Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Mercutio01]

It would not have been wasted space to give a few lines to describe how a power would be described in a "realistic" way. Then, a new concept for hit point could have been defined. A cleric can inspire his mates by performing deeds clearly showing that his Diety is on their side (and raise their confidence, ie hp). A fighter display of might makes his enemies withdraw in fear, and so on...

Err, isn't that what the flavor text attached to each power was? I mean, take the base wording for the Cleric's Divine Glow power.

"Murmuring a prayer to your deity, you invoke a blast of white radiance from your holy symbol. Foes burn in its stern light, but your allies are heartened and guided by it."

Seems like that does exactly what you're suggesting, no?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Then isn't everything pizza? Everything is a preference. Therefore everything is pizza. QED.

I would expect someone that has lately been lobbying heavily against "semantics" in arguments to eschew such bad logic--especially in something that was clearly an analogy.

I started to write a detailed rebuttal, but I think it will be better to simply state that everything is not a preference, and this should be obvious with a bit of thought. For example, the exact system you prefer is often highly driven by preference. Having a system to play an RPG is not a preference, but a requirement (even if very light and ad hoc). Eating pizza is a preference. Eating is not.

But more critically, not all preferences are equally popular. The question asked was what was immersion's claim to some pride of place. It is the same claim that pizza has if you passed a law banning it everywhere.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I liked this one. He seems to be saying realism, like many other things (say balance) is an important, but not overwhelming, part of the game. It is a nod to realism, nothing more. For me that is what was lacking in 4e. If they make a system that balances out the elements of flavor, balance and realism, i think I will be happy.

 

[LurkAway]

I would expect someone that has lately been lobbying heavily against "semantics" in arguments to eschew such bad logic--especially in something that was clearly an analogy.

Sorry, I was partially being cheeky, and partially protesting that immersion is necessarily more preference-y than other rpg goals.

For example, we know that balance is a pizza. Almost 30% of enworld users didn't think it was important part of their meal, and just over 30% thought it was very important AFAIR.

So someone could ask "what claim does 'balance' really have to being the 'paramount value'?" And then I say that balance is like pizza

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Sorry, I was partially being cheeky, and partially protesting that immersion is necessarily more preference-y than other rpg goals.

For example, we know that balance is a pizza. Almost 30% of enworld users didn't think it was important part of their meal, and just over 30% thought it was very important AFAIR.

So someone could ask "what claim does 'balance' really have to being the 'paramount value'?" And then I say that balance is like pizza

The difference is that even the most rabid supporters of "balance" are seldom in the habit of claiming it as the be all and end all, and certainly not the paramount value. That claim has been explicitly made, however, for immersion, and sometimes by some otherwise very reasonable people. It was asserted several months back by several posters that lacking immersion made a giving system not a roleplaying game.

More often, however, importance of immersion is asserted with no evidence--or even more often still, simply assumed with no written assertion. So yes, balance and immersion are very much alike in this respect--you demand enough to satisfy you, and want some more if you can get it. The practical difference in the two sides is not the things, but precisely the self awareness of the importance of the things--not least to the wider audience for the game.*

* In some ways, this is only natural. Balance is something that, if you care about it and aren't getting it, you'll want to highlight. The more you talk reasonably about balance, the more you may get. Immersion, however, depends in some part on not thinking about the things that support it too deeply. If you start thinking, for example, of "longsword" as "artificial game construct that does 1d8 + Str mod damage and has these other features," you must at least risk that this thought will creep in during play and intrude on immersion.

 

[KidSnide]

I think that the non-immersive qualities of 4e come more from its many thought-demanding mechanical decision points, than to the fact that there are fewer nods to simulationism.

Then I'm not sure we are on the same page on the question, let alone the answer. What is a thought-demanding mechanical decision point in 4E that has this characteristic? Presumably, you don't mean things like, "the results are roughly what a fantasy character could achieve; now narrate how that happened." That isn't mechanical, though it does demand a certain way of thinking about the process.

For new players (IME), the biggest thought-demanding mechanical decision is choosing your attack with an AEDU character. Their internal motivation is to attack a guy, but they have to step out of the game, look at their sheet/cards and pick the specific attack they want to make. Even with more experienced players, their decision is based more on the out-of-game list of powers (with the consideration of whether they want to blow a daily/AP) than it is on the in-game situation.

If I had to pick another example, it would be this thought: "I've used my standard and my move. Is there a productive way to use a minor action?" It's a highly tactical thought based on how the action economy works, but it's anti-immersive because the player is thinking about the rules mechanic instead of the in-game fiction.

