A model of immersion

[Cluedrew]

OK, so this might seem woefully basic at this point in the thread but: What is immersion?

I tried looking it up but it is just "to be immersed" or the physical definition. From context I thought it was something like engagement (giving the game attention and interest, interacting with it) but either stronger, like you are submerged in it, or particularly relating to the fiction, don't know why but that seems to be how it is used. Are either of those how other people are using the word here?

[Quertus]

OK, so this might seem woefully basic at this point in the thread but: What is immersion?

I tried looking it up but it is just "to be immersed" or the physical definition. From context I thought it was something like engagement (giving the game attention and interest, interacting with it) but either stronger, like you are submerged in it, or particularly relating to the fiction, don't know why but that seems to be how it is used. Are either of those how other people are using the word here?

Synonym of "engrossed", perhaps?

Imagine reading a good book, where you're so into it, that space and time and the rest of the world fall away from your conscious mind. You scarcely register the motion of your eyes or turning the page, let alone your physical needs like your growing hunger. Until, suddenly, something snaps you out of it… and you realize you were supposed to be at the airport to pick up your Mom 10 minutes ago!

I mean, I think it's best defined in terms of "Unconscious Competence" and "Flow State", because, like mistaking immersion for role-playing, anything else risks mistaking other states for immersion. Although, even so, one could mistake immersion in slowly translating a book with immersion reading the book. So it's a no-win scenario - humans are just optimized for making errors!

But, to try to word it as it's own thing, stealing the words from Unconscious Competence and Flow State, "immersion" would be… when your skill / familiarity allows you to make good choices without even thinking about why you are making those choices? EDIT: or, colloquially, when you're "in the groove".

Thus, as the OP pointed out, learning something new forces you out of immersion, forces you to question, "what is a good choice here, and why?".

The noob asking, "what do I roll here? Do I want high or low?"? They're an example of someone for whom Flow State is broken when they move to action resolution.

Which is why I said that immersion requires Flow State in all the relative components - having to stop and think about *any* of the components forces you out of Flow.

Like, if I'm typing this reply, and I have to stop and think, "how do I spell that word?" Or "what's a good example to use here?" Or "was it actually this thread where 'Flow' was defined?" Then I fall out of immersion.

Clear as mud?

[Thrudd]

I think defining "immersion" depends on the context. In the context of TTRPGs, which is really all that matters here, it means being "immersed" in the fiction, making decisions from the character's pov. The less one needs to think about the rules and mechanics, the more you can pretend you are making the decisions a person would make in the fictional world. Hence, achieving the "flow state" with the system helps achieve this. Of course, some systems require a lot more mastery than others to achieve that state. And some systems have mechanics which lend themselves more to in-character decision making than others. For instance, when you have mechanics that normally create common sense outcomes in a given situation vs one where the mechanics can produce counterintuitive results, or where the mechanics seem to disallow actions that would be reasonable. That problem can be mitigated with a healthy dose of GM fiat, but this isn't a solution everyone is happy with. Some people propose mastering any given game system, ie 4e D&D, and then transposing whatever outcomes the system gives as the "common sense" of the fictional world. Others are saying that some systems (4e), can generate results too nonsensical to accept as a world they can imagine living in, thereby making immersion impossible or very difficult.

[Quertus]

I think defining "immersion" depends on the context. In the context of TTRPGs, which is really all that matters here, it means being "immersed" in the fiction, making decisions from the character's pov. The less one needs to think about the rules and mechanics, the more you can pretend you are making the decisions a person would make in the fictional world. Hence, achieving the "flow state" with the system helps achieve this. Of course, some systems require a lot more mastery than others to achieve that state. And some systems have mechanics which lend themselves more to in-character decision making than others. For instance, when you have mechanics that normally create common sense outcomes in a given situation vs one where the mechanics can produce counterintuitive results, or where the mechanics seem to disallow actions that would be reasonable. That problem can be mitigated with a healthy dose of GM fiat, but this isn't a solution everyone is happy with. Some people propose mastering any given game system, ie 4e D&D, and then transposing whatever outcomes the system gives as the "common sense" of the fictional world. Others are saying that some systems (4e), can generate results too nonsensical to accept as a world they can imagine living in, thereby making immersion impossible or very difficult.

