Quote from: Bren;880425Yep. And sometimes I'm okay with that.

*Excellent points clipped for length*

I think I'm close to Bren on this. I'm usually okay with moderate personality mechaniics, particularly if their somewhat optional though I value immersion. Sometimes I don't feel like I'm totally in the character's "headspace". At the end of the day I am different person, in a totally different situation not experiencing the same pressures, emotions and drives or coming from the same cultural background or any of the other countless influences that can't be covered in a rpg, at least not easily.

I feel the same way about social mechanics. We're not really consciously in control of everything we do and decide. I've been talked into some amazingly stupid shit in the past and made really poor choices. So I can see my character doing some that are "out of my control." Sometimes its fun to imagine why they might make these choices and incorporate them into the image I have. Though I understand why that's not to other taste and they prefer to maintain more control of their PC's specific narrative. Like most things it a spectrum.

Sorry I'm late to the party.

Sheesh, I'm honored that I could inspire anybody to write anything (now if I just had that effect on my students)

I think what were really talking about here is layers of abstraction and translating mechanics into imagination.

The problem is that all mechanics happen ooc whether they're dice rolls, card draws or bauble counting.  However, some mechanics translate more simply and intuitively than others.  The problem of the Meta-Mechanics that AsenRG described in the original post is that they require several layers of processing to translate the ooc act into the in-character imaginary universe.  It is certainly possible to take the effect of any mechanical outcome and describe it in game terms but the more detached a mechanic is from an actual imaginary object or action then the more the player is detached from the game.

The best mechanics, IMHO, are those that translate with the least thought or effort, and for that they should be simple and specific to the mental imagery.  For example, a pass fail percentile roll to achieve a specific skill is extremely intuitive.  I have 35% chance to pick this lock, roll dice and go.  There is almost no break in immersion.

On the other hand, the 2d20 Conan momentum points can literally represent almost anything in imagination land: it could be something abstract like "success breeds success," or "my timing was perfect," "I'm lucky that way" or "this is emotionally important to my character," or a million other things.  Yes, you can rationalize their effects, but you must spend considerable ooc effort every time you use them or immersion, believablility, or suspension of disbelief is compromised.  The lack of specificity and difficulty in translation is where I have a hang up.

Obviosly, I coming at this from an immersionists perspective.  That is because I believe immersion is what makes RPGs both special and different from other games.

QuoteOriginally Posted by CRKrueger View Post
Exactly, Omnifray. When you're asking yourself "How can I take this Out Of Character mechanic and explain it In Character." You are Out of Character!

Good point.  Ideally, there is just the thought.  A great player knows his character and doesn't need a mechanic to determine his personality.

However, I always felt that Pendragon personality mechanics were very intuitive.  "I've got a 6 Chaste and a 14 Lustful... hmm ... 'Hey doll face!'"  It is just a descriptor with a number, and it is quite specific to what it applies to.  I also find that many players don't really know their character that well so having these personality numbers helps them study and learn about their character.  Very rarely have players felt it was restrictive, and when they do, I let them change it or ignore it altogether.

Quote from: Bren;880425I think both mechanics do what they are supposed to do so I don't think Drama Points are an epic fail. But they aren't immersive.

If I ever run Buffy, I think I'll call them Ki Points... Anything but 'drama'. If it was purely a story-building game then fine, characters in a storygame might well have associated 'drama points'. But Buffy's Unisystem ruleset is pretty vanilla simulationist other than this. Why give up immersion for no gain?

Quote from: Madprofessor;880462I think what were really talking about here is layers of abstraction and translating mechanics into imagination.

The problem is that all mechanics happen ooc whether they're dice rolls, card draws or bauble counting.  However, some mechanics translate more simply and intuitively than others.  The problem of the Meta-Mechanics that AsenRG described in the original post is that they require several layers of processing to translate the ooc act into the in-character imaginary universe.  It is certainly possible to take the effect of any mechanical outcome and describe it in game terms but the more detached a mechanic is from an actual imaginary object or action then the more the player is detached from the game.

The best mechanics, IMHO, are those that translate with the least thought or effort, and for that they should be simple and specific to the mental imagery.  For example, a pass fail percentile roll to achieve a specific skill is extremely intuitive.  I have 35% chance to pick this lock, roll dice and go.  There is almost no break in immersion.

