I've put up a poll on immersion on The Big Purple (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?669176-What-breaks-strains-immersion-in-character-for-you-and-what-helps-it-follow-up) which has had 137 votes so far.
If you've still got your TBP account (and most of you have probably come from there originally :p) please mosey on over, join the discussion on the thread and vote :-)
I think the results in so far are very interesting and in particular show that around two thirds of immersively-oriented gamers find that their immersion is broken or strained by "rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making", whereas comparatively few find it troublesome to be "feeling that we’re all just making it all up as we go along" and about two in seven find it troublesome to be "expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting".
QuoteWhen I’m immersed in character, what breaks/strains my immersion in character is
being railroaded (or feeling that I’m being railroaded)
59 voters, thus 43.07%
mechanics I personally find excessively complicated
56 voters, thus 40.88%
when what happens in the game isn’t believable
57 voters, thus 41.61%
feeling that we’re all just making it all up as we go along
20 voters, thus 14.60%
rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making
83 voters, thus 60.58%
being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting
34 voters, thus24.82%
rules dictating my PC’s normal reactions (hardcore social conflict / personality mechanics)
43 voters, thus 31.39%
metagame incentives for my PC to behave/react a certain way / ALL personality mechanics for PCs
20 voters, thus 14.60%
when there’s not enough of a chance for speaking in character
36 voters, thus 26.28%
a poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me
37 voters, thus 27.01%
I don’t experience immersion in character or don’t care about it [if so, please ONLY vote for this]
16 voters, thus 11.68%
none of the above, something very important not listed above, or special snowflake
8 voters, thus 5.84%
Multiple Choice Poll.
This is a follow-up to the poll that I posted on TBP in September and then discussed here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24181).
Any thoughts on how I've structured the poll or on what the results show?
Any particular anecdotes of your own to tie in with the results / poll options?
Well, the only surprises for me here was that "making it all up as we go along" was only 16%.
I was also a bit surprised to see "being railroaded" score as highly as it did - even though I think I actually picked that one myself. I guess since being obviously railroaded (as opposed to illusionism) means using obvious tools that are somewhat unbelievable/too convenient.
For reference;
Mechanics I personally find excessively complicated : This is the big one. "Immersive" play isn't something you can just turn on or off at will, it requires concentration. Spending more than thirty seconds looking something up in a rulebook kills it stone dead, and what's worse - the mechanical results of looking something up are rarely better than just calling for a quick die roll and moving on.
Feeling that we're all just making it all up as we go along : If I can just get what I want, just because, we're in la-la fantasy land. But compare this to something like Leverage; you can spend plot points to make items in the scene relevant, but it has to make sense that they were there. In the lobby of a major bank, I could spend a plot point to say there's a pot plant (Plot plant?). If I wanted to turn up first thing in the morning wearing a Starbucks uniform and say (Plot point!) "I start opening up the coffee stand that's there. If anyone asks, I'll say I'm cover for the usual girl"? That's just making stuff up, and won't work.
Rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making : Prevents me playing the character. Contrast to Pendragon, whose rules help me make decisions that are like the ones my character would.
Being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting : This, just this.
When there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character : If I can't play the character, then I can't immerse in them. This is usually a GM-side problem, by not giving the players enough time to, er, play.
A poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me : If I can't play the character, I can't immerse in them. But this is usually a player-side problem.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;614044Well, the only surprises for me here was that "making it all up as we go along" was only 16%.
I wasn't expecting it to be a big-scoring option (and it was a new one I came up with on the spur of the moment for this poll) but I think I was surprised it scored
quite so low.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;614044I was also a bit surprised to see "being railroaded" score as highly as it did - even though I think I actually picked that one myself. I guess since being obviously railroaded (as opposed to illusionism) means using obvious tools that are somewhat unbelievable/too convenient.
Isn't the problem with railroading versus immersion more along the lines that if you don't feel you're really making any choices as your character... if nothing you try to decide as a player counts for anything... then it's harder to suspend your disbelief in the specific respect of you *being* your character? Because if you *were* your character, you would be making choices... And also because the fact you have no choices to make makes you feel as if it's not really your character, but a character the GM is playing, and you're just rolling the dice... so you have no investment in the character, no sense of ownership of them, and that kills your immersion...
