D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Imaro]

I'm even including that sort of thing in my personal experience. I've never seen it as a goal in my personal games, and it's not a stated goal for the most interesting new developments in RPGs. So I'm still not buying it as a "typical" design goal. Again, not doubting it's important to some folks, but I think its import gets overstated whenever the conversation turns to 4e, because 4e is hardly atypical in this regard as a late-2000's non-OSR RPG, and around the same complexity level as 3.x. And I rarely hear people complaining of a lack of immersion in Savage Worlds or FATE, two other excellent "gamey" systems. (Or in WFRP3, though I admittedly haven't looked hard for it.)

-O

I've definitely seen it stated as one of the main reason some people don't enjoy the FATE system, SW not so much.

 

[Guest 85555]

Same for D&D. We've all accepted that characters are categorized by "classes", that armor and dodging feed into the same defense mechanic, and magic comes in "spell slots". Are those "unrealistic"? Yes. Are they good mechanics on any level? Not really. If we were starting from scratch and trying to build a new D&D, would it have a single element in common with the existing rules? Probably not. But we've made our peace with the flaws of our best known edition. Thus when a new game comes along with new flaws, it's quite jarring.
.

I don't find this things unrealistic. AC glosses over details, but isn't terribly unrealistic in my opinion (just simple). Spell slots reflect the phsyics of how magic actually works in the setting. Granted a lot of people take issue with those physics, but the mechanic is connected to the flavor of how spell use operates in the game. The reason people crtiicize it, is this is not usually how magic works in movies and books (normally, but not always, it is closer to something like magic points). But that doesn't mean taking the vancian approach that D&D did is less realistic than how it was done in other games.

Understand when people complain about mechanics disrupting immersion on believability grounds they are not usually talking about a lack of detailed realism, or calling for complexity. A lot of the time they are talking about things which create a gap between what their character is doing and the mechanic. This is going to be subjective to a degree. But something like Vancian magic doesn't cause a problem for most of them, because there is a 1-1 relationship between what you are doing and what your character is doing and a connection between the mechanic and the flavor.

I can also be a question of volume. Just because there are mechanics in the game that are less realistic, that isn't a license to completely throw realism out of the window.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think you are confusing two issues: criticisms of 4e and immersion as a goal. I think even most people I know who like 4E, like it becaus ethey find it immersive. What wrecks immersion is a very subjective thing and its own discussion. But frankly I know very few people who dont consider immersion a critical factor of enjoying the game. I happen to like Savage world a lot and dont find it terribly disruptive to immersion. But then in savage worlds you interface with the world through skills not aedu powers (and not saying AEDU is inherently disruptive to immersion, it just is for me).

You're right about it being subjective, certainly. It seems to me that "immersion" depends on three things:

a) The results of the game's mechanical processes are consistent with expectations of genre/fiction.
b) The architecture of those mechanics are representative of genre/fictional structure and processes.
c) Operation of the game's mechanical processes are resolved efficiently so as not to distract from the fiction.

Different people can rely on any combination of the three to different degrees, even to extreme degrees. Even within these factors, different people might argue for different appraisals for the same rules. No version of D&D seems to hit particularly well on all three.

The older versions simply ran rough-shod over (a) and (b), while shining in (c). With so much power in the DM's hands, it was up to him to make it work...or not; if you're table was gamist in bent, it wouldn't matter at all. I would say 3e made some huge clumsy strides in areas (a) and (b), but the extra codification bit into (c) significantly. 4e decided to ditch (b), re-examine (a) and re-work it entirely, and went sideways (possibly backwards, YMMV) in (c). To my eyes, a decent percentage of ongoing unresolved edition-war complaints revolve around that shift in (b)'s predominance from 3.x to 4e.

Hope that helps, play what you will.

 

[MarkB]

There are also different types of immersion. For instance, I play a lot of FATE-style games which provide narrative control options for players, and I tend to find that these systems can reduce my level of immersion in an individual character, but at the same time they enhance my immersion in the setting and story.

 

[Ratskinner]

No, I'm saying this is the only time I ever hear about it, that's all. It's simply not a factor for me and it's never been brought up as a goal. Tension? That's a goal. Likewise fun, challenge, and the like. That's what's brought me to the table for 30 years. I agree that a light system can kind of disappear once you climb the learning curve, but for me that's not about immersion.

Immersion, IME, is a bit of ephemeral thing. As a goal of play, groups and individuals vary quite bit in their interest in it. While I feel that its sometimes overplayed as an experience, there are certainly those who enjoy getting lost in their character. I think for most players, they mean a lesser type of immersion akin to watching a TV show or film. While it may not be a goal for them to get lost in neverland, when things "crash" the experience, its annoying, jarring, or funny in the way that seeing the wheels under the monster FX onscreen can be.