On the other hand, the 2d20 Conan momentum points can literally represent almost anything in imagination land: it could be something abstract like "success breeds success," or "my timing was perfect," "I'm lucky that way" or "this is emotionally important to my character," or a million other things.  Yes, you can rationalize their effects, but you must spend considerable ooc effort every time you use them or immersion, believablility, or suspension of disbelief is compromised.  The lack of specificity and difficulty in translation is where I have a hang up.

Obviosly, I coming at this from an immersionists perspective.  That is because I believe immersion is what makes RPGs both special and different from other games.

Very good post.

In my humble opinion it all comes down to familiarity. Having grew up on Gurps and World of Darkness, the first time I met D&D I've found it's concepts of classes and levels artificial and abortive to my immersion. It took some time to get my head around it. When I did though, it never bothered me again.

When I'm roleplaying and everything seems to be meshing, all cylinders are firing, I really get into the character's headspace, and I can and do surprise myself.  Get caught up in the moment, make decisions I regret, follow my gut, head, or heart when I should have following the other.

When you're really caught up in the character, you don't need those mechanics and die rolls, because if you're really immersed in that character, you do that anyway.  When I really grok that character, you ask me "blond, brunette or redhead" or "fish or chicken", I know.  It just pops into my head.

That's why having as little between me and the character is so important.  If these mechanics would just leave me alone I can get into that zone of suspension of disbelief where the real magic of roleplaying is, but these types of mechanics keep pulling on my shoulder and saying, "Hey, let me help you roleplay your character." or "Hey, let's do something dramatic and exciting, eh, wouldn't that make a great story?"

That's why I say things like this new Conan game probably shouldn't be called a roleplaying game, because frankly, I think roleplaying is actually secondary to the storytelling aspect.  It's at least 50/50.  People go apeshit when I do say things like that, but there's really nothing in that game that doesn't tie into the Doom storytelling metagame.  Even parrying gives a Doom point.  The point of that game is to recreate Howard's stories. With that goal in mind, it might do it.  It might do it brilliantly.  But when practically every decision keeps the OOC metagame in mind, it's kind of hard to do much roleplaying.

Quote from: Itachi;880465Very good post.

In my humble opinion it all comes down to familiarity. Having grew up on Gurps and World of Darkness, the first time I met D&D I've found it's concepts of classes and levels artificial and abortive to my immersion. It took some time to get my head around it. When I did though, it never bothered me again.

I still do find them non immersive. So there is just some plain taste involved.

Quote from: Nexus;880478I still do find them non immersive. So there is just some plain taste involved.

Oh sure, I think taste will always be involved.

Quote from: Nexus;880478I still do find them non immersive. So there is just some plain taste involved.

Agreed.
OOC does not become IC with familiarity.
Conflict Resolution does not become Task Resolution with familiarity.

I understand the Fate system.  I had great fun at a con playing Spirits of the Century.  I was totally into the scene and the story, but wasn't into my character because I was constantly making decisions my character couldn't make.  We were as much director as we were actor.

Maybe the fact that I GM all the time means I have an outlet for world building, so when I play, I want to *play*.

Quote from: Itachi;880479Oh sure, I think taste will always be involved.

Sorry if that came across as argumentative. Reading my post again it sounds much more hostile than I meant it to be.

QuoteVery good post.

In my humble opinion it all comes down to familiarity. Having grew up on Gurps and World of Darkness, the first time I met D&D I've found it's concepts of classes and levels artificial and abortive to my immersion. It took some time to get my head around it. When I did though, it never bothered me again.

Thanks,

I think familiarity is a part of it, because the less you have to think about a mechanic then the more immersive it will be and the more you can focus on the imaginary world.  However, some mechanics will always pull you ooc and out of immersion regardless of familiarity because that is what they are designed to do.  Mechanics that allow a player "narrative control" to alter the game world and assume the GMs hat are a good example.  No matter how well you know this mechanic it is anti-immersive for roleplaying a character. or getting in the zone as CRKreuger described.

I have never found D&D to be a terribly immersive game (and I have been playing it for 35 years) because classes, levels, alignments, Vancian magic, +3 wands of wuss slapping, and a whole slew of baroque mechanics imply such a bizarre alternate reality that you never forget that you are playing a game, and the whole "you be Gandalf, I'll be Conan and we'll team up and fight Dracula" implied setting reinforces the strange mechanical ideas.  I love D&D, but it's gamey, and not very immersive IMHO.  

