfounded to even have to come up with an "in-game" reason for how luck points are working.  Simple fact is the idea of someone being lucky, or special is so ingrained in classic heroic literature, folklore, and fantasy literature period, that not to have it represented in your game is more genre breaking.  That is it lends to, instead of detracts from, verisimilitude if luck is something you have from time to time, although one can certainly abuse the notion to make a Monte Haul situation.  That there is meta-game decision making going on, i.e. using luck "after" a to-hit roll, shouldn't matter; but again that is simply fixed by your style of speaking.  In-fact the whole perspective from how you play the game and your character is meta-game.  I'm not talking information, but the very mechanics themselves, they abstract this, modify that, all in the service of and because you are playing a game.  Some you may like, some you may not, even though they create verisimilitude, that's your taste not an inherent problem with the concept.