mcmanusaur

Unfortunately players' and characters' growing ability to handle challenges as they become accustomed to the game and their yearning for a sense of achievement and progression can be opposing forces in RPGs. While an old-school arcade game might be able to get away with continually becoming more difficult over the course of the game, I don't think that really suits the RPG design personally because save-scumming too often tends to break flow and immersion. That said, you can get away with a short "easy learning" period at the beginning of the game, which is probably preferable to the situation you describe. Given both character progression and also the progression of the player's abilities over time, it can be quite a struggle to prevent a game becoming easier over time. However, most games seem to either settle into a somewhat consistent difficulty trajectory or alternate between more and less difficult segments, relying more on increasing complexity than increasing difficulty to maintain the player's interest. Personally I have no reservations about playing on easier difficulties in RPG's myself because it serves what I hope to get out of the genre, which focuses more on stuff like immersion and exploration over gaining a sense of triumph from gaming the system.

herp

Well, if those constitute the class abilities in a modern/sci-fi RPG and aren't particularly functionally distinct, I would feel the same way. That said, my priorities are different in playing an FPS, if that is where you mean to draw comparisons. I haven't really given it much thought, but most of the things that come to mind aren't as combat-focused. Maybe I can get back to you on that.

we know little about them outside of combat, maybe that's where they're more interesting. What the heck is "standard magical fare". I have to admit I've never run across it, but perhaps I've just spent too much time in reality. AoE damage, debuffs over time, some sort of necromantic life drain spell, etc.

Yeah, here's hoping. Well, when all systems of magic (arcane, soul-based, nature-based) fulfill the same functions, the classes really do seem to feel like reskins that vary only in aesthetics and cosmetics...

Although I can see how this would appeal to many players... my thoughts: "On second thought, let us not play a cipher; tis a silly class..." To me the abilities listed just sound like sorta standard magical fare- with "mind" or "soul" tacked on to the name of course- very gamey and not particularly profound. As such, I'll probably end up sticking with a utility class, or maybe trying a chanter.

Same here. Medieval fantasy settings still ostensibly share many things in common with history, and "it's fantasy" isn't reason for passing over something historical unless the nature of the fantasy expressly supports that. In other words, if we had a fantasy where money grew on trees, then maybe it would be excusable that economics in that setting aren't realistic, but- in settings where there's no reason for it not to work the same- it does (assuming you take the view that roleplaying is more about a social role than exclusively about roles in combat) detract from immersion if such things aren't fleshed out.

I believe that the real obstacle to defining immersion objectively is our personal histories of which games we have played and enjoyed, which inform our varying expectations for future games. Graphics have progressed a long way over the last few decades, and I think you can say with some level of objectivity that our capability to create immersive experiences has also grown in parallel (even if many current games don't wisely utilize that capability). However, since each of us has had our own individual introduction to games (and also to RPG's in particular) along different stages of technological progression, our standards and expectations for what we consider "immersive" vary heavily. It is very difficult to let go of nostalgia (especially in the context of this awesome project), but I think this is the true obstacle to a consensus about immersion, even if we are objectively moving closer to maximal immersion every year. So while our subjective notions of immersion (informed by our expectations, which are in turn informed by our gaming history) are in some way valid, I think you can make a case that the ability to create immersion is something objective and growing over time. Of course, you might be disagreeing with this because you're one of those people who consider realism and immersion opposites, but I think that technological advancement improves the potential for both.

If you must remove my control of my character while Story happens, it doesn't really make much too difference to me whether it's a pre-rendered cuscene or animations in the isometric view. I guess the latter is still somewhat preferable, but the former can obviously look "nicer".

I'm just saying, neither of the first two reasons are valid roleplaying reasons IMO, and I'm not arguing against having children in quests. If this is the issue, shouldn't we be asking Obsidian to address the deficiencies in their dialogue, rather than relying on the player to murder them? I don't know how desperate of a rogue you roleplay, but for me a generic child NPC would hardly be the first target to come to mind. It's not anyone's responsibility to tell others how they should play a game, but I think there's a case to be made as to whether a particular style of play constitutes "roleplaying". I'm not saying they should be treated any differently to other NPCs; I am simply referencing "child NPCs" because that is the topic of discussion.

Oh, the good old "experience machine" thought experiment!

I would add that the quality of immersion is contingent upon subjective expectations, but that one can make a more or less objective case about what expectations are most relevant for a particular game. Can you elaborate on your formula?

I think that's closer to what some game designers would call a "flow state" (which seems a somewhat vacuous term to me). I have thought a lot about how to distinguish these two notoriously vague concepts and I've arrived at the conclusion that immersion maximizes our enjoyment of intrinsically motivated activities, and flow optimizes our efficiency in extrinsically motivated tasks. The distinction between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" motivations is obviously somewhat artificial, but oh well.

Immersion is a real thing, but it's quite a subjective thing as is the case with any such quality that serves to describe our experience with media. That said, the boundaries of effective games are defined by the struggle for cohesion, consistency, and relevance, and I do think there are essentially objective-minded arguments to be made as to whether or not particular features serve these ends. In other words, it's worth discussing whether individual features are "immersive" in the context of a specific game (and its respective boundaries), but it's altogether pointless to argue with someone else about the "immersion" value of an entire game or of a single abstracted mechanic removed from any meaningful context. From this it follows that when someone contends that a particular feature might add "immersion" to a game, one should evaluate the degree to which the particular envisioning of the game served best by that feature matches the game's "true" boundaries. Obviously the boundaries of what belongs in a game are just as subjective as immersion, but we can at least acknowledge that disagreements over the former often underlie arguments over the latter.