Quote from: Ladybird;614119Mechanics I personally find excessively complicated Spending more than thirty seconds looking something up in a rulebook kills it stone dead
Is thirty seconds a good rule of thumb? I feel a poll coming on...
Quote from: Ladybird;614119you can spend plot points to make items in the scene relevant, but it has to make sense that they were there.
Surely it's a basic paradigm of any RPG or storygame that the fiction has to be sufficiently believable... ? (Whatever "sufficiently" may mean.)
Quote from: Ladybird;614119Rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making : Prevents me playing the character. Contrast to Pendragon, whose rules help me make decisions that are like the ones my character would.
Here's the big question. You seem to have read that option as if it meant "Rules making me make decisions as my character that are nothing like any decisions my character would believably be making". In fact I originally meant "Rules whose effect is that the decisions I have to make as a player are totally different to the decisions my character has to make". Thus, covering some of the ground of dissociated mechanics, and possibly some other stuff as well. (In fact, probably also covering the ground covered by the option we're coming to next...)
I wonder how many people have voted as if this option were about personality mechanics going wrong... what do you think?
This may explain the higher than expected vote.
Quote from: Ladybird;614119Being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting : This, just this.
And yet, curiously enough, not a high-voting option in the poll.
Quote from: Ladybird;614119When there’s not enough of a chance for speaking in character : If I can't play the character, then I can't immerse in them. This is usually a GM-side problem, by not giving the players enough time to, er, play.
Assuming of course that the other players are on board with the concept of speaking in character. Some gamers flat-out refuse to indulge in any of that "poncy arty-farty am-dram nonsense", to paraphrase their crustiness.
Perhaps the reason this poll option is voting relatively low is that it's a factor needed to get your immersion going in the first place, but not a factor that breaks/strains immersion by being temporarily absent.
being railroaded (or feeling that I'm being railroaded)
Not really an immersion breaker for me per se. Shit happens in real life and you can get railroaded so I can see it happening in a fictional world as well. I don't like it, in fact, I frickin' hate it, but it can also lend to my immersion if done right.
mechanics I personally find excessively complicated
This is neither here nor there for me as it relates to my immersion or ability to get immersed. I can seperate the two, game mechanics and in-character game play, enough that it doesn't really affect my place in the game world.
when what happens in the game isn't believable
This is the greatest immersion killer for me personally. If I can believe it then my character cannot believe it.
feeling that we're all just making it all up as we go along
This is not an immersion killer for me. In fact, it can aid immersion if done right because it generates a sense of wonder and excitement in me which I can transfer to my character via immersion.
rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making
Again, not such a big deal for me personally because I can suspend my immersion temporarily while game mechanic operations are being conducted. Now, if this takes a long time, like more than several minutes, then it can become a detriment to immersion and eventually kill it if it spans more than five minutes or so.
being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting
Life screws you over every chance it gets so it goes in fictional worlds as well. This doesn't really bust my immersion if it happens organically, but if it's consistently forced upon me by either the GM or game system then I can see it breaking my desire to be involved with either the game or my character.
rules dictating my PC's normal reactions (hardcore social conflict / personality mechanics)
Yeah, this is a straight immersion killer for me.
metagame incentives for my PC to behave/react a certain way / ALL personality mechanics for PCs
As long as they're optional and not forced, then I can care less. As long as I retain complete control of my character's actions and reactions, then I'm golden as far as immersion is concerned.
when there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character
I guess this could be an immersion killer if it's coupled with not being able to have my character interact with the setting. My character doesn't necessarily have to speak for me to play it and have fun with it.
a poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me
No problems here for me as far as immersion is concerned; once it becomes my character, then I am off and running with immersion and development.
I don't experience immersion in character or don't care about it [if so, please ONLY vote for this]
I can get immersed in characters so this is a moot for me.
Obviously, all this is my own opinion, and just as worthless as anyone else's.
Quote from: Omnifray;614529Quote from: LadybirdMechanics I personally find excessively complicated : This is the big one. "Immersive" play isn't something you can just turn on or off at will, it requires concentration. Spending more than thirty seconds looking something up in a rulebook kills it stone dead
Is thirty seconds a good rule of thumb? I feel a poll coming on...
For me, yeah. I'd be interested in the results of that poll, though.
