Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7639772" data-attributes="member: 16586">I believe the idea that formal systems always decrease rather than increase a game's sense of immersion is flawed. Apocalypse World is a game that is designed to be as immersive as possible. Things like always addressing the player by his or her character's name, ending GM moves with "Character name, what do you do?" and basic moves that are triggered by the fiction are all features that I consider to be immersion enhancing. Blades in the Dark's focus on risk vs. reward, flashbacks, and vice mechanics are also immersion enhancing for me. Dogs in the Vineyard conflict and escalation mechanics mirror the characters thought processes incredibly well.All that being said I have my own issues with intent based resolution. I'm a big believer in character identification and advocacy without investment in outcomes. I believe there is a danger when it comes to intent based resolution to drift into story advocacy - trying to fulfill a certain preconceived character or story arc rather than playing with integrity. If you're disciplined about sticking to character intent it can be avoided, but is something I am wary of. Furthermore if a game is mostly about whose creative vision works out then the game itself is not really contributing very much to the process. I prefer if we end up with results that neither you or I would choose, but are otherwise compelling.</blockquote>