I find it interesting that you manage to come to the same conclusions from the opposite direction.

Although I would love if "role-playing" were the only type of immersion that occurs when people try to play something as an RPG, part of my point is that those who retain immersion inherently are immersed in non-role-playing activities (most trivially, when they roll dice, make notes, or translate the GM's words / voice / description into their mental image of the world, but also, yes, when they play games that *can't* be played from role-playing stance (at least, not without changing the fiction)).

But, yes, I think that is a very good summary of the rest of the relevant points.

Although… I'd be initiated in hearing more about your "GM fiat" solution. I understand "rule 0 let's the GM make rulings where the rules don't cover a particular scenario", but I feel that you intend noticeably more here.

[Easy e]

Just for fun, Star Wars uses "Drown Healing". You get into a tank of Bacta (whatever that is) and you get better!

I do not know why I randomly thought of this and decided to add it as relevant, but maybe looking at an IP that actually uses "Drown Healing" helps illustrate how "Drown Healing" is not as ridiculous as it first looks and could be used an not break immersion. <Is that a pun?>

I await the bevy of folks to tell me how wrong I am about how Star Wars Bacta Tanks work.

[Thrudd]

I find it interesting that you manage to come to the same conclusions from the opposite direction.

Although I would love if "role-playing" were the only type of immersion that occurs when people try to play something as an RPG, part of my point is that those who retain immersion inherently are immersed in non-role-playing activities (most trivially, when they roll dice, make notes, or translate the GM's words / voice / description into their mental image of the world, but also, yes, when they play games that *can't* be played from role-playing stance (at least, not without changing the fiction)).

But, yes, I think that is a very good summary of the rest of the relevant points.

Although… I'd be initiated in hearing more about your "GM fiat" solution. I understand "rule 0 let's the GM make rulings where the rules don't cover a particular scenario", but I feel that you intend noticeably more here.

I wouldn't label the non-roleplaying activities as immersion, in the context of the post and how people usually mean it around here. In-character Immersion is partly (or totally) broken whenever those activities take place- which is why minimizing the time and thought dedicated to them increases the immersion. 100% immersion is never possible, there's always a game component. The best you can do is make a game with rules that will quickly become intuitive, so as little thought can be applied to them during play as possible (if in-character immersion is a goal at all).

By GM fiat, I mean a range of things. Coming up with fictional explanations that attempt to make sense of nonsense results (like, why can I only do this fighter ability once a day? GM says it's actually a magical power that recharges with the sunrise, even though the book describes it as a very skilled sword slash), or making an executive declaration that a specific die result is void and making up a result that makes sense instead, on a case-by-case basis, or even houseruling out egregious examples of nonsense altogether.

[KorvinStarmast]

100% immersion is never possible, there's always a game component. The best you can do is make a game with rules that will quickly become intuitive, so as little thought can be applied to them during play as possible (if in-character immersion is a goal at all).

That's a great goal, getting to the 80% solution on that strikes me as success for any game that can do that, given that immersion is something that (like motivation) grows from within. Some people both like it more than others, but also have a willingness to seek it more than others. You can't hard code that into game rules.

[Thrudd]

I'd like to clarify that by "In-character immersion", I don't mean adopting a personality or doing performative acting. I mean the player is absorbing the GM's descriptions of the game world and making choices from that perspective, it's irrelevant whether they adopt a fictional personality. So another component to immersion, probably even more important than the effect of the game rules, is the ability of the GM to describe the fictional world and make it come alive for the players. You need the rules not to conflict with what the GM is describing.

[Cluedrew]

I'm going to go with "immersion ~= engaged with the fiction layer" as the definition to use. And honestly, I'm going to set a much lower bar than some other people have (because I think people are overthinking it). All you need for immersion is A) an understanding of what is happening in the fiction layer and B) interest in it. Now B just to get you from you can engage to you are engaging with it. Pretty simple.