Time spent waiting for someone to read a book is time not spent engaging with the game world, or watching others engage with it. It's just dead time that doesn't add any value to the session. Ditto with adjudicating funny die results, or hands of cards, or whatever.
Get close enough and keep things moving. The details aren't worth the time taken to worry about them.
Quote from: OmnifrayQuote from: Ladybirdyou can spend plot points to make items in the scene relevant, but it has to make sense that they were there.
Surely it's a basic paradigm of any RPG or storygame that the fiction has to be sufficiently believable... ? (Whatever "sufficiently" may mean.)
Yes, but, there's some logic behind it. Our characters have a lot more access to the game world than we do; a GM can't provide every detail they experience second-by-second. To keep the players immersed, the game world has to work in a way that we can understand, with our cultural biases and experiences. Say to a player, "your character is in a bar", and they will fill in the details themselves. They'll expect people, tables, beer, scratchings, maybe a quiz machine, and they'll act as if those things are there.
This is why "wierd settings" don't tend to take off. People can't fill in the details in their own minds. And the more familiar eements you add, the more players will latch on to them and turn everything back into Somerset But With More Hobbits.
Quote from: OmnifrayQuote from: LadybirdRules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making : Prevents me playing the character. Contrast to Pendragon, whose rules help me make decisions that are like the ones my character would.
Here's the big question. You seem to have read that option as if it meant "Rules making me make decisions as my character that are nothing like any decisions my character would believably be making". In fact I originally meant "Rules whose effect is that the decisions I have to make as a player are totally different to the decisions my character has to make". Thus, covering some of the ground of dissociated mechanics, and possibly some other stuff as well. (In fact, probably also covering the ground covered by the option we're coming to next...)
I wonder how many people have voted as if this option were about personality mechanics going wrong... what do you think?
This may explain the higher than expected vote.
I suspect a lot of people misread your option, to be honest. But I'd still have ticked the box.
Are we at "I have to choose between Hard Strike and Double Strike", ie. optimal combat maneuvre decisions? In which case, see the "mechanics I personally find excessively complicated" issue. If I have to choose the better move, then I have to analyse the situation, and that means using player-level knowledge rather than character-level (Because in that sort of game, everyone else will have access to almost all the same information as you, and expect an optimal, rather than in-character, choice). Takes me out of the character and reminds me that I am a HUMAN sat at a TABLE playing with LITTLE MEN. I don't need to be reminded of that, thanks, game.
Quote from: OmnifrayQuote from: LadybirdBeing expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting : This, just this.
And yet, curiously enough, not a high-voting option in the poll.
Interesting.
I have a sneaking suspicion "immersion" is one of those words that everyone agrees has something to do with RPG's, and could tell you that they're feeling immersed, but nobody quite agrees on what it means to feel immersed.
And the thing is, everyone's probably right. If you say you feel immersed or not, you probably are. Or not.
Doesn't do it for me, though.
Quote from: OmnifrayQuote from: LadybirdWhen there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character : If I can't play the character, then I can't immerse in them. This is usually a GM-side problem, by not giving the players enough time to, er, play.
Assuming of course that the other players are on board with the concept of speaking in character. Some gamers flat-out refuse to indulge in any of that "poncy arty-farty am-dram nonsense", to paraphrase their crustiness.
Perhaps the reason this poll option is voting relatively low is that it's a factor needed to get your immersion going in the first place, but not a factor that breaks/strains immersion by being temporarily absent.
There are also gamers who just can't do it, who would rather describe what their character says than word-by-word say it themselves, or just don't have the available brainpower that evening to convincingly talk in character (Which is pretty demanding). But I think your analysis is basically sound.
Nothing, because I don't do it. I'm free, I'm free!
Quote from: Ladybird;614711For me, yeah. I'd be interested in the results of that poll, though.
I doubt I've done the best ever job of this one but here goes (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?670194-How-long-is-too-long-to-be-spending-looking-up-rules-during-play).
Quote from: Ladybird;614711I have a sneaking suspicion "immersion" is one of those words that everyone agrees has something to do with RPG's, and could tell you that they're feeling immersed, but nobody quite agrees on what it means to feel immersed.
And the thing is, everyone's probably right. If you say you feel immersed or not, you probably are. Or not.
Doesn't do it for me, though.
