Hi,

I was just reading the thread about the new AoS dwarves and I saw some interesting comments about those AoS special rules that ask you to do things like shout Waggh for a bonus, or to insult an enemy model to get rerolls etc. There was some discussion about whether these rules qualified as “breaking the fourth wall” or if they were something else entirely different. I’m interested in discussing the nature of these sorts of rules, why some find them so jarring and disruptive to the game, and whether you’ve ever played with similar rules in other game systems.

What is the Fourth Wall?
The fourth wall is an idea of an imaginary, impermeable wall that separates the audience and whatever world is being portrayed. In traditional theater, the actors are often inside a single room of three walls. There is a literal 4th wall facing the audience. To the fictional characters it’s a real wall, to us it’s a window into the action.

Breaking the Fourth Wall
ANY kind of interaction that crosses that imaginary line is considered breaking the fourth wall.

The type that people are most familiar with is when a fictional character address the audience or makes some kind of meta comment indicating that they are aware of their own fictional universe in some way. It's most common in TV, movies, and most theater, because the flow of information is unidirectional - we can be talked to, but we can't affect the action on screen.

It’s the most common, but not the only way to break the fourth wall

In interactive theater, the audience can respond to the performers and can become part of the play...maybe unwillingly. ;-)
There have also been examples of video games where you can take actions outside of the game (outside of your normal actions as a player) that have an impact within the story of the game itself. E.g. hitting the reset button at a specific time to cause something to happen in-game, changing the system date-time to create an in-game effect etc. Both of these examples are also considered to break the fourth wall.

Age of Sigmar - Enforced Whimsy Rules
These rules in AoS are in kind of a strange area because wargaming is itself a strange area. It’s a bit like a movie, a bit like a video game, a bit like a roleplaying game. But no matter how you think of the rules or the game I think that they definitely do break the fourth wall.

If you think of yourself as separate from the action - like an audience member viewing the battle play out from above - a rule that demands you participate in the game as an actor would be like being forced to participate in unwanted interactive theater.

If you think of yourself as being an actual model on the battlefield leading your troops, any rule that asks you to interact with your opponent as a person playing a game, or to treat the models as models, not armies, is going to break your immersion.

Sometimes even things designed to enhances the “realism” just serve to highlight that this is not real. Like the hobbit in super HD, or games that want you to bounce around and talk to the screen. Telling me to shout how immersed I am is the fastest way to pull me right out of that fictional world.

The Fifth Wall?
Some people have mentioned that the rules feel jarring because they're trying to dictate *how* people play the game by defining the "spirit" of the game and giving tangible bonuses to people who follow it. I think a strong argument could be made that these sorts of rules break the so called "fifth wall" – interaction between the creators/actors and the audience.

Suddenly we have the game designers speaking to us mid-game through the rules and critiquing the way we chose to engage with those rules. It reminds me of the old Ogre Kingdoms where, according to the rules, Ogre butchers could take magic armor because they were allowed to take normal armor (ironfists). In the FAQ the designer said ‘yes you are allowed to take magical armor, but if you do you aren’t playing by the spirit of the rules’. I always found that an incredibly strange and jarring inclusion and it feels like the AoS rules have taken a bit of opinion text and codified them – giving some tangible in-game bonuses if you agree to play the right way.

Maybe one way to think of it is that the rules on their own break the fifth wall, but implementing the rules in-game breaks the fourth wall.

Thoughts?
Do you think the AoS special rules break the 4th or 5th wall? The walls of good taste? Or do they enhance your immersion? Have you encountered any other meta rules in wargaming, and if so, did you find they worked better or worse than the AoS ones?

Cheers,
CoA

Nothing about the rules is forced.

You can use them if you want or ignore them if you want to as well.

That's true of any rule in any game system when playing with mates, of course, Kan - but you're not actually given that latitude in the rules. As written, you need to perform said charades to get the benefit... I think it's reasonable to ignore if folks don't want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an interesting rules strategy worth discussing.

Bottle mentioned something in the main thread that I liked:

 Bottle wrote:

You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.

That's a neat rule and I'd love to see more like it.

It breaks my immersion with the fluff and the narrative. I get a lot of my immersion from the unit stats themselves, and I think of my models as the representation of their stats and abilities. As I paint or ogle a model, I think this is my Plague Monk, these are his abilities, this is what he's good at, this is what he's bad at. Any models that have the funny rules suddenly aren't part of the lore I have in my head anymore and become empty game pieces.

That said, AoS is the sort of game where it's not a big deal. I can imagine it would be a problem if you care a whole lot about the competitive aspect of gaming and rules as written and all that. I'm for whatever's fun and mutually agreeable.

That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!

As a poster said in another thread:

 toasteroven wrote:
Really, the problem with the funny rules is that they aren't.

Funny players will always be making jokes while playing, maybe impersonating models, etc... but it's hard to "force" such an interaction to gain an in-game benefit, particularly the same interaction over and over (having to repeatedly insult a unit, or talk to your model, etc). I imagine most groups just ignore the rules but it'd be best if GW would get the picture.

Is it breaking the fourth or fifth wall? Yes, clearly. It requires the players to perform special actions outside the game in relation to other players, in order to create and manipulate factors within the game. This is different to the normal aspects of moving the figures, rolling the dice and so on, or of positioning units for tactical advantage.

Other "meta" rules in wargaming... When I played in a big Battle of Britain game years ago, involving about 160 players, I was a Hurricane pilot stationed at Tangmere. We were instructed that in case of an air raid, we should go into the bomb shelters (hide under the table representing our air field.) We did this and thereby avoided more damage than other air fields whose players did not deign to hide under their tables. However, in this case the players were acting out the roles in the game, which was the point of the game, i.e a kind of live role-playing game.

Another example is playing mind games with players to influence their behaviour, but this is not based on the game rules as such.

I don't know if the AoS "funny" rules are the designers critiquing the way the players use the rules. It's not a work of art, it's a free, basic skirmish game. Why would the designers get all up in themselves about how people are playing the rules?

As we know, a lot of players loathe the "funny" rules, they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience, so it's an example of the designers completely misreading their public. Of course perhaps it increased the appeal of the game to very young players, and thereby compensated for the older players it just annoyed.

At any rate, you don't have to play them if you don't want.

 RiTides wrote:
That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!
.

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

coldgaming wrote:

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

I get this - I ain't shouting 'Waa' for anyone.

For the Fyreslayers rule though... frankly I have a tendency to do that anyway during a game

However, when it comes to these rules... you obviously don't have to do it. But here's the thing. People may be tempted to take that bonus without going through the theatrics.

My recommendation? Don't. If you don't want to use the rule, that is cool, but in that case just ignore it.

This is AoS, after all - it really won't matter if you lose that bonus...

But there's the rub, right - now you have to weigh whether you value embarrassment or the reroll, etc more . I would definitely come down on the side of "give them the rules effect regardless, only perform the out-of-game action if you want to."

Otherwise, you're still breaking the immersion by having to decide, almost as much as just doing it - and it seems a bit unfair to just ignore the rules effect completely.

I've never played a fantasy game in my life, but from an outside observer (19 years old) who chanced on them, I would find them annoying and childish -- the beauty of 40K's setting, which I actually have a fair bit of experience of, is its depth and immersion. I have followed a little of the AoS controversy and understand it is regarded as very thin on depth to begin with and horseplay would only increase that.

Certainly, the price of the models doesn't suggest 'a free bit of fun'. I may be seen as po-faced but there you go!

Should be designer's notes rather than actual rules. Saying the person needs to do them to get the benefit is absurd and if taken RAW, that's exactly what they say.

It should say : skullface skullskull is known for etc, etc. If you like, feel free to emulate this with your own body as you perform this action with your model in-game!

Then it would still be super, mind achingly lame, but so easy to ignore that they'd hardly be noticed.

I just ignore them - the only one I have been forced to take part in is the staring contest for the Moonclan Goblin formation.

I don't mind having staring contests with people really, but it did totally break immersion from the game I was trying to play.

I think the WHFB 8th Edition Challenge rule was a perfect example of how these should have been handled - there was a cool fluffy mechanic for champions, heroes and lords being able to issue challenges and a fun little note saying something like "These challenges are best declared with a fitting insult such as...," or something along those lines.

The spoken or acted part should have no effect on the gameplay itself, in fact it should not even be expected to happen but should just be something to spice up reading the rules and get players into the spirit of the game, rather than attempting to force them into it.

