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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 6782162">I am sure plenty of people can experience this. I am not denying experiences other people have had, or suggesting that their preference are wrong/bad/worse, etc. I do think there is a definite difference though between a game that gives players narrative control and one that doesn't (and it is easy to see how lots of people might find the narrative control disrupts their in character immersion). To me it isn't that different from a writer choosing third person limited point of view (or even first person) in order to help reinforce the reader identifying with and immersing in that character. Readers can be immersed with third person omniscient, but it is easy to see why some writers on principle might feel third person limited is a better way of bringing the reader closer to the character. It is also easy to see why a writer who really wants to drive the point home, might go with first person. To me, mechanics where you are controlling things outside your character with means your character has no awareness of or access to (so Fate points instead of a magic spell that literally warps reality) tend to create this issue for me, where I feel like I am immersed in my character and more like I am watching my character from the third person. I can ignore that in small doses, but I find the more obvious, the more heavy handed it is, the more I tend to notice. I will still play the game. I won't be rude to a friend running something that uses these mechanics (and a lot of time games that I really like have one or two features I'm not too into.....I can overlook that). But it does change the quality of the experience for me. I don't see why this wouldn't be a problem for some peoples' immersion in the same way that too much metagaming can break it for some folks.</blockquote>

Verification