A model of immersion

[kyoryu]

"They" (we) say it because it's also not how D&D hit points work. Hit Points are explicitly are not (only) meat.

I'm fully aware of that. And the "meat + luck + stamina" model works well... until it doesn't. There are, really, two models that work for D&D:

1. HP doesn't "mean" anything. Figure out some kind of narration that doesn't strain plausibility after the fact, that takes into account all the things going into this particular roll. (this is what I use)
2. Supernatural toughness (I personally hate this one).

At any rate, my point was that "oh getting hit takes hp and if you take enough you die" doesn't really match any fiction directly. Action heroes at least make the cosmetic effort of avoiding getting hit. The claim was that "getting hit, and if you get hit enough you die" matches fiction and common sense. It matches neither.

To be SUPER CLEAR, my point here is not "D&D is a bad game" or "D&D is not an RPG". My point here is that "4e is objectively not an RPG because of <reasons>" doesn't fly for me because other versions of D&D have even more egregious violations in my mind. Now, I can easily get over those because I (as most others) have pretty completely internalized, but if you step back and look at it, it flies in the face of reality/fiction pretty badly.

[Cluedrew]

To Tanarii: I know what they say, but the mechanics tell a different story. I find that gap a lot harder to swallow than "just that tough". I don't even know why it comes across as particularly silly.

[Tanarii]

At any rate, my point was that "oh getting hit takes hp and if you take enough you die" doesn't really match any fiction directly. Action heroes at least make the cosmetic effort of avoiding getting hit. The claim was that "getting hit, and if you get hit enough you die" matches fiction and common sense. It matches neither.

Your #1 option matches any fiction you want that reasonably fits the specific circumstances, and matches 'action hero' logic, which for many people is a form of common sense. Or at least provides sufficient verisimilitude. Not sure what else you could want from it, other than a highly complex system that tries to simulate / model reality.

I've seen plenty of other abstract models for damage in various games, and they usually can also be made to work for various fictions, with varying 'logic' from godlike down through superhero through action to gritty to wet paper bag, as desired by the game. They usually work for their games purposes more or less sufficiently.

But what I haven't seen work well is a serious attempt to 'fix' D&D by simulating / modeling damage better. Palladium & Hackmaster are the first simple tweaks that didn't add anything but complication, off the top of my head. Runequest is a fairly dramatic overhaul, that also didn't add much other than complications.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because when they're treated that way, it makes for a slapstick game that threatens verisimilitude. One where you have to think of it as some kind of webcomic like OotS. Those kind of games have a time and place and are not Bad Wrong Fun, but I wouldn't want to play in them all the time.

Otoh, I don't think that kind of game would necessarily threaten immersion.

The amount of 4th wall breaking, and Elan's role in that group, is immersion dissolving.

To Tanarii: I know what they say, but the mechanics tell a different story. I find that gap a lot harder to swallow than "just that tough". I don't even know why it comes across as particularly silly.

Overthinking can lead to a lot of self inflicted difficulty. I've walked a mile or two in those shoes.

[Quertus]

Let’s say Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, decides to adventure around the multiverse with Tom and Tim, mid-level Fighter representatives of “HP s as meat” and “HP as meat and luck and skill and stamina and.…” worlds, respectively.

The fiction that lives in Tom’s head is, “I’m just that tough, I can face tank a sword and hardly notice.”

The fiction that lives in Tim’s head is, “I’m one of the toughest guys I know.… but swords are deadly. I do my best not to get hit, and I’m skilled enough to usually avoid the worst of the blow.”

The fiction that lives in Quertus’ head is.… more like.… “I’m quite durable for a Wizard, but injuries can not only be fatal in and of themselves, but can carry poison, disease, and magical effects, and even non-fatal pain isn’t conducive to the focus required for wizardry. And the rules of reality - the exact way that being hit by mundane steel will affect me - can vary. Best not to get hit at all.”

