Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9515058" data-attributes="member: 6696971">For reference, I'm going to go ahead and copy/paste/quote my text that you're working off of because we're pointing at different things.  I'll clarify what I'm pointing at in a moment, but first let me just discuss what you're talking about above.So your analogy here is surely referring to the lament that we have heard expressed aplenty in this thread and on these boards.  It goes something like if a procedure requires me to engage with rules or meta-conversation around collaboration or content generation, and I feel the process or its results are beyond the scope of my in-fiction character, it breaks my immersion.We've litigated this one to death in excruciatingly detail over the course of forever, so I'm not really inclined to rehash all of the various aspects of this.  However, this different than what I'm pointing at with the quoted text below:So the following cases are TTRPG participant priorities around authority and ownership rights that get mistakenly cast under this absurdly large net of immersion priorities:* A player is in a relatively low agency game where their consequential decisions around (a) what is salient in play is subordinated to the GM/module outright or by proxy of the social compact of "group play."  The net effect of the pressure to "incorporate interests" means that (b) individual player contribution via play-shaping character motivations are muted wholly or nearly so while the GM's individual contribution becomes proportionally magnified via their prepped content having exclusive rights over saliency + setting ownership + their titanic role in action resolution mediation.Such a player might balk when the small amount of ownership and authority they get to express in play, such as that of (i) the inner workings of their PC or (ii) color/performance around their PC's attire/kit/affect or (iii) whether they get to authentically engage with the combat mechanics to slay the orc in front of them, is abridged by either GM or resolution process.This particular situation is an expression of concerns over ownership rights and authority distribution.  It is not about immersion.  * A player is interested in both challenge-based priorities and the interests of expeditiousness in table handling time.  As such, they want each of their fellow players to take discrete ownership and exacting care over their character's various loadouts/handles (ammunition, rations, torches, spells, uses of x/y/z, etc).  It isn't that community care over these things or developed consensus via meta-conversations bother them from an immersion perspective.  The problem for this player is any number of (i) it bogs down play or (ii) "Jimmy isn't pulling their weight and putting increased stress on others as a result" or (iii) the GM is showing signs of being apt to deploy Force and fudge results/manipulate numbers in order "to make up for Jimmy's lapses," thereby taking away our rights to authentically move the gamestate.[HR][/HR]Hopefully that does the work I intended.  There are plenty of cases where concerns over ownership rights and authority distribution have nothing to do with priorities for immersion, but they so often get binned there (as so many things do...into this giant pile of "but muh immersion" that becomes impossible to disentangle from other interests).  Some of it is because some players either aren't in touch with their actual concerns.  Some of it is because they are in touch with their actual concerns but they don't know how to effectively articulate them.  Still others are because either a personal tendency to be conflict-averse or because of the social pressure to "go along to get along."</blockquote>

Verification