A Thought

[mythusmage]

What it comes down to is, a change in perception leads to a change in approach. A change in approach leads to a change in design and play.

Now, it is possible to become immersed using the current paradigm, but one is becoming immersed in a game and not an interactive experience. A different sort of immersion all together. In addition, when one becomes fully immersed it realy stops being a game, and becomes an experience. For that little while the player becomes a part of the world, his perception has changed. I'm looking to encouraging that even when the players are not involved, because it would make immersion, involvement that much easier. You're already seeing an RPG as a means of experiencing an imaginary world you'll be more apt to become involved than you would otherwise.

And being involved in the world means you are less apt to treat that world and its inhabitants as disposible gaming pieces. Player behavior vis a vis the world becomes more natural, more, real life.

It also opens up adventuring possibilities. When it's your farm that's getting churned up by a bunch of ankhegs you're more apt to want to put a stop to it. (And when you and your friends are playing 1st level characters you're more apt to use solutions other than straightforward combat. )

Opening up the pastime is what I'm working towards. That and enlarging the fan base. For the larger the customer base is the healthier the hobby overall and each segment thereof.

 

[Umbran]

The manner of play is of no concern to me, what I am concerned with is the paradigm, with how the hobby is viewed.

Ah, but the two are not separable. How you view it has a strong effect on how you approach play. I severely doubt your whole crusade would have much meaning if things were otherwise.

The current RPG paradigm is that they are games you play pretty much in the manner you would any other game. The new paradigm I'm promoting here says that RPGs are a pastime in which the participants assume the role of people living in an imaginary setting.

Two problems - First, the old paradigm you struggle against is by no means dominant anymore. Second, the "new" paradigm you want to promote is by no means new. It's been around for a decade and more. So, your position of bringing the great new word tothepeople falls a bit flat.

Trouble is, the current paradigm has the effect of limiting possibilities and potentialities. Treat an RPG as a wargame and you remove much that can make play a more rewarding experience for all involved.

Any particular paradigm has that effect - new or old, a paradigm limits possibilities by limiting how you view the task at hand. Treat an RPG as a wargame, and you remove much fun that can be had, yes. But deny that an RPG can be played as a wargame, and you also remove much that can be fun.

What is fun depends upon the individual, not the game, or the paradigm.

It forces involvement to a degree a wargame really cannot. This, in part, is what I'm working towards, involvement. Involvement in the character. Involvement in the world. Get the players involved and you'll find they actually have more fun.

That assumes that "involvement" is what all players are really looking for. Prove that first, then you can discuss how to go about converting the masses.

My goal is to heighten enjoyment of and participation in this hobby, and if old ways must pass for this to happen, then the old ways pass.

Seems to me that Gygax and Cook couldn't get away with telling gamers there's One True Way of gaming. You're far less an authority than they. You simply don't have the authority to simply proclaim it. You need to do a lot more work in proving your points for them to be accepted.

 

[fusangite]

Heya fusangite, you going to make GenCon? A beer and some conversation would be a lot of fun.

joe b.

This year will be my first-ever trip. So, a beer is definitely on. It will be a pleasure to meet you.

 

[Silveras]

As an immersive roleplayer who has used miniatures and a grid of one type or another since the Blue Box Basic D&D game... I can tell you from personal experience that the degree to which a player develops his or her character's personality and history has nothing to do with the depth or complexity of the rules, nor the descriptive/prescriptive spin the GM puts on them (as it *is* purely a matter of perspective) and has *everything* to do with how much the player likes making detailed characters.

On the occasions when I make a character above 1st level, I choose feats and skills to reflect that character's growth history as I envision it. Within that, though, I make the "smart" choice as often as I can, knowing what the rules are and how to use them for both flavor and effect.

In short, my style is a blend of the dichotomy proposed here, proving it does not have to be one or the other, except in the minds of those who wish to "prove" one way is better than the other.

Frankly, I grow tired of the "I am trying to enlighten you poor benighted boobs" tone. Please stop trying to save me from having fun, thank you.

 

[jgbrowning]

This year will be my first-ever trip. So, a beer is definitely on. It will be a pleasure to meet you.

Awesome. Look forward to meeting you as well.

joe b.

 

[fusangite]

I can't use examples because my thought experiement is based upon an infinite string. Or, let me rephrase that, I don't know if there's a way of doing it because my math skills aren't too hot. Imagine if every time you did something you knew it worked because of X. Imagine that everytime you did it, X changed and never repeated. How would it be possible to develop any physics around such occurances? How could you go "one layer deeper" to find the next causal event (that which makes science possible)? And to be honest, why would anyone want to since the next layer could be just as random as the previous one.

People would take whatever empirical data they did have and construct, intellectually, a theory, a pattern of patterns that united all the data based on patterns apparently common. Just like they always do. The theory would not be "true," just as Newtonian physics is not "true." But it would, to use history of science language, "save the appearances" -- in other words, the theory would cohere because it simultaneously explained multiple pieces of empirical data. Just like the Ptolmaic cosmos with all the epicycles. You can construct predictive, explanatory, unified models with just these little scraps of data. These models may not be "true" in some meta sense of true but they would be physics.