Other things might help, but to be able to engage with the fiction layer all you really need is to be able to understand it. The information to process what is going on and make decisions in the fictional layer.

[Quertus]

I'm going to go with "immersion ~= engaged with the fiction layer" as the definition to use. And honestly, I'm going to set a much lower bar than some other people have (because I think people are overthinking it). All you need for immersion is A) an understanding of what is happening in the fiction layer and B) interest in it. Now B just to get you from you can engage to you are engaging with it. Pretty simple.

Other things might help, but to be able to engage with the fiction layer all you really need is to be able to understand it. The information to process what is going on and make decisions in the fictional layer.

I think you’re under thinking it. That *might* work as an alternate definition of immersion out of context, but in the context of this thread, it clearly falls short.

The whole point of the OP was explaining how, when in Flow State, one is ill-equipped to properly evaluate, and how unfamiliarity, dropping to Conscious Incompetence, has value.

Whereas I’ve trained to break Flow State, to metagame like a bleeping dolphin, in order to be aware of the effects of my (character’s) actions on the fun of the game. And those of others.

So any definition of immersion that doesn’t cover that concept, of being “in the groove”, is clearly not what is under discussion.

Being able to be engaged with the fiction layer through an adequate understanding of and interest in the fiction layer? That could be accomplished with just Conscious Competence.

No, the level of immersion under discussion is a deeper immersion, one where, like breathing or chewing food or walking (for most people most of the time) you no longer need to think about it - and, in fact, thinking about it is kinda weird. Like, just how much force *do* I want to apply at what angle, and just where does my tongue go?

Now, can you play the game at “Conscious Competence” level? Sure. You could play the game at any of the four levels. But as anyone who is familiar with programming (or, really, anything) will tell you, Flow State is better. Being “in the groove” beats consciously thinking “right foot forward, shift weight, we got this”.

When I “forgot” an important detail from Armus’ background, I still roleplayed him consistently with that fact, because his personality had reached Unconscious Competence, had reached Flow State. His behaviors had already been informed by the facts of his backstory, and no longer required conscious thought.

When roleplaying Quertus, I don’t consciously think, “OK, he’s an academia mage, so therefore … in Serini’s lab … with the captive Paladins … he should … where’s my Flow chart of priorities …”

Which is related to why it’s important to know when the GM’s description should be relegated to Flow, and when it requires conscious attention.

I’m rambling,

Point is, if you understand the fiction of chess as “war”, you won’t exactly win the game by killing your opponent. Playing the game requires more than just understanding the fiction. Being in Flow State playing the game may not even require comprehending the fiction at all. Ask yourself what’s required for Flow State in an RPG, not merely in its fiction.

[Thrudd]

I think you’re under thinking it. That *might* work as an alternate definition of immersion out of context, but in the context of this thread, it clearly falls short.

The whole point of the OP was explaining how, when in Flow State, one is ill-equipped to properly evaluate, and how unfamiliarity, dropping to Conscious Incompetence, has value.

Whereas I’ve trained to break Flow State, to metagame like a bleeping dolphin, in order to be aware of the effects of my (character’s) actions on the fun of the game. And those of others.

So any definition of immersion that doesn’t cover that concept, of being “in the groove”, is clearly not what is under discussion.

Being able to be engaged with the fiction layer through an adequate understanding of and interest in the fiction layer? That could be accomplished with just Conscious Competence.

No, the level of immersion under discussion is a deeper immersion, one where, like breathing or chewing food or walking (for most people most of the time) you no longer need to think about it - and, in fact, thinking about it is kinda weird. Like, just how much force *do* I want to apply at what angle, and just where does my tongue go?

Now, can you play the game at “Conscious Competence” level? Sure. You could play the game at any of the four levels. But as anyone who is familiar with programming (or, really, anything) will tell you, Flow State is better. Being “in the groove” beats consciously thinking “right foot forward, shift weight, we got this”.

