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: 8300246" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't 100% know what you mean by "immersionist". Part of the difference in orientation between me and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] (and some others) in these threads is because I am an immersionist - in the sense that, as I have posted, I prefer to inhabit my character and make decisions in accordance with my PCs drives and commitments (rather than taking an author-stance "god's eye view" of those drives and commitments and treating them as parameters in decision-making).Being able to do that in a game depends very much upon strong game design. Classic D&D is terrible for it, because if you don't adopt author stance and think about technical optimisation of decision-making you'll quicly end up dead at the bottom of a 10' pit! (I know some RPGers try to square this circle by imagining their PC has precisely the drives and commitments of a Gygaxian dungeon-delver who took Monster Manual classes as a child; I personally find that to be such an artificial fig leaf that I'm not interested in it.)4e D&D is pretty good for it, because - as per my reply to [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] about this not too far upthread - when you move into author stance in 4e D&D the design of character abilities and how they relate to the default suite of challenges generally brings you back into thematic conformity with your PC as played in actor stance. So the shifting between stances doesn't cause any dissonance in the inhabitation of the character.The most intense RPG that I know for this sort of play is Burning Wheel. I've already posted enough about that in this and other recent threads that I probably don't need to repeat it.Just as this requires strong game design, it also has nothing to do with "big tent" games. Nor with spotlight balance - which I take you to be advocating in your post. I'm with [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] on this.</blockquote>

Verification