clearstream
(He, Him)
But of course...Why it's elementary, my dear Voadam. D is for dog.
G then is for God!
But of course...Why it's elementary, my dear Voadam. D is for dog.
What children’s alphabet books are you reading?But of course...
G then is for God!
It also lists "S is for Sob" which makes me feel sad.What children’s alphabet books are you reading?![]()
Haha! With my apologies to the OP for a bit of a derail.GNS. Git, Nogoodnik, Slob
GDS. Geek, Deontologist, Slob
Now it can be told.
I strongly disagree. "Narrative," as meant by GNS, is not a meaningful component of G or S. "Narrative," in its colloquial meaning, has no real significance for design. It's only by trying to stand in an in-between space, where "narrative" means what you want it to mean when you want it to mean that, that you can get the above.I had in mind your earlier fourfold! I can write
For players seeking Score and Achievement design, "narrative" generally isn't that important, but would be something like "I have symbols I can latch onto and my choices chain together my manipulation of those progressively" To those seeking Groundedness and Simulation design, "narrative" means something like "you can narrate events consistently and meaningfully" For Conceit and Emulation design fans, "narrative" means something like "faithful depiction of the scenes will narrate our overarching conceit" And for fans of Values and Issues, "narrative" means something like "the stories told are human stories... the story of our inner lives."
Okay, slightly facetious, and not at all thought through... but perhaps it communicates my point. Which is that all of the folds are found in every game. So to single out immersion as present in every fold, but not itself able to be prioritised for play, seems arbitrary.
Again, strongly, strongly disagree. You seem to be conflating the presence of game with being about game, which is a pretty serious error IMO; the latter is actually gamism, the former is not. Saying "everyone wants gamism" is simply false, and things like the game "Perfect" that Snarf references in the OP are an example of actively shunning any amount of gamism, despite (begrudgingly) accepting that some amount of game cannot be avoided.I think everyone wants narration. They want to be able to narrate their play. Self-narration of wargames, as hard-out examples of gamism, is something I've been able to discuss fruitfully with fellow gamers, who attest to also performing it. Everyone wants gamism... few to no games avoid it completely. Watching a story-game session the other day, for just one example, the gamist implications of weapon tags were given voice to. It was all pretty relaxed, but there were gamist factors contributing to the scene.
I mean, I don't think immersion is "basic," nor that it can be "separated out." I think it's actually extremely advanced, an emergent property that is always desirable, but on different terms, depending on what the designer wants the game to achieve. Hence why I don't actually like either of GNS or GDS--I find that they get much too caught up in ideas of what games are allowed to be instead of being focused on what games are trying to be. And it is absolutely false to argue that 100% of games are trying to be about Score and Achievement, in the definitions given above.So on the one hand, I really do wonder if immersion is just not so basic to what a game is, that as you say it can't really be separated out. And on the other hand, isn't gamism basic to what a game is? Isn't narrative basic to what a TTRPG is? That said, if I accept the premise that immersion is inevitable and the others are evitable, I'd conclude as you do. So let's also consider "immersionism" as a label...
Sometimes it is about that. Sometimes it isn't. Again, I have been told (actually by multiple people) that 100% of the point is the simulation itself. Most such folks don't actually have the training to know the terms, but their words communicate the same idea: that what matters most, what is in fact actually more important even than "immersion," is that the system remains truly closed under its valid operations. That there is no such thing as a question you can ask, which should have a valid answer, but does not. E.g. the "square" operation is closed over the natural numbers and all supersets thereof (integers, reals, etc.), but the "square root" operation is not closed over the naturals, integers, rationals, or reals; you must use the complex numbers to get valid square roots for all possible inputs. Doing so requires sacrificing well-ordering: there is no sense in which one complex number can be truly "greater" than another, you must use a much weaker notion of comparison (e.g., comparing the squared magnitudes of two numbers.) Obtaining closure for important operations over all possible inputs is of sufficient value that most mathematicians gladly make the sacrifice in order to obtain it. Likewise, if it cost a little bit of immersion, but guaranteed that the simulation would never proverbially spit out an error, no matter what, I'm quite certain a large portion of "simulation" fans (NOT all, but many) would gladly make that trade, no questions asked."Simulationism" doesn't quite fit because in the end it is the immersion in world, not the simulation of world, that is prioritised. Which hearks back to @Snarf Zagyg's comment: I guess one can go where one's heart takes one, but when it's niche good luck seeing one's preferred self-identification prevail.