When I “forgot” an important detail from Armus’ background, I still roleplayed him consistently with that fact, because his personality had reached Unconscious Competence, had reached Flow State. His behaviors had already been informed by the facts of his backstory, and no longer required conscious thought.

When roleplaying Quertus, I don’t consciously think, “OK, he’s an academia mage, so therefore … in Serini’s lab … with the captive Paladins … he should … where’s my Flow chart of priorities …”

Which is related to why it’s important to know when the GM’s description should be relegated to Flow, and when it requires conscious attention.

I’m rambling,

Point is, if you understand the fiction of chess as “war”, you won’t exactly win the game by killing your opponent. Playing the game requires more than just understanding the fiction. Being in Flow State playing the game may not even require comprehending the fiction at all. Ask yourself what’s required for Flow State in an RPG, not merely in its fiction.

I think the point is, we disagree that what you are saying is actually the same "immersion" we mean in reference to RPGs. I mean immersed mentally in the fictional world, period. What's required for that is good GM descriptions of a consistent and conceivable setting, players paying attention and understanding the setting, and rules that don't contradict the fiction and what the GM is saying. Having mastery of the rules helps with immersion because it means you don't need to keep stopping to look at your character sheet or the book to decide how to adjudicate things.

Good rpg rules should make choosing good game moves and choosing good actions based on the fiction alone nearly identical. Winning the battle in the rpg should require the type of tactics and strategies on your part that would also be effective in a real battle (if the fictional world/genre of the game and all the magic and tech that come with it were real), so you don't need to wonder whether a common-sense maneuver will actually be an effective move in the game. Yes, the game rules might also inform you about what does and doesn't work in the fictional setting, since not everyone actually knows what will and wont be a good move in a real battle, and obviously magic and sci-fi stuff need to be explained. If it's a genre where people take unrealistic amounts of damage, like super heroes, the rules need to tell you that, so your mental image of those characters and their world is accurate. This is why the game design is very important, you want the rules to reflect the reality of the setting as closely as possible, to a playable degree of abstraction. If they don't, it doesn't matter what level of conscious or unconscious competence you have with them- immersion will be lessened.

For the GM, the absolute most important factors in helping the players' immersion is knowing your setting backwards and forwards and being good at concise descriptions. After that, it's system mastery and ability to improvise, so you don't need to hesitate when resolving actions and can keep the game flowing. With system mastery comes the awareness of what parts of the rules will break immersion in the setting, and being able to mitigate or change those rules both on the fly and in formal house rules. Finding enough rules that need fixing, however, should probably suggest you need a different system or an extensive homebrew.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the point is, we disagree that what you are saying is actually the same "immersion" we mean in reference to RPGs. I mean immersed mentally in the fictional world, period.

That's a good way to bound it. It's still dependent on the player's basic willingness to do that. Give me six different players and I'll show you six different levels/cases of immersion tolerance/desire/depth.

[Quertus]

I think the point is, we disagree

Good rpg rules should make choosing good game moves and choosing good actions based on the fiction alone nearly identical.

.

Nope, that's my main point, couldn't agree more.

that what you are saying is actually the same "immersion" we mean in reference to RPGs.

I mean immersed mentally in the fictional world, period.

If you're using a different definition of "immersion" than the one given in the OP, then there's a lot that's not going to make sense to you (like how the OP detailed how "immersed" people are less aware, and how losing immersion can be beneficial). And you'd be objectively wrong to boot, like if this thread was about "and" (meaning "plus"), and I explained "2 and 2 makes 4", but you said that, with your definition of "and", two and two was twenty-two. That alternate definition of "and" that isn't "plus" is simply wrong in this context. It's not the version of the word we're taking about.

So, at best, explaining that you were using a different, inapplicable definition of the term would be followed by, "and that's why we didn't understand what you were saying".

