Things in RPGs that you used to like but don’t anymore

[Anonymouswizard]

If I need to know distances better than an eyeball I have a tape measure, but that assumes that the map is to scale. More likely it's a rough approximation drawn too help us all agree on the layout of a warehouse.

[Kane0]

I used to like square grids, now i'm more of a hex man myself.

Conversely, I used to hate starting as a talentless shmuck but now I greatly appreciate playing a game every now and again where i'm not automatically a badass at most if not all things by virtue of being a PC.

[Chauncymancer]

This seems pretty uncalled for.

You're right. I edited my post.

[noob]

Simulation / Immersion

I used to think that the best way to participate as a player was to understand my character fully and react to the world as it was presented to them. This loses out on a lot of potential in the genre.

Fundamentally, RPs are telling a story. How many authors write a story without any idea where it's going or what the characters are for (narratively)? Definitely not all of them, i can tell you that. You can run a discovery game about the chaotic things your characters do, but you can also run a slightly more narratively structured experience.

I learned this lesson by running a game where each character had a well-defined but entirely open-ended narrative role: the Homestuck classpect. For example, the Bard of Doom brings about doom and destruction as a passive consequence of their existence. The character Kate was therefore vindictive, disruptive, and had a lot of options for collateral damage. This not only gave her a strong identity, but it gave the other players
(remember, not the characters) an understanding of what to expect from her and how to facilitate her narrative purpose.

I don't recommend classpects (the original Homestuck ones or campaign-specific versions) to everyone. They provide useful character building structure and narrative guidance, but they also require a certain mode of abstract alternate-philosophical thinking that isn't going to be for everyone. Instead, you can still achieve a similar effect simply by thinking not "what would my character do" but "what would be the coolest thing to happen, and what's a reasonable thing my character can do to work towards that?" Sometimes this means actively sabotaging your own character's goals by making them take "unexpectedly" counterproductive actions, and those can be great stories. Take advantage of player / character separation and do things which are good for the players, not the characters.

And remember that for this purpose, the GM is a player too! In a narrative game you are working with the GM, not against them. Yes, the GM is providing opposition, but this is in service of the story, not with the intention to defeat you. In a crunch game like Shadowrun that focuses mainly on the mechanical conflict between player and GM this doesn't work, but in a narrative game take advantage of that teamwork.

(my disagreement with you about stories in general and not rpgs)
I consider that making characters in a story "act in the way that makes the 'best story' " to be something that ruined hundred thousands of stories by making the characters incoherent with themselves just because it was what the plot needed.
Characters should not "act in the way that makes the best story" because what makes the "best story" is not something people can agree on and for plenty of authors it means "that contains the standard amount of drama" which is a bad thing (in my opinion): I think someone should not make characters suddenly act in X way just because they needed the drama: they should instead make characters with traits and personalities that would naturally create the drama they wanted and possibly have the drama change the characters progressively (for better or worse).
The issue is that I think someone should pick the situation and characters that would make a good story with the right amount of drama rather than deciding "hey those characters are not having drama right now so I will make that character act in a way inconsistent with its overall evolution in order to insert drama for having the 'best story' "

(nitpicking about how you talk about rpgs as if they were all collaborative story telling games)
Rpgs are not about making a story: You might want collaborative story telling games (there is an huge overlap with rpgs but some rpgs are not meant at all to be cooperative story telling games) which is a different genre that could fit better what you want.

A classical example of rpg that is not at all about making a story is the "side a defend opinion x, side b defends the opposite opinion" this rpg is not about making the two sides cooperate to have a good story: the objective is to defend the opinion assigned to you better than the other team and at the end the team which defended its opinion the best is victorious regardless of whenever it was a right opinion or anything like that.

[Willie the Duck]

Eating pizza and soda isn't great exercise, and that state of affairs is clear and established fact understood by all reasonable potential thread participants. That battlemats remove immersion is a position you have taken, but not backed up. If you were to provide a substantive argument to that position, that would go a long way towards the two situations appearing to be similar.

By definition, anything that makes us think of a situation as external to ourselves is a decrease in immersion.

I have noticed people frequently use 'immersive' when they mean 'engrossing'. For example, non-first-person video games and movies are engrossing. First-person ones can be immersive though. Books are engrossing, not immersive, except for some versions of choose your own adventure. Studying a language in the country of the native speakers is a good example of immersive too.