Did the best I could to avoid that problem by using the phrase "in character" twice in the poll question itself and explaining what I meant by "immersion" in the OP, but, ya know. Life is what it is.
Quote from: Ladybird;614711the available brainpower that evening to convincingly talk in character (Which is pretty demanding)
...
puzzled face ...
Maybe my standards of being "convinced" are lower than yours... (especially when it's me doing the talking and I'm trying to convince myself!!)
Quote from: Omnifray;614529Is thirty seconds a good rule of thumb? I feel a poll coming on...
Thirty seconds once an hour? Definitely okay. 30 seconds for 50% of the players in each every round of combat? Definite not okay. In between? I'm not sure I could give a general rule.
Quote from: Omnifray;614529Isn't the problem with railroading versus immersion more along the lines that if you don't feel you're really making any choices as your character... if nothing you try to decide as a player counts for anything... then it's harder to suspend your disbelief in the specific respect of you *being* your character? Because if you *were* your character, you would be making choices... And also because the fact you have no choices to make makes you feel as if it's not really your character, but a character the GM is playing, and you're just rolling the dice... so you have no investment in the character, no sense of ownership of them, and that kills your immersion...
As Drohem said, IRL you don't necessarily get choices either ? What I think is problematic is if there is a situation where clearly you're intended to go A)....>B)....>C) and either
--players need to go along with the plot in order to keep the adventure running, regardless of what as characters they should do
or, so as a player you're making choices contrary to what your character would make;
--credulity-straining coincidences or obvious retconning occurs to force PCs back onto the tracks when they try to leave.
I can't really relate so much to the other idea here. I don't know if we need to distinguish between a true railroaded adventure the PCs are forced to go on, and just a linear adventure which is one the characters would go on because the GM has provided sufficient incentive in keeping with the character's motivations ?
Interesting how much of the pool would suggest moving to a rules-light sandbox setting would improve immersion, even though few very rules-light games are long-term successful.
Quote from: Omnifray;614728Maybe my standards of being "convinced" are lower than yours... (especially when it's me doing the talking and I'm trying to convince myself!!)
It probably varies, heavily, dependent on person. I'll admit that I find even ordinary everyday conversation to require at least some degree of concentration, and acting in-character adds several constraints (character knowledge, personality, and current setting) on top of that. Other people can and do find talking to increase their ability to focus on other things, though.
Quote from: gattsuru;615497few very rules-light games are long-term successful
Long-term successful in what sense?
Everything but "metagame incentives" (which I took to mean all kinds of incentives, including stuff like XP for gold and the like), and the last two options obviously.
Quote from: Omnifray;615505Long-term successful in what sense?
That's a good point.
Dead Inside was pretty obviously meant as award bait, and succeeded beautifully at that.
But I can't think of a rules-light system that's the equivalent to D&D, or even equivalent to the WoD; there's no setup I can bring to a table and reasonably expect people to be roughly familiar with it. Indeed, systems that become popular also tend to become more rules-crunchy : FUDGE could be arguably rules-light, but FATE is much more complicated*.
Over The Hedge is in many ways more playable than its World of Darkness counterparts, but it's not gotten near the commercial success nor received anywhere close to the critical recognition. There are a lot of good rules-light games out there, and a lot of good games that play better when modded to be rules-light. But by terms like financial results, name recognition, sales, anything like that, there seems to be a lot of evidence that our definition of good doesn't strongly correlate with "wanting to play a lot".
*The tendency to use difficult-to-compare words instead of easy-to-compare numbers bugs me in both the PDQ and FATE systems, which may color my perceptions.That's correlation, not causation.
Wushu's a great game wrapped in either no corebook or an incredibly poorly written one, both
Don't Rest Your Head and
Usagi Yojimbo are built for a very specific and fairly short types of game, and
Nobilis has many many problems unrelated to the underlying resource mechanic-based play (and to an extent plays better without a lot of the fiddly bits). That rules-light games don't end up with a shelf-worth of useless paper is a feature, not a bug. And the lack of One True Rules-Light Game is in many ways an advantage: the competition-heavy genre means that there are a lot of systems out there, and you can easily try one during a con-length game.
But it still raises questions about why people say they'd find less rules more immersive, if at the same time developers find it rewarding to create more rules and more invasive rules.