Alternately, it could be followed by, "and that's why this is confusing - can we use another term?". That's valid, and I think "Flow State" works just fine, even if it's less accessible, and, like with, uh, the mathematician in Foundation, it means extra, unnecessary steps to explain things. But @Kyoryu should probably make that determination, of whether just discussing "Flow" actually addresses the intended point of this thread.

Or I could be completely confused, barking up the wrong tree.

So… are you talking about a definition of immersion that hails from Flow State and Unconscious Competence, or one that is not germane to this thread? If the latter, why? If the former, what was the intended point of your post?

[Thrudd]

I guess the reason to be hung up on the definition of "immersion" in this case is that the thread is titled "a model of immersion". Any time I've ever referred to "immersion" in context of RPGs, on other posts or in life, I meant immersed in the fictional world, the character's pov, only. I think a lot of other people mean that, as well.

Ditching the term altogether, I think we can all agree that achieving mastery with the rules is one thing that helps with staying focused on the character's pov.

The only real disagreement is about how certain types of rules disrupt our suspension of disbelief enough to force a choice between following rules or being in character pov, when you can't picture how your character or the setting could produce the results the rules suggest. OP implies that this problem goes away if you just internalize the rules, any rules, enough. And people's prior expectations of rules get in the way of allowing them to internalize new rule sets. Many of us are disagreeing with that premise- there are, indeed, some types of rules that just don't make sense in the fiction layer for us, and mastering those systems won't help us stay in character pov. You need both rules mastery AND rules that sufficiently mirror the fiction layer. And the GM needs some particular skills.
So- I agree flow state has impact on immersion, but it isn't great enough to overcome some problematic rules. And someone will always disagree about exactly which rules ruin immersion for them.

What was left out of the OP immersion equation is the GM skills component- good GMing aids immersion for players immensely, as much or more than flow state with the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

You need both rules mastery AND rules that sufficiently mirror the fiction layer. And the GM needs some particular skills.
So- I agree flow state has impact on immersion, but it isn't great enough to overcome some problematic rules. And someone will always disagree about exactly which rules ruin immersion for them.

What was left out of the OP immersion equation is the GM skills component- good GMing aids immersion for players immensely, as much or more than flow state with the rules.

Nice and concise, and fits my mental model of the topic. And double down on the italics part, I've seen the difference at the table.

[Easy e]

GM skills. That is a Great point Thrudd!

[Tanarii]

OK, so this might seem woefully basic at this point in the thread but: What is immersion?

Immersion is the state of being engrossed in the game. Other than that, opinions vary.

e.g. some people the add a qualifier that its being engrossed in the character or the world or the story or the resolution of declared tasks or the tactical situation. They narrow it down to certain aspects of the game.

Personally I consider two levels of immersion breaking: the big one is non-game distractions. The smaller one is things that make you see it as playing a third-person playing piece instead of you 'being' your character. Which is why I don't agree with the flow-state analysis or resolution rules to be an issue for breaking immersion, as they do neither. But don't allow electronic devices at the table, and consider battlemats to automatically break immersion. It's also one reason why I don't like the player-character separation myth, I think it encourages lower immersion.

[Talakeal]

.

Nope, that's my main point, couldn't agree more.





If you're using a different definition of "immersion" than the one given in the OP, then there's a lot that's not going to make sense to you (like how the OP detailed how "immersed" people are less aware, and how losing immersion can be beneficial). And you'd be objectively wrong to boot, like if this thread was about "and" (meaning "plus"), and I explained "2 and 2 makes 4", but you said that, with your definition of "and", two and two was twenty-two. That alternate definition of "and" that isn't "plus" is simply wrong in this context. It's not the version of the word we're taking about.

So, at best, explaining that you were using a different, inapplicable definition of the term would be followed by, "and that's why we didn't understand what you were saying".

Alternately, it could be followed by, "and that's why this is confusing - can we use another term?". That's valid, and I think "Flow State" works just fine, even if it's less accessible, and, like with, uh, the mathematician in Foundation, it means extra, unnecessary steps to explain things. But @Kyoryu should probably make that determination, of whether just discussing "Flow" actually addresses the intended point of this thread.