Edit: in response to a few of the other responses about diagrams, yes technically its the miniature or token representing a character seperate from the player which causes a decrease in immersion.

I'm going to believe that this is an actual oversight, but it looks like you forgot to make your actual argument here. You go from giving us a dictionary definition (sort of, and arguably), and then skip ahead to talking about supposed mistakes of others (which is pretty straw-filled without references), but we never actually get to see the argument in support of your position.

[Lacco]

My personal "no more" list:

Saving the World (again)
Been there, done that, have a set of matching t-shirts. Saving world is fun, but my focus now is on more personal stories.
Yeah, there might be an invasion as a backdrop to your attempts to keep your family from falling apart. Royal family, that is. Congrats on the crown, your father's ghost may wish to talk to you in the evening. And watch out for the uncle - his wife seems to be have some poisonous attitudes. No worries about the invasion - that is the least of your concerns.

Combat Omniscience
There are RPGs where knowing where it makes sense to know where everybody is in combat, what the actual distances and actions are. I played those, I liked them. Now I prefer when you can see the world through the eyes of the character, not the player. And of course you can do that with a map and miniatures - but I prefer not to. I have seen combat that turned to a puzzle - and it's not bad. But it's no longer the experience I prefer.

[Tanarii]

I'm going to believe that this is an actual oversight, but it looks like you forgot to make your actual argument here. You go from giving us a dictionary definition (sort of, and arguably), and then skip ahead to talking about supposed mistakes of others (which is pretty straw-filled without references), but we never actually get to see the argument in support of your position.

Okay, I'll try again then. It's by definition.

Immersion is believing yourself to be within/surrounded by (the thing).

Miniatures and token decrease that, by definition.

(And again, a mistake I made was assuming that battlemats come with miniatures and tokens as stand-ins / representatives for the characters, but that seems like a reasonable assumption.)

[Max_Killjoy]

(my disagreement with you about stories in general and not rpgs)

I consider that making characters in a story "act in the way that makes the 'best story' " to be something that ruined hundred thousands of stories by making the characters incoherent with themselves just because it was what the plot needed.

Characters should not "act in the way that makes the best story" because what makes the "best story" is not something people can agree on and for plenty of authors it means "that contains the standard amount of drama" which is a bad thing (in my opinion): I think someone should not make characters suddenly act in X way just because they needed the drama: they should instead make characters with traits and personalities that would naturally create the drama they wanted and possibly have the drama change the characters progressively (for better or worse).

The issue is that I think someone should pick the situation and characters that would make a good story with the right amount of drama rather than deciding "hey those characters are not having drama right now so I will make that character act in a way inconsistent with its overall evolution in order to insert drama for having the 'best story' "

(nitpicking about how you talk about rpgs as if they were all collaborative story telling games)
Rpgs are not about making a story: You might want collaborative story telling games (there is an huge overlap with rpgs but some rpgs are not meant at all to be cooperative story telling games) which is a different genre that could fit better what you want.

Agreed on both counts.

And to some degree the prevalence of the former issue in too much fiction, helps fuel my dislike of the latter. "It's about what makes the best story" means, to me, that characters and setting will be as incoherent and inconsistent as the people involved believe necessary to "tell the story".

If anything has reduced my enthusiasm for actually playing RPGs, it's the way that the "this is a game, these are playing pieces" approach, and the "this is a story, you are telling a story, we are all telling a story together" approach, along with the argument between them, have come to dominate the hobby, leaving anyone who doesn't buy into the One True Way that either side pushes to sit on the sideline and get yelled at as both Wrong and "obviously" part of the "other side" if they dare to speak up.

Still, if I had to pick a faction to deal with, it would be the "this is a game" side. At least most of them have some respect for competence for fellow players who can manage to "eat their cake and have it too". I've learned the hard way that if someone says "All RPGs are about telling a story", and I say "for me, they're not" and their response is "yes it is even if you don't realize it, my opinion trumps your personal experience and enjoyment", that the discussion is over -- made their own personal preference and approach an absolute, often by distorting the definitions of "story" and "RPG" to match their own personal preferences.


(Sorry for spacing your paragraphs, it helps me read for detail.)

[Max_Killjoy]

By definition, anything that makes us think of a situation as external to ourselves is a decrease in immersion.

