Immersive-Relevant Realism (essay)

[Domhnall]

Magic:  Since RPGs do make it a priority to make characters equal, this is the danger with magicians.  Game creators usually just assume that magic should be very strong and not uncommon.  Therefore, they are playing "keep-up" with non-mages and end up making these ["classes"] too strong.  This is the unbalancing "domino-effect".

Here's where I take exception to your stuff: Balance is silly and unrelated to Immersion.  Just because "[most] RPGs do make it a priority..." is no reason to discuss it like it's a good or valid idea.  Ars Magica doesn't care about balance.  Look at it as a good example of high-powered magic done right.

You seem to have conflated "the way things have been done before" with "the way things should be done."  Don't do this.  I would suggest that character power level doesn't really have much to do with Immersion outside of the (potential) difficulty of relating to someone with that level of influence.
Thomas

Well, that's an interesting idea.  But, I hold it as axiomatic for a game creator to make a game that is balanced.  Additionally, a balanced system (regarding "classes") ensures that a player will not be tempted to merely play the "best" character each time.  If a game is set up so that mages are superior to all other characters, then the temptation exists for the players to "cheat" and just play mages.  
If I stick with that axiom, then I must balance out the system to make sure that no one (sorcerer or not) becomes too powerful which (I believe) damages immersion.  
And I don't hold that axiom merely for tradition's sake.  I'm quite iconoclastic, and would abandon "class" equality if it was merely in place per tradition.  But, I hold that a good system is (de facto) a balanced one.

[James Holloway]

I am absolutely certain that Daniel doesn't intend with, but the first thing that struck me about the idea of playing low-powered characters in a "realistic" world was that low-power + immersion + detailed world = the best stick in the world for the GM to beat the players with.

Now, of course, even for high-powered characters, actions have consequences and conflict is not always about power, but I suspect most traditional immersive-style GMs would not be very comfortable with characters saying "up yours! I'm the king of Spain; I'll do whatever the hell I like."*

edit: a not-entirely-inaccurate portrayal of Spanish royal policymaking at certain times.

[LordSmerf]

Well, that's an interesting idea.  But, I hold it as axiomatic for a game creator to make a game that is balanced.  Additionally, a balanced system (regarding "classes") ensures that a player will not be tempted to merely play the "best" character each time.  If a game is set up so that mages are superior to all other characters, then the temptation exists for the players to "cheat" and just play mages.

Okay, a couple of notes on this part.  If someone consistently picks the "best class" or whatever, and exhibits what you (I believe) consider to be Power-Gamer behavior, then it seems clear to me that they don't care about Immersion.  If they don't care about Immersion in the first place, then no amount of system juggling or balancing will make them care, that's the Lumpley Principle in action.  If they do care about Immersion more than Power-Gaming then you also don't have to worry about them picking the most powerful class, since that won't be a priority for them.

If I stick with that axiom, then I must balance out the system to make sure that no one (sorcerer or not) becomes too powerful which (I believe) damages immersion.

I would love to see you expand on this because I just don't agree.  I just don't think that having lots of power has any impact on Immersion.  Could you flesh out why you think this is a bad thing?

And I don't hold that axiom merely for tradition's sake.  I'm quite iconoclastic, and would abandon "class" equality if it was merely in place per tradition.  But, I hold that a good system is (de facto) a balanced one.

Okay, a couple of things here.  First, you have "class" in quotes, and I'm not sure what you are implying there, could you expand?  Second, I think you're operating from a lack of experience.  Have you played (or at least read) Ars Magica?  Have you played in a game that had intentionally unbalanced classes?  I don't like to make assumptions, but it seems to me that you just haven't experienced some of the excellent, partially or completely unbalanced, games out there.  I mean, you could even consider Dogs in the Vineyard to be somewhat unbalanced in character creation, and it's a ton of fun.

Thoughts?

Thomas

[Marco]

I am absolutely certain that Daniel doesn't intend with, but the first thing that struck me about the idea of playing low-powered characters in a "realistic" world was that low-power + immersion + detailed world = the best stick in the world for the GM to beat the players with.