I think it's received so badly because they're really insulting lame, and no one ever is going to read text on a page that tells them to perform an action that according to the author is designed to be humorous and walk away from that action thinking it was good humour or even an experience they would want to go through ever again. It breaks the fourth and fifth wall, and also makes people uncomfortable.

You can't think something is funny, or even be funny to others, when you're told to do something because it's funny to gain a benefit in a system that has very little to do with physical movement or acting in the first place. You will simply not see humour in it and consider it ridiculous at worst and annoyingly inconvenient at best.

If you're sitting with a friend and there's a joke book in front of both of you and one of the jokes says "stand up and flap your arms about to everyone in the room, clucking like a chicken" and it's just you and your friend, is either of you going to do it? Or are you just going to think it's so stupid it's almost embarrassing to have even read it and push the book away, while berating it with your friend and loudly wondering who the hell they wrote that "joke" for?

I don't think its poor reception is due to social anxiety. I think it's a lame idea, super lame execution, and will be judged as such by the community until GW stops.

coldgaming wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!
.

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

We don't take this game too seriously folks!

By the way, that model costs $115

 Accolade wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!
.

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

We don't take this game too seriously folks!

By the way, that model costs $115

I don't think AOS is in danger of being taken too seriously.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience

I wonder. I think it is the audience between junior and, er, senior, that seems to have the most trouble with games involving some tomfoolery. But of course there are deadly SRS gamers of all ages. To my mind, AoS (and 40k FWIW) is a Saturday morning cartoon kind of game so tomfoolery is totally appropriate.

In the inside cover of Dragon Rampant, there is a "spell" that forces your opponent to go get you a drink and snack from the kitchen. The text even clarifies, this is part of the rules after all! Some folks will not get the joke, I guess.

I'm gonna say here what I got banned for saying on a GW store's Facebook page when AoS first was released:

It is hard enough to get people outside the hobby to see what we do as anything more than playing with toys and going 'pewpewpew' as it is. These rules are bad and diminish the hobby as a whole.

But ... we are playing with toys ...

I think this is a non-issue.

I don't know a single person who uses those 'party rules', nor even anyone who argues for their use.

They were a bit of silly fun, the joke fell a little flat, and that's that.

I personally despise those rules and refuse to use them.

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

And, to be honest, the more people inside the hobby perpetuate this idea, the worse people outside the hobby will think.

In the topic - those rules are really just a waste of space in my opinion. There are way better ways to design rules that are funny, fluffy and still relevant to the game without having to break any of the walls. I'll give you as an example the "infamous" 6th ed HE's rule "Intrigue at Court" - I really liked it because once in a while it stuck my Scroll Caddy as the General (silly Saphery families vying for political influence on my watch!) and I couldn't help but snicker at the wrench thrown in my game. Or, in case we've all forgotten already - Orc anymosity.

Having fun, laughing, telling jokes, hurling the occasional insult to an opposing unit or character, are byproducts of the game experience itself - something that happens spontaneously if you're enjoying yourself while playing the game. These rules really only make that harder to happen by enforcing things that should come naturally.

It should also be noted that this is yet another thing in AoS going against pickup games.

Let me tell you, as a 12-year old I'd be mortified to prance around, engage in staring contests, or hurl insults at models in front of my peers. Teens don't want to be considered excitable children, they want to act like adults.

Infantile behavior is the last thing this hobby needs, IMO. Self-deprecating statements in the vein of "we play with toys" don't help the image either.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience

I wonder. I think it is the audience between junior and, er, senior, that seems to have the most trouble with games involving some tomfoolery. But of course there are deadly SRS gamers of all ages. To my mind, AoS (and 40k FWIW) is a Saturday morning cartoon kind of game so tomfoolery is totally appropriate.

In the inside cover of Dragon Rampant, there is a "spell" that forces your opponent to go get you a drink and snack from the kitchen. The text even clarifies, this is part of the rules after all! Some folks will not get the joke, I guess.

Yes, I agree, but it's exactly that age group that GW's designers fall into, and perhaps they don't understand the other groups.

Basically, GW have forgotten the very important English social rule "The Importance of Not Being Earnest."

I can't find the interview, but the GW authors said something to the effect that these wall breaking special rules were thrown in as a nod to many long time fans. They have not been added to any of the newly released units.

TL: DR; It's a fun send off for the Old World. If you don't like it, don't play with it.

 Kriswall wrote:
I can't find the interview, but the GW authors said something to the effect that these wall breaking special rules were thrown in as a nod to many long time fans. They have not been added to any of the newly released units.

TL: DR; It's a fun send off for the Old World. If you don't like it, don't play with it.

But I thought the point of this thread was that these special rules are in the new releases, at least in the form of this most recent Dwarf stuff (specifically one of the new characters).

The "funny" rules are in a lot of the legacy army war scrolls and there is one in the new Dwarfadin RuneLord war scroll.

IDK about it being a nod to the old WHFB fans because I wan't one. I gave up the game in 2nd edition. However, judging by the reaction on DakkaDakka, it was an ill-judged 'nod' that perhaps revealed why the modern GW is incapable of making games that appeal to their long-term fans.

RiTides wrote:That's true of any rule in any game system when playing with mates, of course, Kan - but you're not actually given that latitude in the rules. As written, you need to perform said charades to get the benefit... I think it's reasonable to ignore if folks don't want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an interesting rules strategy worth discussing.

Bottle mentioned something in the main thread that I liked:

 Bottle wrote:

You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.

That's a neat rule and I'd love to see more like it.

That's definitely what I was thinking of when I thought it seems like the designers are "critiquing" the way some people are choosing to play the game. Because you gain a bonus for following their style of play and loose it if you play differently.
Even if you reject the rules you still have to read them and make that conscious decision to reject the "right" way of playing.

RiTides wrote:That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!

As a poster said in another thread:

 toasteroven wrote:
Really, the problem with the funny rules is that they aren't.

Funny players will always be making jokes while playing, maybe impersonating models, etc... but it's hard to "force" such an interaction to gain an in-game benefit, particularly the same interaction over and over (having to repeatedly insult a unit, or talk to your model, etc). I imagine most groups just ignore the rules but it'd be best if GW would get the picture.

Yeah it's definitely a joke... just not sure who it's on.

I know this is tangential to the original post, but I am continually bothered by haters whose answer to these rules is "I just ignore them". Shouldn't the answer - in the case of lulz rules that offer benefits, which is virtually all of them - actually be "I just give my opponent the benefit"? Or is that what you all mean when you say "I just ignore them"?

Because if we're talking about ignoring AOS rules we don't like, I actually really dislike the way blast rules work in the game, especially and in particular the Dracoth insta-mortal breath thing. I would very much like to "just ignore" this rule, as it violates how I feel the mechanic should be carried out in a miniature game, on top of feeling weirdly powerful ... which seems a lot like criticisms of the lulz rules!

AOS tournaments seem to be ruling that a power works on a 4+ and leaving gratuitous sound effects to the players inclined to make them. I'd argue that's rather low, and overly penalizes things like orc drummers giving +2" on a charge, when all the orc player has to do is make some noise, which they were doing anyway. (And then you have other tournaments that specify how some lulz rules translate over others - 4+ to get the medusa's extra powerful eye laser, auto for orc drummers, etc.)

+++

OT, I suppose I agree with the thought that these rules break the Fourth Wall ... unfortunately I don't find wargaming as immersive as others do, so I'm not very walled in in the first place. I'm always aware of the other player's existence, of the strange fortune of the dice, of the tactile experience of moving models around, and all that. Maybe that's why I don't mind the lulz rules: they're game rules like any other, dictating the bounds of how 2+ people can interact in a shared experience, and I have a long history of ingesting and playing by rules.

- Salvage

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

Who cares what other people think of it? This is something I might have been concerned about as a teenager, but in the adult world I think most people, if not understanding other people's hobbies, respect that they find them valuable.

coldgaming wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

Who cares what other people think of it? This is something I might have been concerned about as a teenager, but in the adult world I think most people, if not understanding other people's hobbies, respect that they find them valuable.

We care what other people think because the number of people that are playing AOS is rapidly dwindling. People have been jumping ship since its release and have moved onto other games. As the number of players decrease, GW has to increase prices to see the same returns from die hard fans until they decide to scrap the universe entirely. If we want this hobby to survive, it needs new blood, lots of it.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
I know this is tangential to the original post, but I am continually bothered by haters whose answer to these rules is "I just ignore them".

It's a great goalpost-moving feat though. Very useful for the people extolling the virtues of AoS.

Joke rules are silly and immersion breaking? Just ignore them.
Measuring from any part of the model is a headache? Just ignore that and measure from the base.