 

[Ratskinner]

There are also different types of immersion. For instance, I play a lot of FATE-style games which provide narrative control options for players, and I tend to find that these systems can reduce my level of immersion in an individual character, but at the same time they enhance my immersion in the setting and story.

Very much so. Its one of the reasons I like FATE so much. That experience is one of the goals of FATE design, and I think its very successful in that regard.

 

[Obryn]

There are also different types of immersion. For instance, I play a lot of FATE-style games which provide narrative control options for players, and I tend to find that these systems can reduce my level of immersion in an individual character, but at the same time they enhance my immersion in the setting and story.

Good point! For me that's the same sort of theme 4e hits.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't find this things unrealistic. AC glosses over details, but isn't terribly unrealistic in my opinion (just simple).

To me, combining the concepts of dodging and blocking is actually unrealistic, as opposed to many other rules that are indeed questions of detail versus abstraction.

For example, a well-armored fighter might have an AC of 30 and a touch AC of 12. A huge cloud giant power attacks and gets a 25 attack roll. Clearly, he misses. But by the rules, the attack does physically touch the fighter. It's rather hard to imagine how a huge-sized creature could take a full swing and have his blow be rendered meaningless by armor. No matter how good the armor is, simple intertia suggests the fighter should be thrown across the room.

Whereas if the same giant attacks a halfling monk with an AC of 30 and the same touch AC, the rules dictate that a 25 misses completely. This is entirely reasonable; the giant could miss a creature that is the size of a bug to him, and a true miss would deal no damage no matter how hard he swung.

But by the rules, both characters have the same AC. Don't get me wrong, that mechanic is a D&D-ism, and it many less extreme cases it works well enough that people are okay with it. But realistic it ain't. Its virtue (as with hp) is simplicity.

Spell slots reflect the phsyics of how magic actually works in the setting. Granted a lot of people take issue with those physics, but the mechanic is connected to the flavor of how spell use operates in the game. The reason people crtiicize it, is this is not usually how magic works in movies and books (normally, but not always, it is closer to something like magic points). But that doesn't mean taking the vancian approach that D&D did is less realistic than how it was done in other games.

Of course realism isn't the issue with magic. But I think the Vancian style doesn't match with what newbies expect from a magic system, so my case is that if we were writing D&D from scratch, we'd write something simpler, more flexible, and more generic.

Understand when people complain about mechanics disrupting immersion on believability grounds they are not usually talking about a lack of detailed realism, or calling for complexity. A lot of the time they are talking about things which create a gap between what their character is doing and the mechanic. This is going to be subjective to a degree. But something like Vancian magic doesn't cause a problem for most of them, because there is a 1-1 relationship between what you are doing and what your character is doing and a connection between the mechanic and the flavor.

Indeed. What I was saying is that Vancian magic (among other things) was not a great approach to begin with, not because of anything immersion related, but because it's too complicated, too hard to balance, and doesn't model fiction well. But it's a D&D-ism, and we're used to it. So when a new game comes along and presents what is supposedly the same class, but which doesn't have the mechanics we're used to, it's hard to accept.

This would be true regardless of whether the new mechanic was better, worse, or not clearly either.

So my belief about 5e is that if they're going to kill a sacred cow and piss off some of the fanbase, they should at least create a system that has merits that the previous approach didn't have.

I can also be a question of volume. Just because there are mechanics in the game that are less realistic, that isn't a license to completely throw realism out of the window.

The goal of virtually any fiction is to create an emotional response in the audience. I think it's entirely possible to create a sense of immersion and involvement without being 100% realistic.

The Nolan Batman movies are a wonderful example of this. We get a few shots of him prepping batgear and talking about where it comes from. Is the gear really technically feasible? No. Is the scenario by which he gets it and keeps it secret plausible? No. So in the next movie, one guy finds out his secret. Is he really the only one who would figure it out? No. The key here is that some issues that speak to reality are assertively used and competently executed.

The same mentality works for D&D. The game merely needs to provide tools to acknowledge a variety of realistic considerations, and let DMs choose when it's worth implementing them and how to do so for maximum impact.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've definitely seen it stated as one of the main reason some people don't enjoy the FATE system, SW not so much.

I've seen this too. A certain group of people seem to claim that anything except an orthodox process-sim detracts from their immersion.

 

[Guest 85555]

Being believable is not the same as aiming for 100% realism (something most proponents of immersion are not asking for). For me, I really do need to be able to believe in what is going on to be immersed. I can buy that batman has got some cool tech if there is an explanation for it. But glaring plot holes and failures of internal logic in the movie will pull me out (not terribly familiar with the new batmans but saw the first one so I think I get your point). I also dont think the goals of a film and of an rpg are the same (at least not for me).