log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E What are your biggest immersion breakers, rules wise?

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
So you're saying it's not impossible to overcome this issue... ;)

Also it doesn't take much time at all, and it's why I don't have a problem with hit points, Vancian casting, resting and healing, warlords shouting severed hands back on, and on and on and on.

I wasn't always this way, but I decided to change.
🎶
You can make a difference
You can make it right
You can make it better
We don't have to fight
You can make an effort
Starting with tonight
'Cause you
You can make a change
🎶
 

log in or register to remove this ad


iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Like, I am now adding the "all problems with suspension of disbelief in fiction are the fault of the audience" as 1b on my list of "Most Stupid Arguments I have ever Seen Here."

Nobody's making that argument.

What is being suggested is a solution for issues related to someone else (or a rule) potentially breaking your immersion. Specifically, how to become more resilient against those things.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Well, you may not have a problem with it, but I am guessing that this is from a general rules-perspective as opposed to an immersion perspective.

For example, your compatriot-in-argument, Charlaquin, thinks immersion is just a buzzword. But that's because (as in this post) the two of you are used to arguing about rules.

If you are playing, say, Cthulhu, and you're an hour-and-half into the game, and everything has been building this gradual sense of horror, and you're feeling it, and you open a door behind which is the eldritch horror you're sure will drive you (your character) beyond the bend, and the GM says, "Hey it's Mike Meyers, and he's going to do his Dieter Impression" and then proceeds to do a 30 minute, terrible, Sprockets routine and then says that he Dieter wants you to love his abshmienke ... does that break immersion for you?

Maybe?
What’s been broken in this example is the tone. There’s certainly no reason that an elder god couldn’t take the form of Michael Myers and do a Dieter impression. It isn’t unrealistic, any more than the elder god itself already is. But it is very silly, and not in line with the tone of Call of Cthulhu.

No, of course not! The fault is not with the DM, Iserith, or with the stars, the fault is with YOU for not being fully immersed.

Shame on you. Immerse yourself better.
Who said anything about fault? Not me. I’m not trying to assign blame. I’m trying to offer solutions.
 



Sacrosanct

Legend
It's not dismissive at all. I recognize it as a real problem, one that I've had personally, but overcame. I also stated that there are a number of solutions and that I preferred one in particular because it is useful in more areas than just watching movies or playing D&D. I can't control the casting of Narcos. I can't control how a TV show writes its stories. But I can control myself. And so that's the best place to start in my view.


It's about as dismissive as telling people they don't need to be on anti depression medication if they just got outside in the woods more.

People are bothered by different things that others aren't. Because you don't get as bothered by immersion breaking things or if you managed to get over it, doesn't mean that Jane over there isn't justified for being bothered by it or that she should just "get over it". Your posts are in fact, very dismissive.
 

Saelorn

Hero
Indeed, if you just stop at “well, none of it is real, so it doesn’t matter if it’s consistent or not,” then we are dodging the question. It is also dodging the question to say “this inconsistency breaks my immersion” and leave it at that. If we want to answer the question, we must accept that what has happened in the fiction has happened in the fiction and does not match our expectations of what would happen in reality and then come up with an in-fiction reason how it happened.
Alternatively, we can say that having this happen within the fiction is unacceptable, and actually do something about it. In a comic book, that means not continuing with the series. In an RPG, that means house rules, or changing to a new system.

In no case are we under any obligation to simply accept something as it is. By trying to post-hoc justify the irrational, it prevents us from finding a solution to the actual problem.
 


iserith

Magic Wordsmith
It's about as dismissive as telling people they don't need to be on anti depression medication if they just got outside in the woods more.

People are bothered by different things that others aren't. Because you don't get as bothered by immersion breaking things or if you managed to get over it, doesn't mean that Jane over there isn't justified for being bothered by it or that she should just "get over it". Your posts are in fact, very dismissive.

You're free to interpret my posts as dismissive, but suggesting solutions for a known problem, one that I've had myself, is not being dismissive of people who have this problem. It's simply saying, "Here's a solution you can try." You can take it or leave it, but please don't ascribe to me intent I do not have.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Alternatively, we can say that having this happen within the fiction is unacceptable, and actually do something about it. In a comic book, that means not continuing with the series. In an RPG, that means house rules, or changing to a new system.
You have a very strange way of defining “actually doing something about it.”

In no case are we under any obligation to simply accept something as it is.
Obviously. I have made no claims to the contrary.

