D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[FormerlyHemlock]

There are RPGs where player authorship is built in; I think the Margaret Weis RPGs allow for this as. Mutants & Masterminds also has "Edit Scene" as a player use for hero points. It don't believe it reduces immersion at all, rather it increases it as players then interact with the game world more than they otherwise would.

I think you guys are using the word "immersion" differently. When you say it increases immersion, you're saying that it increases player engagement: he gets more excited, more invested in the scene. On the other hand, when Imaro/BryanD/et al. talk about "character immersion" I believe they are talking about what is often called "associated mechanics".

I'm going to quote from a well-known treatise on RPGs and dissociated mechanics (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer):

If the player’s decision can be directly equated to a decision made by the character, then the mechanic is associated. If it cannot be directly equated, then it is dissociated.

For example, consider a football game in which a character has the One-Handed Catch ability: Once per game they can make an amazing one-handed catch, granting them a +4 bonus to that catch attempt.

The mechanic is dissociated because the decision made by the player cannot be equated to a decision made by the character. No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”

On the other hand, when a player decides to cast a fireball spell that decision is directly equated to the character’s decision to cast a fireball. (The character, like the player, knows that they have only prepared a single fireball spell. So the decision to expend that limited resource – and the consequences for doing so – are understood by both character and player.)

It is possible to roleplay in any game (you can play chess and tell yourself a story about white knights conquering black castles) but there's something special about associated mechanics:

It’s very tempting to see all of this in a purely negative light: As if to say, “Dissociated mechanics get in the way of roleplaying and associated mechanics don’t.” But it’s actually more meaningful than that: The act of using an associated mechanic is the act of playing a role.

Because the mechanic for a fireball spell is associated with the game world, when you make the decision to cast a fireball spell you are making that decision as if you were your character. In making the mechanical decision you are required to roleplay (because that mechanical decision is directly associated to the character’s decision). You may not do it well. You’re not going to win a Tony Award for it. But in using the mechanics of a roleplaying game, you are inherently playing a role.

Hopefully that's useful to illuminate the terms of the current debate.

 

[Ratskinner]

There are RPGs where player authorship is built in; I think the Margaret Weis RPGs allow for this as. Mutants & Masterminds also has "Edit Scene" as a player use for hero points. It don't believe it reduces immersion at all, rather it increases it as players then interact with the game world more than they otherwise would.

I think that can vary wildly depending on what manner of "immersion" players are seeking. If you are seeking immersion in the story, then authorship is no problem. If you are seeking character immersion, then authorship goes "bonk". (Or can). Personally, I find complication of game rules to drag me out of the fiction space more than authorship. However, as one might expect, YMMV wildly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think you guys are using the word "immersion" differently. When you say it increases immersion, you're saying that it increases player engagement: he gets more excited, more invested in the scene. On the other hand, when Imaro/BryanD/et al. talk about "character immersion" I believe they are talking about what is often called "associated mechanics".

I teased that one out here. What BryonD appears to be talking about when he talks about character immersion is the psychological phenomenon of flow in which to quote the Wikipedia intro "flow, also known as zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does."

When I talk about immersion in RPGs I'm talking about the phenomenon that leads to bleed - where you are so into the head of the person you are playing as that their emotions literally influence yours.

I'm going to quote from a well-known treatise on RPGs and dissociated mechanics (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer):

And this only reinforces my contention that immersion is simply another name for flow. In the initial essay (and one of the first blasts of the trumpet in the edition wars) The Alexandrian makes it clear that he (a) doesn't have a clue what is going on in 4e and (b) is either unwilling or unable to work it out. In specific he does not understand what is going on when a War Devil singles out a foe and why that means that the War Devil's allies might either find it easier to hit them or be more motivated to hit them. This is a failure to understand the fictional world at all, and when you don't understand what is going on flow is impossible.

It is possible to roleplay in any game (you can play chess and tell yourself a story about white knights conquering black castles) but there's something special about associated mechanics:

Quite simply that people who are used to so-called associated mechanics find them easier to understand and so find flow easier. Neither more nor less.

Hopefully that's useful to illuminate the terms of the current debate.

Another example that one group of people use immersion to refer to flow? I hope it is.

 

[Rejuvenator]

I think immersion has a broad meaning, a type of altered mental state, in this case when playing an RPG. (As mentioned, immersion of some kind and/or degree can happen when watching a movie, playing a computer game, or reading a book.)

There's probably some interesting analysis to be had, like here:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2010/aug/10/games-science-of-immersion

But here, when arguing about a label with a broad or vague meaning, it may come across as someone trying to "own" or redefine the meaning of immersion.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to quote from a well-known treatise on RPGs and dissociated mechanics (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

<snip>

Hopefully that's useful to illuminate the terms of the current debate.

Not really. I don't know if you're familiar with this thread, but it contains a fairly lengthy discussion of Justin Alexander's essay, including many cogent explanations of why he is wrong. TLDR: the Alexandrian is mistaking a biographical fact about himself (he doesn't like 4e) for some sort of analytic truth about RPG design.

I think that can vary wildly depending on what manner of "immersion" players are seeking. If you are seeking immersion in the story, then authorship is no problem. If you are seeking character immersion, then authorship goes "bonk". (Or can).

I think you guys are using the word "immersion" differently. When you say it increases immersion, you're saying that it increases player engagement: he gets more excited, more invested in the scene. On the other hand, when Imaro/BryanD/et al. talk about "character immersion" I believe they are talking about what is often called "associated mechanics".

