Fourth wall breaking commentary from the Game Master

[Sacred_Path]

A typical CRPG isn't just a vehicle for escapism - for many people, it's also a character building/simulation game, almost like a small scale strategy game. I'm certainly not against immersion, but the people who think "immersion uber alles" need to realize the genre has other aspects as well.

Character development is actually one thing I like the most about RPG's. I can absolutely enjoy reasoning like "I'll take two rangers along even though archery is weak in the beginning, but if I raise stealth and archery they should be competent around level 3 and they will really help around level 5 to take out spellcasters at the battle of the bridge but then they'll just be mediocre scouts until the end game". OTOH, I think it's not as fun if you can plot your entire way through the game in a similar fashion by selecting all quests in advance and maximizing HP gains. That makes the game dull IMO.

 

Uh well, maybe there can be a game mode where those toggles are locked?

mebbe, if the XP gains in this mode are also different from other modes.

[Archmage Silver]

I don't think it would fit PE that well - in IWD2 it was fine because there wasn't any interparty banter, so it provided some amusement occasionally.

[Lephys]

 

And that's much more "immersion breaking" than visible XP points.

Immershun is entirely subjective of course, but I wouldn't have a problem with that specific example as it's strictly ingame information. Your character knows when he's trying to be suave and convincing (or puts that much more effort into it).

 

I really wouldn't even say immersion is "entirely subjective," as a flight sim that randomly displays photos of gorillas would in no way be fortifying the idea that you're really in airspace, controlling an airplane, as gorillas objectively have absolutely nothing to do with the simulated process/environment of aircraft flight. Just for what it's worth. (It kinda makes me giggle when I see people put the word in quotes every single time they use it, as though it only even allegedly exists.)

 

Anywho, ALSO for what it's worth, I have a feeling that, in the case of "Persuasion," they're not going to have a skill like that. They're going to break it down into "what criteria needs to be met in order to give this person an incentive to do something they currently don't want to do?"

 

To put it simply, think of it as giving someone a gift. If you give them something they love, it might work as a bribe. If you give them a free cat, and they're allergic to cats, not only are they NOT going to consider it a valid bribe, but they're going to react NEGATIVELY, at the very least because they now have to put up with inflammation/sneezing/itching, etc.

 

So, actually persuading someone is kind of like giving them the right gift. And there doesn't really need to be a skill that automatically tells you which gift to give someone. Maybe you're better at acquiring gifts, but you still have to figure out which one you need.

 

When it works along those lines, Having the "gift" in parentheses, beside the line of dialogue (as opposed to "(This Option Will Convince This Person To Tell You Things)," aka "(Persuade)" ) won't really be a problem. At least, not in that way.

[Sacred_Path]

I really wouldn't even say immersion is "entirely subjective," as a flight sim that randomly displays photos of gorillas would in no way be fortifying the idea that you're really in airspace, controlling an airplane, as gorillas objectively have absolutely nothing to do with the simulated process/environment of aircraft flight. Just for what it's worth. (It kinda makes me giggle when I see people put the word in quotes every single time they use it, as though it only even allegedly exists.)

what's subjective is if you feel a given game does a good job of creating immersion, and wether certain elements can break that feeling for you or not (like said gorillas). If someone is completely not bothered by the presence of gorillas at that supposed altitude, that probably says something about this person, but you can't fault him for still feeling immersed in controlling his little "aircraft".

Anywho, ALSO for what it's worth, I have a feeling that, in the case of "Persuasion," they're not going to have a skill like that. They're going to break it down into "what criteria needs to be met in order to give this person an incentive to do something they currently don't want to do?"

Josh has explicitly said he'd rather not use dialogue skills.

[Lephys]

what's subjective is if you feel a given game does a good job of creating immersion, and wether certain elements can break that feeling for you or not (like said gorillas). If someone is completely not bothered by the presence of gorillas at that supposed altitude, that probably says something about this person, but you can't fault him for still feeling immersed in controlling his little "aircraft".

*Giggles*. Hehe, nah, just to clarify, I wasn't even commenting on anyone immediately on this thread page, about the quotes thing. I've just read oodles of threads on here, and there are people that seem to think immersion isn't even an actually-existent thing, just because it's heavily subjective.

 

As for the gorillas, I understand completely. All I meant was, you can objectively say, with certainty, that gorillas have nothing to do with flying a plane. They are not an inherent part of plane-flying. And, since a flight simulator is literally trying to immerse you in the act/environment of flying a plane, then things that do that are contributive to the immersion, and things that don't do that are not. The complex thing is "how immersive do we need to worry about going?", and then the whole subjective bit about "what things can immersion do without, and what things CAN'T immersion do without?". Obviously people's answers to those questions are different, and therefore, the subjective element is readily apparent.