Or perhaps the fiction that lives in Tom’s head is more like, “as I’ve grown more skilled, I’ve become tougher, and can and have survived two of the hottest fireballs possible back to back.”

But anyway, say Quertus takes Tim and Tom on as bodyguards, for the oh so not dangerous job of establishing spell component shops on alternate reality versions of their worlds.

Tom knows a great place to eat, where the food is free to anyone who can face tank a blow.

The first world they visit works by “HP are meat” logic, and Tom successfully face tanks the sword🗡/axe / swordaxe, and enjoys his free meal. Tim pays for his food, and looks on at this questionably human being in his company. Quertus also pays for his meal, but isn’t disturbed by the rules of reality, only by the barbarity of it all.

The second world they visit follows Tim’s world’s logic, and 3e mechanics. Tom makes his save vs the coup de grace, but is surprised at how much damage his body took from that blow.

Undaunted, and wanting to prove his manhood, Tom again tries to earn a free meal on the third world that they visit. Unfortunately for Tom, it follows 2e “stand still and die” logic, and Tom is simply beheaded / eviscerated by the blow (no save).

The fourth world is one of the rarest in existence, and, on that world, Tom has meat points, and Tim has “action hero” HP - everyone’s mechanics work the way that they expect them to. Tom gets his free meal, and starts calculating just how many free meals he’ll need in order to break even from being Resurrected.

So.… where does that put us on immersion, verisimilitude, and the suitability of the greater multiverse to be played as a roleplaying game?

[kyoryu]

Your #1 option matches any fiction you want that reasonably fits the specific circumstances, and matches 'action hero' logic, which for many people is a form of common sense. Or at least provides sufficient verisimilitude. Not sure what else you could want from it, other than a highly complex system that tries to simulate / model reality.

I've seen plenty of other abstract models for damage in various games, and they usually can also be made to work for various fictions, with varying 'logic' from godlike down through superhero through action to gritty to wet paper bag, as desired by the game. They usually work for their games purposes more or less sufficiently.

But what I haven't seen work well is a serious attempt to 'fix' D&D by simulating / modeling damage better. Palladium & Hackmaster are the first simple tweaks that didn't add anything but complication, off the top of my head. Runequest is a fairly dramatic overhaul, that also didn't add much other than complications.

What is the position you think I'm taking here, at the larger side? I suspect we're talking past each other.

[Tanarii]

What is the position you think I'm taking here, at the larger side? I suspect we're talking past each other.

As far as I can tell, it's that a Hit resolution that does hit point damage should often (but not required for all circumstance) involve something that resembles some kind 'hit' in-universe to maintain either verisimilitude or immersion.

[Max_Killjoy]

So, why did 4e not bug me, personally? Because I'm not a heavy D&D player. I barely played 3e. I stopped playing 1/2e in the mid 80s, and migrated to other systems. So when I came to start playing 4e again, I wasn't in that state of deep unconscious competence. And so 4e didn't yank me out of it. I had no expectations to be broken.

But for someone deeply into 3.x? Yeah, it's going to slam you out of immersion, HARD, every single time.

I think your theory has merits, I think you've posted some of it before and that I considered it at least thought provoking (in a positive way).

However, I struggle to apply it to my own experience, in which I find 2e, and 3.xx/PF, and 4e, and 5e, all non-immersive. That's probably quite clear from past conversations.

To me, there's something more than just familiarity that goes into maintaining a "flow state" defined version of immersion.

I think this is the most relevant factor for what I define as "immersion" in an RPG. System mastery, what I feel kyoru is describing, does make a difference, but it isn't the whole of it. Understanding of the setting and general expectations goes into this for players, as well. Your OOC decision process will be skewed if you don't understand some aspects of the world and the genre the characters are in. I think the degree to which the mechanics of the game accurately map to the setting and genre of the fiction have a role to play in immersion experience.

This, I think, is a big part of it, and no version of D&D does that as far as I'm concerned... see, the Hit Points discussion.