People don't make models of physics by going down a layer because they new technologies or strategies of observation that permit them to do this. People make systems of physics to explain the data they already have. For people to develop a system of physics in D&D, no further investigation would be necessary beyond what the rules already say. Things not described in the rules would logical entailments of the theory used to unite the empirical data.

It seems to me that you're having a hard time thinking about a system which is irrational producing rational results. A system that is incomprehensible but still predictable on one level. To me, that's what magic is. Anything that's rational and comprehensible isn't magic, it's science and technology.

No. I'm having no difficulty comprehending your argument. I'm disagreeing with it. Comprehension is always partial and relative. The mere observation of a pattern indicates partial comprehension; you cannot assign the attribute of incomprehensibility to something that is already comprehended to some degree. People comprehend that doing Y always causes X; that is something they know from empirical data. The functioning of physics is always comrehended in this partial way.

Yeah, there's no difference in effect at that level (the game mechanic level). However there's a tremendous difference between assuming there's a rational causal connection between the casters actions and the effect and my infinitely changing causal connection once you start talking about magic in general.

No. There isn't. What is happening is that in the Aristotelian scheme, you are talking about one kind of cause and I am talking about another. Neither of us is discussing the final cause. I didn't really see the point of Aristotle coming up with all these wacky classes of cause until now.

 

[fusangite]

As an immersive roleplayer who has used miniatures and a grid of one type or another since the Blue Box Basic D&D game... I can tell you from personal experience that the degree to which a player develops his or her character's personality and history has nothing to do with the depth or complexity of the rules, nor the descriptive/prescriptive spin the GM puts on them (as it *is* purely a matter of perspective) and has *everything* to do with how much the player likes making detailed characters.

Sorry but I don't think your experience trumps everyone else's. My desire and ability to make compelling characters is absolutely affected by the reality, consistency and depth of the world a GM presents to me.

In short, my style is a blend of the dichotomy proposed here, proving it does not have to be one or the other, except in the minds of those who wish to "prove" one way is better than the other.

Frankly, I grow tired of the "I am trying to enlighten you poor benighted boobs" tone. Please stop trying to save me from having fun, thank you.

This part, however, I agree with you on 100%. It seems that mythusmage is making a whole pile of assumptions about how other people play D&D that seem pretty groundless.

 

[Ranger REG]

As an immersive roleplayer who has used miniatures and a grid of one type or another since the Blue Box Basic D&D game... I can tell you from personal experience that the degree to which a player develops his or her character's personality and history has nothing to do with the depth or complexity of the rules, nor the descriptive/prescriptive spin the GM puts on them (as it *is* purely a matter of perspective) and has *everything* to do with how much the player likes making detailed characters.

On the occasions when I make a character above 1st level, I choose feats and skills to reflect that character's growth history as I envision it. Within that, though, I make the "smart" choice as often as I can, knowing what the rules are and how to use them for both flavor and effect.

In short, my style is a blend of the dichotomy proposed here, proving it does not have to be one or the other, except in the minds of those who wish to "prove" one way is better than the other.

Frankly, I grow tired of the "I am trying to enlighten you poor benighted boobs" tone. Please stop trying to save me from having fun, thank you.

There is a side effect of wanting to immerse into a gaming world. Another "I" word: investment. The more you immerse yourself into the gaming world through your PC, the more you invest into the PC itself, emotionally. I have seen many players who invest so much in their PCs they work long to create and play them, earning XP and other non-gaming rewards that if said PC dies, they grieve or get thoroughly upset.

The rules are not there to help you get into the world, only to accept the world's law of physics, nature, and belief. It's the GM's job to tell his story and make your characters be involved where the world is merely a stage and you act your roles as you would in the real world.

That's why I believe the fluff text is crucial when describing the "stage," whether there is a campaign setting chapter in the core rulebook or in a main campaign sourcebook.

 

[mythusmage]

Ranger REG brings up an important point in the posting above. How well the players get into the world depends in large part on how engrossing the GM makes the world. A lackluster GM can make even the most compelling worlds dull and uninteresting. A good GM can take something dull and bring it to life.

However, when an RPG setting is thought of as just a playing area, it becomes easier to make it dull and uninteresting. When it is thought of as a world where people live, then it becomes easier to bring it to life. Not just in play, but more importantly during design and development. When a setting is interesting it becomes easier for the GM to bring it to life for the players, and so easier for the players to become more deeply involved.

RREG also points out the price many pay for getting deeply involved, loss. People lose a character they tend to grieve after a fashion. Its normal human behavior. The best thing to do is to remind the player that characters in an RPG are involved in dangerous matters, and that people die in such situations. Sometimes its an heroic death, but more often than not it's a useless death, and there's damn all you can do about it.

When somebody loses a character give them some time to compose themselves, then work out a way to introduce his new character. One possibility you might try is having him "take over" one of the party's NPCs. A henchman or hireling for example.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Again, I think Mythusmage has it right.

I'd add one more thing: the DM is there to make the game fun for the players. And rules are one of the tool given to help the DM accomplish that end.