Quote from: two_fishes;390074Well, like I said in the previous thread, I think the definition provided for immersion sucks, and excludes vast swaths of immersive experience. It's almost as if the definition was created entirely to lend some value to the associative/dissociative divide!

Ben, it's interesting that you grab a much more nuanced and inclusive description of immersion, but then immediately reinterpret it through a very narrow focus from LV.

I don't understand how my definition would be narrow and exclusive. Exclusive of what, exactly? Please provide me some type of game situations or thoughts on what you'd consider "immersion" that would not be covered by these definitions, and then, maybe we'll come to some sort of understanding as to what you mean?

The definition in post #1 narrows immersion to the player making decisions as if they were the character. Many, maybe most immersive experiences fall outside of this definition. The example I brought in the prior thread was of an actor immersing with their character, but the actor makes very few choices as the character--they are supplied by the writer. The description you foun from RPGTalk includes empathizing with the character and responding to narrative, neither are making decisions as the character.

Quote from: two_fishes;390087The definition in post #1 narrows immersion to the player making decisions as if they were the character. Many, maybe most immersive experiences fall outside of this definition. The example I brought in the prior thread was of an actor immersing with their character, but the actor makes very few choices as the character--they are supplied by the writer. The description you foun from RPGTalk includes empathizing with the character and responding to narrative, neither are making decisions as the character.

Ah okay. Then yes, indeed, I am restricting the definition and considering instances where the "author" player empathizes with "the character" as a separate contruct from himself as falling outside of the realm of immersion in a role playing game, yes.

Quote from: Doom;389987I was wondering, under the assumption that one would want to make something like 4e's skill challenges more associated, what would you try, in a 'quick and dirty' fashion, to change the structure so that skill challenges would be less disassociated in general?

use a time limit rather that a "number of failures" limit. you have 2 rounds to disable the moving wall before it squish you , you have 4 round to persuade the duke to give you help against the goblins, you have  x rounds to close the gate to the madness plane before the Unnamed God pass through it, etc. then when the time is over you count the successes, the more you rolled, the better you did.

>>use a time limit

thats already pretty disosciative, why in the world would you only be able to convince the king for 4 rounds or something like that? 4th's skill challenges (as traps)  like the collapsing ceiling trap already have this built in.

>>Hi, welcome to the Forge's entire discourse on the imaginary topic of "narrativism" and "story" ca 1998-2005.

Maw got it right I think, It was fruitless (and swiney) then and its fruitless (and swiney) now. Surely you can look at what groups actually do rather than attempt to ascribe mental states that magically make them the kind of things you like.

Quote from: Logos7;390095>>use a time limit

thats already pretty disosciative, why in the world would you only be able to convince the king for 4 rounds or something like that? 4th's skill challenges (as traps)  like the collapsing ceiling trap already have this built in.

I imagine a king is usually good to be very busy. How long a "round" is here may depend on the intricacy of the situation, but adventurers who want to bug a bug a king with "really important" (to them) trivia can really only expect limited time.
EDIT: e.g. "I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped."

Quote from: Logos7;390095>>use a time limit

thats already pretty disosciative, why in the world would you only be able to convince the king for 4 rounds or something like that? 4th's skill challenges (as traps)  like the collapsing ceiling trap already have this built in.

>>Hi, welcome to the Forge's entire discourse on the imaginary topic of "narrativism" and "story" ca 1998-2005.

Maw got it right I think, It was fruitless (and swiney) then and its fruitless (and swiney) now. Surely you can look at what groups actually do rather than attempt to ascribe mental states that magically make them the kind of things you like.

There we go, it only took til the second page for the trolls to come out with "bullshit you make up to justify not liking something".

Anyone want to start a pool on how many times that's repeated?

What I'd like to know is how being some sort of author-player considering a character from a bird's eye, third-person point of view can be considered "immersion".

The answer is simple, use something other then game mechanics to connect to your character.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390129The answer is simple, use something other then game mechanics to connect to your character.

Try making sense next time. Thanks.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390129The answer is simple, use something other then game mechanics to connect to your character.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Benoist;390131Try making sense next time. Thanks.

I don't see the necessity of directly connecting the experience of immersion to the game mechanics. You can connect to your character through your characters personality, the story you are producing at the table, connecting viscerally through cinematic action(focusing on what your character is doing, and how cool/interesting what you are doing is, as opposed to how you do what you do), or other ways that are escaping me.

What the OP and his followers are describing is a single way to play, and the discussion as they frame it excludes playing other ways. What you are discussing is how you gain immersion and how mechanics affect it, not how immersion works in all games.

Quote from: RandallS;390006I disagree, abstract rules can map fairly well to the game world if that was what the designer intended.

I didn't say that's what I thought, I said that was what the OP was saying. But in a lot of words instead of a few.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390136I don't see the necessity of directly connecting the experience of immersion to the game mechanics. You can connect to your character through your characters personality, the story you are producing at the table, connecting viscerally through cinematic action(focusing on what your character is doing, and how cool/interesting what you are doing is, as opposed to how you do what you do), or other ways that are escaping me.

What the OP and his followers are describing is a single way to play, and the discussion as they frame it excludes playing other ways. What you are discussing is how you gain immersion and how mechanics affect it, not how immersion works in all games.

[I'm going to go against my own common sense and actually try to interact with you seriously. Please don't make me regret it]

I agree with you when you say one can connect with a character in any number of ways that will not necessarily involve game mechanics. I think that these ways of connecting with a character during actual play aren't isolated from each other, or from other components of game play, however. If game mechanics are disruptive enough, you can always immerse yourself in other ways, but the mechanics will form metagame noise in the background instead of blending in with the rest of the immersive experience.

In other words, if I'm role playing my character and say, connecting with the action taking place at the table, I sure can do it, but if some Fate point mechanic intervenes at that moment, it'll disrupt my immersion by making me consider from a third person point of view whether I spend my Fate point at this moment or not. Just an example.

So in my mind, I'm role playing my character in any number of ways which do not involve game mechanics per se, but game mechanics can still disrupt that immersive experience.

Quote from: Benoist;390139[I'm going to go against my own common sense and actually try to interact with you seriously. Please don't make me regret it]

I agree with you when you say one can connect with a character in any number of ways that will not necessarily involve game mechanics. I think that these ways of connecting with a character during actual play aren't isolated from each other, or from other components of game play, however. If game mechanics are disruptive enough, you can always immerse yourself in other ways, but the mechanics will form metagame noise in the background instead of blending in with the rest of the immersive experience.

In other words, if I'm role playing my character and say, connecting with the action taking place at the table, I sure can do it, but if some Fate point mechanic intervenes at that moment, it'll disrupt my immersion by making me consider from a third person point of view whether I spend my Fate point at this moment or not. Just an example.

So in my mind, I'm role playing my character in any number of ways which do not involve game mechanics per se, but game mechanics can still disrupt that immersive experience.

How important the metagame noise is and the extent to which they disrupt the immersive experience depends on how much you're paying attention, which is a choice. You can put your focus on your character's personality, or the action, and reduce the mechanics to your peripheral consciousness.