[kyoryu]

As far as I can tell, it's that a Hit resolution that does hit point damage should often (but not required for all circumstance) involve something that resembles some kind 'hit' in-universe to maintain either verisimilitude or immersion.

Actually no, I don't think that.

What I think is that HP is at least as "out of world" as any of the supposed roleplay/immersion breakers in 4e, and so that it stands as a good counter-argument to "4e isn't a roleplaying game because of dailies/marking" or "4e can't be immersive because of <same stuff>"

I think HP can be fine for verisimillitude or immersion, if the player has internalized it sufficiently that it doesn't break flow state.

My personal stance on HP is "meh, it's whatever. Narrate something that makes sense in the moment without worrying about a grand unified theory of HP and move on".

[Tanarii]

My personal stance on HP is "meh, it's whatever. Narrate something that makes sense in the moment without worrying about a grand unified theory of HP and move on".

Then I don't understand at all how you can object to it running on action hero logic.

[Telok]

I thought d&d hp worked fine in ad&d 1e, especially using the falling damage interpretation of each 10' fallen being +1d6 more deadly (40' = 4d + 3d + 2d +1d = 10d6). Its use of poison being death, paralysis, other status effect instead of just more damage helped too. Anything toxic enough to do "just" hp damage was considered part of the rolled damage dice, while the poison saves were reserved for things poisonous enough to kill in a minute.

Of course ad&d didn't have 60+ hp wizards at 10th level who felt safe face diving off 100' cliffs onto bare rock. D&d hp are, like many things, fine in moderation and toxic in high doses.

[kyoryu]

Then I don't understand at all how you can object to it running on action hero logic.

Because I don't.

My point is, and remains, that hit points are an impedance mismatch greater than anything specific to 4e.

Note that I also consider 4e a reasonably playable game (it has issues, and there are definitely things I'd do differently).

[Satinavian]

I still say that hit points (as meat points) are a reasonable abstraction that does not hurt immersion.

What does hurt immersion is taking perfectly fine hit points and add hit point inflation until the spectrum of resulting durabilities becomes hard to justify. A perfectly normal 10 level guy being able to take roughly 10 times the punishment of the perfectly normal 1 level guy is the unimmersive part because it makes levels a measurable and important in game reality.

That said, even if HP as meats are fine, adding more details for more simulation like wound penalties would still be an option. But that is just level of abstraction.

[Max_Killjoy]

I still say that hit points (as meat points) are a reasonable abstraction that does not hurt immersion.

What does hurt immersion is taking perfectly fine hit points and add hit point inflation until the spectrum of resulting durabilities becomes hard to justify. A perfectly normal 10 level guy being able to take roughly 10 times the punishment of the perfectly normal 1 level guy is the unimmersive part because it makes levels a measurable and important in game reality.

That said, even if HP as meats are fine, adding more details for more simulation like wound penalties would still be an option. But that is just level of abstraction.

That's what I mean when it comes to D&D Hit Points -- the hyperscaling part. At 1st level, "HP are meat" doesn't bugger credibility. At 10th level, "HP are meat" is just silly, and all of the other explanations are internally inconsistent and directly conflict with other rules in the system.

But for some reason when I complain about D&D Hit Points, people assume I'm talking about the entire concept of a numerical abstraction for health/durability, even though many other systems do it better.

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought d&d hp worked fine in ad&d 1e, especially using the falling damage interpretation of each 10' fallen being +1d6 more deadly (40' = 4d + 3d + 2d +1d = 10d6). Its use of poison being death, paralysis, other status effect instead of just more damage helped too. Anything toxic enough to do "just" hp damage was considered part of the rolled damage dice, while the poison saves were reserved for things poisonous enough to kill in a minute.

Of course ad&d didn't have 60+ hp wizards at 10th level who felt safe face diving off 100' cliffs onto bare rock. D&d hp are, like many things, fine in moderation and toxic in high doses.