Quote from: gattsuru;615585That's a good point. Dead Inside was pretty obviously meant as award bait, and succeeded beautifully at that.
But I can't think of a rules-light system that's the equivalent to D&D, or even equivalent to the WoD; there's no setup I can bring to a table and reasonably expect people to be roughly familiar with it. Indeed, systems that become popular also tend to become more rules-crunchy : FUDGE could be arguably rules-light, but FATE is much more complicated*. Over The Hedge is in many ways more playable than its World of Darkness counterparts, but it's not gotten near the commercial success nor received anywhere close to the critical recognition. There are a lot of good rules-light games out there, and a lot of good games that play better when modded to be rules-light. But by terms like financial results, name recognition, sales, anything like that, there seems to be a lot of evidence that our definition of good doesn't strongly correlate with "wanting to play a lot".
*The tendency to use difficult-to-compare words instead of easy-to-compare numbers bugs me in both the PDQ and FATE systems, which may color my perceptions.
That's correlation, not causation. Wushu's a great game wrapped in either no corebook or an incredibly poorly written one, both Don't Rest Your Head and Usagi Yojimbo are built for a very specific and fairly short types of game, and Nobilis has many many problems unrelated to the underlying resource mechanic-based play (and to an extent plays better without a lot of the fiddly bits). That rules-light games don't end up with a shelf-worth of useless paper is a feature, not a bug. And the lack of One True Rules-Light Game is in many ways an advantage: the competition-heavy genre means that there are a lot of systems out there, and you can easily try one during a con-length game.
But it still raises questions about why people say they'd find less rules more immersive, if at the same time developers find it rewarding to create more rules and more invasive rules.
Rules light games just aren't as commercially viable as rules-heavy games.
If you make a rules-light game, and you do it well, no-one needs to buy any more stuff from you. They're all set. And if you do make something else, what is it? If it's more rules, you're taking away from the main advantage of your system. If it's setting and GM advice stuff, well fine, but not as many people buy that, and if you publish too much of it, it becomes a kind of game bloat in itself and again diminishes the core strength of the game.
But if you make a rules-heavy game, particularly an exception-based system with lots of fiddly feats and skills, you're simply not going to be able to fit everything in a single book. So you end up making a fighter supplement, a wizard supplement, an elves supplement. Because your game is so complicated, people find it harder to just make stuff up for themselves. And also because it's so complicated, there are so many fiddly gaps and potential variations in the mechanics that you can squeeze out an endless line of supplements. And then when the weight of supplements becomes so great that the whole game begins to creak? Great, let's do a second edition!
This is why the interests of the hobby and the interests of the industry are not always the same thing.
Is it possible that in reality...
1. rules-lite games, though people enjoy them for one-shots and think they love them, can fall a bit short for campaign play?
[NB many people may have their primary experience of roleplaying from one-shots and short campaigns. These occasional gamers and chop-and-changers may spread their support around lots of minor games, but they're not going to sustain the commercial success of a major game with lots of supplements.]
[It may be that every so often people look for mechanical variety to spice up a game that may have run out of thematic variety.]
2. the sorts of people who really go for rules-lite games are less likely, as a very general tendency and subject to individual exceptions, to sustain long campaigns?
[This could be something to do with attention-spans.]
And thus...
3. Rules-lite games will be used for very few long-term campaigns even if / even though rules-lite games designed for campaigns are available?
With many commercial games, game designers' love of fiddling leads them to want to create overly complex systems - we're like tinker gnomes, basically. (In some cases, D&D 5E for instance, complexities looks less like commercially-driven overcomplexification and more like they've given in to their desire to try out all their weird ideas)...
Fortunately its not quite as simple as thicker rulebook = more complexity at the table. Rules vary considerably in how 'invasive' they are. For instance:
*an 'edge case' rule (most of the rules in older D&Ds, perhaps) is applicable only to a few situations and so doesn't usually add to complexity at the table, only in that situation.
*A few trad RPGs have complex rulesets but can be simpler or freeform out of combat. i.e. with Palladium, combat system is more complex but out of combat, there aren't many rules, apart from skill use, with skills being fairly narrowly defined. Players don't have to roll Perception Checks or social interaction checks.
*player-side vs. GM-side. Perception checks that the GM rolls don't bother the players, at least, even if there is a complex system there.