By trying to post-hoc justify the irrational, it prevents us from finding a solution to the actual problem.
Again, your idea of “finding a solution to the actual problem” looks a lot like just giving up to me. “This thing that happened in a comic didn’t make sense, I consider that unacceptable, and will no longer continue reading it.” Uhh... Ok, that’s you’re right, I guess... I don’t see how that address the problem in any way, though.

I think what we may be running into here is a difference of opinion about what “the problem” is. As I understand it, the problem under discussion is broken immersion. It seems like you’re arguing about a problem of inconsistent writing.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
If someone says that they have an issue with something, and the response is, "The issue is you," that's pretty much the definition of dismissive.

Yeah, the issue starts with you and your tolerance for such things. That isn't being dismissive of the problem. It's recognizing the problem and, specifically, its source. The odd rule, fictional inconsistency, or fellow player "metagaming" is the trigger (among many for some, no doubt). You can focus on alleviating the triggers, some of which aren't under your control, or you can work on yourself to build up your tolerance, focus, and resilience. Or you can do a bit of all of them.

I guess I could say calling my posts dismissive is dismissive of the solutions being presented to the problem that is clearly being recognized.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
So the tone is broken. And when the tone is broken, why does that break, exactly?

Would that be a break in the internal consistency?
No, it wouldn’t. Tone and internal consistency are two completely different things. Again, there’s really no reason Cthulhu couldn’t do that thing. It isn’t inconsistent with the established fictional rules. It just doesn’t fit the tone of the setting.

And when that internal consistency is broken, do the players who were formerly immersed in the cosmic horror of Cthulhu have an issue?

Would this be, perhaps, because absent any other rules expectations, that the assumed setting (1920s) would mean that this would also be ahistorical and definitely break the fourth wall, in addition to being "silly."

Isn't this exactly what I explained at length? But wait, as you said, (paraphrasing) immersion is just for suckers, right?
I guess it depends what you mean by “immersed.” And this is why I argue that it’s a meaningless buzzword. Is immersion a sense of internal consistency? Is it adherence to audience expectations? Is it a clear and consistent tone? Is it believable characterization? It seems to me that “immersion” is a uselessly vague catch-all term for a lot of separate issues.
 


As I understand it, the problem under discussion is broken immersion.
Sorry to snip out one line like this, and not to pick on you but, "breaking" carries this odd implication that immersion is this static, crystaline, thing that you have by default until some mean mechanic takes a hammer to it.
Immersion seems to me more lije an accomplishment, a state you reach for, not start with. An exercise in imagination and... IDK ... 'ego displacement?' 'dissociation?' ...something.

And, it seems, in some of the more frequently-invoked issues, like hps, it's not the mechanic, itself, but how it's imagined that seems to be the problem.

I have to wonder why imagining it differently is off the table.
 

Bardic Dave

Explorer
No, it wouldn’t. Tone and internal consistency are two completely different things. Again, there’s really no reason Cthulhu couldn’t do that thing. It isn’t inconsistent with the established fictional rules. It just doesn’t fit the tone of the setting.


I guess it depends what you mean by “immersed.” And this is why I argue that it’s a meaningless buzzword. Is immersion a sense of internal consistency? Is it adherence to audience expectations? Is it a clear and consistent tone? Is it believable characterization? It seems to me that “immersion” is a uselessly vague catch-all term for a lot of separate issues.

As a veteran hair-splitter myself, I applaud your efforts! Truly exceptional craftsmanship. However, I can’t help but wonder if you’re missing the forest for the trees.
 


Bardic Dave

Explorer
Sorry to snip out one line like this, and not to pick on you but, "breaking" carries this odd implication that immersion is this static, crystaline, thing that you have by default until some mean mechanic takes a hammer to it.
Immersion seems to me more lije an accomplishment, a state you reach for, not start with. An exercise in imagination and... IDK ... 'ego displacement?' 'dissociation?' ...something.

And, it seems, in some of the more frequently-invoked issues, like hps, it's not the mechanic, itself, but how it's imagined that seems to be the problem.

I have to wonder why imagining it differently is off the table.

I don’t think it’s off the table. I think it works better in certain instances than in others and for certain people better than for others.

I don’t think anyone is saying you shouldn’t imagine things differently. I think there’s just a bit of push back against people who seem to be saying that you must (or at least that if you can’t in a particular instance, then you’re just not trying hard enough)
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top