In the original game and AD&D, once you got to name level you only got a few points more as you leveled up. That curtailed the inflation of HP. (and it also made that Con bonus worth its weight in gold). Not sure how to implement that in 5e, though.
(AD&D 1e example: 10 sided dice

9th level: 9 HD,
10th level 9 + 3 HD,
11th level 9 + 6 HD
(formula is that Fighters gain 3 h.p. per level after the 9th.

I still say that hit points (as meat points) are a reasonable abstraction that does not hurt immersion.

Likewise. I also like the additive approach to falling damage mentioned above. It 'feels' more correct.
(15d6 for a 50' fall, for example, 21 d6 for a 60' fall, and so on).

[kyoryu]

I still say that hit points (as meat points) are a reasonable abstraction that does not hurt immersion.

What does hurt immersion is taking perfectly fine hit points and add hit point inflation until the spectrum of resulting durabilities becomes hard to justify. A perfectly normal 10 level guy being able to take roughly 10 times the punishment of the perfectly normal 1 level guy is the unimmersive part because it makes levels a measurable and important in game reality.

That said, even if HP as meats are fine, adding more details for more simulation like wound penalties would still be an option. But that is just level of abstraction.

Honestly, even in that case HP works fine for general melee combat situations.

It gets wonky once you start dealing outside of combat (falling damage, etc.), or situations involving harm that aren't "combat" (knife to the throat, etc.).

Fate Stress is roughly analogous to HP (specifically, the luck/fatigue/pain part), and is recovered at the end of a scene. It also pretty explicitly doesn't apply for things outside of "big fight scenes", and the game gives some tools to allow things like covering fire to be taken seriously.

That's what I mean when it comes to D&D Hit Points -- the hyperscaling part. At 1st level, "HP are meat" doesn't bugger credibility. At 10th level, "HP are meat" is just silly, and all of the other explanations are internally inconsistent and directly conflict with other rules in the system.

But for some reason when I complain about D&D Hit Points, people assume I'm talking about the entire concept of a numerical abstraction for health/durability, even though many other systems do it better.

Even at first level, HP aren't great. A fighter can survive a full on attack with a dagger, and believe me, someone can murder the heck out of you in six seconds with a knife. But as I said above, if you assume two armed and trained combatants, they're nowhere near as nonsensical as they get at higher levels and non-combat scenarios.

[Max_Killjoy]

Even at first level, HP aren't great. A fighter can survive a full on attack with a dagger, and believe me, someone can murder the heck out of you in six seconds with a knife. But as I said above, if you assume two armed and trained combatants, they're nowhere near as nonsensical as they get at higher levels and non-combat scenarios.

A dagger can also result in a lot of superficial wounds.

Having a number to deal damage against, that represents some characters being more resilient than others within a reasonable range, isn't the problem.

It's certainly better than the "narrative status" gimmicks that some systems try to use to avoid even non-hyperscaling HP.

[RandomPeasant]

A perfectly normal 10 level guy being able to take roughly 10 times the punishment of the perfectly normal 1 level guy is the unimmersive part because it makes levels a measurable and important in game reality.

Well, the problem there is the insistence that the 10th level character is a "perfectly normal guy". Actions you can take at 10th level include "travel to hell", "teleport across a continent", and "raise the dead". The idea that a character at that sort of power level could survive things that would redmist a normal human is entirely plausible, the issue is D&D's refusal to allow certain characters to scale appropriately. If we accepted that the 150 HP Barbarian was Thor or the Hulk instead of Conan, there'd be no issue with him surviving a dragon bite or a fall from orbit.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, the problem there is the insistence that the 10th level character is a "perfectly normal guy". Actions you can take at 10th level include "travel to hell", "teleport across a continent", and "raise the dead". The idea that a character at that sort of power level could survive things that would redmist a normal human is entirely plausible, the issue is D&D's refusal to allow certain characters to scale appropriately. If we accepted that the 150 HP Barbarian was Thor or the Hulk instead of Conan, there'd be no issue with him surviving a dragon bite or a fall from orbit.