By that standard no rule system ever has any faults what so ever, since you can just ignore what ever rule you like and come up with your own.

40K is a perfectly balanced game, since you can just ignore the point values in the codexes and write in your own.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know if the AoS "funny" rules are the designers critiquing the way the players use the rules. It's not a work of art, it's a free, basic skirmish game. Why would the designers get all up in themselves about how people are playing the rules?

As we know, a lot of players loathe the "funny" rules, they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience, so it's an example of the designers completely misreading their public. Of course perhaps it increased the appeal of the game to very young players, and thereby compensated for the older players it just annoyed.

At any rate, you don't have to play them if you don't want.

GW sees 40k and AOS / WFB as a sort of roleplay. They have been pretty consistent since the beginning that you are synonymous with the Army General. It's not "funny", it's roleplaying your general as such. A skirmish game can be a work of art. Certainly AOS is more an art than the unfun rules clusterfeth that was WFB 8E.

That's because the players aren't playing the game correctly. Being all straightlaced with a stick up one's arse isn't how GW intends their games to be played at all, junior or elder. It's a fething game, so why so serious?

If you want to play Settra, I would absolutely demand the player concede if he knelt while playing Settra. If you want the option to kneel, then you don't get to play Settra. Otherwise, conduct yourself with unbended knee. Simple as that. Failure to concede upon touching your knee to the ground is poor sportsmanship at best, outright intent to cheat at worst. That rule is black and white, and not up for negotiation.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW sees 40k and AOS / WFB as a sort of roleplay.

I stumbled across this blog post during lunch, which seems altogether serendipitous: http://tibbsforge.com/every-game-is-roleplaying/

- Salvage

I find it strange that, in a single post, we go from:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

That's because the players aren't playing the game correctly. Being all straightlaced with a stick up one's arse isn't how GW intends their games to be played at all, junior or elder. It's a fething game, so why so serious?

To:

If you want to play Settra, I would absolutely demand the player concede if he knelt while playing Settra. If you want the option to kneel, then you don't get to play Settra. Otherwise, conduct yourself with unbended knee. Simple as that. Failure to concede upon touching your knee to the ground is poor sportsmanship at best, outright intent to cheat at worst. That rule is black and white, and not up for negotiation.

I do have a problem with the "every game is roleplaying" argument. I do think it's true, but there's overt, active roleplaying, and then there's passive roleplaying. Wargames are passive - most of the time, players are going to be viewing the game from the "eyes of God" and interacting with the game in an abstract way - while what AoS seemingly demands is active roleplaying more akin to games like DnD.

One of the games that I've finally gotten around to picking up is Muskets & Tomahawks, and it has some fantastic thematic mechanics that makes it play out more like "The Last of the Mohicans" than just a FIW skirmish game. For example, random Officer traits, sideplots for additional victory conditions, and scenarios that change depending on what your force is made up of (an all-Indian force will get a different scenario objective than a Highlander force, for example), make for games that can be, as much as I hate the term, "cinematic." And I don't have to scream at my troops in a French accent or suck on hardtack to get that immersion.

Great read there, thanks for sharing it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know if the AoS "funny" rules are the designers critiquing the way the players use the rules. It's not a work of art, it's a free, basic skirmish game. Why would the designers get all up in themselves about how people are playing the rules?

As we know, a lot of players loathe the "funny" rules, they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience, so it's an example of the designers completely misreading their public. Of course perhaps it increased the appeal of the game to very young players, and thereby compensated for the older players it just annoyed.

At any rate, you don't have to play them if you don't want.

GW sees 40k and AOS / WFB as a sort of roleplay. They have been pretty consistent since the beginning that you are synonymous with the Army General. It's not "funny", it's roleplaying your general as such. A skirmish game can be a work of art. Certainly AOS is more an art than the unfun rules clusterfeth that was WFB 8E.

That's because the players aren't playing the game correctly. Being all straightlaced with a stick up one's arse isn't how GW intends their games to be played at all, junior or elder. It's a fething game, so why so serious?

If you want to play Settra, I would absolutely demand the player concede if he knelt while playing Settra. If you want the option to kneel, then you don't get to play Settra. Otherwise, conduct yourself with unbended knee. Simple as that. Failure to concede upon touching your knee to the ground is poor sportsmanship at best, outright intent to cheat at worst. That rule is black and white, and not up for negotiation.

Perhaps it's a good thing I will never play AoS. I don't think I can take the game seriously enough to actually seriously play the rules about not playing it seriously.

coldgaming wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

Who cares what other people think of it? This is something I might have been concerned about as a teenager, but in the adult world I think most people, if not understanding other people's hobbies, respect that they find them valuable.

Because people thinking highly of the hobby would lead to more people joining the hobby which would in turn lead to a stronger, healthier, community and market which is good for all of us already here.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Because people thinking highly of the hobby would lead to more people joining the hobby which would in turn lead to a stronger, healthier, community and market which is good for all of us already here.

As someone relatively new to the whole miniature scene, I think I can comfortably say that the image problem mini game players have with outsiders is not that they look like they are having too much fun. In fact, when I first came into this forum six months ago, eager to discuss my fabulous new AoS starter set, "these dudes don't take gaming seriously enough" wasn't my first impression.

Don't like the rules, don't use them. It has nothing to do with prancing around, it has to do with gamers being immersed in a game and it's setting. This was gws attempt at putting throwbacks to fantasy into aos.

As for the toys comment... let's be real. They are toys. My Trans Am is also a toy, so is my G8... most items used in hobbies are toys. The age groups may differ for various toys, but most wargaming miniatures are adult toys (most playing 40k and aos are not 12... not sure how most pre teens could afford these games without rich parents anyway

It is what it is, don't be ashamed of it if you like it. The folks at my job call wargaming miniatures dolls... when I am about to go home and play 40k they always ask if I am going to play dolls lol.

"toy soldiers," dammit "toy soldiers!"

 455_PWR wrote:
It is what it is, don't be ashamed of it if you like it.

I have engaged in pretty much every nerdy hobby known to man: computer programming, board games, video games, webcomics, heavy metal, roleplaying games, comic books, miniature games, atheism, fantasy novels, Star Wars, Star Trek, Hobbits, Doctor Who (the old stuff), LEGO, Pokemon, World of Warcraft, atheism, collectible card games, and so on - and the one thing that is absolutely universal to every single one of them is that the people who engage in them are absolutely obsessed with what other people think of them. It's not that they want to be liked or anything. No, they want something more important than acceptance. They crave legitimacy.

I understand it too, but after going through the same pattern in every. single. hobby. I. do, I just don't have the patience anymore. Legitimacy eventually comes, in one way or another. Personally, the last thing on my resume is a game called "DeathSpank", so I've pretty given up on being taken seriously.

Yet more veiled insults and baffling arguments from Sqorgar. Is it possible for you to make a point without trying to offend another group of people lol?

How about everyone gets back to the topic, which is actually quite interesting and perhaps of relevance to game design in general.

I don't like the rules. People who are silly will be silly without you having to give them instructions on how to be silly.People who don't want it will just have a bad taste in their mouth when they encounter such rules. I'm not even going to call them "funny" rules, because IMO they aren't.

I'm sure there's some people who like them but I think the group of people annoyed by them is going to be larger and more significant.

The rules might be to appeal to children but I don't really think they do a good job of that and there's a lot of people who don't like the game coming across as childish.

Sure, they're just toys, the same way as my hobby car is a toy. But the car isn't a childish toy and I don't think wargames have to be either.

Wargames certainly don't have to be childish. They aren't used in officer training for nothing.

At the same time, there are plenty of games that are light-hearted and funny, such as Charades, Dixit, The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

The difference between these and the AoS "fun" rules is that the concept is built into the game rather than having been added as an after-thought. The "fun" rules in AoS feel forced and clumsy. To me, at any rate.

 Bottle wrote:
Yet more veiled insults and baffling arguments from Sqorgar. Is it possible for you to make a point without trying to offend another group of people lol?

Who the feth did I try to insult? I just got back from a ban for a perceived insult, and you think the first thing I'm going to do is come back and intentionally insult someone else? Are you purposefully reading my posts with Darth Vader's voice or something?

The whole silly rule argument is, essentially, about embarrassment, or at least the fear of it. It's not about being childish; it's about appearing childish. At some point, someone is going to have to sit down for a little bit of introspection and figure out why the prospect of talking to their toy soldiers in public makes them uneasy. It has much farther reaching consequences that it might initially appear, and it is by no means a problem unique to tabletop wargaming. But I think these things have to be pointed out, even though it might hit a bit close to home for some people. I'm sure Bottle will say it's one big veiled insult, but it absolutely isn't.