Or I could be completely confused, barking up the wrong tree.

So… are you talking about a definition of immersion that hails from Flow State and Unconscious Competence, or one that is not germane to this thread? If the latter, why? If the former, what was the intended point of your post?

If the OP is using a different definition of immersion than 4E's detractors are, that means this whole thread is nothing but an overgrown strawman.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's also one reason why I don't like the player-character separation myth, I think it encourages lower immersion.

Feel similarly.

If the OP is using a different definition of immersion than 4E's detractors are, that means this whole thread is nothing but an overgrown strawman.

Hardly. It's a discussion piece, throwing an idea out there and seeing where the holes are. Of note a core hole is the GM role in immersion (see Thrudd's posts) in terms of setting an environment.

[Talakeal]

Hardly. It's a discussion piece, throwing an idea out there and seeing where the holes are. Of note a core hole is the GM role in immersion (see Thrudd's posts) in terms of setting an environment.

Fair enough, I just wonder how productive a discussion can be if people haven't agreed to a definition of the terms being discussed.

[Quertus]

Spoiler: for reference

Show

I guess the reason to be hung up on the definition of "immersion" in this case is that the thread is titled "a model of immersion". Any time I've ever referred to "immersion" in context of RPGs, on other posts or in life, I meant immersed in the fictional world, the character's pov, only. I think a lot of other people mean that, as well.

Ditching the term altogether, I think we can all agree that achieving mastery with the rules is one thing that helps with staying focused on the character's pov.

The only real disagreement is about how certain types of rules disrupt our suspension of disbelief enough to force a choice between following rules or being in character pov, when you can't picture how your character or the setting could produce the results the rules suggest. OP implies that this problem goes away if you just internalize the rules, any rules, enough. And people's prior expectations of rules get in the way of allowing them to internalize new rule sets. Many of us are disagreeing with that premise- there are, indeed, some types of rules that just don't make sense in the fiction layer for us, and mastering those systems won't help us stay in character pov. You need both rules mastery AND rules that sufficiently mirror the fiction layer. And the GM needs some particular skills.
So- I agree flow state has impact on immersion, but it isn't great enough to overcome some problematic rules. And someone will always disagree about exactly which rules ruin immersion for them.

What was left out of the OP immersion equation is the GM skills component- good GMing aids immersion for players immensely, as much or more than flow state with the rules.

Hmmm… a lot of good stuff, but also stuff that adds unnecessary complexity to address. OK.

Yes, the OP implies that internalizing the rules (for seemingly any arbitrary rules) will allow immersion. My counter-claim is that it allows flow state immersion… but in the game, rather than in the character. And that, by definition, humans are ill equipped to differentiate forms of flow state immersion.

Although I generally agree with your stance, @Thrudd, your claims about GMs changing rules muddies the waters, and means we would have to actually address, "My GM is so skilled, I'm perfectly immersed in my character, and that's how I know that Chess is an RPG". It's one more reason that humans are terrible witnesses.

Which is why I'm advocating, not looking at play experience (which can be tainted by flow state immersion, and by GM skill), but at the rules, and at the fiction, to evaluate how well a game is *actually* suited to being played as an RPG.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fair enough, I just wonder how productive a discussion can be if people haven't agreed to a definition of the terms being discussed.

It can be at least partly productive
(I give way less of a hoot about the definition wrangling than some and I've gotten something out of the thread)
if people choose to engage in good faith rather than get wrapped up in semantic arguments.

[Thrudd]

Which is why I'm advocating, not looking at play experience (which can be tainted by flow state immersion, and by GM skill), but at the rules, and at the fiction, to evaluate how well a game is *actually* suited to being played as an RPG.

I agree. We can totally evaluate the likelihood of a game's rules to contribute or detract from immersion in the fiction the game itself proposes to emulate. If the game says it's supposed to be dramatic historical fantasy, but the rules create characters that have super human resilience and strength, we can say that it is a bad game for creating believable historical environments.

