Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390143How 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.

Depends also on the game system considered. If you have a mechanic that doesn't represent something directly related to the game world here and there (and there always is), then everything's fine and dandy for most people, but the more you add instances of mechanics like this, and the more complicated they become (say, having to spend a point, effect and basta, versus spending a point, making some opposition check, and then calculating some sort of metagame effect afterwards), the more people will statistically find them disruptive.

Quote from: Benoist;390148Depends also on the game system considered. If you have a mechanic that doesn't represent something directly related to the game world here and there (and there always is), then everything's fine and dandy for most people, but the more you add instances of mechanics like this, and the more complicated they become (say, having to spend a point, effect and basta, versus spending a point, making some opposition check, and then calculating some sort of metagame effect afterwards), the more people will statistically find them disruptive.

What you describe is one of the main reasons I'm glad 3.5E's day has passed.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390149What you describe is one of the main reasons I'm glad 3.5E's day has passed.

All the WOTC editions have this problem to an extent that I'd rather not play them, although as I've said in another post on another thread, 3.0 wasn't nearly as bad at this (for me) as 3.5 -- which was still better much then 4e. The less I have to deal with game rules to play my character, the more I enjoy playing.

Of course, it's not just dissociated mechanics that can make immersion in the game world hard for me, it's things like stress on character optimization. 3.x was really bad at this, 4e is slightly better in this area (in some ways, at least). The idea that one should design a character to best take advantage of the rules annoys me, but the idea that you have to plan it out for levels in advance instead of just letting the character develop based on in campaign events drags me out of the game world and into rules-think land.

Quote from: RandallS;390157The idea that one should design a character to best take advantage of the rules annoys me, but the idea that you have to plan it out for levels in advance instead of just letting the character develop based on in campaign events drags me out of the game world and into rules-think land.

Ah.  Yes, a hot button to me as well.  Had to design rules specifically to create the most organic growth paths , personally

Quote from: RandallS;390157All the WOTC editions have this problem to an extent that I'd rather not play them, although as I've said in another post on another thread, 3.0 wasn't nearly as bad at this (for me) as 3.5 -- which was still better much then 4e. The less I have to deal with game rules to play my character, the more I enjoy playing.

The way that some 4e players don't even know/care/mention what weapons they are using suggest to me a much stronger dissociative nature of its mechanics in play.

Quote from: Benoist;390128What 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".

Because the basic definition of immersion in the common tongue doesn't mean "association with a character", it just means to be completely engrossed by something, no matter what it is.  I can be extremely engrossed in the fictional events of the game -- getting swept up in the drama the way I would while reading a book or watching a movie, etc.

The way the hobby has used it for a long time is an adoption of the word for a specific cultural meaning (immersion = association with a character), and it muddles discussion when you speak with people who don't necessarily accept (or maybe are just ignorant of) that context being used.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;390161The way that some 4e players don't even know/care/mention what weapons they are using suggest to me a much stronger dissociative nature of its mechanics in play.

Where do you get that from. I've been playing 4e since before launch, and met dozens of players through RPGA events and I've never seen this.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;390161The way that some 4e players don't even know/care/mention what weapons they are using suggest to me a much stronger dissociative nature of its mechanics in play.

This really gets me. Even when play OD&D without the supplements -- where all weapons did 1d6 damage -- players seemed to care about what weapon their character was using. Certain characters used axes, others swords, others only BIG weapons, etc. It was a part of what made their character, their character. Not caring about stuff like this just seems alien to me.

Again, where are you guys getting this from? I have never seen this behavior.

Some and most are weak words.  I used to get my knuckles cracked for using them in academic discourse.

Also, Slaad, do you use the Action Dice in Fantasy Craft for player narrative power?  Do your players find it pulls them out of the game?

Quote from: RandallS;390166This really gets me. Even when play OD&D without the supplements -- where all weapons did 1d6 damage -- players seemed to care about what weapon their character was using. Certain characters used axes, others swords, others only BIG weapons, etc. It was a part of what made their character, their character. Not caring about stuff like this just seems alien to me.

In my OD&D houserules right now the damage characters do is a function of their level (i.e. mastery coming through experience) directly, and does not vary with weapon types at all. What I am thinking of doing is to actually have particular weapon types have concrete effects on the game in OTHER ways, like slashing vs piercing vs blunt damage on damage resistance (which would be modelled by a die of damage automatically negated on a blow for instance), effects of weapon reach in the game, and the like.

Quote from: Peregrin;390164The way the hobby has used it for a long time is an adoption of the word for a specific cultural meaning (immersion = association with a character), and it muddles discussion when you speak with people who don't necessarily accept (or maybe are just ignorant of) that context being used.

That's just it, the hobby has used it that way for a long time.  So for a bunch of long-time players to come along and argue that they don't know what the heck people are talking about or fighting to the teeth every single thread about the definition seems more then a little disingenuous to me, it seems sometimes like trolling or the acts of an ideologue.  Even if you (not Peregrin specifically) know there is such a thing as story immersion, you know damn well that's not what JA, LT et al. are talking about in their points, so why bring it up constantly ignoring their logical points and always stick on the definition as the only argument, it's arguing in bad faith.

Quote from: CRKrueger;390171That's just it, the hobby has used it that way for a long time.  So for a bunch of long-time players to come along and argue that they don't know what the heck people are talking about or fighting to the teeth every single thread about the definition seems more then a little disingenuous to me, it seems sometimes like trolling or the acts of an ideologue.  Even if you (not Peregrin specifically) know there is such a thing as story immersion, you know damn well that's not what JA, LT et al. are talking about in their points, so why bring it up constantly ignoring their logical points and always stick on the definition as the only argument, it's arguing in bad faith.

Because I believe there are people who don't necessarily engage with direct character immersion and have been enjoying RPGs fine all these years, perhaps differently, and that it's dishonest to pretend their own experiences don't matter by refusing to assign an accurate descriptor because you're trying to preserve the exclusivity of a legacy definition.

I mean, it's bad faith to go to the Forge and attempt to use their definitions incorrectly, but everyone thinks they're "bad people" for trying to force those definitions on people.

In other words, why not just cut out all of the cultural context and use plain English since so many in the hobby have a problem with "jargon" and "buzzwords" in the first place?

edit*
Also, my post was in response to Ben wondering how it could be considered immersion at all -- not just to provoke an argument again.  It seemed he was asking how it could be immersion in the general sense, and I answered with my opinion.

Quote from: Peregrin;390173edit*
Also, my post was in response to Ben wondering how it could be considered immersion at all -- not just to provoke an argument again.  It seemed he was asking how it could be immersion in the general sense, and I answered with my opinion.

I got that, personally. I also happen to agree with CRK's point, which isn't specific to you, dude. Just for the record.

Quote from: Benoist;390174I got that, personally. I also happen to agree with CRK's point, which isn't specific to you, dude. Just for the record.

Just clarifying my position and intent, is all.