I have noticed people frequently use 'immersive' when they mean 'engrossing'. For example, non-first-person video games and movies are engrossing. First-person ones can be immersive though. Books are engrossing, not immersive, except for some versions of choose your own adventure. Studying a language in the country of the native speakers is a good example of immersive too.

Edit: in response to a few of the other responses about diagrams, yes technically its the miniature or token representing a character seperate from the player which causes a decrease in immersion.

Okay, I'll try again then. It's by definition.

Immersion is believing yourself to be within/surrounded by (the thing).

Miniatures and token decrease that, by definition.

(And again, a mistake I made was assuming that battlemats come with miniatures and tokens as stand-ins / representatives for the characters, but that seems like a reasonable assumption.)

Whereas your definition of "immersion" seems to border on "delusion".

And that's an argument I see people make when they're trying to deride immersion in RPGs and video games.

More broadly, you seem to assuming that everyone's immersion works like your immersion, what whatever increases yours universally does so for everyone, and what decreases yours universally does do for everyone.

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, I'll try again then. It's by definition.

Immersion is believing yourself to be within/surrounded by (the thing).

Miniatures and token decrease that, by definition.

(And again, a mistake I made was assuming that battlemats come with miniatures and tokens as stand-ins / representatives for the characters, but that seems like a reasonable assumption.)

<Underlining added>
This is the part you actually have to support with a functional argument. You are declaring it to be true, but not presenting a supporting argument. If someone comes back with 'no, they don't,' what is your response?

If anything has reduced my enthusiasm for actually playing RPGs, it's the way that the "this is a game, these are playing pieces" approach, and the "this is a story, you are telling a story, we are all telling a story together" approach, along with the argument between them, have come to dominate the hobby, leaving anyone who doesn't buy into the One True Way that either side pushes to sit on the sideline and get yelled at as both Wrong and "obviously" part of the "other side" if they dare to speak up.

It's been my experience that this sort of thing is more prevalent amongst the people who aren't actually playing RPGs, but merely discussing them on the internet. When the dice actually meet the table I've found people's reaction is much more 'look, I don't give two figs about your grand theory regarding what the game is 'about,' I'm playing a half-elf fighter in a fantasy world/Vampire in 1990s Chicago/Ork Cybershaman in fantasy-modern Seattle and making them do what they'd do in the situation my GM presents.' People shouting others down for badwrongfun seems to (me to) be predominantly an internet navel-gazing thing.

[King of Nowhere]

Did you ever enjoy rules complexity first?

IMX many if not most players go through the phases of discovering the hobby, getting into rules interactions and complex character building, then moving back away from that. There are some who start with roleplaying elitism (not to say that was you) and distancing rules out the gate, but other than that it's by far the most common to get into rules complexity, followed by dialing it back.

opposite case here. I liked to keep things simple. I disliked multicalssing and prestige classes and other things making complications.

After a long time of playing "yet another single-classed cleric" i started to appreciate the greater variability offered by complex rules.

[Tanarii]

Whereas your definition of "immersion" seems to border on "delusion".

Ha! I sure that's a comparison often made.

<Underlining added>
This is the part you actually have to support with a functional argument. You are declaring it to be true, but not presenting a supporting argument. If someone comes back with 'no, they don't,' what is your response?

I'd express my confusion and ask them to explain it. And now we've come full circle to where I originally did that, and triggered someone. (Edit: Which btw I blame on my delivery.)

Just like I would if some called sitting around eating high calorie stuff "great exercise".

[JNAProductions]

Okay, I'll try again then. It's by definition.

Immersion is believing yourself to be within/surrounded by (the thing).

Miniatures and token decrease that, by definition.

(And again, a mistake I made was assuming that battlemats come with miniatures and tokens as stand-ins / representatives for the characters, but that seems like a reasonable assumption.)

That's not a supported argument. That's just a statement with no backing.

And, as an opinion, that's fine. You don't need to back up opinions with a litany of facts-it can be as simple "That's how I feel," and that's that. But you're presenting it as a universal fact-when it is not.

To address the thread itself, I can't think of much that I used to like and no longer. I've grown fonder of simpler systems over the years, but I still like a good crunchy system sometimes. Different things for different times, and different people.

Edit: Tanarii, let me put it this way.

