L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
D&D 1E 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
There is much that is subjective.
For example, in the quote you give, "nothing ever feels like disconnected math, or like a square peg and a round hole. This makes the imagined scene feel richer and more immediate." I could disagree more, but it would require power tools.
Since all those subsystems are disconnected, they all feel like disconnected math. They are not *nearly* so, "fits exactly as it was designed, for both flavorwise and possible outcomes", in my opinion. There's a whole lot in there that's awkwardly wedged into the Gygaxian design style, largely because the world hadn't explored much of the possible mechanics space at that time. And each time that awkwardness becomes apparent, it breaks us out of roles, and into rules.
For example, in the quote you give, "nothing ever feels like disconnected math, or like a square peg and a round hole. This makes the imagined scene feel richer and more immediate." I could disagree more, but it would require power tools.
Since all those subsystems are disconnected, they all feel like disconnected math. They are not *nearly* so, "fits exactly as it was designed, for both flavorwise and possible outcomes", in my opinion. There's a whole lot in there that's awkwardly wedged into the Gygaxian design style, largely because the world hadn't explored much of the possible mechanics space at that time. And each time that awkwardness becomes apparent, it breaks us out of roles, and into rules.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
I define it as "I share the same emotional experience as my character." When my character would be confused/scared/surprised/relieved/fooled/amazed", so am I. Not in the exact same way or to the same degree, of course, but the moreso the better. Or it might even be an aesthetic feeling of the setting or genre, and not a specific emotion.
(This is why I don't feel that everybody pretending they don't know about trolls regenerating is immersive. Nobody is actually experiencing the fear/confusion/surprise that their characters supposedly are.)
So to the extent that rules can support immersion, you have to start with what feel you are trying to evoke. It's possible for rules to help/hinder that, or have no impact at all. So one way I think 5e does not support immersion is that it's a hodge-podge of so many different concepts (races, classes & subclasses, anachronistic gear, magic systems, etc.) that there's no "feel" to the world. The official one, anyway.
I do agree with [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] about GURPS. I didn't understand at the time why I didn't like it, but the first time I read through (then played) "The One Ring" it all made sense to me. TOR is my favorite example of a system designed, from its foundations, to support a setting. It feels like Middle Earth.
My first D&D rules were the famous Red Box, which I got when I was nine years old. Even then, I hated the rules; their idiosyncrasies, their inconsistencies, and mostly, the way they did not conform to any genre of fantasy story-telling that I had ever encountered or wanted to think about. Just to call out one famous example, what happens when someone who's not a thief tries to sneak or hide? Had it never occurred to anyone that this might be a fairly common strategy in a world of soul-sucking monsters? And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Why do elves spot secret doors by rolling a 1d6? Like, all elves are equally good at spotting all secret doors? What about other secret things, can elves spot them, too? What about a secret cabinet door, or the lid of a secret treasure chest? Why is read magic a spell I need to cast and not just a thing I can do because I'm a super smart wizard? For that matter, why does my wizard forget his @#$% spells after he casts them?!?!?
If a 9-year-old with no experience in game design whatsoever could pick apart these rules, then they were not good. And they certainly weren't helping my immersion.
If a 9-year-old with no experience in game design whatsoever could pick apart these rules, then they were not good. And they certainly weren't helping my immersion.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I would agree with this. All the rules and subsystems felt unconnected. They had generally grown up by accrual – as the rules were needed in original play and design, so they were created.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I love 1e and 5e both. The obscure nature of the rules could be evocative, as it made the game more cultish (or kvlt, as they say), less easily grokked. So it required you to either dive deep, muddle through, or just ignore the stuff that didn’t fit together as well.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I love 1e and 5e both. The obscure nature of the rules could be evocative, as it made the game more cultish (or kvlt, as they say), less easily grokked. So it required you to either dive deep, muddle through, or just ignore the stuff that didn’t fit together as well.
When rules systems try to shoehorn everything into a unified mechanic you end up losing me sometimes.
Some situations require different rules mechanisms to resolve. Sometimes you want the randomness of a linear set of results, sometimes you want results on a bell curve. A game that uses the correct mechanism as appropriate to the situation is more adaptable than those that try to do all with one. Games with bespoke systems generally have systems that are better designed for their purpose. Unified mechanics tend to require short cuts to force rules to fit or have greater dependancies on other elements.
It does indeed add to the immersion to me since interacting with the mechanic adds to the experience.
For example, turn undead...
in old school it is a roll against a chart that tells you what undead you turn, then a 2d6 to determine hit dice effected. Now this sounds like attack and damage but the existence of the chart makes it feel like my character is doing something unique.
This was one of the things I disliked most about 4e. No matter what I was doing... casting a spell, swinging a sword or else... it felt all the same: make an attack roll and roll damage.
Also turn undead as it’s own subsystem was able to more accurately balanced because it was its own mechanic. You don’t have to globally tweak DC’s or save bonuses to balance turn undead with the rest of the unified mechanic. All you need to do is make the turn undead mechanic achieve the results you want.
Some situations require different rules mechanisms to resolve. Sometimes you want the randomness of a linear set of results, sometimes you want results on a bell curve. A game that uses the correct mechanism as appropriate to the situation is more adaptable than those that try to do all with one. Games with bespoke systems generally have systems that are better designed for their purpose. Unified mechanics tend to require short cuts to force rules to fit or have greater dependancies on other elements.
It does indeed add to the immersion to me since interacting with the mechanic adds to the experience.
For example, turn undead...
in old school it is a roll against a chart that tells you what undead you turn, then a 2d6 to determine hit dice effected. Now this sounds like attack and damage but the existence of the chart makes it feel like my character is doing something unique.
This was one of the things I disliked most about 4e. No matter what I was doing... casting a spell, swinging a sword or else... it felt all the same: make an attack roll and roll damage.
Also turn undead as it’s own subsystem was able to more accurately balanced because it was its own mechanic. You don’t have to globally tweak DC’s or save bonuses to balance turn undead with the rest of the unified mechanic. All you need to do is make the turn undead mechanic achieve the results you want.
This. So much this. While I appreciate Gygaxian D&D for the unique flavor and innovation it had at the time, not to mention the more low magic, sword & sorcery feel it engendered (I say 'feel' because in practice it ended up being quite high magic, though that magic was usually in the form of items & DM fiat), the constant switching to disparate subsystems and Baroque rules made it hard to model anything other than Gygaxian D&D. Sure, things like a wandering prostitute table, removing your helmet to listen at doors (and the subsequent penalties), flanking, weapon vs AC charts sound all well and good, but end up being impractical and --dare I say it--immersion breaking in play due to the book-keeping and stop-start overhead they tend to engender. In short, I think the system reads more immersive than it plays, whereas more modern versions of the game can be the opposite.