Now, of course, even for high-powered characters, actions have consequences and conflict is not always about power, but I suspect most traditional immersive-style GMs would not be very comfortable with characters saying "up yours! I'm the king of Spain; I'll do whatever the hell I like."*

edit: a not-entirely-inaccurate portrayal of Spanish royal policymaking at certain times.

I'm posting to disagree--but I'm posting at all because I think this is a fairly common chain of reasoning that's prejudicial. As someone who considers themself a "traditional immersive-style" GM I think there's nothing at all wrong with powerful characters or characters managing their own affairs.

Power-issues are completely separate.

-Marco

[Marco]

Okay, a couple of things here.  First, you have "class" in quotes, and I'm not sure what you are implying there, could you expand?  Second, I think you're operating from a lack of experience.  Have you played (or at least read) Ars Magica?  Have you played in a game that had intentionally unbalanced classes?  I don't like to make assumptions, but it seems to me that you just haven't experienced some of the excellent, partially or completely unbalanced, games out there.  I mean, you could even consider Dogs in the Vineyard to be somewhat unbalanced in character creation, and it's a ton of fun.

Thoughts?

Thomas

I haven't played Ars Magica, so I have a question: are there different realms (?) of magic that do roughly the same thing but realm A is far more effective than realm B (while having the same 'cost' to the character?)

[ For the record, I found TRoS magic "unblanced" to the detriment of the game. ]

-Marco

[James Holloway]

If they do care about Immersion more than Power-Gaming then you also don't have to worry about them picking the most powerful class, since that won't be a priority for them.

But even without "cheating," this can still be a problem. Let's say that my character concept for a UA game is that I would like to play a Masterless Man, and my wife Allison's is that she wants to play a Necessary Servant. We're both playing true to our character concepts, and it is just Allison's bad luck that her chosen Archetype is pathetically underpowered compared to mine. If you haven't read all the archetype descriptions, you might think that the Necessary Servant is a normal archetype, instead of a puny one.

But not even the most hardcore immersionist (like, say, Allison) likes to play a character who is constantly outshone by the others at the table. So trying to balance character creation options still serves a useful function.

Now, I think there's a place for character options that are unbalanced, but they ought to be clearly flagged. For the most part, I think a rough attempt at balance is advisable -- whatever that means to the designer.

[Domhnall]

Yes, players that are searching for the "best class" (instead of creating a character that fits a tale) are avoiding the point of immersionist RPing and can be dismissed if that's their intent.  
But, I'd need to hear a good argument to justify a game system being imbalanced.  Regardless of the type of game, it is intuitive that the game even out for the players.  Fairness is a foundational issue in all games, as James Holloway's post demonstrates even true immersionists hate being pushed into the margins.  
I'd say that the burden of proof lies on the gamer in favor of an imbalanced system to demonstrate that the axiom of game Fairness can be abolished.  No, I've never played Ars Magica, but if it's unfair, then I would not be persuaded unless I was persuaded by the counter-fairness argument.  
I put 'classes' in quotes since I (& others) do not use classes.

[M. J. Young]

I'd need to hear a good argument to justify a game system being imbalanced.  Regardless of the type of game, it is intuitive that the game even out for the players.  Fairness is a foundational issue in all games, as James Holloway's post demonstrates even true immersionists hate being pushed into the margins.

An argument that justifies a game system being imbalanced: balanced characters are unrealistic. They don't happen in life. They aren't even representative of good fantasy. No one with a lick of sense thinks that Frodo, Aragorn, Legalos, Boromir, Faramir, Samwise, and Gandalf were all created with the same number of points, nor would we say the same of Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Obi-wan Kenobi, Princess Leia, R2D2, and C3PO.

However, the statement that "fairness is a foundational issue in all games" assumes that "fairness" has anything like the same meaning in all games. It clearly does not.

In Chess, "fairness" means that each player starts with exactly the same power and options, because each has the same sixteen pieces set in the same arrangement. That's one definition of fair. In Poker, by contrast, each player starts with a completely different hand, based on an entirely random deal of the deck. Fairness in this case is defined by potential and obscurement--that each player is aware that he has as much chance to have been dealt the best hand as the worst, and that no one knows who has the best hand until the cards are laid on the table.