Another case is a game that claims "this game can create any kind of fantasy world you want!" It is fair to evaluate that claim, and criticize the game's designers for their use of hyperbole or lack of vision regarding the vast variety of possible fantasy genres people might want to emulate.

So we can evaluate specific claims of a game's ability to immerse you in a specific fictional genre. Is player immersion in a fictional genre/setting absolutely necessary for a game to call itself an rpg? I'm not sure. It sure is what I want in an RPG, but any game that emulates a fictional setting in which players take on roles within that setting, I think, could reasonably call itself an rpg, regardless of quality or believability. Yes, there could even be an rpg that uses chess as a resolution mechanic, and we could call it an rpg so long as it establishes a fictional genre and has the players controlling individual people within that world. It probably wouldn't be called "Chess:the RPG", though. Jenga itself isn't an rpg, but it is used as a major component of a game everyone pretty much agrees counts as an RPG. No one names their RPG "Minis and Dice", because the resolution mechanics aren't the whole of the game, even if you spend the majority of session time moving minis around the table and rolling dice.

Can someone take a game that is poor at emulating the fiction it claims to emulate, evaluate what sort of fiction it would actually emulate, and then use it to good effect in a properly tailored setting? Absolutely. Now it comes down to GM skills. How good are you at describing and explaining this setting to the players so they can understand it enough to get immersed? (Of course, no amount of skill can be expected to overcome all personal preferences. Some people just can't take some things seriously enough to suspend disbelief even for a second.)

[Cluedrew]

The whole point of the OP was explaining how, when in Flow State, one is ill-equipped to properly evaluate, and how unfamiliarity, dropping to Conscious Incompetence, has value.

Do you know the saying, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." I think the model in the original post is good for explaining why people found 4e so jarring (or at least one of the factors) I'm not so sure it as good in general.

Unfortunately, I haven't quite been able to put my finger on why which is why I have been silent. Best I got so far is that you can "flow" in and out of dealing with the fiction. Maybe something about a mapping between the fiction and rules. If you are used to it something as absurd as HP* can seem completely natural. But try to take a mapping and change out either the fiction or rules and you will have problems. That's it so far.

* OK, HP is hardly the worst example. But it is far weirder than most people seem to admit.

If the OP is using a different definition of immersion than 4E's detractors are, that means this whole thread is nothing but an overgrown strawman.

How so? Besides the fact no 4e detractors or this thread have precisely defined immersion, I think the general idea of a kind of uncanny valley effect does hold. Not that it explains every problem with the system.

[KorvinStarmast]

* OK, HP is hardly the worst example. But it is far weirder than most people seem to andmit.

Opinion, not fact. It is fit for purpose. Is it perfectly elegant? Probably not

HP will not break immersion, and in particular, if you have the correct trust environment at the table, when the DM or the Co DM tracks HP and the players never see them during play. I've played a number of D&D games like that (yeah, it was a long time ago) - it's great, but it's a version of old school that, apparently, nobody in this community is familiar with it.

Which is too bad. It led to some of the most immersive exploration and combat scenes I was ever in.

(But that key ingredient, the trust relationship, is necessary for this to work well). What I see too often on these forums is an unspoken assumption that player DM trust is assumed to be not present.

[Cluedrew]

Opinion, not fact. It is fit for purpose. Is it perfectly elegant? Probably not

I think you misunderstand what I meant by "weird", so let me actually try to explain.

HP is not how injury works (in real life or in most fiction). You do not take damage, unhindered, until you collapse. Now multiple injuries are worse than one, and more damage is worse than less, but I don't think you can actually get tough enough to just shrug off a blow that would kill someone else. There is some "pain threshold" stuff but I really don't think it applies to being stabbed in the stomach.

Yet, I completely agree with you that "It is fit for purpose." People know how to map it onto the fiction, even though it is far from a perfect match. Not everyone likes that particular mapping, and it has its weird moments, but over all yeah it works out. And the At-Will, Encounter and Daily system is a similar abstraction, where your ability to do something is mapped on a similar yes/no. But people seem to have more trouble with it, why is that?