IME at least half of that problem is some players, insisting that their character is a mortal non-extranormal person overcoming wicked sorcery and fell beasts through the might of their sinews, the grit of their soul, and the sharpness of their mind...

[PhoenixPhyre]

IME at least half of that problem is some players, insisting that their character is a mortal non-extranormal person overcoming wicked sorcery and fell beasts through the might of their sinews, the grit of their soul, and the sharpness of their mind...

Well, the problem there is the insistence that the 10th level character is a "perfectly normal guy". Actions you can take at 10th level include "travel to hell", "teleport across a continent", and "raise the dead". The idea that a character at that sort of power level could survive things that would redmist a normal human is entirely plausible, the issue is D&D's refusal to allow certain characters to scale appropriately. If we accepted that the 150 HP Barbarian was Thor or the Hulk instead of Conan, there'd be no issue with him surviving a dragon bite or a fall from orbit.

I agree. And we don't even have to go so far as Thor or the Hulk--there are much lower-scale superheroes (on the raw power scale) that are also much more durable than "normal people". In fact, once you go beyond the lowest action heroes, they're all way more durable than normal people, if for no other reason than standard protagonist logic.

[Satinavian]

Well, the problem there is the insistence that the 10th level character is a "perfectly normal guy". Actions you can take at 10th level include "travel to hell", "teleport across a continent", and "raise the dead". The idea that a character at that sort of power level could survive things that would redmist a normal human is entirely plausible, the issue is D&D's refusal to allow certain characters to scale appropriately. If we accepted that the 150 HP Barbarian was Thor or the Hulk instead of Conan, there'd be no issue with him surviving a dragon bite or a fall from orbit.

Thor survives because he is a god, not a human. The Hulk survives because Gamma radiation nonsense, not because Bruce Banner has a lot of experience and thus levels.

I agree. And we don't even have to go so far as Thor or the Hulk--there are much lower-scale superheroes (on the raw power scale) that are also much more durable than "normal people". In fact, once you go beyond the lowest action heroes, they're all way more durable than normal people, if for no other reason than standard protagonist logic.

True.

And i find that utterly immersion breaking as well. I hate when this happens because it really kicks me out of he fiction.

It is one of the reasons i don't like the superhero genre at all. And it is the main problem i have with the action hero genre.

[icefractal]

I feel like (when applied to D&D) there's also an issue with the foes you're expected to face at those levels. Like at 10th level, an animated stone (or iron) statue 80' tall (or an equally-large giant spider), a nine-headed fire-breathing hydra, a demon who's noted as easily ripping steel armor apart, and other similar nasties are not only possible for you to fight, but considered as not even unusual - you're expected to (as a party) fight several of those a day.

And this is not by setting up a trap, or poisoning some big jars of wine, or having the special arrow which can hit its weak point, or any of the other ways that normal humans deal with giant scary monsters in stories. I mean, you can use methods like that, but it isn't expected against 'typical' foes and isn't guaranteed to be possible. No, you just walk up, voluntarily get into melee with the kaiju ... and kick its ass. And then maybe kick its equally-scary friend's ass the same day.

So ... if the characters aren't at least a bit superhuman, what's going on then? Luck? Because personally, I consider "so lucky you can repeatedly take on Godzilla and win" to be a superpower.

[RandomPeasant]

Thor survives because he is a god, not a human. The Hulk survives because Gamma radiation nonsense, not because Bruce Banner has a lot of experience and thus levels.

In D&D, those things are modeled as "having a bunch of levels". You can think that's a bad way of modeling them, but at that point what you're objecting to is level-based advancement, not hit points.

[Quertus]

Hit Point's

HP

hit points

Hit Points

As a concept, Hit Points (HP) match the abstraction of, “hit someone, and they get hurt; hurt them enough, and they die”.