The fear of appearing childish/need for legitmacy may be the single most important behavior which affects the popularity and acceptance of miniature games to outsiders - you think potential mini gamers out there seeing the vitriol passed around with AoS's launch are thinking, wow, there's a group of hoopy froods who really know where their towels are? If I had discovered Dakka or Warseer before I bought my copy of AoS's starter set, I would not be a miniature gamer right now. That's not an insult. That was the reality of coming into miniature games, having chosen THAT game at THAT point in time. Maybe it would be different now, or six months before AoS launched, but I doubt it.

And half of that vitriol comes from that obsession with legitimacy that I spoke about. Most of the complaints against AoS, which were far more public and damaging to the field than any of you actually realize, were about how childish it was. It is simple, so it must be for children. It looks like a Saturday morning cartoon. The silly rules were designed for juveniles. Just about every complaint against the game were efforts to de-legitimize it by appealing to wargamers' innate fear of looking childish. It was cartoonish peer pressure, like an Afterschool Special episode: "You want to be cool, man? Here, smoke this Kings of Wars. Don't let anybody see you with that Sigmar game. It's for babies." The entire wargaming field is filled with such absurdly heavy handed attempts at peer pressure, it is a miracle you guys still have any players left. I'm not just talking about about AoS either.

The problem is that wargaming hasn't gotten out of its clique phase yet. It is still small enough that small scale ostracizing can have a devastating effect on the group as a whole. As such, everybody becomes obsessed with justifying every behavior they do, both consciously and subconsciously. And that's where the discussion of these silly rules come in. Here, you have a group of rules which create behavior outside the norm (fear of ostracizing), appearing childish (fear of legitimacy). And if you think I'm full of crap, here's a handful of quotes from this short, two paged thread - see if you can spot any themes (and not all of these quotes are attacking the silly rules, some of them are defending the rules by downplaying the importance of not being childish):

As we know, a lot of players loathe the "funny" rules, they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience, so it's an example of the designers completely misreading their public. Of course perhaps it increased the appeal of the game to very young players, and thereby compensated for the older players it just annoyed.

I've never played a fantasy game in my life, but from an outside observer (19 years old) who chanced on them, I would find them annoying and childish...

Then it would still be super, mind achingly lame, but so easy to ignore that they'd hardly be noticed.

I think it's received so badly because they're really insulting lame, ... and also makes people uncomfortable... consider it ridiculous at worst and annoyingly inconvenient at best... Or are you just going to think it's so stupid it's almost embarrassing to have even read it and push the book away, while berating it with your friend... I don't think its poor reception is due to social anxiety. I think it's a lame idea, super lame execution, and will be judged as such by the community until GW stops.

I wonder. I think it is the audience between junior and, er, senior, that seems to have the most trouble with games involving some tomfoolery. But of course there are deadly SRS gamers of all ages. To my mind, AoS (and 40k FWIW) is a Saturday morning cartoon kind of game so tomfoolery is totally appropriate.

It is hard enough to get people outside the hobby to see what we do as anything more than playing with toys and going 'pewpewpew' as it is. These rules are bad and diminish the hobby as a whole.

But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

And, to be honest, the more people inside the hobby perpetuate this idea, the worse people outside the hobby will think.

Let me tell you, as a 12-year old I'd be mortified to prance around, engage in staring contests, or hurl insults at models in front of my peers. Teens don't want to be considered excitable children, they want to act like adults.

Infantile behavior is the last thing this hobby needs, IMO. Self-deprecating statements in the vein of "we play with toys" don't help the image either.

Who cares what other people think of it? This is something I might have been concerned about as a teenager, but in the adult world I think most people, if not understanding other people's hobbies, respect that they find them valuable.

We care what other people think because the number of people that are playing AOS is rapidly dwindling. People have been jumping ship since its release and have moved onto other games. As the number of players decrease, GW has to increase prices to see the same returns from die hard fans until they decide to scrap the universe entirely. If we want this hobby to survive, it needs new blood, lots of it.

Because people thinking highly of the hobby would lead to more people joining the hobby which would in turn lead to a stronger, healthier, community and market which is good for all of us already here.

It is what it is, don't be ashamed of it if you like it. The folks at my job call wargaming miniatures dolls... when I am about to go home and play 40k they always ask if I am going to play dolls lol.

I'm sure there's some people who like them but I think the group of people annoyed by them is going to be larger and more significant.

The rules might be to appeal to children but I don't really think they do a good job of that and there's a lot of people who don't like the game coming across as childish.

Sure, they're just toys, the same way as my hobby car is a toy. But the car isn't a childish toy and I don't think wargames have to be either.

Wargames certainly don't have to be childish. They aren't used in officer training for nothing.

It's not about appearing childish. It's about being made to be childish because "fun".

Frankly I don't class the Fyreslayers' "funny" ability as "funny". Because I spend most of my games informing my opponent's units that they are a PITA or are about to become worm food...

It's all (for me) part of the expected banter in gaming.

And I use the word banter in its' true sense, not the slightly upsetting phenomenon of " bantz" where some zirconium'd bumsplash posts about a "cheeky Nando's" on Facebook...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not about appearing childish. It's about being made to be childish because "fun".

Rolling plenty of dice is the true fun. That's why GW games have so much randomness.

And everyone knows that rolling dice is actually a serious business...of fun.


Back to the topic; to me, AoS is more criticized because of the way to build armies than its rules. The "staring contest like special rules" are somewhat anecdotic, 'cause it only concerns few game profiles.

But yeah, it's kinda forced and I don't think that was necessary to write this. I'm pretty sure the GW Studio thinks it's fun in itself to do that...well, not all players feel that way, obviously.

On the other hand, who really cares that much about AoS rules? All is made from the postulate you and your opponent(s) agree to play a fun game together. So, as long as you all agree on what you want to play...rules are just a pointless detail.

Miniatures, on the other hand, are not.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yet more veiled insults and baffling arguments from Sqorgar. Is it possible for you to make a point without trying to offend another group of people lol?

Who the feth did I try to insult? I just got back from a ban for a perceived insult, and you think the first thing I'm going to do is come back and intentionally insult someone else? Are you purposefully reading my posts with Darth Vader's voice or something?

Every post you make is riddled with insults against almost everyone. If you're getting banned for it and don't know why maybe get an independent party to read over your posts before you submit them.

The whole silly rule argument is, essentially, about embarrassment, or at least the fear of it. It's not about being childish; it's about appearing childish.

No. Not in the slightest. It's about immersion, and how these rules break it.

At some point, someone is going to have to sit down for a little bit of introspection and figure out why the prospect of talking to their toy soldiers in public makes them uneasy. It has much farther reaching consequences that it might initially appear, and it is by no means a problem unique to tabletop wargaming. But I think these things have to be pointed out, even though it might hit a bit close to home for some people. I'm sure Bottle will say it's one big veiled insult, but it absolutely isn't.

Lol you've already just stipulated that each individual who dislikes these rules has some deep underlying emotional issues he/she is not addressing. I'm done with this.

Kilkrazy already asked people to get back on topic in this thread.

Saying you are not insulting groups of people before making sweeping generalizations about those groups is absolutely not OK on Dakka Dakka. Anything further like that in this thread (or honestly, any other) will result in further suspensions. We only have one primary rule on Dakka Dakka, and that is "Be Polite".

If you can't post on this topic without insulting others, then simply do not post here.

Along the lines of KK's "importance of NOT being earnest comment," I think we wargamers have more to fear from being ostracized as po-faced pedants (we have even invented any number of terms to describe ourselves as such) rather than for being whimsical. And I think a tendency to the former does play some role in the criticism of AoS. That said, you don't have to be self-conscious to find rules like the one in question unfunny and uninteresting.

 Manchu wrote:
That said, you don't have to be self-conscious to find rules like the one in question unfunny and uninteresting.

Yeah, that's the point really - in discussions like this, we're going to get a lot further if we focus on the merit of the rules themselves (why it is or isn't a good idea to introduce a bit of roleplay into what might otherwise be a bit of a stuffy wargame, for instance which is definitely something I could consider, and in fact do!) rather than on the nature of the people themselves who do or don't like the rules.

The first is both on topic and polite, the second can go downhill really fast. We've mostly gotten this section back from that brink so let's try to keep it that way . Cheers all

Something to consider here is, what is meant by "immersion"?

This term comes up all the time in roleplaying crowds. It is often defined as when the players are so emotionally involved in "the moment" that they are no longer thinking about the game mechanics.