Allow me to fix that for you.

You may not realize it, but you're arguing for more arbitrarity in the game, which seems very odd at best. Anyways, this argument is pretty weak, as the inclusion of killable children is one aspect of verisimilitude that is very easy to achieve. Other things, like a believable economy and its related aspects like architecture are much harder to simulate realistically. Perhaps so, and even as someone who has suggested the kinds of things you mention I can admit that their relevance to the game is arguable. But I don't think the ease of inclusion is necessarily a justification for their inclusion; instead, I think that a discussion of relevance is necessitated in that regard. The pertinent question is then, "does including this feature facilitate a worthwhile role?". My case for a somewhat realistic economy is contingent on the notion that "roleplaying games" shouldn't be inherently limited to combat situations, and if this premise is granted it follows that the presentation of different social institutions is important. Personally, the argument for the relevance of a serial killing role doesn't resonate as much with me.

I actually did pick up on your direction there... well, sort of. I chose to quote you anyway because I think you conveniently articulated a lot of what I was addressing. My post was more my reaction to what you were discussing, than my reaction to the argument you were making. I can agree with the idea that there shouldn't be some magic age cut-off that determines whether an NPC is able to be attacked or not; I just don't think there's much valid reason to include the option of attacking someone for whom there is no motive for the player to attack beyond "for the hell of it".

Wait, is that something we're supposed to disagree with? I guess that means I'm the only on- Ahem... eh heh... I mean, of course that's not the case!

What kind of person actually enjoys "roleplaying" a serial killer though, beyond the power trip aspect (and is that something that is really worth encouraging)? And how much effort has to go into making the consequences of such actions immersive? Do the people who want to be able to go on child-murdering sprees really even care about how realistic the consequences are, or do they just care about their character having as much agency as possible? I'm not convinced. You know what I really wish? I wish that there was an extremely graphic and twisted game whose purpose was to immerse the player in the role of a serial killer, and to allow players to do all sorts of terrible things. Maybe then the people who want to do that can just play the relevant game, and we wouldn't have so many people requesting these things as features in like every other game to appease their wish fulfillment power trip. But would that be a unique quest-related NPC, or a more-or-less generic child NPC? If I recall correctly this question is mainly about the latter, though I would have no problem with the former being kill-able. I have no problem with allowing players to kill characters who there is a conceivable motive for killing, child or not, and I actually do have a problem with children being invulnerable to damage from traps, monsters, or other NPCs. Sure, that can probably be abused/exploited, but at least this way mindless serial killing isn't paraded under the guise of "immersion"/"roleplaying".

I disagree. While many things might potentially contribute to immersion for different people, certain forms of immersion are irrelevant to particular games. Furthermore, I think people are pretty biased and incongruous in terms of which "immersive" features they request; specifically these tend to be things that increase the player's agency. I believe this ultimately stems from the "limitless wish fulfillment" approach to immersion, and- while agency is certainly important and lack thereof can definitely break immersion- there are other concerns in creating immersion. These include both consistency and coherence, and also balancing the player's agency in proportion to that of other entities in the world. Non sequitur.

The only point in including this "feature" is if there's a scenario in which the player is given reasonable motive to do so, such as in an intense quest choice. Otherwise for me this falls under "things the player has little valid reason for doing", along with seducing random men/women and defecating in the street. I don't believe anyone who is seriously concerned with immersion would be running around randomly killing children anyway. I'm sorry if this excludes some players' idea of "roleplaying", but I think that relevance can be just as importance as consistency, and for me roleplaying != a power fantasy for venting aggression. Fixed that for you.

It's fiction. Fantasy is a specific genre that is usually defined by supernatural elements. And that's what this question clearly was about. "Why do you like stuff with supernatural elements?" Sorry for being annoyed by this, but... it just happens every time someone asks a questions. People answer a completely different one, usually one that is way more broad, so that they can hear themselves talk for a bit and ask rhetorical questions and stuff. "Do you guys want a Bowser-like villain?" -> Answer: "Why a villain at all? A story doesn't require a villain! Let's talk about villains and the necessity of them in narratives!" "Why do you like Fantasy?" - "I like fantasy because of all the elements I like about fiction! I didn't answer your question at all but nevermind!" Again, sorry for being annoyed by this and please don't feel too offended. But this kind of sidetracking usually makes threads very boring to read, because people start talking about whatever. Which is okay if the original topic wasn't very interesting, but in this case I'd actually like all of you to think about this for a minute and then give an answer where you differentiate between stuff you like in fiction in general, and stuff that sets fantasy apart from that. Of course a possible answer is "I don't like fantasy more than other genres, I just happen to like some games, books etc. that happen to be fantasy because of their high quality". Totally fine. I think many people started watching Game of Thrones not because of the fantasy setting but because they enjoyed the characters and the story. I don't think that people are doing this on purpose; there's just a common tendency to conflate fantasy with fiction (and in fact this was something that I was expecting to demonstrate with this thread, even if it's main purpose was to discover the appeal of fantasy).

Thanks for the interesting feedback, everyone. This has definitely elucidated a few things for me with regard to why we seek fantasy.

Proyecto Eternidad

Hmmm... interesting, but you haven't said anything about why you like fiction, and I'd argue that many people's reasons for liking fiction would fall under the poll options.