Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[DEFCON 1]

To me it really comes down to rather simplistic terms... I personally would rather narrate what I wish for my character to do and then be able to attempt to do it (with any applicable dice rolls as needed to quantify success)... then to narrate what I wish to do, figure out what resources I have to spend and what features of my race/background/class/subclass allocate those resources in various combinations, *and then* roll any applicable dice needed to quantify success.

To me its the difference between tapping my debit card on a sensor to pay for my coffee versus pulling out all the coins out of my pocket to try and pay for the coffee using exact change. I spend all this extra time having to look through and pull out all the coins while doing the math to reach $2.45. But D&D combat is even worse because you're buying your coffee upwards of 3 or more times in a row, while also getting back in line behind four to six other people who are also trying to buy their coffee using exact change.

So anything that can be done to put chips in our debit cards to make us not need to think about it anymore to me is only a good thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To me it really comes down to rather simplistic terms... I personally would rather narrate what I wish for my character to do and then be able to attempt to do it (with any applicable dice rolls as needed to quantify success)... then to narrate what I wish to do, figure out what resources I have to spend and what features of my race/background/class/subclass allocate those resources in various combinations, *and then* roll any applicable dice needed to quantify success.

It's even worse than that: You need to decide what you want your character to be able to do well in advance, build a character able to do those things, then, in play allocate the resources to do one of those things on your turn, then narrate attempting it... and hope the DM will narrate success.

To me its the difference between tapping my debit card on a sensor to pay for my coffee versus pulling out all the coins out of my pocket to try and pay for the coffee using exact change. I spend all this extra time having to look through and pull out all the coins while doing the math to reach $2.45....

You should be able to pay for a cup of coffee with a single coin, paying more than two bits for one is ridiculous. #getoffmylawn

 

[Yaarel]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

Heh, I would never have guessed you were a Skinnerian who hated the ‘black box’.



I get the impression that you feel that something that you want is being taken away from you, by those who say it is for the sake of immersion. What would that be?

 

[mrpopstar]

People also seem able to merge the two, taking the rules as the 'laws of physics' for the world and making conforming to/interacting with those rules part of the immersive experience. Or, alternately, making it an impediment to the experience.

All of my contributions to this discussion have been in support of the idea that the rules are being shaped into tools for talking that make such merging perfectly natural.

If you can speak of being immersed in the meta-game as easily as in the narrative, then I think you have a functional definition of immersion. I'd probably say 'engaged' instead of immersed, myself, but I'm fine with it.

I'm full of functional!

Immersion as this sacred state or holy grail of gaming that can only be reached in OneTrueWay, or can be 'shattered' by (insert whatever system element the complainant wants forcefully excluded from game) is what I find problematic.

Agreed.

"The metagame shattered my immersions!" is certainly one possibility. Or the dissociated mechanics.... Or the genre-contrary rules element...

... Or the enemy agents. Or the wendigo.

It's not the meta-game that shatters immersions (again, the meta-game is being simplified so as to blend more seamlessly with the narrative exchange that makes immersion possible, so that complaint will be less and less relevant with time), it's meta-game thinking, meta-game-informed action-taking, and meta-game-inspired shoehorns into an otherwise immersive experience that shakes things up. (In other words: The meta-game doesn't kill immersion, players do.)

It's served its purpose. The point is the system can't force someone in or out of immersion (in contrast to the analogy, there's no anti - or would it be pro? - psychotics we can just prescribe to fix the issue), it's a personal experience and what facilitates it can be completely different for each individual, and even inconsistent from one instance to the next with the same individual.

One of my better analogies!



I agree that the system can't force someone into or out of immersion, but I still assert that it can absolutely serve to reinforce narrative immersion with the tools and structures it affords the game.

Not for nothing, 4th Edition was a fantastic offering in terms of an immersive meta-game. With 5th Edition, the designer-expressed intent is a shift towards a less-intrusive* meta-game and a more immersive narrative.

*Completely understand why it seems as though immersion is something sacrosanct because English forces us to use verbs like intrude, impede, disrupt, distract, etc., when we speak to its definition in contrasting terms.

 

[Yaarel]

The system can easily force someone out of immersion. For example, suppose you describe what your character does, in game, from the perspective of the character. However, in order to determine if that action succeeds or fails, you had to defeat the DM in a reallife chess game. That chess game mechanic would end the immersion then and there.

 

[Yaarel]

People have dreams. Whether other people can see those dreams or not, is irrelevant.

If someone self-reports that they had a dream, there is normally no reason to doubt them.

