Vreeg's Fifth Law of Setting Design

[Lmns Crn]

This can be one of those times where the mechanic you are using may make a better storyline, but it reduces the setting immersion and the ability to stay in character. This does not make it a better or worse game. this does not make it more or less fun. It does reduce the level of immersion, I contend.

I absolutely agree. You can't step back and have that kind of discussion without sacrificing immersion. I'm spitballing ideas for Nomadic's thread, here, and this one is an idea that obviously, overtly requires a tradeoff. Insofar as fun is subjective and an objectively "perfect system" is impossible, I submit that we will all be constantly making similar tradeoffs, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.

Naturally, this leads us to questions of priorities-- if we're talking of tradeoffs, we have to know what we're willing to trade for what.

If you're coming from a mindset where the thing you value above all else is players being in-character as close to 100% of the time as possible, maybe you're willing to trade a tiny bit of that in order to gain a larger portion of some secondary concern. Or maybe you're unwilling to part with even a shred of it for any reason. Either way, well and good.

The interesting thing about this discussion is that it shines a light on our dogmatic differences, by showcasing what kinds of tradeoffs we are and are not willing to consider.

[LordVreeg]

INdeed, LC.  My insanty and appetitres are notorious.  I like the conversation in terms of tradeoffs, as well.  
what will make a better game for the players is the concern...

[TheMeanestGuest]

I always feel like I'm missing something whenever people start talking about immersion. I cannot say I have ever felt 'immersed' when playing a traditional role playing game. To me, it feels equivalent to writing and reading a book at the same time, which while enjoyable, is not particularly 'immersing'.

[Lmns Crn]

what will make a better game for the players is the concern...

To go for the trivially obvious, I'd back up far enough to say that the point of the game is to make sure that everybody involved has fun.

I'd venture that there are many avenues through which one might pursue that ultimate goal (having fun), and that the way you navigate these avenues-- pursuing some, discarding others, balancing several relative to each other-- has got to depend on what your group likes and on what works for you personally when you do your writing/prep/GMing/whatever.

[Weave]

what will make a better game for the players is the concern...

To go for the trivially obvious, I'd back up far enough to say that the point of the game is to make sure that everybody involved has fun.

I'd venture that there are many avenues through which one might pursue that ultimate goal (having fun), and that the way you navigate these avenues-- pursuing some, discarding others, balancing several relative to each other-- has got to depend on what your group likes and on what works for you personally when you do your writing/prep/GMing/whatever.

On a slightly tangential note, I find this balance of "everyone having fun" the hardest. Oftentimes, what I want as a GM and what my players want are different things. Nothing drastic; we still get along just fine, but I always have to wrestle over how much leeway I give on either side. Can I make a setting with guns if I feel it thematically appropriate even though my players don't want guns? What sort of middle ground is there between that? Also, systems have always been difficult; having been weened on PF, it's hard for me to get them to branch out. Sometimes, I feel as though I have to contour the setting to the system they'll prefer. But I digress...

[Nomadic]

I always feel like I'm missing something whenever people start talking about immersion. I cannot say I have ever felt 'immersed' when playing a traditional role playing game. To me, it feels equivalent to writing and reading a book at the same time, which while enjoyable, is not particularly 'immersing'.

I'm largely the same way, I very rarely feel much character immersion. But that's not where I get my enjoyment from roleplay or why I take part in roleplaying. I have a craving for storytelling and immersion in the story itself is something I relish. It's like creating a work of art and really getting into it, adding little brushstrokes here and there and broad strokes in other places and polishing things up. For me that's what roleplay is, like painting a picture save that you are unsure what the final product will look like, and that fact excites me.

[Superfluous Crow]

I would go as far as to say that traditional rules-heavy roleplaying games make full immersion impossible. Immersion takes time, most of all, and if there is never more than 5-10 minutes between a die roll, immersion won't be achieved.
It sounds like Vreeg has achieved Immersion at times, but I venture that there are some periods in his campaign where the players do nothing but speak in character. This will (inevitably?) lead to immersion (provided that setting immersion is maintained as per the Illusion of Preparedness and so on).
Rules-free games could thus (potentially) achieve constant character immersion, but introduces many other problems if the experience is to be fluid: other players are not taken into account and actions might unconsciously make the game less fun for the others and resolution would be a nightmare. So there has to be some kind of balance.  

[Nomadic]

Vreeg does a good job of keeping things running at a relatively quick pace. Part of this is just how he does things and part of it is that the complexity of guildschool encourages people to have a list of common rolls ready for copy paste so that they don't have to look things up.

[Elemental_Elf]

Never ever tell your players you made something up on the fly, it immediately and irrecoverably alters their perception of the event for the worse.

[Superfluous Crow]

Makes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

[LordVreeg]

Makes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

That's the problem.
Once they know you've done it; thay start distrusting the reflection of the world that the GM portrays.

[Elemental_Elf]

Makes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

[Nomadic]

Makes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

I disagree. It can but it won't always do so.

[LordVreeg]

Makes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

I disagree. It can but it won't always do so.

I worry less about the original event....I know this has effects down the road.  That's what I always worry about.

[Elemental_Elf]

Makes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

I disagree. It can but it won't always do so.

Certain events are fine especially if they are framed in frivolity or as singular events. However anything that relates to an over-arching story, a meta-plot, a combat, or something directly related to a character is a different story.

I'd venture to say that most people would not care if they were told a random encounter in the woods was done on the fly (most people expect that) however, if they were told that a large swathe of an over arching story where the PCs adventured in a castle and saved the princess was all made up on the fly (even if you crafted the basics of the adventure but made up the encounters, the "dungeon design" and the enemies  on the fly) will most likely garner a negative reaction. Players want to believe their DM plans everything out and knows his story like the back of his hand - that everything fits into a greater whole. To discover a large chunk of the story was no crafted with the care and love that the rest of the story was given cheapens that chunk.

I think we here on this board tend to be more DM-focused than player focused. Most people here understand how to DM and do it well. We all know the trade secrets and so our experience is not often lessened by the discovery that something "was made up on the fly" because we know that that is a natural part of DMing.

However, most people are not DMs. They do not understand the subtle craft that goes on behind the screen. They believe their characters are merely actors in a screenplay written and directed by the DM. They do not want to understand the craft, they prefer ignorance because it preserves the illusion of a finely-crafted story.