*a set of rules that's well-designed and common-sensical can look a lot like a common sense ruling would; in cases like this you may not don't need to actually look up the rule because you know (as GM) it will jive with your expectations.
I'm not sure if this is related exactly, but I was struck by Rob Kuntz' description of how Climb worked in primordial D&D on his blog here. (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/up-on-tree-stump-4.html) He's very much an advocate of free-form systems using player skill but a good part of his exposition to the GM on how he's climbing, would actually still give him bonuses even in 3E - the 'I take off my armour before climbing and attach a rope to pull it up' for instance removes the armour check penalty while letting you keep your armour (I could imagine a good 3E GM giving him a circumstance bonus for explaining well how to climb the escarpment, too).
A few times playing 3E I've seen the GM make a ruling I hadn't known was a rule, and found out later it was in the rulebook, just somewhere obscure (slings needing a move action to reload, for instance).
Quote from: Omnifray;615661Is it possible that in reality...
1. rules-lite games, though people enjoy them for one-shots and think they love them, can fall a bit short for campaign play?
No.
Quote from: Omnifray;6156612. the sorts of people who really go for rules-lite games are less likely, as a very general tendency and subject to individual exceptions, to sustain long campaigns?
Maybe.
Quote from: Omnifray;615661This could be something to do with attention-spans.]
Fuck off.
Quote from: Omnifray;615661And thus...
3. Rules-lite games will be used for very few long-term campaigns even if / even though rules-lite games designed for campaigns are available?
No.
Quote from: soviet;616038Fuck off.
Succinct and to the point, but I did actually raise this online as a serious and non-hostile point, and get a serious reply from a hardcore storygamer, some time in the last couple of years or so.
I'm very definitely not suggesting that *
all* storygamers, or *
all* people who prefer rules-lite games, or *
all* people who prefer shorter games have these preferences because they have shorter attention-spans. And I suppose even insofar as attention-something-or-other plays a role, really it's not so much about attention-span as it is about attention-preference. But I think it's pretty much a given that someone with a very short attention span will have an easier time of it with a rules-lite game designed for a short one-shot than they will with a crunchy game designed for campaign play. Such gamers may, of course, only account for a very small proportion of gamers, and a very small proportion of storygamers, but I'd suggest that they'd be more likely to choose rules-lite storygames designed for one-shots than other gamers would. And the longer your attention span, the less likely that is to be a factor for you, as a very, very, *very* general tendency.
Of course, as a counterargument I suppose you only find storygames in those obscure corners of the hobby that people only reach if they're fairly dedicated which suggests they
won't have short attention spans.
But those people may introduce the games to their short-attention-spanned friends...
Quote from: Omnifray;616066Succinct and to the point, but I did actually raise this online as a serious and non-hostile point, and get a serious reply from a hardcore storygamer, some time in the last couple of years or so.
I'm very definitely not suggesting that *all* storygamers, or *all* people who prefer rules-lite games, or *all* people who prefer shorter games have these preferences because they have shorter attention-spans. And I suppose even insofar as attention-something-or-other plays a role, really it's not so much about attention-span as it is about attention-preference. But I think it's pretty much a given that someone with a very short attention span will have an easier time of it with a rules-lite game designed for a short one-shot than they will with a crunchy game designed for campaign play. Such gamers may, of course, only account for a very small proportion of gamers, and a very small proportion of storygamers, but I'd suggest that they'd be more likely to choose rules-lite storygames designed for one-shots than other gamers would. And the longer your attention span, the less likely that is to be a factor for you, as a very, very, *very* general tendency.
Of course, as a counterargument I suppose you only find storygames in those obscure corners of the hobby that people only reach if they're fairly dedicated which suggests they won't have short attention spans.
But those people may introduce the games to their short-attention-spanned friends...
I guess it's logical that people with short attention spans would prefer lighter systems, but then I'm not sure that those people are particularly drawn to the hobby in the first place.
In my group we play a variety of games. We alternate between three main games as we like to rotate GMs every 3-4 months (about 15 sessions) to keep things fresh. Our main games are D&D 4e and Other Worlds, although last year we did a run of AD&D 2e. The 4e runs are part of a longer campaign (started in 1991 under 2e!) while the Other Worlds and recent AD&D 2e runs are standalone campaigns with definite end points. Other Worlds is very rules light, AD&D 2e sort of is, at least when compared to 3e or 4e.