For some people, seeing the map and the tokens take them out of the story. They start focusing on it as a game, one where they have omniscient view over everything.
For other people, it helps them place the various allies, enemies, and environment with much greater accuracy and with less mental overhead than trying to keep it all straight in the mind does.

Plus, it also ensures consistency across the various people at the table-I've had Theater of the Mind combats where people thought they were closer/farther from various things than they actually were, and a map solves that.

[OldTrees1]

I'd express my confusion and ask them to explain it. And now we've come full circle to where I originally did that, and triggered someone. (Edit: Which btw I blame on my delivery.)

Just like I would if some called sitting around eating high calorie stuff "great exercise".

PS: Sorry Tanarii, but I am yet another that finds maps more immersive than theater of the mind. The players can only see what the DM lets them see. For me, pictures like maps can describe relative position in more vivid detail than the same effort put into theater of the mind. With a map I can see much more through my PC's eyes than I can with theater of the mind. I think it is best to accept that the impact of maps on immersion is highly subjective.

For the same amount of effort on the GM's part, I can see more through my character's eyes when I use a figurine on a battle map than I can when doing theater of mind. This is partially "a picture is worth a thousand words". Something about knowing the positioning helps me believe myself to be within/surrounded by the character/situation.

However this effect is highly subjective and depends on 2 factors:
1) How immersion breaking referencing the figurine is. (very high for you, very low for me)
2) How much the increased detail helps the immersion. (very high for me, very low for you)
This explains your confusion.

[Jay R]

Ah but, are there mechanical, approach, or world design decisions that would improve or degrade your trust in a GM?

Not really, no. If I am noticing those things enough for them to affect the game, then the GM has already failed.

Last Sunday, I was concerned with rescuing the squirrelfolk slave from the six-foot kobold guards who had re-captured him, and with stopping the other six-foot kobolds with the charmed dragon from attacking the bariaur.

I barely noticed the mechanics. Even when rolling the dice, I was concerned with whether my fire attack would do enough damage to stop the dragon, not whether I "rolled high on damage" or whether he "made his saving throw". [Yes, I'm human; I was as annoyed as anyone else when I rolled 29 points of damage on a 10d6 fireball. But I was very quickly brought back in by a DM who interpreted it in D&D-world terms and described the kobolds' reactions.

That's the mark of a good GM.

I can enjoy a good game of original D&D with its 29 8½x11 inch pages (folded over) of rules, or with 3.5e, with its near infinite rule books.

I can enjoy the complexity of Champions or the simplicity of Flashing Blades. In all cases, a good enough GM will keep you focused on the suspenseful situation.

Other than a GM who isn't keeping you focused on the situation, rather than the game, the most immersion-killing aspect is another player who complains about the mechanics or the game system. But that doesn't fit the topic of this thread; I never enjoyed that.

[Quertus]

One can argue that Battlemats reduce immersion; however, doing so is intellectually dishonest without comparing / acknowledging how much the alternatives reduce immersion.

Personally, I find that being able to personally visualize the scene via minis etc, and understand that "I hide under the table by the tree", is better for my immersion than playing 20 questions with the GM for half an hour until i can visualize the scene well enough to understand what my character would do.

*Any* form of "needing to gather information to understand the scene and interact in the shared idea-space" reduces immersion; actually seeing it for yourself is a way to gather that information, and the form that I, personally, find most natural.

[KineticDiplomat]

Re: the great map debate.

I find this actually varies with systems. There are some systems that deliberately revolve around cinematic spacing and assumed action economy - savage worlds, Blades in the Dark, the Expanse, SR Anarchy, etc. - where the intent is that even if being realistic the environment and opposition mostly exists only in the context of the PC. In these systems, maps beyond the most basic sketches can be actively detrimental to both gameplay and immersion (does Conan have a map when he’s charging down the hallway chopping mooks?).

On the other end there are systems where PCs act almost entirely in the context of an existing environment, and in very discrete (in the mathematical sense) possibilities. In those systems, the immersion comes from being able to rapidly visualize and assess the situation without needing to either query the GM constantly (well how far is it to that wall? Is the bad guy at the bottom, middle, or near top of the stair case? Are my friends near where the grenade/fireball might go off?) or end up with disappointment when the mind theaters of multiple people conflict. A character might not know it’s EXACTLY 102m to the river, but most would be able to intuit that it’s about a football field away, that the right side path goes up hill a bit and there’s a swamp on the left, and that really big tree in between is either an obstacle or cover, and then keep that spatial awareness in their head near intuitively as they act. If that sort of information is important to the system, then it is almost certainly more immersive and better gameplay to have easy access to it than not to.