QuoteI still do find them non immersive. So there is just some plain taste involved.

I agree that there is taste involved, people have different interests and your fantasy and my fantasy are not the same, but there seems to be lots of people around who argue that its *all* subjective. I don't buy that for a second - I've played too many games - system matters.

QuoteWhen I'm roleplaying and everything seems to be meshing, all cylinders are firing, I really get into the character's headspace, and I can and do surprise myself. Get caught up in the moment, make decisions I regret, follow my gut, head, or heart when I should have following the other.

When you're really caught up in the character, you don't need those mechanics and die rolls, because if you're really immersed in that character, you do that anyway.

I totally get this.  

Funny, a long time ago I discovered immersive RPGs with Rolemaster :eek: (MERP actually). Not because Rolemaster is immersive, its not, at all, but because as a GM I avoided the mechanics to this game like the plague - so we spent whole sessions doing nothing but roleplaying and never drawing a sword or rolling a die.

I feel that I am "really immersed" in my characters most of the time. But I find that some mechanics help more than hinder that by acting as the "voices in your head" and other influences that just aren't accountable sometimes. That I don't even fully grasp about myself at least until after they've had an effect.

And as I said, I know I'm not totally in the headspace the character is in and some assistance is a welcome thing and increases my fun. Particularly when a character is very different from me.

Quote from: S'mon;880464If I ever run Buffy, I think I'll call them Ki Points... Anything but 'drama'. If it was purely a story-building game then fine, characters in a storygame might well have associated 'drama points'. But Buffy's Unisystem ruleset is pretty vanilla simulationist other than this. Why give up immersion for no gain?

Buffy started out as teenagers in High School. They're all about drama.

Quote from: Madprofessor;880462Sorry I'm late to the party.

Sheesh, I'm honored that I could inspire anybody to write anything (now if I just had that effect on my students)

Make a forum for them:)?
Also, do I get an A in your school:D?

QuoteI think what were really talking about here is layers of abstraction and translating mechanics into imagination.

Mostly, yes - and how intuitive it feels to do that with different layers of abstraction on and off.

QuoteThe problem is that all mechanics happen ooc whether they're dice rolls, card draws or bauble counting.  However, some mechanics translate more simply and intuitively than others.  The problem of the Meta-Mechanics that AsenRG described in the original post is that they require several layers of processing to translate the ooc act into the in-character imaginary universe.

Yes. That's why I suggest using an approach where most of the steps are done already.
It's not A=>B=>C=>D=>E=>F. It's B=>E=>F, and we take it for granted that A, C and D has happened, too.

QuoteThe best mechanics, IMHO, are those that translate with the least thought or effort, and for that they should be simple and specific to the mental imagery.  For example, a pass fail percentile roll to achieve a specific skill is extremely intuitive.  I have 35% chance to pick this lock, roll dice and go.  There is almost no break in immersion.

For some people, that would be unimmersive, but yes, that's mostly true.

QuoteOn the other hand, the 2d20 Conan momentum points can literally represent almost anything in imagination land: it could be something abstract like "success breeds success," or "my timing was perfect," "I'm lucky that way" or "this is emotionally important to my character," or a million other things.  Yes, you can rationalize their effects, but you must spend considerable ooc effort every time you use them or immersion, believablility, or suspension of disbelief is compromised.  The lack of specificity and difficulty in translation is where I have a hang up.

Well, no. All Momentum tells you is: I have Advantage/Initiative, I'm using it.
How did it happen? Describe the first thing that came to mind, it's true now. Maybe you were lucky!
Does it matter why you won? Not in Conan, yes if I'm playing TRoS. But Conan often seems to win just because of inner qualities:).
Translate them however you wish, as far as I'm concerned;).

Quote from: Itachi;880465Very good post.

In my humble opinion it all comes down to familiarity. Having grew up on Gurps and World of Darkness, the first time I met D&D I've found it's concepts of classes and levels artificial and abortive to my immersion. It took some time to get my head around it. When I did though, it never bothered me again.

IMO, you're right, but it's not the whole story.


At least my current theory is that it comes down to familiarity first, how well it maps to previous experiences second, and your specific way of thinking in the third place. (Places are arbitrarily assigned, and the second and third are interconnected, yes).

