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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7590799" data-attributes="member: 42582">To me it doesn't seem very immersive. It actually seems rather artificial.This seems to reinforce the fact that it's artificial rather than immserive.That's not to say that it might not be fun. But if you're having a hard time keeping a straight face while playing your PC as freaked out, how are you immersed?In the first example given by  [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], the player's fear that s/he will lose the encounter and have his/her PC die matches the PC's fear of the trolls. That's immersion. It's not acting or pretending, because the fear of losing is real, not feigned.But no one said that.The focus was on a particular aspect of monster design and associated tactcial play, namely, monster resistances and vulnerabilities.If I as a player know that fire kills trolls, and the GM frames my PC into a troll encounter, and is expecting me not to use my knowledge, what's the challenge? The only challenge I can see is one of persuading the GM that, at point X during the encounter, it's OK to start swinging away with my flaming brand (or whatever). That's not the sort of challenge I play FPRGs for. And it brings all sorts of anti-immersive, artificial weirdness with it - like a genuine new player is allowed to use fire as soon as s/he likes, perhaps even by getting lucky, whereas the veteran player has to jump through whatever the GM's hoops are to be allowed to actually have a go at winning the encounter.Sure. Play a 1st level fighter! (At least in some editions.)Or start your 1st level PC as a 50 year-old hermit.Or whatever else floats your boat!</blockquote>

Verification