HP as implemented in D&D have no corresponding “injuries are painful / hampering, and can reduce effectiveness” mechanics. This makes the fiction layer of D&D rather different from our own. That said, given that, irl, not all injuries (even fatal ones!) are debilitating, immediately or otherwise, not even coming close to matching reality is not only not unique to D&D HP, but is shared by pretty much every wound system I’ve seen.

HP as implemented in D&D can be interpreted two ways: as meat, or as meat and skill and luck and stamina and.… etc. Both ways have their pros and cons.

HP as implemented in D&D scale by orders of magnitude for the “human(iod)” protagonists. Under “HP as meat”, this means that you have to be able to accept that the “humans” in that world can face tank swords, guns, cannon balls, etc. As you already need to accept “wounds don’t hurt”, this isn’t really asking much, as you’ve already had to accept the “these aren’t humans as they exist in this reality” truth of the fiction. “HP as lots” matches reality much better, and matches “action hero logic” more or less perfectly, but requires cognitive overhead to register “oh, you got scratched by that 20 HP sword swing, and poison/disease entered the wound”, and really struggles with healing magic.

The “dagger to the throat” is instantly fatal in some editions of D&D, generally matching our reality nicely (not that D&D needs to), but is only *potentially* fatal in other editions (also somewhat matching “two to the chest, one to the head” in our reality).

HP as meat has two big problems. The first is that that isn’t how D&D works - it’s a homebrew reskin, with no official grounding. The second is the instant kill. Sure, the high level Fighter could face tank a Minotaur swinging an ace for a minute straight, but when granny stabbed his paralyzed but otherwise fully healthy self, he died?

HP as lots requires effort framing damage, not as wounds, but in action hero logic of “avoiding (the worst of) the blow”. And they don’t match the fiction of healing spells / regeneration etc healing meat - you’d need to reskin the fiction for them to be consistent.

However, the first step in immersion is accepting the fiction. Most problems with HP represent a failure to do so, and that’s not on HP, that’s user error. That’s on the user, not on HP.

4e

Unlike HP, 4e continues to have problems even (and especially) when you have accepted the fiction. HP ain’t got nothin’ on 4e.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hit Points

As a concept, Hit Points (HP) match the abstraction of, “hit someone, and they get hurt; hurt them enough, and they die”.

HP as implemented in D&D have no corresponding “injuries are painful / hampering, and can reduce effectiveness” mechanics. This makes the fiction layer of D&D rather different from our own. That said, given that, irl, not all injuries (even fatal ones!) are debilitating, immediately or otherwise, not even coming close to matching reality is not only not unique to D&D HP, but is shared by pretty much every wound system I’ve seen.

HP as implemented in D&D can be interpreted two ways: as meat, or as meat and skill and luck and stamina and.… etc. Both ways have their pros and cons.

HP as implemented in D&D scale by orders of magnitude for the “human(iod)” protagonists. Under “HP as meat”, this means that you have to be able to accept that the “humans” in that world can face tank swords, guns, cannon balls, etc. As you already need to accept “wounds don’t hurt”, this isn’t really asking much, as you’ve already had to accept the “these aren’t humans as they exist in this reality” truth of the fiction. “HP as lots” matches reality much better, and matches “action hero logic” more or less perfectly, but requires cognitive overhead to register “oh, you got scratched by that 20 HP sword swing, and poison/disease entered the wound”, and really struggles with healing magic.

The “dagger to the throat” is instantly fatal in some editions of D&D, generally matching our reality nicely (not that D&D needs to), but is only *potentially* fatal in other editions (also somewhat matching “two to the chest, one to the head” in our reality).

HP as meat has two big problems. The first is that that isn’t how D&D works - it’s a homebrew reskin, with no official grounding. The second is the instant kill. Sure, the high level Fighter could face tank a Minotaur swinging an ace for a minute straight, but when granny stabbed his paralyzed but otherwise fully healthy self, he died?