And in both of those games, the conception of "fairness" is based on the fundamental assumption that the players are attempting to beat each other. That is rarely the case in role playing games, in which it is most likely for gamist play to be expressed in players that are attempting to unite their abilities in a combined effort to overcome obstacles created by a referee. In this context, the typical RPG character party is more akin to a football team. What matters is that each participant have strengths that matter to the team. No one pretends that the abilities of the offensive lineman, who is primarily there to stop opposing defensive linemen from sacking the quarterback, are nearly the same or any substitute for those abilities of a quarterback or a running back or an end. Observers generally praise the players who make the touchdowns. The players on the field, though, are quite aware that they need each other's skills, even though some of them have less impressive or varied or unusual skills than others. Nothing here has to be "balanced" for the game to be "fair", as the important question is not whether the players are as able to act as each other, but rather whether the characters as a cooperative are equal to the task set by the referee. This really is a much better picture of the character parties of LotR and Star Wars--not that they are comprised of characters of equal ability, but that they are comprised of characters whose abilities are sufficient for the role they must play in what is to come.

In most role playing games, "balance" and "fairness" have much more to do with ensuring screen time than they have with any inherent value in equally proficient characters. Some other means of ensuring screen time can be just as effective. John Kim's reports of his Buffy the Vampire Slayer play is quite informative on this point, as it appears that character generation empowers weaker characters to create story lines while stronger characters can only respond to them (if I understand aright), thus giving screen time rights to the characters who don't have the power to solve the problems.

I hope this is sufficiently clear. I'm all for "game balance" of the sort you advocate when the game's objectives include character versus character competition, but I think that there are a lot of ways to make imbalanced games not only as fair but more fun.

--M. J. Young

[Domhnall]

Well, that's an interesting argument, and I am not discounting it.  But, at the same time it seems such a large issue that will pull this topic (Immersion-Realism) a little off course, so I have started a new topic pasting MJ's reply as the starting post.  I'm interested in where it goes as I've never heard an argument advocating "imbalance" for any type game.  

For the purposes of this essay at this time, I will postpone my verdict concerning the "unbalancing 'domino-effect' of mages". This all arose out of the assertion that characters should not be "too powerful".
 
Concerning "power" and "Power-Gaming", let me be clear that I hold that those are two different issues.  For the P-Ger, deep character/story immersion are not the goal of playing, and so are irrelevant.  But, for the participant who does have immersion as a goal, too much power is a detriment.  

Let me give an example from a campaign from long, long ago.  I had a paladin in a long and elaborate campaign.  He became a world-shaping force by virtue of his deeds and personal influence.  The GM & I were serious immersionists, and the role playing was rich.  But, the more powerful I became (not just my skill/level, but the many NPCs who I was influencing [and the more enemies I made]), the less "real" it seemed.  The more powerful I became, the more the GM had to "up the ante" in order to make the challenges lively.  As this cycle continued, I ended up surrounded with multiple mages, many magical items, etc. in competition with enemies with mages and items, etc..  Eventually, we recognized that the feeling of the game had been damaged by all of this "power".  Specifically, death was highly improbable, and, if I did happen to die, then I was (or seemed to be) virtually guaranteed to be resurrected.  There were constantly spells flying in all directions for and against me.  It was dizzying to think of all the magical-minutia that was going on.  We found that we had to contrive scenarios that felt "tame".  Since we held that campaign contrivances are a Cardinal Sin, we were left uncomfortable with the course of the character.  We weren't P-Ging, but the excess of magic, magic items god-involvement, etc., (which seemed necessary at the time) still infringed on the "humanness" of my character.  

I believe it's this path that leads participants to "retire" characters, which seems sad.  This has driven me to make a system that is strong in moderation.  Now, we still have strong characters, magic, items of power, etc..  No one is interested in role playing surfs with sticks.  But, I argue that this path of exorbitance (especially surrounding magic) is detrimental to the goal of immersive role playing.

[James Holloway]

We weren't P-Ging, but the excess of magic, magic items god-involvement, etc., (which seemed necessary at the time) still infringed on the "humanness" of my character.  

I believe it's this path that leads participants to "retire" characters, which seems sad.  This has driven me to make a system that is strong in moderation.  Now, we still have strong characters, magic, items of power, etc..  No one is interested in role playing surfs with sticks.  But, I argue that this path of exorbitance (especially surrounding magic) is detrimental to the goal of immersive role playing.

