D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Gimby]

This is a great example. For the record, I see this as above board, and this isn't the kind of thing that would break immersion for me. The actions directly relate to the history of the PC and so it is appropriate (imo) for the player to have some narrative control.

What I dislike is the player creating fiction which is not closely related to the PCs history. Going back to the rune case:

-if the runes were made by the PC, I think the player defining is ok.
-if the runes were made by the PCs father in a language the two can understand, the player defining them is ok
-if the runes were made by the PCs ancestors four generations ago, it's a bit sketchy but I'd be ok with it.
-if the runes were made by other distant member's of the PCs culture, I prefer DM control
-if the runes were made by a culture unrelated to the PC in a region the PC and her ancestors never encountered, then I find player control to break immersion. This holds even if the PC has a memory--"I remember a contact told me this culture created runes as maps".

That's just a selection of possibilities on the spectrum.

I forget the precise details, but this argument involved the treatment of at least two previously unspecified NPCs, at least one location that didn't yet appear on a map and IIRC, a local tradition. All "made up on the spot" - nothing that violated established fiction, all plausibly extrapolated from existing fiction. The tradition and location had no relationship to the PC, as did at least one of the NPCs - is this still fine?

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, this is true as @pemerton presented them. In that case the PC 'expressed a hope that they were a map', and the player then rolled to see if that hope was realized or not.

I think both (A) and (B) are generally true. I was riffing off that example to show how I would feel if the example differed in some ways.

Right.

And to link back to the previous topic, you would find (from my understanding of your perspective) being able to narrate as a player the make-up of the runes to be anti-immersive, whereas I would (this is my perspective) find it to be pro-immersive.

 

[The Firebird]

I forget the precise details, but this argument involved the treatment of at least two previously unspecified NPCs, at least one location that didn't yet appear on a map and IIRC, a local tradition. All "made up on the spot" - nothing that violated established fiction, all plausibly extrapolated from existing fiction. The tradition and location had no relationship to the PC, as did at least one of the NPCs - is this still fine?

I'd need more specifics to be sure. If they had no relationship to the PCs, then I wouldn't care for it. If it was the tradition in the PCs village or the location was something located in their town, that seems ok.

Right.

And to link back to the previous topic, you would find (from my understanding of your perspective) being able to narrate as a player the make-up of the runes to be anti-immersive, whereas I would (this is my perspective) find it to be pro-immersive.

In pemerton's example, correct.

 

[AlViking]

I forget the precise details, but this argument involved the treatment of at least two previously unspecified NPCs, at least one location that didn't yet appear on a map and IIRC, a local tradition. All "made up on the spot" - nothing that violated established fiction, all plausibly extrapolated from existing fiction. The tradition and location had no relationship to the PC, as did at least one of the NPCs - is this still fine?

I believe the example that was given was that the characters wanted to get out of a dungeon. The GM narrated that there were runes on a wall with no other explanation and no idea what the runes were. The player said "Gee, I sure wish these runes were a map showing the way out" and then made a successful roll. Because the roll was successful, they were indeed directions on how to get out.

That was fine in the game being played because of how it works. Personally I wouldn't want to play that game for more than a session or two, it just wouldn't work for me.

 

[FrogReaver]

To give an example from a few years ago. Game is 13th Age set in Greyhawk. My character is an elven princeling playboy and is in conversation with the ghost of a local NPC lord. We'd established the two characters knew each other and had been friends, but had parted on bad terms when they last met. Beyond that there were no details. The conversation became a blazing row between the two characters over the details of the grievance that were made up on the spot. It was an intense, emotional and very immersive scene. What would have broken up the immersion was going back out of character to the GM and determining these details out of character, before repeating them in character, but I've done that on both sides of the screen and it's always felt to me a bit like reading from a script.

So I don’t think the GM should have just told you what your character’s grievance was, though a potential suggestion shouldnt be a problem. Anything more is outside his authority.

This is a case where the player and GM really need to collaborate together.

What was required was that both I and the GM trusted each other not to drastically mischaracterise each other's character and to accept that some details of the character could be defined by the other participant. But by making up details on the spot (or if we were to be a little more formal, plausibly extrapolating them from already established fiction) we had one of the most immersive RP experiences I've ever had.

I don’t think letting someone else author details about your character is required for immersion. At best it’s orthogonal to it.

As to whether making up details (or extrapolating them) can be immersive, sure, but that’s not the kind of immersion d&d players usually mean by the word. I think what you are describing is much closer to actual theatre style improv and one can get quite immersed in that experience as well.

I think it’s fair to say that the kind of immersion typically referred to by the d&d player is one that requires thinking in character which cannot be done simultaneously while making up historical details about said character.

Blame the bad jargon ‘immersion’ on d&d side this time!

-edit While this was a 13th Age game and we were following some it's principles in this case, this kind of thing could have happened in any game, no mechanics were invoked.

Agreed.

 

[clearstream]

And there are even other sorts of things, many many other sorts.

"Would you be willing to run this world I find interesting? I'm happy to help you with <X problems the player knows their GM friend has> in return." (If you wish to view it as such, "payment for services rendered".)

"Would you be willing to run this world I find interesting, since I ran that campaign you wanted last year?" (Tit-for-tat in the other direction, "I already did a thing for you".)

"I know you mentioned you've been feeling a little burned out with D&D, especially with the recent rule changes. I recently bought Energized with a Cataclysm, it's a pretty simple system, would you be willing to run that?" (Proposing as a palate-cleanser.)

"I know you're skeptical about Orientalist tropes, but I've been hankering for some cool samurai action. Would you consider running Ryu & Ronin? It was made with loving attention to authentic Japanese history!" (Recognizing limitations, and specifically looking to address them, not override them.)

You can come up with a nigh-infinite variety of terms, all of which actually do respect the personal interests and preferences of the other person. None of them involve absolute power. None of them involve one person laying down the law from on high.

Remember I'm arguing against "must accept tieflings"; I'm not in the absolute power debate.

Must I accept tieflings in Ryu & Ronin?

 

[FrogReaver]

Right.

And to link back to the previous topic, you would find (from my understanding of your perspective) being able to narrate as a player the make-up of the runes to be anti-immersive, whereas I would (this is my perspective) find it to be pro-immersive.

I think it’s clear by now that we are referring to the immersiveness of 2 different things.

 

[Faolyn]

I am not sure about this.

When we speak of "THE social contract" on this site, we are usually talking specifically about the social contract around the game you're in. That contract does not kick in until you accept the offer. It cannot exact a toll if you reject the offer, any more than a roofing company can bill you if you don't sign a contract for their services.

There are other social contracts in your life - and those are largely not our bailiwick for discussion. If your friendship with someone is contingent on accepting all offers of social engagement with them, for example, that's kind of a you problem.

It may be a "you problem," but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

 

[Umbran]

While I am sure it's happened to people, I've never encountered either of those extremes. Even in games where the DM has the absolute power the DMG gives to him.

Internet discussion, however, is under no onus to keep to commonly observed phenomena, and tends to drive to polar extremes.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it’s clear by now that we are referring to the immersiveness of 2 different things.

I'd probably say it's one word, "immersiveness", attempting to encapsulate 2 related but distinct phenomena.

But I do disagree in that I think you can absolutely both have an inhabitation of the character and subconsciously author at the same time. Like, I can imagine myself in character walking into a bar, and start describing what my character is seeing without any sense of "trying to author". The sensory impression is simply there in my head, just like the sensory impression from my current surroundings (this laptop screen, right now).

Although it's quite possible this is like aphantasia, and everyone has different capacities for what can they subconsciously create as imagery.