Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9034585" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I strongly disagree. "Narrative," <em>as meant by GNS</em>, is not a meaningful component of G or S. "Narrative," in its colloquial meaning, has no real significance for design. It's only by trying to stand in an in-between space, where "narrative" means what you want it to mean when you want it to mean that, that you can get the above.</p><p></p><p>I have said that "immersion" effectively just means the smoothness and quality of the experience, and given what seem to be good reasons why that is a correct description. It is thus on you to demonstrate why "narrative" means something everyone wants.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, strongly, strongly disagree. You seem to be conflating <em>the presence of game</em> with <em>being about game</em>, which is a pretty serious error IMO; the latter is actually gamism, the former is not. Saying "everyone wants gamism" is simply false, and things like the game "Perfect" that Snarf references in the OP are an example of actively shunning any amount of <em>gamism</em>, despite (begrudgingly) accepting that some amount of <em>game</em> cannot be avoided.</p><p></p><p>What does "want to narrate play" mean? I have 100% been told, directly, by an actual player-and-GM, that they genuinely could not stand the narration aspect of combat, that for them it was one of the most grating annoyances of tabletop roleplay. Just declare your intent, roll your dice, and <em>move on</em>, don't faff about with the 3751st iteration of a (monotonously) fancy way of saying "I stab it with my sword." So if it means describing actions in colorful ways, then no, your thesis is wrong: some players explicitly do not want that, at least <em>some</em> of the time. Even if it is your thesis, it seems to me you've diluted "narrate" until it becomes just as meaningless as "immerse"; of course everyone wants that, but in making it be something literally actually 100% of players want, you have to carve out all of the meaning it could have possessed. It must cover everything from half-hearted fig-leaf descriptions to wannabe Shakespearean actors to an overstuffed three-ring binder of backstory and <em>everything </em>in-between.</p><p></p><p>"X factors <em>contributing to the scene</em>" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. What matters is what the thing was <em>designed for</em>, and that's why I phrased things in the way I did: players who seek out, or are fans of, designs aimed at particular goals. It would be like saying that 100% of STEM careers are <em>actually</em> biologists, because all of them are constantly performing personal biological analyses due to the fact that they, as Sesame Street taught me, "breathe and eat and grow, and that is how you know, ah ah, that they're alive." Or, somewhat less facetiously, that 100% of (say) physicists are <em>actually</em> statisticians and computer scientists because they use statistics to analyze the data and computers to both collect and make sense of said data. It's true that you need these things to do physics--but it doesn't mean that physics is suddenly a branch of computer science or vice-versa. "Contributing to the scene" is nowhere near as important as being the <em>goal</em> of the design.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, I don't think immersion is "basic," nor that it can be "separated out." I think it's actually extremely advanced, an emergent property that is always desirable, but on different terms, depending on what the designer wants the game to achieve. Hence why I don't actually like either of GNS or GDS--I find that they get much too caught up in ideas of what games are <em>allowed</em> to be instead of being focused on what games are <em>trying</em> to be. And it is absolutely false to argue that 100% of games are trying to be about Score and Achievement, in the definitions given above.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sometimes it is about that. Sometimes it isn't. Again, I have been told (actually by multiple people) that 100% of the point is the simulation itself. Most such folks don't actually have the training to know the terms, but their words communicate the same idea: that what matters most, what is in fact actually <em>more important</em> even than "immersion," is that the system remains truly closed under its valid operations. That there is no such thing as a question you can ask, which <em>should</em> have a valid answer, but does not. E.g. the "square" operation is closed over the natural numbers and all supersets thereof (integers, reals, etc.), but the "square root" operation is not closed over the naturals, integers, rationals, or reals; you must use the complex numbers to get valid square roots for all possible inputs. Doing so requires sacrificing well-ordering: there is no sense in which one complex number can be truly "greater" than another, you must use a much weaker notion of comparison (e.g., comparing the squared magnitudes of two numbers.) Obtaining closure for important operations over all possible inputs is of sufficient value that most mathematicians gladly make the sacrifice in order to obtain it. Likewise, if it cost a little bit of immersion, but <em>guaranteed</em> that the simulation would never proverbially spit out an error, no matter what, I'm quite certain a large portion of "simulation" fans (NOT all, but many) would gladly make that trade, no questions asked.</p><p></p><p>Hence why I say "immersion" is a description of the <em>quality</em> of the experience, rather than a direct experience in and of itself. In technical terms, immersion supervenes on all possible game-design-purposes. It is extremely similar to the relationship between sound design and timbre. That is, sound design considers factors like volume, pattern, pitch, consistency, frequency, directionality, etc., but <em>all</em> sounds should have good timbre for the purpose they serve (e.g., a siren should be shrill, a <em>noir femme fatale</em>'s voice should be sultry and breathy, a violin played by Holmes should sound rich and warm and sweet, etc.) To say that you do sound design <em>in order to achieve timbre</em> would be ridiculous; better, more natural timbre is always desirable, in all sounds, because good timbre <em>means</em> the sound has the shape and effect that it should. Likewise, the way people actually use the term "immersion," it just means the game succeeded so well at its designed purpose, they got lost in the process of play--it felt so natural, so effortless, so flowing, that the gap between the self and the imagined space faded away.