HP as lots requires effort framing damage, not as wounds, but in action hero logic of “avoiding (the worst of) the blow”. And they don’t match the fiction of healing spells / regeneration etc healing meat - you’d need to reskin the fiction for them to be consistent.

However, the first step in immersion is accepting the fiction. Most problems with HP represent a failure to do so, and that’s not on HP, that’s user error. That’s on the user, not on HP.

The problems with "HP combines all this stuff into a lump" have been well covered in previous threads, starting with "all that other stuff is also modeled by one or more OTHER mechanics in the game". (Is HP or AC or a Saving Throw where I model a character being hard to hit? Etc.) The problems with HP are not "failure by the player to accept the fiction", they're the mechanics failing as a model of the intended fiction.

But I think we're getting away from the central thread topic.

[Vahnavoi]

The idea that hitpoint loss does not hamper actions or reduce effectiveness is objectively wrong.

Simple proof-of-concept: you have a space to travel through, with dangerous terrain, cliffs, etc. obstacles which deal hitpoint damage. Your exact hitpoint value influences the spread of possible paths through that space - lose too many hitpoints at any point, and it may restrict you from crossing that space at all, or leave you trapped in the middle of it.

Another example, from 3rd edition: forced marching causes non-lethal damage. This is counted against your current, not maximum, hitpoints. This means any hitpoint loss reduces distance you can march.

You can argue hitpoint loss doesn't always influence actions in the way you expect. That would be easily solved, by giving all straining actions a hitpoint cost. You'd also rapidly find out why such mechanics aren't all that popular.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is one of the reasons i don't like the superhero genre at all. And it is the main problem i have with the action hero genre.

Too bad, since Die Hard was a good movie. (The sequels not as much).

In D&D, those things are modeled as "having a bunch of levels". You can think that's a bad way of modeling them, but at that point what you're objecting to is level-based advancement, not hit points.

Traveler didn't have them originally. As I have not played anything but the original, not sure if they retained that approach.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Hit Points

Unlike HP, 4e continues to have problems even (and especially) when you have accepted the fiction. HP ain’t got nothin’ on 4e.

Which part of the 4e fiction breaks immersion in a way HP doesn’t?

Can’t be the dailies or encounter powers: those are governed by a power source in the fiction that governs them. Can it?



Can’t be the monster design, monsters are designer beings according to the fiction, either produced with intention or as a bizarre coincidence in a multiverse. Can it?

Can’t be the magic system, rooted in the raw power accessed by dailies and encounter powers but buttressed by the studied power of rituals. Entirely rooted in the fiction. Can it?

Can’t be the status effects and rider effects. Those are just an abstraction of the interactions of the central power sources. Can it?

What part breaks the immersion when the proper fiction is adhered to?

I mean, worse than Vancian Magic, for instance?

What part of 4e breaks immersion even if the appropriate fiction is understood?

[Cluedrew]

To Dr. Murgunstrum: You could go to RPG metric, simplified version. We don't have an answer yet but that's the thread for the discussion about Quertus's relationship with 4e. Or maybe it is the uncanny valley effect presented in this thread, maybe his metric does just need a couple more pieces before it all makes sense. Point is there is a lot of discussion about the topic there.

[Talakeal]

Thor survives because he is a god, not a human. The Hulk survives because Gamma radiation nonsense, not because Bruce Banner has a lot of experience and thus levels.

True.

And i find that utterly immersion breaking as well. I hate when this happens because it really kicks me out of he fiction.

It is one of the reasons i don't like the superhero genre at all. And it is the main problem i have with the action hero genre.

I also find it weird that characters who explicitly do not have any sort of super-durability power still survive punch ups with guys who can bench press a sky-scraper. I mean, sure, Wolverine or Colossus can tank a blow from juggernaut, but Cyclops is just a normal guy who can shoot lasers.