It is possible to roleplay in any game (you can play chess and tell yourself a story about white knights conquering black castles) but there's something special about associated mechanics

Are you intending to imply that 4e is a board game rather than an RPG? If so, come out and say it. If not, what is the point of the reference to chess?
Neither I nor [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has said anything about chess or any other boardgame. We are talking about RPGs with player authorship mechanics. I have given some examples of such mechanics upthread.

The claim that player authorship mechanics are, as such, disruptive of immersion is an empirical claim, about the connection between certain mechanics and psychological states. It is false. I know this because I have experience of players being immersed in character while using player authorship mechanics.

Here is an example I posted in the thread I linked to above:

What had happened was that a cultists had hit the paladin of the Raven Queen with a Baleful Polymorph, turning the paladin into a frog until the end of the cultist's next turn. The players at the table didn't know how long this would last, although one (not the player of the paladin) was pretty confident that it wouldn't be that long, because the game doesn't have save-or-die.

Anyway, the end of the cultist's next turn duly came around, and I told the player of the paladin that he turned back to his normal form. He then took his turn, and made some threat or admonition against the cultist. The cultist responded with something to the effect of "You can't beat me - I turned you into a frog, after all!" The paladin's player had his PC retort "Ah, but the Raven Queen turned me back."

There we have an example of a player taking narrative control on the back of an NPC's mechanic that the player knew nothing of until encountering it in the course of actual play. And at least for me, as a GM, that is the player of the paladin playing his role. And driving the story forward. On the back of a so-called "dissociated" mechanic.

Player authorship, in that case - namely, authoring that the end of the effect resulted from divine intercession - was a manifestation of immersion in character (where that immersion includes unwavering faith in the Raven Queen).

 

[BryonD]

And I don't dispute that you know your own experiences. But "immersed in character" is not synonymous with "is an RPG experience enjoyed by BryonD". If your claim is that player authorship spoils your immersion, presumably that's true. But that wasn't what you posted - you said that player authorship undermines character immersion, and you reinforced the universal element of your claim by telling posters who disagreed with your claim that they were experiencing "story immersion" (whatever that is) rather than "character immersion".

I have repeated numerous time how much I respect the fun of what you do is for you (something distinctly lacking in pro-4e arguments). And I have been very careful to explain what I mean by the terms I use.
Again, it is you have elected to cherry pick portions of my comments. And now you are presenting the case as if those cherry-picked portions were all that ever existed.

 

[BryonD]

And I am pointing out that if you say "I look round the room" you are not doing that. Therefore by your definition you can not be immersed in it. If you say "I attack him" you pick up dice. By definition you can not be immersed in either the attacking or the dice rolling. In fact by your definition you can literally never be immersed in a tabletop RPG that is about anything other than sitting round a table talking and rolling dice.

Your rebuttal is noted. I simply think this defeats the entire claim of immersion.

I'm happy. A lot of other people are happy.

There are people unhappy that 4E did not maintain a central place in the market and, as I see in the vocal community those people present their view of how the game works (such as your rejection of immersion here) and build their position upon the presumption that everyone else must first share this mode of experience. And thus they remain frustrated and confused as to why so many people so strongly disagree with them.

You go on to say I miss the point. But the thing is, it is my point. I am not missing it. I may be rejecting your rebuttals as moot to my personal game experience. But I completely accept them as relevant to your own game experience.

 

[BryonD]

The post not far upthread from [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has prompted me to pick out and respond to these particular quotes.

I think it is self-evident that a person cannot be immersed in something that s/he is not doing. But I have no idea how that is apposite to the discussion.

The THING, in respect of which immersion is being discussed, is playing a character in an RPG. You said that "If you as a player have powers that your character can not have then it is ipso facto true that you are not immersed in "being that character"."

That is the claim that I reject. The claim may be true for some players (eg you and those you play with). But it is not universally true, which is how it was stated.

There are some players of RPGs who can be immersed in "being a character" although they, as players, have powers that their characters do not and cannot have in the gameworld. I know this because I have witnessed such immersion in others and have experienced it myself.

For completeness: I do not reject "being immersed in being a character." All I reject is the claim that a necessary condition of this, for all RPGers, is that the player not have and exercise powers that the character does not and cannot have.

And I've clarified multiple times, including offers that I'll accept any other word of your suggestion so long as it describes the point adequately.

You seem to be vastly more interested in winning a wordsmithing game than honestly discussing a concept, much less understanding an alternative point of view.

Seriously, look at this post. It is nothing but an attempt at word-play "gotcha" completely divorced from the point.

You win. As a consolation prize, I'll be over here having a great time playing games that are actually popular and trying to understand new perspectives so that I can better steal the good parts from other games.

 

[pemerton]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2010/aug/10/games-science-of-immersion[/URL]

While that article is largely speculative, there are a couple of things that struck me as interesting:

[P]layers do a lot of the work toward immersion themselves. People more prone to fantasising and daydreaming – i.e. more absorptive personalities – are able to become more immersed in game worlds. . . .

t's not rocket science to suggest that we take a lot of ourselves and our own behaviours into games, but it's interesting to consider the extent to which our own imagination shapes what we do and feel.​

Imaging and daydreaming are modes of authorship - creating fictional content.

 

[BryonD]

I teased that one out here. What BryonD appears to be talking about when he talks about character immersion is the psychological phenomenon of flow in which to quote the Wikipedia intro "flow, also known as zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does."

I don't really accept this. I mean, I guess it is true during play. But the sense of fun for being that character and achieving (or the sense of fun for failing) over various obstacles persists completely outside the moments of playing.