Occasionally we'll run a couple of sessions of something else if a particular person can't make it or one of the GMs needs time to prepare. These are sometimes rules light games like Og or Elfs, and other times they've been stuff like WFRP2e, Shadowrun, and D&D Next. (I'm gonna do MERP at some point!)
Maybe we're not a group that prioritises in-character immersion as much as you do but we all feel pretty engaged and immersed in our games. I haven't seen a difference in that based on the density of the rules set.
Quote from: Omnifray;615661Is it possible that in reality...
1. rules-lite games, though people enjoy them for one-shots and think they love them, can fall a bit short for campaign play?
[NB many people may have their primary experience of roleplaying from one-shots and short campaigns. These occasional gamers and chop-and-changers may spread their support around lots of minor games, but they're not going to sustain the commercial success of a major game with lots of supplements.]
[It may be that every so often people look for mechanical variety to spice up a game that may have run out of thematic variety.]
2. the sorts of people who really go for rules-lite games are less likely, as a very general tendency and subject to individual exceptions, to sustain long campaigns?
[This could be something to do with attention-spans.]
And thus...
3. Rules-lite games will be used for very few long-term campaigns even if / even though rules-lite games designed for campaigns are available?
I think you need to define what "rules light" is. These days it generally seems to be used only to refer to super-light edge case games like Wushu and Everway, but personally I'd take the view that any of the old TSR games which clocked in at under 64 pages in the box are "rules light" by any reasonable measure. So that means things like Basic D&D and Marvel Super-Heroes, which I think definitely were used for long-term campaigns.
Quote from: Grymbok;616107I think you need to define what "rules light" is. These days it generally seems to be used only to refer to super-light edge case games like Wushu and Everway, but personally I'd take the view that any of the old TSR games which clocked in at under 64 pages in the box are "rules light" by any reasonable measure. So that means things like Basic D&D and Marvel Super-Heroes, which I think definitely were used for long-term campaigns.
I would agree. I have had plenty pf long term campaigns using systems I would label as rules light.
Nah, BECMI was pretty damn complex if you included all the bits and pieces.
I think for "rules-light" you're probably talking something like 6 or fewer stats for a starting character, not counting equipment.
BECMI has 6 ability scores, but also HP, AC, hit rolls (THAC0? or was that AD&D 2e only), saving throws, level, experience points, spells per day, thief percentage chances etc. And then tons and tons of spells.
Not super-crunchy, but definitely not rules-lite.
Quote from: Omnifray;616115Nah, BECMI was pretty damn complex if you included all the bits and pieces.
I think for "rules-light" you're probably talking something like 6 or fewer stats for a starting character, not counting equipment.
BECMI has 6 ability scores, but also HP, AC, hit rolls (THAC0? or was that AD&D 2e only), saving throws, level, experience points, spells per day, thief percentage chances etc. And then tons and tons of spells.
Not super-crunchy, but definitely not rules-lite.
I said Basic, not all of BECMI :)
Anyway, if you think a game for which all of the rules can be contained in about 32 pages isn't rules light, then yes, by your definition, "rules light" is an outlying taste, which probably makes up less than 1% of all RPGs.
For clarity I'm referring here to MSH, which had a 20 page player's guide. I'm aware that Basic D&D (c1983) was a 64pg rulebook, and lacking a copy I'm not going to start debating the precise page count of "rules" in that example.
Quote from: Omnifray;616115Nah, BECMI was pretty damn complex if you included all the bits and pieces.
I think for "rules-light" you're probably talking something like 6 or fewer stats for a starting character, not counting equipment.
BECMI has 6 ability scores, but also HP, AC, hit rolls (THAC0? or was that AD&D 2e only), saving throws, level, experience points, spells per day, thief percentage chances etc. And then tons and tons of spells.
Not super-crunchy, but definitely not rules-lite.
To me six stats (including stuff like skills, and to hit rolls) or less isn't rules-light, it's minimalist design. I consider basic, Dr. Who: adventures in time and space, savage worlds, and my own games rules light. All have a bit of meat, but still light in my book.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;614044Well, the only surprises for me here was that "making it all up as we go along" was only 16%.
Alot of Heavy Character Immersion players, like myself, are also very comfortable with improv, as long as the result still has versilimitude.