That sense is probably inapplicable to a miniatures wargame, where the players are constantly fiddling with the playing pieces, not all of which (e.g., rulers and dice) stand in for objects in the setting of the game, as the miniatures themselves (albeit sometimes abstractly) stand in for soldiers or tanks or dragons, etc. Furthermore, miniatures games rarely ask us to assume the limitations of an "in-setting" perspective. The players hover over the "world" of the game from a godlike perspective. The "fourth wall" analogy therefore makes no sense to me.

The "fifth wall" makes even less sense to me, except inasmuch as designers telling people how to use rules or, more commonly, players telling one another how they are supposed to use the rules is always controversial, generating fights between the alleged "WAACers" and the "Casual Mafia." Even ITT we have had someone say, if you don't do the silly dance but still take the bonus then you are a cheater.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The whole silly rule argument is, essentially, about embarrassment, or at least the fear of it. It's not about being childish; it's about appearing childish.

No, that's not "essentially" it, it's simply one small facet of a larger discussion that you seemed to have latched on to.

When I say the rules are "silly" I mean they are absurd, foolish, witless. I call them "silly" to distinguish them from "funny" because I don't think the rules are "funny" or "fun".

Not wanting something to be childish isn't simply a fear of appearing childish. Have you ever played with little kids? I'll do a whole heap of stuff with my preschool aged nieces and nephews that if I did them by myself or with an adult friend they simply would not be fun, they're fun for the kids and I have fun because I enjoy it when the kids are having fun, but once they leave the room I don't continue playing. Not because I've suddenly become afraid of appearing childish, it's because I grew out of being entertained by that stuff around 25 years ago... now I'm being entertained by the kids themselves.

As you grow up your interests change, your mind develops, you gain a greater understanding of things, the responsibilities of the world start to weigh you down... what you find entertaining changes. If I still found it entertaining to do the things I did as a 10 year old, I'd still do them. In fact I do still do a lot of that stuff, though even there my focuses have changed and it's different facets that interest me now.

Now certainly there is an aspect of social acceptance when talking about toy soldiers. BUT, don't get confused with the general social acceptance issue when someone calls these rules "silly" or "childish", they're often talking about something different.

I personally don't think these rules add anything to the game, people don't need instructions on how to have banter, either they'll banter or they won't banter. I don't have any problem with people talking in cockney accents while playing as Orcs and such things, but having silliness written in to the rules I think hurts them more than it helps them.

Intentionally breaking the 4th wall can work in intentionally funny games, like Paranoia. Deadpool does it all the time. But as others have said, it feels out of place in AOS. It's like the Star Wars prequels where they can't decide on a tone. It's slapstick one moment, dark temptation the next and then to wacky adventure. Aos can't decide what it wants to be. The stupid rules throw people out of the immersion of a wargame and makes a "narrative" gave difficult to form a narrative with.

 Boss Salvage wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW sees 40k and AOS / WFB as a sort of roleplay.

I stumbled across this blog post during lunch, which seems altogether serendipitous: http://tibbsforge.com/every-game-is-roleplaying/

- Salvage

Thanks for the link! That really makes me think. I haven't been feeling Warmachine for a while now, and maybe some of that is because whenever I go to make a list the foremost thing in my mind is how I can make the list effective. With Age of Sigmar, the focus is on what would fit thematically, and I really like that. I'd probably enjoy other games more building lists that way, too, except then they'd most likely get massacred by optimised lists, which is even less fun when you made a list to a theme.

 Sqorgar wrote:
And half of that vitriol comes from that obsession with legitimacy that I spoke about. Most of the complaints against AoS, which were far more public and damaging to the field than any of you actually realize, were about how childish it was. It is simple, so it must be for children. It looks like a Saturday morning cartoon. The silly rules were designed for juveniles. Just about every complaint against the game were efforts to de-legitimize it by appealing to wargamers' innate fear of looking childish. It was cartoonish peer pressure, like an Afterschool Special episode: "You want to be cool, man? Here, smoke this Kings of Wars. Don't let anybody see you with that Sigmar game. It's for babies."

That's a fantastic quote. I'm not sure it's entirely correct, but it is funny.

Glib comment: maybe the intent of these rules is to put the "beer" into "beer & pretzels", because they can only truly be appreciated while under the influence!

Not-glib comment: I don't think the intent of the rules is to break the 4th wall. I think that the player themselves is situated within the game space, usually - either as the general character specifically or, in a broader sense, as all the characters they control. The rules are (again, I think) intended to evoke the spirit of a particular character, to transform that character into a little more than a game piece. The player is just the vehicle for doing that. And like in a roleplaying game, where people get really self-conscious about roleplaying, people get anxious about it, not because they're scared of being childish per se, but because they're scared of looking foolish.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

Exactly. Video games are also viewed as childplay. Still, I won't be cool with them trying to force me to act like a 6 years old , nor do I want every games to be kid friendly.

Not to mention the repetitive aspect of these rules. "Funny" rules are bad enough (I'm not the kind of guy that like forced humor. I'll crack jokes when I feel like it), but these rules mostly force you to repeat the same lame phrase (or doing the same lame action) again and agin. MAYBE you'll laugh the first time, but after the xth time, what kind of person will still be amused by that ?

Anyways, AOS is such a disaster sale wise that this discussion is rather moot. This thing will either be discontinued or have a complete makeover, in 2 years max.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Intentionally breaking the 4th wall can work in intentionally funny games, like Paranoia. Deadpool does it all the time. But as others have said, it feels out of place in AOS. It's like the Star Wars prequels where they can't decide on a tone. It's slapstick one moment, dark temptation the next and then to wacky adventure. Aos can't decide what it wants to be. The stupid rules throw people out of the immersion of a wargame and makes a "narrative" gave difficult to form a narrative with.

That is true. AoS feels like it's trying to be a narrative game more than anything and I don't think these sorts of rules help with the narrative (at least for most people).

RoperPG wrote:
Because I spend most of my games informing my opponent's units that they are a PITA or are about to become worm food...

I know what you mean. I am not going to shout 'Waa' when my Orcs charge, but when I read the Fyreslayers' rule, I just thought 'but I do that anyway...'

 Manchu wrote:
This term comes up all the time in roleplaying crowds. It is often defined as when the players are so emotionally involved in "the moment" that they are no longer thinking about the game mechanics.

That sense is probably inapplicable to a miniatures wargame,

Now, this is interesting, because it touches on one of the points of why I like Age of Sigmar - the rules effectively become 'invisible' when you play, focussing instead on the action happening on the table in a way we were never able to achieve with WHFB (a rules debate/query/argument would surface in every battle - we have had precisely none in AoS right from the start). This 'rules invisibility' is, perhaps not coincidentally, something I also look for in RPGs.

Don't get me wrong, I like WHFB and still play it. This is just one reason I like AoS as well

 streetsamurai wrote:
Video games are also viewed as childplay.

That hasn't been the case for some time now. With the mainstreaming of games through Facebook/Mobile/Wii, indie art games, growing evidence that video games aid brain development, and the aging population of gamers, video games won that argument.

Still, I won't be cool with them trying to force me to act like a 6 years old , nor do I want every games to be kid friendly.

I guess you weren't a big Wii fan, huh? Swinging your controller around like a tennis racket. Pantomiming the playing of musical instruments. You ever see a 55 year old try to play Wii Sports? Hilarious.

Or played Skylanders or Disney Infinity, where you combine video games with actual toys? I once walked into a TRU and bought some Pokemon amiibo for my daughters, and the guy behind the cash register thought they were for me! The nerve! The Princess Zelda one was for me.

My wife is obsessed with Just Dance. She forces me to do the Dirty Dancing song with her. I have the manual dexterity of a plank of wood. But I do it and it is fun.

I mean, yeah, you wouldn't want every game to be Wii Sports, but then you don't want every game to be Call of Duty either. There's a variety of experiences out there, some of them requiring you to look very silly indeed to others - and in my experience, those are some of the most popular and most fun.

Maybe wargaming has enough Call of Duties already, and not enough Wii Sports?

Anyways, AOS is such a disaster sale wise that this discussion is rather moot. This thing will either be discontinued or have a complete makeover, in 2 years max.

As a video game fan, I've heard similar things said about Nintendo for the past... uh... 30 years or so. But trust me, Nintendo is giving up hardware and going mobile free-to-play any day now. It is written in the stars. It is fate.

I would like to talk about people referring to these as "roleplaying" rules, because to me they would be just as odd and immersion breaking in a roleplaying game too.

If I had to have a staring contest with a DM to overcome a monster's gaze and recieved a bonus/penalty for winning/losing it would break immersion in the same way.

