The Impasse

[thecasualoblivion]

See I don't think you do understand, read the first paragraph above... again objective statements about "real freedom"...when, in both, 4e and 3e anything can (and sometimes has to) be improvised. Or this little gem of a statement... "They brought more inconsistency to the game and made the game world less coherent, not more." For who because IMHO, it's alot more consistent than 4e is... again subjective =/= objective. Or your commment on disarm/trip/etc... where in 4e it's better to be limited to once per day or some other arbitrary measurement than to have a low chance to succeed at it anytime you want... neither seems especially different, it's all in what you prefer. I guess this is the problem, all of your "truths" about the problems of 3.5 aren't really truths at all, yet you state them like they are. Anything that can be improvised in 4e can be in 3.5, but if you don't want to 3.5 provides a much more robust rules structure to draw examples from.

3E is more coherent, only if you can't immerse yourself in the game without that nod towards simulationism. You either require some sort of simulationism or you don't. If you require it, its existence is more important than the negative consequences simulation invariably has on game mechanics. For those of us who don't require simulationism, 3.5E's nods to it were an anchor dragging the game down. As far as improvisation, it depends on what you want from the game in terms of simulationism. If you care about the why and how about how something works and how you came to succeed or fail, 3.5E's nods to simulation provide a more robust rules structure. If you don't care about the why or how and only care about the end result, 4E's focus on gameplay with no regard for simulation is more robust.

What he was saying was largely "true", from the perspective of people who don't require simulation with their RPG.

 

[Imaro]

3E is more coherent, only if you can't immerse yourself in the game without that nod towards simulationism. You either require some sort of simulationism or you don't. If you require it, its existence is more important than the negative consequences simulation invariably has on game mechanics. For those of us who don't require simulationism, 3.5E's nods to it were an anchor dragging the game down. As far as improvisation, it depends on what you want from the game in terms of simulationism. If you care about the why and how about how something works and how you came to succeed or fail, 3.5E's nods to simulation provide a more robust rules structure. If you don't care about the why or how and only care about the end result, 4E's focus on gameplay with no regard for simulation is more robust.

What he was saying was largely "true", from the perspective of people who don't require simulation with their RPG.

Emphasis mine, I just wanted to ask you a question... do you believe there is a difference between immersing oneself in the game and immersing oneself in the game world? As an example, I can play DC vs. Mortal Kombat on my Xbox and be immersed in the game (rememebering and deciding what combos to use at a particular moment, for a particular character in a particular scene)... but I am not immersed in the pseudo-world that DC vs. Mortal Kombat takes place in during this time, or really anytime I am playing the game (even the storyline). It doesn't in anyway affect my decisions or reactions.

As a counterpoint (so no one claims I'm using videogamey to only describe 4e.) I find Fable, a game with some nods to simulationism much more enjoyable on a game world immersion level (though less so in the game immersion category). I make decisions in Fable (beyond the main storyline) dependent upon how I wish my character to interact with the world around him as opposed to what is mechanically the best choice.

My players and I can readily immerse ourselves in the game of D&D 4e, and (this is even fun at times, though it often feels lacking in a way I cannot fully explain at this time) in fact this is particularly easy... what we find less so is immersing ourselves in the game world that is created with the rules of D&D 4e. YMMV of course.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Emphasis mine, I just wanted to ask you a question... do you believe there is a difference between immersing oneself in the game and immersing oneself in the game world? As an example, I can play DC vs. Mortal Kombat on my Xbox and be immersed in the game (rememebering and deciding what combos to use at a particular moment, for a particular character in a particular scene)... but I am not immersed in the pseudo-world that DC vs. Mortal Kombat takes place in during this time, or really anytime I am playing the game (even the storyline). It doesn't in anyway affect my decisions or reactions.

As a counterpoint (so no one claims I'm using videogamey to only describe 4e.) I find Fable, a game with some nods to simulationism much more enjoyable on a game world immersion level (though less so in the game immersion category). I make decisions in Fable (beyond the main storyline) dependent upon how I wish my character to interact with the world around him as opposed to what is mechanically the best choice.

My players and I can readily immerse ourselves in the game of D&D 4e, and (this is even fun at times, though it often feels lacking in a way I cannot fully explain at this time) in fact this is particularly easy... what we find less so is immersing ourselves in the game world that is created with the rules of D&D 4e. YMMV of course.

Needing immersion in the game world sounds pretty close to what I described as "needing simulationism". The trick is, you either care or you don't. What is happening behind the curtain really doesn't have much bearing on the game being played as it is being played. Its existence is independant, and is largely something you are interested in for its own sake, not in connection to the game being played. If it isn't important to you, it is a distraction that slows things down and diverts things away from the real fun.

 

[Imaro]

Needing immersion in the game world sounds pretty close to what I described as "needing simulationism". The trick is, you either care or you don't. What is happening behind the curtain really doesn't have much bearing on the game being played as it is being played. Its existence is independant, and is largely something you are interested in for its own sake, not in connection to the game being played. If it isn't important to you, it is a distraction that slows things down and diverts things away from the real fun.

