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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="apoptosis" data-source="post: 4329553" data-attributes="member: 3226">We are really far apart in what we in enjoy in an RPG. I actually think the worst advice given in many RPG books is the idea that immersion is the ulitmate achievement in an RPG (some more infer than say this).I think rules that encourage story and meta-gaming can (not always depends on the rules) make the game  better.I can only speak for myself and my group but we used to be heavy simulationist and i personally was a big RM fan. Once I started playing more indie games where they encourage narrative control for all gaming participants and metagaming to benefit the game, the 'fun' and quality of my RPG experiences have increased manyfold.While telling a story is not a game, what I consider great RPGs have RULES that encourage interesting scenes and stories. They have actually more gamist (have gaming rules) aspects than games that have the dichotomy of GM controls world/ players control characters.Once we got out of what I consider the straightjacket of this dichotomy, the games got far better. As I said this is limited to my experience in gaming so i cant generalize for other people or groups.You seem to be thinking (or at least saying) that games that share narrative power dont have rules. They have very strong rules and actually they tend to have less issues with groups needed to bring rules to have a good gaming experience because the rules are not trying to simulate reality or some asymptote to full character immersion.This is not a post for one-true way of game thinking and I know people who really like heavy simulation and immersion will disagree about what constitutes a quality RPG but I do disagree with your overall theories that immersion is ultimate ideal of an RPG.PS...that was more heavy handed than intended was meant for discussion and not argument.</blockquote>

Verification