[kyoryu]

I do think the more attention you're paying to the grid, the less attention you're paying to the imaginary space.

From observation, the more grid-based effects there are, the more people focus on the grid.

That's not good or bad, it just is. There's advantages to having grid-based effects, too, as it's a very rich space for interesting gameplay decisions.

You can still have a representation of the space without getting into that - usually by keeping it deliberately crude and not treating it as authoritative in the details - IOW, yes, those characters are over there, but that's not necessarily their position relative to each other.

[Jay R]

People are different.

The grid is distracting for some people, and reduces immersion. There's nothing wrong with that.

I find that the grid makes the mechanics part easier and quicker, so I can get back to thinking about the situation. This aids immersion. There's nothing wrong with that either.

People are different.

[Anonymouswizard]

Is anybody compiling a list? I think we should add 'multi page threads where people argue over a difference of opinion'.

Of course, to be truly classic we'll raise we're all in agreement by about page seventeen.

[kyoryu]

People are different.

The grid is distracting for some people, and reduces immersion. There's nothing wrong with that.

I find that the grid makes the mechanics part easier and quicker, so I can get back to thinking about the situation. This aids immersion. There's nothing wrong with that either.

Hrm. Would be curious about what system that's in.

I mean, definitely, if a system has lots of things that suggest a grid would be useful, I can see that. Like, trying to force No Grid on a system that has a lot of things that depend on precise positioning would increase the time to resolve like anything.

[Willie the Duck]

I'd express my confusion and ask them to explain it.

That's what people are doing of you. You have stated a position, declared it to be true 'by definition,' and then failed to back it up with a substantive argument or support of your position.

And really, you don't have to. All of this can be predicated with an assumed 'if you want to convince anyone other than yourself...'

Even then, I don't care. I'm not even sure I'd disagree with the position (although I'd be clear that it would be an 'IMO' situation). I'm just at this point mildly perplexed and vaguely curious as to how we have gotten this far with the concept of 'but you have to show your work (if you want to convince others)' not getting through.

[Kraynic]

As far as the map bit, I never played with detailed maps until recently (online play). Never played using minis or maps while playing in person all the way back to my start in the '80s. It does seem more difficult to describe things well enough to do without maps for people that are used to having them. But I think it is more a matter of training and habit than anything else. My lament with maps is that it seems to be really confining sometimes. They are great for tight spaces, but when people want everything mapped out to the closest foot while outside... You get ridiculously huge maps if you have a small enough scale to really have the characters show while having a large enough area for somewhat realistic ranged combat. I guess that is why you get penalized when firing at what are really pretty close ranges in Pathfinder for example. It helps keep people from trying to engage with archery at 300 feet when a lot of (digital anyway) maps are in the 75-90 ft range from one side to another.

I think that is the only problem with maps. They can be great for smallish locations, regional/world maps, but once the scale of the map compared to the character/token/unit you are controlling gets beyond a certain point, they get to be a problem in my experience. Still, I think it comes down to what people are used to as far as immersion goes. If I had always been around maps and minis maybe I would want maps at all scales of engagement.

Back on the main topic...
What I have come to dislike is when combat is the primary mechanism for character advancement. Rolling dice, killing things, and taking their stuff was just fine years back, and I had a lot of fun with that sort of play. Now, I want a game to be able to be more flexible on the sorts of characters and adventures it supports without needing to make pretzels with the rules. I want the world around the characters to make sense based on whatever sort of advancement there is. I guess as an extension of that, I don't really like combat as much anymore. I don't mind it, I just don't find it all that interesting anymore unless it really has to do with what the characters are doing or is just integral to the environment. Random encounters for the next 1d4 wolves I can definitely live without.

[Max_Killjoy]

People are different.

The grid is distracting for some people, and reduces immersion. There's nothing wrong with that.

I find that the grid makes the mechanics part easier and quicker, so I can get back to thinking about the situation. This aids immersion. There's nothing wrong with that either.