 

However, if you say "dude, random gorilla photos actually help this game simulate the aircraft flight experience," I shall call your lie, factually. It's one thing for them to simply not break your immersion, but that doesn't automatically mean they're immersive, or that they aren't even detrimental to immersion. The very fact that they're something you must react to and, subsequently, ignore, means that they are objectively outside the realm of immersing you in the simulation of aircraft flight. In general.

 

Maybe every time you've ever flown, you were transporting gorillas. That's different, though. That's circumstantial. The game isn't trying to simulate everything that circumstantially makes you think of flying, based on your specific empirical experiences and memories, so gorillas aren't an inherent part of the flying process (as plenty of people fly all over the place and have never even seen gorillas, ever).

 

Annnnnnnywho...

[Sacred_Path]

Fortunately, since none of us knows how a foray into a fantasy world would unfold in reality, nothing of the above applies.

 

Which makes me want to support the OP; more skeptical players simply need assume that the whimsical god of playwrights, scribes and... uhm... record keeping occasionally takes over the main character when he's in the process of perusing his journal.

[Lephys]

Fortunately, since none of us knows how a foray into a fantasy world would unfold in reality, nothing of the above applies.

 

Which makes me want to support the OP; more skeptical players simply need assume that the whimsical god of playwrights, scribes and... uhm... record keeping occasionally takes over the main character when he's in the process of perusing his journal.

It actually does, since the fantasy world's makeup isn't entirely exclusive to the fantasy world and separate from reality. There are still things you can improperly simulate. Especially when the game world tells you how they work, then inconsistently doesn't have it work that way.

 

Anywho, I really don't have anything against the OP's notion. I just obviously wouldn't the game to be completely riddled with "Hey, did we mention you're actually just sitting at a keyboard and screen" tidbits, throughout. But, I also wouldn't want the ability to have 732 people in my party. All things in moderation, , so that doesn't really have anything specifically to do with breaking the 4th wall (or at least doing similar things).

[Sacred_Path]

It actually does, since the fantasy world's makeup isn't entirely exclusive to the fantasy world and separate from reality. There are still things you can improperly simulate. Especially when the game world tells you how they work, then inconsistently doesn't have it work that way.

which is rather rare though, since the solution is kind of obvious - don't tell the player that it works. What's more frequent is an established rule that gets violated just a very few times, usually to impede the player's progress... but unless overly punishing, this tends to be more like bumps in the road for me.

 

edit: can I change your inconsistently to consistently? Thanks

Edited June 28, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Lephys]

Well, 99.99999% of the stuff people cite as unimmersive, or detrimental to immersion, in a fantasy world involves inconsistency.

 

So not "Hey, magic wouldn't be able to do that, 'cause it doesn't do that in REAL life!", but rather, "Wait... if magic can do that, then why don't people use it to do THIS all the time? Everyone just happens to not use it that way, conveniently, so it doesn't cause any problems?"

 

I simply fail to see the point in the "this isn't actually reality, therefore we have absolutely no basis for emulating anything at all in the entire fantasy world" argument. We do have a basis for some of it, and it is sometimes quite constructive to actually consider immersion. That's just a simple truth.

 

And, again, you happening to shrug inconsistency off as "bumps in the road" doesn't automatically overrule others' lack of ability to do so, any more than others' ability to shrug something off would overrule your being extremely bothered by it.

 

If everyone in P:E has rocket feet, maybe that's just bumps in the road for some people, but that doesn't mean everyone else should just put up with it, and we should all just laugh and dance about and say "Ohhh subjectiveness... nothing's correct, and EVERYTHING'S correct! Hahahahah!"

 

So, unless you're arguing that immersion is ridiculous and doesn't matter at all, I don't even see the conflict here that my words have caused. I'm even in agreement with you that the negative reactions to the OP's suggestion were probably over-reaction, so we're not even disagreeing on specifically the extent to which immersion matters, or where we should draw the line. I've simply supported the idea that people aren't stupid for worrying about immersion and considering the effects of design decisions upon it, and you seem to be against me in some way I cannot conceive.

[Sacred_Path]

If everyone in P:E has rocket feet, maybe that's just bumps in the road for some people, but that doesn't mean everyone else should just put up with it, and we should all just laugh and dance about and say "Ohhh subjectiveness... nothing's correct, and EVERYTHING'S correct! Hahahahah!"

I think that's not really what I said, but then I'm late and it's tired

[Lephys]

I don't think I claimed you said it. I merely claimed its truth. I'm sorry if it seemed like an inferral. 'Twas not my intent.

 

I really have nothing to oppose you in here. I'm just a robot-dude, and can't help but touch on the finer details of a discussion and its contextual elements. So, to hopefully clarify any misunderstanding, I merely meant that, while it is indeed silly to nitpick about immersion, it should still be kept in consideration. That's all. I apologize if I seemed to be suggesting that your stance was wrong, or that you had stated the exact polar opposite of what I was saying.