Emphasis Mine: I disagree here, Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay. Again refer back to my example with Fable... certain choices in the game are made by some, not because they are optimal or because they are the best tactically... but because it is enjoyable to interact with those elements of the world in a pseudo-realistic (realistic for the fantasy world being simulated) way.

With mechanics that simulate one can make decisions based upon interacting with the world as opposed to interacting with the rules/mechaincs and it in fact it becomes inseperable from gameplay when the rules support this.

 

[Mallus]

It's a flawless model, as far as I'm concerned. I loves me some stupid gaming, with a garnish of retro.

Hey, don't sell pretentious short!

(says the guy who likes to name minor NPC's after character from Finnegan's Wake and Ezra Pound poems...)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Emphasis Mine: I disagree here, Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay. Again refer back to my example with Fable... certain choices in the game are made by some, not because they are optimal or because they are the best tactically... but because it is enjoyable to interact with those elements of the world in a pseudo-realistic (realistic for the fantasy world being simulated) way.

With mechanics that simulate one can make decisions based upon interacting with the world as opposed to interacting with the rules/mechaincs and it in fact it becomes inseperable from gameplay when the rules support this.

I have stated that I view this sort of thing as objectively indepenant while saying that some players require this world consistency to immerse themselves in or enjoy the game.

It either matters or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, its existence is a drag on things.

 

[Mallus]

Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay.

Though there are gamers who are concerned with immersion and a kind of simulation that view those things are separate from the game mechanics.

For me and my group, immersion/simulation depend on the characters we meet in the game, the stories we get involved with, and through our actions, tell. The mechanics behind task resolution (ie, most of the rules) don't play a big part. Immersion is a product of story, not rules.

A game that hypothetically has a perfect physics engine, that modeled the world accurately, would be non-immersive if the DM didn't populate it with interesting NPC's and believable plot hooks.

 

[Imaro]

I have stated that I view this sort of thing as objectively indepenant while saying that some players require this world consistency to immerse themselves in or enjoy the game.

It either matters or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, its existence is a drag on things.

So how can it be "objectively" independent... when it's inclusion in many roleplaying games, even outside of D&D, is intertwined and meshed to create gameplay. It is subjectively independent, since one can have an rpg with or without simulationism that people will like and play, but it is not an objectively independent thing... If so it is no more objectively independent than both gamism and narrativism... right? The fact that only if it "doesn't " matter is it a drag on things seems totally subjective.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So how can it be "objectively" independent... when it's inclusion in many roleplaying games, even outside of D&D, is intertwined and meshed to create gameplay. It is subjectively independent, since one can have an rpg with or without simulationism that people will like and play, but it is not an objectively independent thing... If so it is no more objectively independent than both gamism and narrativism... right? The fact that only if it "doesn't " matter is it a drag on things seems totally subjective.

It is objectively independant because of a couple of factors. First is the fact that simultationist mechanics are inherently more cumbersome and complex than ones that are not. Second is my continued statement that simulationist game mechanics are either important to a given player or they aren't. If simulationist game mechanics are important to you, you get something out of them and your game experience is improved. If they are not, the game is more cumbersome and complex for no benefit. It is also objectively independant because of the simple fact that it is possible for simulationist mechanics to be completely important to a given player.

In other words, it is certainly possible for simulationism to be integral to you. The fact that it can be a non-issue for some people means that it is not objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole, especially when you consider that it carries baggage.

 

[Imaro]

It is objectively independant because of a couple of factors. First is the fact that simultationist mechanics are inherently more cumbersome and complex than ones that are not. Second is my continued statement that simulationist game mechanics are either important to a given player or they aren't. If simulationist game mechanics are important to you, you get something out of them and your game experience is improved. If they are not, the game is more cumbersome and complex for no benefit. It is also objectively independant because of the simple fact that it is possible for simulationist mechanics to be completely important to a given player.

1. Simulationist mechanics are not inherently more complex and cumbersome than ones that are not. It depends on what one is trying to simulate and how one goes about it. As an example, BRP is a very simulationist style game that is more elegant and less complex than 4e.

2. If simulationism is important to a given player (and/or roleplaying game system, since you fail to acknowledge this possibility) they are again... subjectively good or bad depending on the player and rpg, not objectively.

3. Something being important to a particular player, again supports a subjective thing as opposed to an objective one.

In other words, it is certainly possible for simulationism to be integral to you. The fact that it can be a non-issue for some people means that it is not objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole, especially when you consider that it carries baggage.

Oh, I see what you did here. I'm sorry but taking such a broad category as "RPG gaming as a whole" makes any and every possible parameter "not objectively integral". I mean what exactly is objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole? I'm sure almost (and only because I haven't played every rpg out there) any thing you list here I can find an rpg that doesn't conform to it...especially when speaking about simulationism, gamism and narrativism. If being a non-issue for some people is the standard of whether something is objectively integral or not to an RPG... then it becomes meaningless.

I am more concerned with taking a particular game on it's own and deciding what is integral to that game, since simulationism can certainly be integral to the gameplay for a particular rpg. I think this narrows it down enough that suddenly there are distinct things that become integral to that rpg's style and gameplay. Thus now we can have an actual meaningful discussion of whether something is integral or not, as well as if it is objectively good or bad vs. subjectively good or bad.