People are different.

Exactly.

Something I've never liked about gaming is being told how my own enjoyment works by someone else.

[Tanarii]

I'm just at this point mildly perplexed and vaguely curious as to how we have gotten this far with the concept of 'but you have to show your work (if you want to convince others)' not getting through.

Probably because I've shown my work 3-4 times already, and yet you keep claiming I'm not.

Meanwhile, most people seem to be focusing on a counterpoint of increased immersion due to a diagram/map. Which may or may not be a valid counterpoint, I haven't thought about it in detail with how it works with what immersion is. But it does seem likely to me that it would increase immersion (by definition), at first glance.

Then it becomes, as OldTrees1 says, a question of degree each of the two opposite effects. Which may be individual effects.

[OldTrees1]

Meanwhile, most people seem to be focusing on a counterpoint of increased immersion due to a diagram/map. Which may or may not be a valid counterpoint, I haven't thought about it in detail with how it works with what immersion is. But it does seem likely to me that it would increase immersion (by definition), at first glance.

Then it becomes, as OldTrees1 says, a question of degree each of the two opposite effects. Which may be individual effects.

Thank you for considering it. I think a lot of things have this same subjective effect resulting from these opposed cost/benefit effects.

Probably because I've shown my work 3-4 times already, and yet you keep claiming I'm not.

A lot of your work relied on a premise that the aggregate effect of "Miniatures and token decrease <immersion>, by definition". However it was that claim in particular that was contentious. As you can see from the counterpoint you are now considering, there might be two opposite effects and it is possible that maybe the aggregate effect might not always be a decrease. Since we respect you too much to assume you were intentionally begging the question, the safer assumption was you were not showing your work to back up that contentious premise.

This might explain why we did not feel you showed your work, but you feel you showed your work 3-5 times already (I increased the count since I don't know if it included itself). I hope this can help deescalate the frustration. This is also why I made sure to try to explain my experience rather than request you show work.

[kyoryu]

I also think people are using "immersion" in different ways.

[OldTrees1]

Hrm. Would be curious about what system that's in.

I mean, definitely, if a system has lots of things that suggest a grid would be useful, I can see that. Like, trying to force No Grid on a system that has a lot of things that depend on precise positioning would increase the time to resolve like anything.

I can't answer for Jay, but I find this effect in D&D (even 5E). The exact strength of the effect also varies based upon the situation. Although it varies based on the situation I don't find it to vary much based on the system. 3E uses the grid more than 5E but I don't notice a difference in the immersion effect. I wonder if I would notice a difference between 5E and 4E (since 4E uses the grid even more).

I also think people are using "immersion" in different ways.

I was using Tanarii's definition (unintentionally initially but intentionally so after they elaborated on the definition they were using).




Oh and topic tax:

I used to like feat trees. Now I prefer synergistic feats where either one could be taken 2nd to unlock the greater effect. However I also like prerequisite to soft level gate effects rather than feat trees to hard level gate effects.

[RandomPeasant]

Probably because I've shown my work 3-4 times already, and yet you keep claiming I'm not.

Because your "work" amounts to "I am using a definition of the term by which I am correct", and that's not really an interesting or meaningful argument. I could define "immersion" as meaning "a precise understanding of the conditions of the game world as it pertains to your character", and that would make a battlemap and miniatures definitionally good for immersion because they increase the precision with which we understand what's going on. But I think that would pretty obviously not be a useful way of engaging with your position.

[MoiMagnus]

Okay, I'll try again then. It's by definition.

Immersion is believing yourself to be within/surrounded by (the thing).

Miniatures and token decrease that, by definition.

(And again, a mistake I made was assuming that battlemats come with miniatures and tokens as stand-ins / representatives for the characters, but that seems like a reasonable assumption.)

The core of your argument seems to be that a bad visual support is worse than no visual support. While that's true in the extreme, it's definitely not the case to the same extend for everyone.

Some peoples are much more likely to lose tracks of important informations or lose focus on the action, in absence of a visual support. And misremembering/misunderstanding the current situation is much more immersion-breaking than having miniatures/tokens.

And after the few conversations I had with my friends on how differently peoples are able to imagine things when they read, I'm not at all surprised that some peoples are almost unable to find immersion without a significant visual support, even one as imperfect as a battlemap with miniatures/tokens.