Spoiler

If you're used to "attack=dice roll", you can immerse in that (who needs examples?).
If you're used to "attack=punching a button", you can immerse in that (fighting games).
If you're used to "attack=handing the Referee a hidden number of beads", you're going to be able to immerse in that (Gumshoe).
Trick is, the more you're used to one, the less the others sound intuitive.

Then we come to previous experiences. Do you believe in karma? Than a karma-based system might work better for you (based on my observations here, amusingly). Do you believe that every bad thing is followed by a good one? Fate compels might be intuitive. Do you believe that the universe is random, and everything else is an illusion? Dice rolls. Do you believe that the Hand of Higher Powers deals us cards at birth? Well, card-using systems aren't unheard of. Do you believe that the universe is basically arbitrary, but we can make it care by sufficient force of will? Play Pendragon.
And so on, and so forth. Mind: sometimes people just play the game, and don't think how it relates to their life outlook. Then they can mostly ignore this part...so maybe it should have been in third place instead. Ah well.

And then we come to ways of thinking. This is the part where my theory can use the most work, I admit. But I don't get people sending me money for it, so I was kinda working on it in my free time.
Basically, do you believe that things often have unintuitive consequences? That you can win by losing, attack by retreating, strike left by moving to the right? Do you believe you can create hate by kindness, murder through charity, mayhem through order?
We all know (I hope) that all of these are possible - I'm thinking of real life examples, of course! But how much have you internalised that logic?
If you have, you could play a lot of games immersively that other people would balk at. Because you don't expect that connections need to be simple.

Conversely, if your way of thinking is straightforward, go for straightforward systems.

This point has many ramifications I haven't explored. Say, someone who believes our minds are the sum of our impulses, and they're relatively constant, would have an easy time playing Pendragon - again from experience...

But the cornerstone of my theory is that it's about finding a game that fits you as closely as possible. Because immersion is, to me, in the moment when you don't need to process external stimuli rationally. You hear, and you react as your character would, playing the system in the way.

That's why I suggest adopting a different outlook in most of the examples in my OP. You do that before the game, and it might take some work to adopt that specific approach (and then to unwind back, that is important), but once you have established that "filter" that you can invoke at will, one more kind of mechanic is fully intuitive.

Ah, yet another thread demonstrating that the word immersion in RPG discussions has no meaning:

QuoteWhen discussing roleplaying games I've tried to eliminate the term "immersion" from my vocabulary: It's terminology with a horribly fractured etymology and never fails to create confusion whenever it's used.

The problem has its primary roots in the '90s: In the tabletop community, the Usenet groups picked the term "immersion" to refer to people deeply immersing themselves in the playing of their character. "Deep immersion" became the state in which roleplaying flowed naturally and you were able to make decisions as your character and portray your character without have to engage in logical analysis.

Almost simultaneously, however, the video game community created the concept of "immersion vs. interactivity". In this construct, loosely speaking, interactivity refers to the player making decisions and immersion refers to the player becoming drawn into or convinced by the faux reality of the game world. (You'll notice that, in this construction, the concept of "immersion" is effectively set up as being in a state of antithesis with the tabletop community's use of the word "immersion".) This video game concept of "immersion" then "jumped the pond" and got picked up by various tabletop communities.

Then you can take all of that confusion and stir in a healthy dose of people using the word according to its general dictionary definition: "Deep mental involvement." That meant any time somebody said "no, immersion is about deep mental involvement in X" (whether X was "playing your character" or "the presentation of the game world"), somebody else could respond by saying "no, I experience immersion by having a deep mental involvement with Y".

My personal use of the term was shaped in those old Usenet discussions. So if you ever do see me using the word "immersion" in the context of tabletop roleplaying, it's a virtual certainty that I'm talking about immersion in the process of roleplaying a character; the sort of one-to-one flow of thought to action and the empathetic flow of thought that often characterizes our conception of the very best Method actors. But I've generally found that when I need to discuss that sort of thing it's almost always more rewarding to find a way of talking about it which doesn't use the word "immersion".

Whatever your personal conception of the word "immersion" is, I recommend you do the same.

I count... what? At least three different definitions of "immersion" all being used as if they were interchangeable here.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;880979Ah, yet another thread demonstrating that the word immersion in RPG discussions has no meaning:



I count... what? At least three different definitions of "immersion" all being used as if they were interchangeable here.

As far as I'm aware, all the posters in this thread, myself included, are using "immersion" as a short-hand for the "old Usenet definition".