When people self-report immersion, there is also normally no reason to doubt them.

Indeed, when Buddhist monks self-report meditative experiences, live-time brain scans while meditating corroborate their reports. It would be interesting to do similar brain studies while gamers game, especially in relation to immersion. But there is no need to do so. The self-report is evidence enough.

Whatever the game mechanics can do to facilitate immersive gameplay is strongly appreciated.

 

[mrpopstar]

The system can easily force someone out of immersion. For example, suppose you describe what your character does, in game, from the perspective of the player. However, in order to determine if that succeeds or fails, you had to defeat the DM in a reallife chess game. That chess game mechanic would end the immersion then and there.

It can certainly upset immersion, but it doesn't force you around. (I am a victim of my own pedantry!)

 

[TwoSix]

Whatever the game mechanics can do to facilitate immersive gameplay is strongly appreciated.

Which is fine, but I don't think there's any sort of consensus as to what game mechanics foster immersion, and which mechanics detract from it.

I've heard a lot of people argue that "dissociative mechanics" detract from their immersion, whereas I personally have found the opposite; that mechanics that let me dictate events around my character help me inhabit the character's current mindset more fully.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heh, I would never have guessed you were a Skinnerian who hated the ‘black box’.

It's just a matter of futility. Trying to 'fix' an issue with immersions is futile. Whether it's because you can't know what's in the box, or because you're being lied to about what's in the box, doesn't really matter.

Whatever the game mechanics can do to facilitate immersive gameplay is strongly appreciated.

I'm not convinced there's anything mechanics can do, in general, to facilitate immersion.

It's not the meta-game that shatters immersions, it's meta-game thinking, meta-game-informed action-taking, and meta-game-inspired shoehorns into an otherwise immersive experience that shakes things up.

Meh. What shatters immersion is whatever the guy complaining about his shattered immersion wants to exclude from play.

I agree that the system can't force someone into or out of immersion, but I still assert that it can absolutely serve to reinforce narrative immersion with the tools and structures it affords the game.

I can't agree. Immersion is too personal an experience to definitively map to system qualities. I've heard a lot of folks complaining about their immersions, and there's vanishingly little consistency to it. Except for one commonality: there's something they don't like, and they want it removed as an option for everyone.

Not for nothing, 4th Edition was a fantastic offering in terms of an immersive meta-game. With 5th Edition, the designer-expressed intent is a shift towards a less-intrusive* meta-game and a more immersive narrative.

Not a very cogent or meaningful way of describing the difference. 4e was certainly a comparatively balanced game, and has been praised/derided as both 'narrativist' and 'gamist' - and, of course, when folks ran out of other, less invalid, accusations to hurl at it as shattering immersion. But it did not offer a meta-game, rather, all games come with a meta-game - 'system mastery' is another way to put it - and while 4e could be engaged that way easily enough, the rewards for doing so were slim compared to 3.5 (because comparatively balanced). 5e is not wildly different from 4e in that sense - it, too, can be engaged on the meta-game level and rewards reaped for the effort, just not so lavish as in 3.5 - where they are more distinct is in the emphasis on DM Empowerment. 4e was designed to make DMing easy. 5e is designed to Empower DMs, which is not easy, but can be very rewarding.

A marginal DM could, in 4e, string together some combats, skill challenges and story elements, and run a passable game, probably to most tastes not a very immersive game, since the narrative would be, well 'strung together' and he'd be leaning heavily on the system, throughout. The same DM couldn't do that in 5e, his game would crash and burn, probably not even get off the ground. A better DM could run a 'more immersive' game, by whatever standards of immersion his players need - 5e goes out of its way to give him the latitude to do that.

*Completely understand why it seems as though immersion is something sacrosanct because English forces us to use verbs like intrude, impede, disrupt, distract, etc., when we speak to its definition in contrasting terms.

Hadn't thought about it that way. Interesting.

Which is fine, but I don't think there's any sort of consensus as to what game mechanics foster immersion, and which mechanics detract from it.

Thank you for putting it so concisely.


I don't think there could be any such consensus, since it is such a subjective & personal experience.

 

[Yaarel]

Which is fine, but I don't think there's any sort of consensus as to what game mechanics foster immersion, and which mechanics detract from it.

I've heard a lot of people argue that "dissociative mechanics" detract from their immersion, whereas I personally have found the opposite; that mechanics that let me dictate events around my character help me inhabit the character's current mindset more fully.

If by ‘dissociative mechanics’ you mean the player describes the narrative of an action, rather than the DM, then I agree, the player may well be in an immersive state when describing the scene.