Obviously, pulling players back from the action needs to be balanced against giving the players interesting decisions. It's just that, with 4e, the mechanical decision making has been further attenuated from the in-game fiction. When it comes to the player's experience, there's a cost to that.

I do agree that the simplicity of hit points is their main virtue for immersion. To the extent that people enjoy them as an immersion mechanic, this is a big part of it. But you may have overlooked my point that this is learned behavior. Any new mechanic is anti-immersion for a gamer used to something else. If you want to control for that aspect, you must control for that by seeing how competing mechanics work with new players.

That is a good point. Unfamiliar mechanics are always going to bother experienced gamers more than than equally problematic mechanics that they have gotten used to.

-KS

 

[mmadsen]

In general, I think pushes to make rpgs more realistic have added complexity.[...] The example I was thinking of is the tracking of health and injury. Almost anything designed to create a "more realistic" description of the topic than hit points involves making the game much more detailed and complex, which explains why D&D is still stuck on a videogame health bar. For other aspects of the game, it's different.

I agree completely that many attempts to make D&D (or gaming in general) more "realistic" have involved making it more complex, especially all the attempts to replace hit points with something more "realistic" -- but it's quite simple to replace hit points with something more realistic with even less detail to track: remove hit points entirely and make all hits save-or-die. (Now, that has other problems for a game with PCs who need to survive...)

 

[Kannik]

The inherent problem here though is that "immersiveness" and "hit points" only go together as a learned skill.

I concur with this -- familiarity facilitates immersion. Once a system becomes learned, the other aspects we want out of it (story, fun, excitement) can come to the fore. A dancer learning some new moves will be slow, awkward, halting; once they know the moves they can flow, express themselves, and create art... and even improvise into new areas because they can use the dance (system) eloquently.

Another analogy for new game systems can be found for many people when our/their favourite software upgrades, and suddenly things are a bit different. There can be cursing, acrimony, slowness, re-learning, trying to force fit what we know into the new 'paradigm', and then, magically, over time, the ease and speed returns and perhaps surpasses the original now that the new software and its features have been learned, integrated and exploited.

And I need to spread XP around some more.

As for the article itself I was a bit surprised to hear Monte say that the roots of the game lie in simulationism, given the following quote from the 1e PHB:

It is important to keep in mind that, after all is said and done, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game. Because it is a game, certain things which seem "unrealistic" or simply unnecessary are integral to the system. ... Everything in the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS system has purpose; most of what is found herein is essential to the campaign, and those sections which are not — such as sub-classes of characters, psionics, and similar material — are clearly labeled as optional for inclusion.

Not that I mind his phrase 'nod to realism', and even 'nod to fake realism' (ie, some of the arbitrary weapon damages), it's probably a good way to hold it in the mind as the game is designed...

Must run, hopefully this doesn't seem too fragmentary of a thought...

peace,

Kannik

 

[Mallus]

If I had to pick another example, it would be this thought: "I've used my standard and my move. Is there a productive way to use a minor action?" It's a highly tactical thought based on how the action economy works, but it's anti-immersive because the player is thinking about the rules mechanic instead of the in-game fiction.

This is also true under the action economies of 3e/Pathfinder. I think you have to go back to the long, abstract rounds found in 1e/2e before you return to actions being declared in natural language which doesn't chafe against the mechanical framework.

Also, in 3e/Pathfinder, you need to be some kind of crazy specialist to do something while moving.

 

[LurkAway]

If familiarity enables immersion, then so does intuitive mechanics.

If I'm using an iPhone or iPad, it's easy to pick up that sliding open 2 fingers is to zoom in. Very little learning needs to happen. That finger action isn't purely simulationist of anything (it's probably a vague abstraction of a lens opening?) but it's a very transparent and immersive-enabling interface.

While rpg mechanics aren't directly comparable to smartphone interfaces, I think some learned mechanics are more immersive-enabling than other learned mechanics. I can intuitively record that x hp have been deducted from the character sheet while almost effortlessly imagining a corresponding loss of something to the character in the fiction. Whereas other learned mechanics, like bloodied and action economy tactics, are not a transparent interface for me to the fiction. Is that my failure to learn and internalize the mechanic, or does it have at least something to do with the opaqueness of the mechanic?

For me, a simple fun immersive 5E needs to be an Apple product*, and Monte the new Steve Jobs.

* Although I still prefer PCs but that's for entirely different reasons