Well, it is true that each of those labels is given a special meaning. In the same way, I'd like to give "immersion" a special meaning.I strongly disagree. "Narrative," as meant by GNS, is not a meaningful component of G or S. "Narrative," in its colloquial meaning, has no real significance for design. It's only by trying to stand in an in-between space, where "narrative" means what you want it to mean when you want it to mean that, that you can get the above.
This skirts a Texas Two Step, where I adhere to special meanings for narrative but then insist immersion be assesseed on its general meaning. I can fall in line with the Two Step by resisting adherence to any special meaning for narrative and standing up my point that it exists in all TTRPG. To avoid that, let's going forward suppose a special meaning for "immersion".I have said that "immersion" effectively just means the smoothness and quality of the experience, and given what seem to be good reasons why that is a correct description. It is thus on you to demonstrate why "narrative" means something everyone wants.
Here I am saying that it is the immersion in world, not the simulation of world, that I prioritise. That's not arguable, but I can concede that - like the G, the N and the S - I ought to propose a special meaning for my I.Sometimes it is about that. Sometimes it isn't. Again, I have been told (actually by multiple people) that 100% of the point is the simulation itself. Most such folks don't actually have the training to know the terms, but their words communicate the same idea: that what matters most, what is in fact actually more important even than "immersion," is that the system remains truly closed under its valid operations.
Well, my notion was that I had already given a clear definition for my position: that "immersion" is ill-defined, and the only things which actually unite it, based on how it is used, are that it is a smooth, effortless experience of...something, whatever the intent may be.Well, it is true that each of those labels is given a special meaning. In the same way, I'd like to give "immersion" a special meaning.
This skirts a Texas Two Step, where I adhere to special meanings for narrative but then insist immersion be assesseed on its general meaning. I'd can in line with the Two Step by resisting adherence to any special meaning for narrative and standing up my point that it exists in all TTRPG. To avoid that, let's going forward suppose a special meaning for "immersion".
Okay. I don't get what "immersion in world" means that is not "the simulation is really good, so that I don't really notice that it's a simulation." So...what is that, exactly? What do you mean by being "immersed"? The literal definition is irrelevant (no dipping into liquids here), the relevant meaning is metaphorical: to be "deeply involved," synonyms: engross, absorb, bury, consume, wrap up, spellbind, etc. Hence why I speak of smoothness and effortlessness: nothing distracts from the experience of play, and thus, for some few moments, the world falls away, leaving nothing but thoughts about the imagined space. But design solely directed at "remove distractions" isn't going to get you anywhere; it is like designing a car exclusively for comfort, without considering what the car needs to do. No one wants a vehicle to be any more uncomfortable than they can afford--more comfort is always better than less, assuming money permits. Yet a vehicle designed only for comfort, with genuinely no other concern, lacks an engine. And "comfort" varies; a comfortable mini-van is spacious and flexible, able to hold many passengers without feeling like you're being squeezed into a tin can, while a comfortable sports car may literally only seat two, but handle like a dream and so smoothly accelerate you feel like you're one with the vehicle.Here I am saying that it is the immersion in world, not the simulation of world, that I prioritise. That's not arguable, but I can concede that - like the G, the N and the S - I ought to propose a special meaning for my I.
TTRPG rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them.
What TTRPG can then take place without rules? How might FKR play have forcefulness and extend beyond the normal, if it does?
...
Ephemeral mechanics are of particular importance to FKR. This is the case where fragments of a mechanic (a compound rule) are externalised. In one long-running FKR, we all had character sheets listing a consistent set of parameters. Yet there were no written rules using those parameters. The sheets were reminders and concrete parameterisations of our unwritten rules, collectively forming mechanics.
@Snarf Zagyg I felt you might have thoughts on my notion of ephemeral mechanics.
I would say that's only usually true, or at least it comes up enough in Dungeons and Dragons to feel like it. Good, well-designed rules, when used with the correct understanding of what kind of fiction they're trying to produce/emulate/whatever, should not have cause to supersede the fiction. The Fiction and the rules should mesh, if the game is well-designed and the game book is well-written.Arguably, many conflicts in D&D occur because the rules, for various reasons (usually "game" reasons), supersede the fiction that participants have. A classic example of this is conversations about hit points and falling damage. In the world of 5e, high level characters can survive massive falls automatically. This often doesn't map on to the fiction that people have, but the rules supersede the fiction.
So that's just my initial, albeit unformed, thoughts on the matter.