Quotebeing railroaded (or feeling that I'm being railroaded)
If I know up front the GM is running a canned adventure on rails, I can usually accept that. If he's using Illusionism and I get a peek behind the curtain, then this ruins Immersion for me and as I find the illusion of choice to be very problematic on several levels.
Quotemechanics I personally find excessively complicated
Yes, any time I am spending time thinking about something that is external to my character, Immersion is threatened. The longer I have to think about it, the more threatened Immersion becomes. Systems I personally find excessively complicated will require higher personal handling time, and thus will cause more problems for me with Immersion.
Quotewhen what happens in the game isn't believable
This is key. If we lose versilimitude, I can't believe that anything is "real", so I can't immerse, unless there's a chance my character is hallucinating or experiencing an illusion; if that proves not to be the case, the game grinds to a full stop for me.
Quotefeeling that we're all just making it all up as we go along
I consider many of the skills involved in Improve to similarly be many of the skills in effectively immersing, so I'm fine with improv as a game vehicle for Immersion.
Quoterules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making
This is a complete non-starter for me. This is the one sin that a ruleset can commit that I cannot forgive nor abide.
Quotebeing expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting
It depends on how formal this is. If I'm expected to do huge chunks of world-building or narration, then yeah, that's a problem. If I'm expected to assume that some of a bar's patrons are drinking from mugs without being explicitly told this fact, then I'm ok with that, as my imagination fills in alot of the white space like that automatically.
Quoterules dictating my PC's normal reactions (hardcore social conflict / personality mechanics)
Yeah. That.
Quotemetagame incentives for my PC to behave/react a certain way / ALL personality mechanics for PCs
It depends on what we mean by metagame incentives. I don't care about XP or other reward incentives, I do what my character would do without any regard for what is "rewarded", as I believe that rewards are the purview of the GM not the game system and figure it will all work itself out in the end. So these sorts of rules do nothing to influence my decisions.
But if I was required to act a certain way or receive a de-facto in game penalty because I didn't click the right pixel or jump through the right hoop in a way that's totally disassociated from the game fiction, then I have a problem with that.
Quotewhen there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character
This one is HUGE. I find it very hard to Immerse unless we all spend the majority of our time speaking in character.
Quotea poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me
Yeah, can't immerse in a character I don't care about. I don't have to LIKE them, as a person - I regularly have played characters I personally dislike as people but love as a character - but if they don't at least interest me, I've got nothing to work with.
Quote from: Grymbok;616107I think you need to define what "rules light" is.
I think there are two concepts that often get confounded together in these discussions. One is rules volume, i.e. light or heavy, which suggests the number of rules involved. A single unified mechanic with few or no edge cases that can be summarized on a single sheet of paper is rules light; a system with a separate mechanical subsystem and special mechanics for virtually every action would be rules heavy. This is something we could probably make an objective scale for by counting the number of rules, the number of situational rules or edge cases, and the number of subsystems.
Then there is rules complexity, which is a very different thing. If the only rule in the game was you had to solve a differential equation to resolve any action, I think that would be considered complex by most people, but as a ruleset goes, it's pretty light. However, this measurement is going to be largely subjective, and this is where I think most of the arguments about system weight come from: people label games they find easy to intuit as "rules lite" and ones they don't like or find complex to be "rules heavy" and different people have different games they rate in this way, and then no one can agree on what's what. This axis is more along the lines of ease of play. It's largely an aesthetic value, and while aesthetics can be judged on some level objectively, they are largely subjective experiences.
Add to this that sometimes when people talk about "rules lite" they mean the first thing, rule volume, and sometimes the second, rule complexity. This is why no one can agree on what these terms mean.
This is not even taking into account people who use these terms to indicate aesthetic preferences; i.e. "Rules Lite" to mean "I like this game".
Quote from: Doctor Jest;616137[Re:- rules making me make decisions that my character wouldn't make]
This is a complete non-starter for me. This is the one sin that a ruleset can commit that I cannot forgive nor abide.
Can you give examples?
Cheers
Quote from: Omnifray;616176Can you give examples?
Anything involving narrative control is a big one; if I, as a player, am making decisions about what happens in the game world (the purview of the GM) then unless my character has godlike powers to be able to shape the world to their whims, it's Immersion breaking.