Quote from: RPGPundit;635408Emulation isn't an "ism", its the point of the RPG play experience; it is one half (along with immersion) of what defines RPGs as RPGs.

So the term for someone who like emulation would be "Role Player".

RPGPundit

Personally I would agree, genre emulation is one of my top priorites but its appeal is not universal. For some players consciously being aware and respecting genre conventions is anti-immersive; they would generally prefer rules and settings that are entire neutral in terms of tone but just provide an realistic(ish) physics engine and explore the world with no other preconceptions. Others just want to enjoy the tactical and mental challenges of roleplaying that come up in a roleplaying game; the idea that a player may deliberately make poor decisions in-character because that reflects the spirit of the genre is anathema.

Quote from: Soylent Green;635501Personally I would agree, genre emulation is one of my top priorites but its appeal is universal. For some players consciously being aware and respecting genre conventions is anti-immersive; they would generally prefer rules and settings that are entire neutral in terms of tone but just provide an realistic(ish) physics engine and explore the world with no other preconceptions. Others just want to enjoy the tactical and mental challenges of roleplaying that come up in a roleplaying game; the idea that a player may deliberately make poor decisions in-character because that reflects the spirit of the genre is anathema.

This is a big part of trouble with supers in the thread next door. I like some genre emulation mechanics, like D&D's XP for gold.

Take Sanity in CoC. If anything, Sanity actually punishes your PC for being an investigator. It assures that your short-lived victories over the eldricht horrors beyond our worlkd and their human flunkies will exact a lasting price on your soul.

And yet CoC works because people buy into the concept of sacrificing higher brain function to save the world.

From a "gamist" POV, CoC makes no fucking sense whatsoever. But because people are willing to immerse themselves, they pay what Daddy Warpig calls the game's "Bullshit Tax" and roll with it.

I think what I mean to say is, genre emulation mechanics can improve the experience of play, but they can never be a substitute for player buy-in. Or else you're just dragging players along a game they might not want to play in the first place.

Does this make any sense to anyone else?

Quote from: The Butcher;635508I think what I mean to say is, genre emulation mechanics can improve the experience of play, but they can never be a substitute for player buy-in. Or else you're just dragging players along a game they might not want to play in the first place.

Does this make any sense to anyone else?

Perfectly. But you can also look at it the other way round. It's is kind of sad when the system "punishes you" (in terms massively reducing you chances of success) for playing along with genre conventions - use of non-lethal force being a fairly typical example of where this often happens.

Quote from: Soylent Green;635516Perfectly. But you can also look at it the other way round. It's is kind of sad when the system "punishes you" (in terms massively reducing you chances of success) for playing along with genre conventions - use of non-lethal force being a fairly typical example of where this often happens.

But this here is the kicker, I think. CoC fucks you over all the time for messing with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know and you do it anyway because, fuck man, I don't want the creepy fish-people to summon their hungry space god to eat my hometown. The Sanity mechanic doesn't really rewards them for doing it, but by punishing them, it makes their struggle even more meaningful and heroic, and lends the game tension and pathos that, after a fashion, reward immersion.

It took that other thread, and your contribution especially, to make me notice that my "failing" when it comes to supers is the expectation that players will make the jump to four-color superheroic ethics just as easily.

I think there is a difference. In CoC you are taking a hit with Sanity in order to   achieve a greater goal because learning about these forbidden things is a necessary step towards the victory conditions. It is a sacrifice play. And the works with the genre.

The sort of thing I was thinking of is what I experience playing HEX. I like HEX, but because the way the to hit and damage roll are combined, if you choose to punch someone it won't just do less damage than a gun (which you'd expect), the blow won't even land. And yet in pulp game, you do want to just punch your opponents instead of shooting them. And neither having the squared jawed hero either looking totally ineffective or acting like murderous psychopath supports genre.

Also, I can't remember which one, but I seem to recall a supers game in which you gained XP/Hero points whenever your character was defeated. This turns on it's head the more established, perhaps natural, notion of rewadring players for success. The idea was that (1) it encourages what is very much genre convention in which quite often lose the early encounters with their opponents and (2) ensured that by the end of the adventure the hero would enough Hero points to succeed. It's a bit like Fate's Compels.

Quote from: The Butcher;635523But this here is the kicker, I think. CoC fucks you over all the time for messing with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know and you do it anyway because, fuck man, I don't want the creepy fish-people to summon their hungry space god to eat my hometown. The Sanity mechanic doesn't really rewards them for doing it, but by punishing them, it makes their struggle even more meaningful and heroic, and lends the game tension and pathos that, after a fashion, reward immersion.

It's probably safe to say that genre emulation mechanics don't neccessarily have to reward the characters for following expectations, merely that they have an effect on characters for doing so.

Quote from: Soylent Green;635539Also, I can't remember which one, but I seem to recall a supers game in which you gained XP/Hero points whenever your character was defeated. This turns on it's head the more established, perhaps natural, notion of rewadring players for success. The idea was that (1) it encourages what is very much genre convention in which quite often lose the early encounters with their opponents and (2) ensured that by the end of the adventure the hero would enough Hero points to succeed. It's a bit like Fate's Compels.

Thats a house rule I've used for FASERIP (after divorcing Karma points from XP, which I renamed Continuity)- Players gain XP for failing. It makes a lot of sense considering the genre....superheroes tend to improve only after they've been defeated by a villain. I'd be interested to see it codified in a  system if you can recall the game.

Quote from: JonTheBrowser;634664I don't know why you want to make a box to put youself into.  Why bother?  Why not just say what you did that you're more interested in emulating tropes and themes and leave it at that.  What will the title of "emulationist" do for you exactly?

Boxes are quite comfy. Just ask a cat.

Quote from: Soylent Green;635501Personally I would agree, genre emulation is one of my top priorites but its appeal is not universal. For some players consciously being aware and respecting genre conventions is anti-immersive; they would generally prefer rules and settings that are entire neutral in terms of tone but just provide an realistic(ish) physics engine and explore the world with no other preconceptions. Others just want to enjoy the tactical and mental challenges of roleplaying that come up in a roleplaying game; the idea that a player may deliberately make poor decisions in-character because that reflects the spirit of the genre is anathema.

This seems to me like something that exists only in theory; I've never in my decades of gaming run into a real live player who had a blanket problem with emulation of genre as being in all cases anti-immersive.
Now, what I DID run into on many occasions was where specific settings (usually ones that required high levels of emulation; usually CoC or supers play) were turn-offs to specific players.  But it was pretty much always the case that said player had no trouble with genre conventions of other genres (so for example, someone who couldn't handle the conceits of a four-colour supers RPG emulation would have no trouble handling the conceits of an epic fantasy or cinematic western emulation).

So this was always more the case of a specific issue with specific genres, than anything to do with a total rejection of emulation.

RPGPundit

Love this thread.

I'm an Immersionist of the Church of the Latter-Day Fighters.

More seriously, I don't see any immersion vs emulation problems really. Immersion vs "gamism" for lack of a better term, sometimes, maybe, but...