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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7389492" data-attributes="member: 996">No.Immersion is a personal experience, it may be that resentment towards the meta-game is common to those who cry immersions in these discussions, but it needn't be an issue to all. Abject nonsense:  intent does not make a limited resource into an unlimited one.In order to have no Action economy, you'd have to have literally no choice in how to use your action.  Let alone actions. That's the nice thing about immersion, it's wholly subjective, so we can each have our own, mutually incompatible definitions of it.  That also means a game can't be designed to enhance or block immersion, such blocks or facilitations exist only in the seeker of immersion, himself. But not a complete definition of it.  An elegant system can be, or seem quite complex, elegant simplicity can open up great depth... Simply having no system would be simple, but not elegant.  And, as I said, elegant simplicity can open up depth.The 3.x fighter, for instance is an elegant design, and the things you can do with it are more complex and varied than can be done with prior or subsequent fighter designs.And, 5e has un-done each of the examples of simplification-to-elegance, two of them, completely Is it? There's less to it, thanks to the slow pace of publication, but is it elegant, in that reduced complexity? Or just less complete?  Honestly, it's the latter.  It pays a price in increased complexity to present standard rules that are more familiar (thus feel simpler, in the sense of easy to grasp) to fans of the TSR era, and to provide options like feats & modular MCing to fans of 3.5/PF.</blockquote>

Verification