[PhoenixPhyre]

But people seem to have more trouble with it, why is that?

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's because it was (relatively) new. HP is long-standing and in just about every video game property and lots of popular culture. And the idea of taking massive hits and keeping fighting with no (apparent at the time) impairment is actually a staple of Action Hero and Super Hero movies and media--the scale changes, but the idea is constant. And that's an idea that ties into HP.

AEDU was a major change for D&D from 3e, and the "who moved my cheese" phenomenon kicked in hard.

[Talakeal]

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's because it was (relatively) new. HP is long-standing and in just about every video game property and lots of popular culture. And the idea of taking massive hits and keeping fighting with no (apparent at the time) impairment is actually a staple of Action Hero and Super Hero movies and media--the scale changes, but the idea is constant. And that's an idea that ties into HP.

AEDU was a major change for D&D from 3e, and the "who moved my cheese" phenomenon kicked in hard.

I personally found the idea of wizards "forgetting" their spells after casting them to be pretty damn immersion breaking back in the 90s, but can excuse it because "magic". They even changed the fluff in 3E onwards so you aren't forgetting spells, but rather completing a ritual you prepared earlier.

Forgetting martial powers makes no sense whatsoever. It was bad in ToB, it was bad in 4E, and its bad for battle-masters, even though the implementation has changed over the years.

IMO HP works as an abstract, forgetting powers does not. They could build in an exhaustion system that was similar to HP in execution and abstraction and that would probably work well enough to limit martials, although I personally don't really need it from either a fluff or a game balance perspective, but I guess game designers just gotta guy at the gym.

[Tanarii]

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's because it was (relatively) new. HP is long-standing and in just about every video game property and lots of popular culture. And the idea of taking massive hits and keeping fighting with no (apparent at the time) impairment is actually a staple of Action Hero and Super Hero movies and media--the scale changes, but the idea is constant. And that's an idea that ties into HP.

AEDU was a major change for D&D from 3e, and the "who moved my cheese" phenomenon kicked in hard.

It's sad too, because it was a genuine flash of genius break-through for martial and other formerly "I attack" classes to get AEDU powers.

5e retained a vestige of that. One Fighter subclass (Battlemaster) and one class (Monks) inherited the feeling with their Encounter 'Powers'. And There's a reason EKs/ATs are hugely popular fighter and rogue (respectively) subclasses. They open up new and exciting at-will and daily 'Powers'. Also Paladins and Rangers are generally liked for their daily 'Powers' (although Rangers get bashed for other reasons). Even Barbarians have daily Rage resources. 5e pulled it off, but it just doesn't feel the same. Mainly, all those classes are playable because combat was so simplified that it's lightning fast in comparison, and also designated to work with the fog-of-war / imprecision of Theatre of the Mind, so genuine battlemat style tactical play isn't particularly important.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I personally found the idea of wizards "forgetting" their spells after casting them to be pretty damn immersion breaking back in the 90s, but can excuse it because "magic". They even changed the fluff in 3E onwards so you aren't forgetting spells, but rather completing a ritual you prepared earlier.

Forgetting martial powers makes no sense whatsoever. It was bad in ToB, it was bad in 4E, and its bad for battle-masters, even though the implementation has changed over the years.

IMO HP works as an abstract, forgetting powers does not. They could build in an exhaustion system that was similar to HP in execution and abstraction and that would probably work well enough to limit martials, although I personally don't really need it from either a fluff or a game balance perspective, but I guess game designers just gotta guy at the gym.

I think of the forgetting powers thing as more like upgrading powers. Yeah, you don't use the old ones, but that's because they've evolved, pokemon style. Is it a perfect description? No. But it's a decent step.

That, plus just a game convention to not overwhelm the player with options. Your character knows the powers, but your game interface only shows a few of them, for sanity sake. And generally, I found that 4e powers were generally linear upgrades. There's very few times I'd want to use a low-level power when I had a higher level power.