These are rules that bring the players into the fore, rather than the character/miniatures, and this is why it feels like it breaches the "4th wall" and breaks immersion.

Immersion is one of those words, like gameplay, that means different things to different people. Since it is, by its own definition as one's personal mental involvement, subjective, it can not be quantified in an objective matter. Therefore, something can not objectively be "immersion breaking".

That being said, discussions on immersion breaking do tend to be fruitful anyway because it allows us, through arguing about it, to further refine what we enjoy about games and what we, personally, look for out of them. It seems weird that arguing against someone else's subjective ideas helps you better understand your own, but that's kind of the way these things usually go.

Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses? I mean the kind of rules in AoS that give you +1 to hit if your archer figure stands within six inches of a special magic rock, or whatever. (Made-up example.)

These things don't derive from a basic reality that people are familiar with but from things the designers wrote to create these bonuses. Consequently, a newcomer to the game wouldn't have any more idea that a red coloured vehicle goes faster if crewed by Orks, than that a green one might, because it's the same colour as the crew.

From this perspective, rules that give more bonuses because of out of game actions like what colour socks the player might be wearing, are even more anti-invisible.

I'm not sure that's a failing per se but it's something to think about when designing a game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses? I mean the kind of rules in AoS that give you +1 to hit if your archer figure stands within six inches of a special magic rock, or whatever. (Made-up example.)

These things don't derive from a basic reality that people are familiar with but from things the designers wrote to create these bonuses. Consequently, a newcomer to the game wouldn't have any more idea that a red coloured vehicle goes faster if crewed by Orks, than that a green one might, because it's the same colour as the crew.

From this perspective, rules that give more bonuses because of out of game actions like what colour socks the player might be wearing, are even more anti-invisible.

I'm not sure that's a failing per se but it's something to think about when designing a game.

And rules are only as invisible as the players' knowledge of them to begin with. Now, it is obviously easier to learn and memorize a simpler ruleset like AoS and the simpler the ruleset is the less prone the rules are to give rise to a midgame query, but player knowledge has a huge influence on it too.

On another note, I doubt anyone would have any issue whatsoever with thematic rules if they were presented like the Auric Runemaster's Holy Seeker rule. Chances would be it could even provide inspiration and motivation for the customers to portray actions GW wants to see them do without telling to their faces that "This is how you're supposed to play our games".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses?

There is no need to consider absolutes. There is a broad spectrum possible, with players choosing the game that best fits their needs and wishes. AoS just happens to fit some of mine.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Immersion is one of those words, like gameplay, that means different things to different people. Since it is, by its own definition as one's personal mental involvement, subjective, it can not be quantified in an objective matter. Therefore, something can not objectively be "immersion breaking".

Bottle never said 'objectively'. They're immersion breaking for him and a lot of other people because they're...odd. Why would a night goblin have a staring contest? That's not what I think of when I think of night goblins. A REAL night goblin leader would intimidate the enemy by chugging as much beer as possible, follow it with some questionable mushrooms, and then throw half a dozen buddies at them while he hides under the table.

If you think about the 'charades' rules as 'roleplaying' rules, it invites a new comparison - they're a problem because they're the GM telling you how to roleplay, which is a big no-no in roleplaying circles. Now, a certain amount of that should be expected, and even encouraged. Your D&D paladin shouldn't walk around beheading toddlers because NO DON'T DO THAT, just as your orc warboss shouldn't hide at the back of the army with a bow because then he's a weedy arrer boy and only weedy arrer boys would follow him. Those are already provided for in the rules, though. Your paladin would lose his magic paladin powers and would probably be arrested or killed. Your orc can't even take ranged weapons.

The 'charades' rules are the equivalent of that one GM who thinks he's funny. He insists that your paladin has to use the words 'thee', 'prithee', and 'thou' as much as possible, winks broadly at you while using a random grail as a quest hook, and not-so-subtly hints that you might not be the target of the beholder's next gaze attack if you get up and get him some more snacks. Like MWH said, that can be fun in the right atmosphere - Paranoia looks awesome. Age of Sigmar, though, doesn't look like it's willing to commit to said atmosphere; the rules are hardly universal and are tacked on to specific models or formations instead of being part of the core; it becomes this odd outlier thing instead of part of the game's flavor. That's one of GW's biggest problems. They're never willing to commit to a specific direction.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses?

There is no need to consider absolutes. There is a broad spectrum possible, with players choosing the game that best fits their needs and wishes. AoS just happens to fit some of mine.

A spectrum goes from one absolute to the other.

I think if they left wfb and did aos as a add on it would of been recivied better. They use the same models so why not? All the 8th books are still in the app store, and the rule book. So they could just went all digital cost them nothing and keep all fans happy.

 Spinner wrote:
They're immersion breaking for him and a lot of other people because they're...odd.

I'll admit that the rules can be offputting, but I don't know that describing them as "immersion breaking" is actually all that helpful. Are they more or less immersion breaking than unpainted models or proxy units? Are they more of less immersion breaking than an opponent with nervous ticks? Are they more or less immersion breaking than playing on a table with a Magic tournament happening five feet away, with announcements coming over the loud speaker? Or having your leg fall asleep from sitting on it for too long? Or having a 12 year old kid asking questions about the game every thirty seconds while you play? Or the girl in the yoga pants? Or the fire alarm going off at the store across the street? Or an opponent who won't stop quoting the Simpsons? Or that strange funky smell wafting from somewhere over there? Or having to play in a hushed whisper so you don't wake the baby? Or flipping through a rulebook and reading six paragraphs only to discover that the rulebook doesn't explicitly cover the current circumstance?

I just don't think immersion breaking is a legitimate complaint because it seems to me, having to talk to your models would probably be the least immersion breaking part of your game.

Why would a night goblin have a staring contest? That's not what I think of when I think of night goblins. A REAL night goblin leader would intimidate the enemy by chugging as much beer as possible, follow it with some questionable mushrooms, and then throw half a dozen buddies at them while he hides under the table.

That right there is a Vorthos comment, if I've ever seen one. If you aren't already aware, Vorthos is one of the aesthetic profiles known to the Magic community, who appreciates "flavor and creative consistency". Maybe there, one could hang an argument, but even then I'm not sure that one person's creative inconsistency qualifies as a complaint worthy of GW needing to change their direction.

Age of Sigmar, though, doesn't look like it's willing to commit to said atmosphere; the rules are hardly universal and are tacked on to specific models or formations instead of being part of the core; it becomes this odd outlier thing instead of part of the game's flavor. That's one of GW's biggest problems. They're never willing to commit to a specific direction.

First, isn't the entire argument here about GW committing to a specific direction that people don't like? Second, the silly rules would become overwhelming rather quickly if every single model had that behavior for every single action. If I'm not mistaken, most factions only have one or two silly rules, usually for specific heroes or leaders, and that the rules tend to themed somewhat appropriately to that situation.

For instance, the staring contest rule is for a Goblin formation featuring a specific hero. The rule itself comes with flavor text:

"Hooded Villain: A Great Moonclan’s Warboss is a mean-spirited villain whose beady red eyes stare malevolently from beneath his hood before he launches his attack. You can re-roll any hit dice when this Warboss attacks, but only if you are either wearing a hood or you can beat your opponent in a staring contest before rolling the dice ( first one to blink or look away loses)."

So this rule is there for a generic hero Night Goblin Warboss, which is made into a more specific hero through the formation, with the act of wearing a hood or winning a staring contest being thematically appropriate to a character with beady red eyes staring malevolently from beneath his hood before he attacks. One might even say that it is flavor and creative consistency. It's a bit like roleplaying the general of your army, but it isn't exactly roleplaying. It's more like guidelines...

I get the feeling that a lot of people are missing the flavor by focusing on what the silly rules make them do, rather than what they are meant to represent in context.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
They're immersion breaking for him and a lot of other people because they're...odd.

I'll admit that the rules can be offputting, but I don't know that describing them as "immersion breaking" is actually all that helpful. Are they more or less immersion breaking than unpainted models or proxy units? Are they more of less immersion breaking than an opponent with nervous ticks? Are they more or less immersion breaking than playing on a table with a Magic tournament happening five feet away, with announcements coming over the loud speaker? Or having your leg fall asleep from sitting on it for too long? Or having a 12 year old kid asking questions about the game every thirty seconds while you play? Or the girl in the yoga pants? Or the fire alarm going off at the store across the street? Or an opponent who won't stop quoting the Simpsons? Or that strange funky smell wafting from somewhere over there? Or having to play in a hushed whisper so you don't wake the baby? Or flipping through a rulebook and reading six paragraphs only to discover that the rulebook doesn't explicitly cover the current circumstance?