This is surely a genre issue rather than a "power" issue -- it's difficult to maintain "realism" in a fantasy game because the more powerful your character becomes, the more unrealistic he or she becomes -- your typical low-powered fantasy character is very commonly just a guy or girl with one or two odd things extra.

As a matter of fact, this is (for slightly different reasons) why I don't enjoy high-level D&D. For effective high-level combats, a lot of the participants in a fight are going to be invisible, hasted, or whatever, and when I visualize that it my mind's eye it just looks so ding-dang goofy that I lose interest.

As for no one being interested in role-playing serfs with sticks, I don't know.

[LordSmerf]

What James said, but I'm going to expand a bit and add my own spin.

The problem wasn't the power level of the character, but the unrealistic qualities of the world.  The world was unrealistic all along, and as you've said the less realistic the world is (the more alien it is) the harder it is to be immersed.  What happened was not that you got powerful, but that the unrealistic aspects of the world were shoved into the light and elevated above the realistic stuff.

Let's try this: what if you were playing the King of Spain in a world very much like our own?  Death by assassination is a worry, the competing interests of the nation and the Church are a big concern, lots of intrigue and other fun stuff to get involved with.  Now, the world is still alien (I'm willing to be that you haven't ever lived in a royal court), but it's not as alien, and thus easier to grab hold of.

So, as James said, it's not power level, it's the world itself that was "unrealistic" and brought you out of immersion.  You just never noticed how "unrealistic" the world was until you had accumulated all that power.

Here's a question that may be off topic, take it or leave it as you wish...  If we take it as a principle that the more alien something is the more difficult immersion is, then it should follow that the more familiar something is the easier immersion is.  The problem is that this doesn't seem true to me.  I find immersion in an "us" game to be incredibly difficult, even if absolutely everything is familiar.  Is this because I'm not interested?  What does immersion require beyond familiarity and a sense of plausibility?

Thomas

[NN]

The GM needs to know the world better than the players?
Which is a problem in a historical, modern, or near future sci-fi game.

[Domhnall]

It looks like James & Thomas were in agreement, so I think this responds to both of you.  

...
The problem wasn't the power level of the character, but the unrealistic qualities of the world.  The world was unrealistic all along, and as you've said the less realistic the world is (the more alien it is) the harder it is to be immersed.  What happened was not that you got powerful, but that the unrealistic aspects of the world were shoved into the light and elevated above the realistic stuff. ......
So, as James said, it's not power level, it's the world itself that was "unrealistic" and brought you out of immersion.  You just never noticed how "unrealistic" the world was until you had accumulated all that power.

I am pretty sure we are actually in agreement here.  I am for a "realistic" (aka "plausible") world, not merely the PCs.  We hadn't realized how far the game-structure of that world would pull us away from "humanness" (specifically our fears, vulnerabilities, etc) until we experienced the all-pervasiveness of powerful magic which (essentially) shielded us from mortality.  

Here's a question that may be off topic, take it or leave it as you wish...  If we take it as a principle that the more alien something is the more difficult immersion is, then it should follow that the more familiar something is the easier immersion is.  The problem is that this doesn't seem true to me.  I find immersion in an "us" game to be incredibly difficult, even if absolutely everything is familiar.  Is this because I'm not interested?  What does immersion require beyond familiarity and a sense of plausibility?

No, this is not off topic.  I'm not advocating the use of worlds that are hum-drum.  I have no interest in playing a "familiar" character in the same world I have to live in (Illinois is pretty damned boring).  I am in love with the ancient/medieval 'fantasy' genre, and desire those worlds to psychologically dwell/role play in.  I am advocating a particular principle (that of Immersive-Relevant Realism).  I am concerned with those areas that affect how I psychologically relate to my character/that world.  It's not that there is a difference in the worlds (per se) that damages the link.  It's only those particular differences in the world/game structure which threaten.  The "Uber-power" issue which makes characters less-[by virtue of being 'super'-] human is a prominent one that causes that damage.  So, worlds with elves, demons, beasts, magic, undead, etc., do not threaten the link.  I can immerse myself in a fantasy (Secondary) world and feel the strong connection of being in that world when it is believable, and where I (as the character in that world) remain mortal.  

