Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7622855" data-attributes="member: 6785785">So the more a GM does to try and portray the NPC, the better off the game is. I mean, I get the idea in general. But what if he's so bad at doing character voices that it actively undermines his goal? This is my point. I understand yours and would agree with a general "do what you can to enhance immersion" kind of approach. But I think what will increase immersion is very different from table to table, as these discussions always display. So for me, a more suitable approach is to tailor how you try to enhance immersion to the specific participants. I think I was a bit unclear....I didn't mean immersion wasn't essential to roleplaying. I meant speaking in character dialogue wasn't essential to it. People can indeed roleplay just fine by describing what their character does. Can speaking in character dialogue help add to that? Sure, for many people. For others, it's a distraction, or it's something they struggle with and so their immersion is lessened because their enjoyment is lessened. And so on. I don't think you can objectively show this. Even with your specific definition of cinematic.So those action declarations are all a bit more than simply "I attack" and that's great....that's very much in line with how my group tends to handle that stuff. However, they do all basically boil down to "I attack". If someone were transcribing the game, they'd likely say "and then Sir Smite attacked the orc chief" rather than saying "Pressed by the brute, Sir Smite deftly sidestepped, and brought his longsword to bear". I don't know if it's essential that everyone at the table be picturing exactly the same thing in their heads when they picture the action of the game. Hopefully, it's fairly similar. But even with your examples, there's still plenty of room for people to picture things differently. And why shouldn't there be? I don't know if immersion requires everyone to be picturing exactly the same thing. I think there is plenty of fiction that we can point to where descriptions are sparse, and yet engaging and immersive. I don't agree that it's different for gaming in this regard. I actually find that sometimes, speaking as a player can be far more enlightening than speaking in character. As a player, I can actually say much more about my character's motivations and desires in that moment than the character would actually say. So while the character may be limited in what he can say....he's going to ask the Duke for help....but the player can elaborate on that in the way narration does in fiction. Narration and dialogue are both important in that sense. THe character isn't going to point out how the Duke reminds him of his father, and so he's struggling not to just yell at the guy....but the player can. And for certain a player could speak both in character and then also speak out of character....i expect this is probably how most games function. But given the depth to which a player can really go to out of character....and can even involve other players and their opinions on the subject....I don't see how in character dialogue is essential to immersion. It can certainly help, and I'm all for it. But its absence does not necessarily diminish immersion or roleplaying. Sure, but getting a general consensus on an opinion is still an opinion. It's just the prevailing opinion, not objective fact. I don't think it's irrelevant at all. The mechanics of a game and how they attempt to push the game in specific ways is vitally important. If the players are able to have input on the fictional elements involving the Duke, then they're likely very engaged and immersed. Others may find that to lessen immersion because it gives them too much influence as a player....and that's a valid view, as well. But to dismiss the mechanics and the procedure and their impact on play as irrelevant seems to me a pretty odd contention. I'm not sure I follow what you mean here....do you mean relying on generation of NPC goals of some kind? Rather than a GM determining the goals, or them being stated in a game book? Sure, I just don't accept the distinction as all that meaningful. I think the similarities are more meaningful than the differences. I think that when descibing a physical action, it will produce an image in another person's mind that can still signifcantly differ from another's mental image despite the amount of detail provided. They'll be picturing something close enough for the purposes of a game. If someone describes a non-physical action, and instead summarizes what they want, I the shared imagining will be sufficient for the purpose of a RPG.</blockquote>

Verification