I just don't think immersion breaking is a legitimate complaint because it seems to me, having to talk to your models would probably be the least immersion breaking part of your game.

Who cares which is more immersion-breaking? They're all immersion-breaking. We complain about those other things; why is it a problem to complain about the goofy rules? Actually, having them as an official part of the rules makes it more of a problem. They should foster a sense of immersion, especially in a game supposedly based on spectacle and narrative. All those other things are unrelated or side-effects, except for the rulebook not covering a certain situation.

And we all know how well THAT goes over.

 Sqorgar wrote:
That right there is a Vorthos comment, if I've ever seen one. If you aren't already aware, Vorthos is one of the aesthetic profiles known to the Magic community, who appreciates "flavor and creative consistency". Maybe there, one could hang an argument, but even then I'm not sure that one person's creative inconsistency qualifies as a complaint worthy of GW needing to change their direction.

Hm. They've updated their profile since my Magic days. Yeah, I'd say I'm a bit of a Vorthos - but isn't Vorthos/Timmy the exact kind of player GW wants with this game? I'd say you should be able to do more than 'hang an argument' on it; if the Vorthos people have a problem...

First, isn't the entire argument here about GW committing to a specific direction that people don't like?

No. It's not. Do Stormcast players need to raise their hand high and shout "For Sigmar!" before rolling an attack if they want to use all their rules? Why shouldn't people using a Slann adopt a meditative pose on their chair for a neat bonus? Do Skaven players get rerolls if they repeat words in conversation? No? Then how come orc players have to shout 'Waaagh!' if they want the bonus from a particular model? Why does someone playing dwarfs need a beard to get their rules - and what's with all the trash-talking rules? They're not evenly spread and they're not particularly evocative. Sure. Let's look at the staring contest flavor text - I'll grant that it's a fairly decent image. But how does it evoke a night goblin leader? That could be a skaven. That could be a beastman. All of them wear hoods, stare malevolently, and can probably be described as 'mean-spirited'. Where's the night-goblin-ness? Marius Leitdorf was a charismatic, heroic leader who also happened to be insane - which caused no end of trouble, but when he sacrificed himself to defend the Empire, Karl Franz publicly praised him. How do you evoke that by pretending to ride an invisible horse?

They make you do goofy things - which I've always had a problem with, 'forced' goofiness really isn't all that fun - they're applied in something of a slapdash manner, with some factions having none and others several (do you not see how that creates a clash in tone?) and they don't really represent their chosen units all that well. They really aren't a good idea, not for the game in its current form.

I suspect "immersion breaking" is being used a bit uncritically here and may just stand for not liking something. KK makes solid points as to why AoS is far from "invisible" in a mechanical sense even despite it caring less about rules precision than, say, WM/H.

 Manchu wrote:
I suspect "immersion breaking" is being used a bit uncritically here and may just stand for not liking something. KK makes solid points as to why AoS is far from "invisible" in a mechanical sense even despite it caring less about rules precision than, say, WM/H.

How so? I mean, I don't like them, but I also feel they're immersion breaking (which is one of the reasons I don't like them ) I mean, I've called Waaagh!'s in the past (not too loudly, it was a goblin warboss), I've laughed when animosity made the ladz do something absolutely ridiculous, I took regular goblins back in 7th edition because it felt right, dammit; I get invested in the army and playing it like it's represented in the background, is what I mean. But when the rules tell me that I can get a nice shiny bonus to my dice roll if I yell "Waaagh!", it feels game-y and reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men, and the outcome is determined by how many dots show up on the little plastic cubes we're rolling. It's not yelling 'Waaagh!' because it's fun and you feel like it and everyone involved will get a good laugh out of it, it's yelling 'Waaagh!' because that way you might roll a little better, and who cares if it's not really the right time to do it, both socially and on the tabletop?

Which ties into KK's post a little, I suppose, but I think it also helps explain the way I feel about said rules a little more.

 Spinner wrote:

Hm. They've updated their profile since my Magic days. Yeah, I'd say I'm a bit of a Vorthos - but isn't Vorthos/Timmy the exact kind of player GW wants with this game? I'd say you should be able to do more than 'hang an argument' on it; if the Vorthos people have a problem...

I don't think this is a Vorthos argument though. The silly rules are thematically consistent and dripping with flavor. If anything, it is mechanically inconsistent (which I guess is a Melvin argument).

No. It's not. Do Stormcast players need to raise their hand high and shout "For Sigmar!" before rolling an attack if they want to use all their rules? Why shouldn't people using a Slann adopt a meditative pose on their chair for a neat bonus? Do Skaven players get rerolls if they repeat words in conversation? No? Then how come orc players have to shout 'Waaagh!' if they want the bonus from a particular model? Why does someone playing dwarfs need a beard to get their rules - and what's with all the trash-talking rules?

Are you arguing that the silly rules are racist?

Let's look at the staring contest flavor text - I'll grant that it's a fairly decent image. But how does it evoke a night goblin leader? That could be a skaven. That could be a beastman. All of them wear hoods, stare malevolently, and can probably be described as 'mean-spirited'. Where's the night-goblin-ness?

It doesn't describe every night goblin leader, it describes THAT night goblin leader. When you choose that formation, your previously generic leader now takes on a unique persona. The formation only has two rules, one of which is the hooded stare rule and the other is a minor bonus (+1 bravery, extra attack on 6+ to hit rolls). It's a very specific formation that, honestly, only takes on an appeal if you want those silly rules. The heroes having weird rules, that's one thing. But formations with weird rules are the very definition of optional. Just don't pick those. But don't hold it against the other players who do.

Marius Leitdorf was a charismatic, heroic leader who also happened to be insane - which caused no end of trouble, but when he sacrificed himself to defend the Empire, Karl Franz publicly praised him. How do you evoke that by pretending to ride an invisible horse?

According to the Warhammer wiki, "he often relied upon the advice of his favourite warhorse Daisy Kurt Von Helboring II as much as his own advisors.", so it seems to me that pretending to ride an imaginary horse, and talk to it, seems to fit pretty well in the whole "crazy dude who talked to his horse" theme. Honestly, I think that rule captures the theme of his insanity in a way that his stat block and being able to reroll hits never could.

I think the silly rules give personality to models that their technical abilities just can't convey. I think a hooded warboss that stares at you with his beady eyes is cool. I think an insane hero who talks to his horse is cool. I think that a dwarf that yells insults at other models, weakening their morale is cool. And while that stuff exists in the extended lore, it doesn't exist mechanically in the game - usually. These silly rules do that. They make units that I want to pick for reasons other than their stats or combat effectiveness. They make units that I would look forward to playing just because of how it would change the game experience. They give individual models character, they give the game character. It's not about minmaxing stat blocks and positioning anymore.

They make you do goofy things - which I've always had a problem with, 'forced' goofiness really isn't all that fun - they're applied in something of a slapdash manner, with some factions having none and others several (do you not see how that creates a clash in tone?) and they don't really represent their chosen units all that well. They really aren't a good idea, not for the game in its current form.

But they don't force you to do anything. If you don't want to use those rules, there are many, many units and formations out there that don't have them. Because there's no points in AoS, the value of a unit is largely based on how much you like or dislike it. So if you don't like the silly rules, pick the other models. Like the Dwarf yelling thing - there are three heroes in the Magmadroth box, you get to pick two of them. There's only one that has silly rules. Use the other two. Problem solved. You get to have your Magmadroth and eat it too.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Video games are also viewed as childplay.

That hasn't been the case for some time now. With the mainstreaming of games through Facebook/Mobile/Wii, indie art games, growing evidence that video games aid brain development, and the aging population of gamers, video games won that argument.

Still, I won't be cool with them trying to force me to act like a 6 years old , nor do I want every games to be kid friendly.

I guess you weren't a big Wii fan, huh? Swinging your controller around like a tennis racket. Pantomiming the playing of musical instruments. You ever see a 55 year old try to play Wii Sports? Hilarious.

Or played Skylanders or Disney Infinity, where you combine video games with actual toys? I once walked into a TRU and bought some Pokemon amiibo for my daughters, and the guy behind the cash register thought they were for me! The nerve! The Princess Zelda one was for me.

My wife is obsessed with Just Dance. She forces me to do the Dirty Dancing song with her. I have the manual dexterity of a plank of wood. But I do it and it is fun.