Obesity of power is only one threat to immersion.  The other IRR factors: characters, combat, cities, cause & effects, etc. I've already written in the essay.

[LordSmerf]

Daniel,

Cool.  Let me double check: We both agree that power-level is totally unrelated to immersion.  The danger to immersion that is often incorrectly attributed to high-power level is actually one of making the characters in-human.  It just turns out that often high power levels (often entailing access to powerful magic) often result in in-human characters because they have nothing to risk, they can always win.  Sound good to you?

Second.  Again, at the risk of getting off topic (because I think you missed the main thrust of my last attmempt to do so): Clearly "realism" is not the only factor in determining immersion.  It may not even be the main factor, I'm not sure about that.  As you said, you have no interest in playing in a hum-drum world.  So, what is it in addition to a sense of plausibility must you have to get immersed?  Whatever it is, it over-rides plausibility to some degree (i.e. you'd rather play in a "fantasy" world, than a copy of the real-world, even though the real world is more plausible).  What do you think?  Is this worth discussing?

Thomas

[Domhnall]

Daniel,

Cool.  Let me double check: We both agree that power-level is totally unrelated to immersion.  The danger to immersion that is often incorrectly attributed to high-power level is actually one of making the characters in-human.  It just turns out that often high power levels (often entailing access to powerful magic) often result in in-human characters because they have nothing to risk, they can always win.  Sound good to you?

Yes, I think we agree on that.

Second.  Again, at the risk of getting off topic (because I think you missed the main thrust of my last attmempt to do so): Clearly "realism" is not the only factor in determining immersion.  It may not even be the main factor, I'm not sure about that.  As you said, you have no interest in playing in a hum-drum world.  So, what is it in addition to a sense of plausibility must you have to get immersed?  Whatever it is, it over-rides plausibility to some degree (i.e. you'd rather play in a "fantasy" world, than a copy of the real-world, even though the real world is more plausible).  What do you think?  Is this worth discussing?
Thomas

It is certainly worth discussing.  Here's where I think we agree:  Realism ("factually informed consistency") is certainly not enough to give immersion.  From my essay:  

I do not assert (necessarily) that the more closely aligned the game world is to the real one the deeper the immersion. It is not a 1:1 correlation. It's quite possible to have a realistic gaming world (where a wealth of research has produced perfect harmony with the facts of our world) with no deeper immersion than in a wildly uninformed one. A world with accurate details does not by itself draw in an audience into the tale inside that world. Only a quality tale (with mature participants allowing that tale to flourish) can generate immersion. But even a great tale with excellent participants played within a role playing system that ignores the relevant aspects of realism diminishes the immersion that could have occurred within a realistic one.

Realistic rules/worlds are in place to aid the game, but they do not give immersion alone.
But, I don't agree that a 'fantasy' world is (necessarily) less plausible.  Our world (the "Primary" world) just happens to be missing dragons, magic, etc.  I take Middle Earth to be just as believable as this Earth.  Realism ("factually informed consistency") can still be applied to M.E.  There are simply different Facts present in M.E., but that does not make it Unrealistic (as I am using 'Realistic').  

The principle of "Factually Informed Consistency", of course, rests on the Facts of the world in question.  If we are role playing in worlds identical to ours, we needn't worry with facts concerning dragons, spells, undead, etc., (unless we discover those are facts).  But, in worlds that have those 'fantastic' facts (like M.E.), they can be dealt with realistically.  

Here's what I failed to say in the essay: Concerning facts that exist in both the Primary and Secondary worlds, I recommend using (researched) knowledge from the Primary world in the Secondary world (especially those facts that affect people).  Physical laws [especially combative] are present in both worlds.  Using these facts from our world in this other world strengthens realism, which aids in the psychological connection (immersion) from player to character.  (Wounds impair, outnumbering causes disadvantage, shields are vastly superior to mere dogding, etc..)  
 
Facts in the Secondary world absent in the Primary one have no (identical) correlation, and so we must generate rules to accommodate them.  And so, where there is creation of facts (rather than relation to Primary world facts), we are left with the responsibility of Balance (to avoid the detriment of overpowered characters, and chaotic [unbelievable] worlds).