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9034585, member: 6790260"] I strongly disagree. "Narrative," [I]as meant by GNS[/I], is not a meaningful component of G or S. "Narrative," in its colloquial meaning, has no real significance for design. It's only by trying to stand in an in-between space, where "narrative" means what you want it to mean when you want it to mean that, that you can get the above. I have said that "immersion" effectively just means the smoothness and quality of the experience, and given what seem to be good reasons why that is a correct description. It is thus on you to demonstrate why "narrative" means something everyone wants. Again, strongly, strongly disagree. You seem to be conflating [I]the presence of game[/I] with [I]being about game[/I], which is a pretty serious error IMO; the latter is actually gamism, the former is not. Saying "everyone wants gamism" is simply false, and things like the game "Perfect" that Snarf references in the OP are an example of actively shunning any amount of [I]gamism[/I], despite (begrudgingly) accepting that some amount of [I]game[/I] cannot be avoided. What does "want to narrate play" mean? I have 100% been told, directly, by an actual player-and-GM, that they genuinely could not stand the narration aspect of combat, that for them it was one of the most grating annoyances of tabletop roleplay. Just declare your intent, roll your dice, and [I]move on[/I], don't faff about with the 3751st iteration of a (monotonously) fancy way of saying "I stab it with my sword." So if it means describing actions in colorful ways, then no, your thesis is wrong: some players explicitly do not want that, at least [I]some[/I] of the time. Even if it is your thesis, it seems to me you've diluted "narrate" until it becomes just as meaningless as "immerse"; of course everyone wants that, but in making it be something literally actually 100% of players want, you have to carve out all of the meaning it could have possessed. It must cover everything from half-hearted fig-leaf descriptions to wannabe Shakespearean actors to an overstuffed three-ring binder of backstory and [I]everything [/I]in-between. "X factors [I]contributing to the scene[/I]" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. What matters is what the thing was [I]designed for[/I], and that's why I phrased things in the way I did: players who seek out, or are fans of, designs aimed at particular goals. It would be like saying that 100% of STEM careers are [I]actually[/I] biologists, because all of them are constantly performing personal biological analyses due to the fact that they, as Sesame Street taught me, "breathe and eat and grow, and that is how you know, ah ah, that they're alive." Or, somewhat less facetiously, that 100% of (say) physicists are [I]actually[/I] statisticians and computer scientists because they use statistics to analyze the data and computers to both collect and make sense of said data. It's true that you need these things to do physics--but it doesn't mean that physics is suddenly a branch of computer science or vice-versa. "Contributing to the scene" is nowhere near as important as being the [I]goal[/I] of the design. I mean, I don't think immersion is "basic," nor that it can be "separated out." I think it's actually extremely advanced, an emergent property that is always desirable, but on different terms, depending on what the designer wants the game to achieve. Hence why I don't actually like either of GNS or GDS--I find that they get much too caught up in ideas of what games are [I]allowed[/I] to be instead of being focused on what games are [I]trying[/I] to be. And it is absolutely false to argue that 100% of games are trying to be about Score and Achievement, in the definitions given above. Sometimes it is about that. Sometimes it isn't. Again, I have been told (actually by multiple people) that 100% of the point is the simulation itself. Most such folks don't actually have the training to know the terms, but their words communicate the same idea: that what matters most, what is in fact actually [I]more important[/I] even than "immersion," is that the system remains truly closed under its valid operations. That there is no such thing as a question you can ask, which [I]should[/I] have a valid answer, but does not. E.g. the "square" operation is closed over the natural numbers and all supersets thereof (integers, reals, etc.), but the "square root" operation is not closed over the naturals, integers, rationals, or reals; you must use the complex numbers to get valid square roots for all possible inputs. Doing so requires sacrificing well-ordering: there is no sense in which one complex number can be truly "greater" than another, you must use a much weaker notion of comparison (e.g., comparing the squared magnitudes of two numbers.) Obtaining closure for important operations over all possible inputs is of sufficient value that most mathematicians gladly make the sacrifice in order to obtain it. Likewise, if it cost a little bit of immersion, but [I]guaranteed[/I] that the simulation would never proverbially spit out an error, no matter what, I'm quite certain a large portion of "simulation" fans (NOT all, but many) would gladly make that trade, no questions asked. Hence why I say "immersion" is a description of the [I]quality[/I] of the experience, rather than a direct experience in and of itself. In technical terms, immersion supervenes on all possible game-design-purposes. It is extremely similar to the relationship between sound design and timbre. That is, sound design considers factors like volume, pattern, pitch, consistency, frequency, directionality, etc., but [I]all[/I] sounds should have good timbre for the purpose they serve (e.g., a siren should be shrill, a [I]noir femme fatale[/I]'s voice should be sultry and breathy, a violin played by Holmes should sound rich and warm and sweet, etc.) To say that you do sound design [I]in order to achieve timbre[/I] would be ridiculous; better, more natural timbre is always desirable, in all sounds, because good timbre [I]means[/I] the sound has the shape and effect that it should. Likewise, the way people actually use the term "immersion," it just means the game succeeded so well at its designed purpose, they got lost in the process of play--it felt so natural, so effortless, so flowing, that the gap between the self and the imagined space faded away. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better
Top