I mean, yeah, you wouldn't want every game to be Wii Sports, but then you don't want every game to be Call of Duty either. There's a variety of experiences out there, some of them requiring you to look very silly indeed to others - and in my experience, those are some of the most popular and most fun.

Maybe wargaming has enough Call of Duties already, and not enough Wii Sports?

Anyways, AOS is such a disaster sale wise that this discussion is rather moot. This thing will either be discontinued or have a complete makeover, in 2 years max.

As a video game fan, I've heard similar things said about Nintendo for the past... uh... 30 years or so. But trust me, Nintendo is giving up hardware and going mobile free-to-play any day now. It is written in the stars. It is fate.

This pleases me.
To OP I think table top games naturally span the forth wall anyway. There strong mix of hard mechanics with Rp just works that way for me.
I also feel the statement of ignore is fine, my gameing group has ignored different aspects of the rules for years to tailor game play, i do it in video games to, its the best way to get what you want from it, its kinda obvious how unrealistic it is to expect a product to cover every whim

 Spinner wrote:
reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men

I would think that using a measuring tape and rolling dice would be no more or less "immersion breaking" in exactly the sense you describe than one of these gauche AoS funtime rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men

I would think that using a measuring tape and rolling dice would be no more or less "immersion breaking" in exactly the sense you describe than one of these gauche AoS funtime rules.

For me, not at all. If immersion is akin to having your nose buried deep in a book, then the dice and templates are the punctuation, paragraphs, hell, even the words of that book. If immersion is a dazzling piece of artwork the dice are the brushstrokes that created it. Every time the dice settle a story unfolds across my mind, how deadly was my Banshee's scream?, how far did my Hexwraiths charge?. As spinner said, these joke rules force me to look up from the table, to take a step back from the battle, and just like looking up from a book, it breaks the spell.

 Bottle wrote:
As spinner said, these joke rules force me to look up from the table, to take a step back from the battle, and just like looking up from a book, it breaks the spell.

It doesn't sound like you're talking about immersion. More like, there is this one aspect of the game that just rankles while you like the rest.

One minute I feel immersed in game and the narrative unfolding, like I could be with a good movie and forget I'm in the cinema, or like I could be with a good book and forget I'm on the train, and then the spell breaks - the immersion is gone.

It rankles me because it breaks my immersion.

What exactly is it that you are forgetting up until you have to use X type of rule rather than Y or Z types of rules?

 Manchu wrote:
What exactly is it that you are forgetting up until you have to use X type of rule rather than Y or Z types of rules?

I'm forgetting that we're just pushing little figurines around on a table, because up until these rules broke my immersion I was convinced there was a battle of epic proportions being played out in front of me.

A lot of people hate unpainted figures.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

Hm. They've updated their profile since my Magic days. Yeah, I'd say I'm a bit of a Vorthos - but isn't Vorthos/Timmy the exact kind of player GW wants with this game? I'd say you should be able to do more than 'hang an argument' on it; if the Vorthos people have a problem...

I don't think this is a Vorthos argument though. The silly rules are thematically consistent and dripping with flavor. If anything, it is mechanically inconsistent (which I guess is a Melvin argument).

Didn't you just say that it was a Vorthos argument? Like, in the post before that? I dunno, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Then again, only a Sith deals in absolutes The M:tG player 'types' are almost always intermingled.

Are you arguing that the silly rules are racist?

...no? I'm arguing that they're haphazardly applied, like I said in the rest of my post. It creates a clash in tone and feels like the design team is at odds with itself. Kinda hard to get immersed in the tragic narrative of the hero slowly losing himself as he fights to reclaim the shattered remnants of a civilization while your opponent is making not-so-veiled references about your immediate personal ancestry because he wants the bonus for Wulfrik the Wanderer.

Meanwhile, the guy running Settra at the table next to you dropped his dice on the floor and is trying to reach down to get them without kneeling...

It doesn't describe every night goblin leader, it describes THAT night goblin leader. When you choose that formation, your previously generic leader now takes on a unique persona. The formation only has two rules, one of which is the hooded stare rule and the other is a minor bonus (+1 bravery, extra attack on 6+ to hit rolls). It's a very specific formation that, honestly, only takes on an appeal if you want those silly rules. The heroes having weird rules, that's one thing. But formations with weird rules are the very definition of optional. Just don't pick those. But don't hold it against the other players who do.

It's supposed to be a generic night goblin warboss, though. The flavor text presents it in a generic light, you take a generic boss, there's no name for him, it's clearly not a special character. 'Moonclan' is the new keyword for night goblins, isn't it? Sure, maybe you don't like the goofy rules, so you don't take the formation. And you don't like insulting your opponent pointlessly, so you don't use a couple of other models. Most of the special characters are out...Longbeards are out...Orcs with drums...at this point, you're either leaving out models that it would make sense to include in your army (or that you liked in WHFB and already have!) or you're ignoring half of the already minimalistic rules in the game. Which, okay, no one seems to have a problem with...but I've never seen it as a point in AoS' favor, especially in comparison with other games with larger, tighter rulesets.

 Manchu wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men

I would think that using a measuring tape and rolling dice would be no more or less "immersion breaking" in exactly the sense you describe than one of these gauche AoS funtime rules.

Bottle got it. It's a tabletop miniatures game; dice and tape measures are ways for me to interact with the models on the tabletop in front of me, and help me visualize the 'battle' in front of me. Penalizing me for kneeling isn't and doesn't, respectively.

You know what really breaks my fourth wall? Sound. Any sounds at all while I'm gaming.

The muffled talking of random passerby. My opponent breathing. The rustling of their grubby fingers as they push their pathetic tin can clad excuses for duardin around the table. (+1 battleshock)

Heck, even the slight creaking of the faded linoleum under my sneakers breaks me from the intoxicating illusion that I am a god-smiting duardin paragon of war, true son of father Grimnir tasked with the recollection of his holy remains from the undeserving hands of mortal plebs, and am really Kyle, keeper of the quality, enter-er of data.

Heaven forbid, Games Workshop seriously encourage anyone I'm playing with to actually talk! I think this may be the straw that broke the magmadroths back.

Yup, that sounds like a serious problem that deserves to be addressed. I'd suggest some good quality earplugs. You can have your opponent write down their orders on a little notepad and hold them up to you so you know what's going on. Even better, you can get some noise-canceling headphones and a good battle soundtrack, or maybe just an inspiring speech from Tom Kirby?

Hope that helps!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of people hate unpainted figures.

They shatter immersion! Unpainted miniatures break the fourth (fifth?) wall.

Unpainted miniatures are fine for me, especially in comparison to these rules we're meant to be discussing (although if the mods have given up on making worthwhile contributions to a thread, what hope does it have?)

 Bottle wrote:
making worthwhile contributions to a thread

I am not sure if it possible to have a worthwhile conversation about "immersion" as you are using the term because it seems to be nothing more than a matter of personal preference. For one player, the type of rule in question "breaks immersion" while unpainted miniatures do not. For another, it is the reverse. There does not seem to be any wider relevance.

Let's just use this example:

 Spinner wrote:
It's a tabletop miniatures game; dice and tape measures are ways for me to interact with the models on the tabletop in front of me, and help me visualize the 'battle' in front of me. Penalizing me for kneeling isn't and doesn't, respectively.

The rules of the game are no less a means of interacting with the models than dice and a tape measure. Not that the issue is even rules, generally speaking. What we have here is a complaint about a specific type of rules. Spinner is making a distinction that does not amount to a difference. In effect, he does not mind most of the rules. But these rules are a problem for him. No one can meaningfully gainsay what Spinner does and does not enjoy but by the same token what he does and doesn't enjoy tells us about him rather than the things he does or doesn't like.

 Manchu wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
making worthwhile contributions to a thread

I am not sure if it possible to have a worthwhile conversation about "immersion" as you are using the term because it seems to be nothing more than a matter of personal preference. For one player, the type of rule in question "breaks immersion" while unpainted miniatures do not. For another, it is the reverse. There does not seem to be any wider relevance.

Let's just use this example:

 Spinner wrote:
It's a tabletop miniatures game; dice and tape measures are ways for me to interact with the models on the tabletop in front of me, and help me visualize the 'battle' in front of me. Penalizing me for kneeling isn't and doesn't, respectively.

The rules of the game are no less a means of interacting with the models than dice and a tape measure. Not that the issue is even rules, generally speaking. What we have here is a complaint about a specific type of rules. Spinner is making a distinction that does not amount to a difference. In effect, he does not mind most of the rules. But these rules are a problem for him. No one can meaningfully gainsay what Spinner does and does not enjoy but by the same token what he does and doesn't enjoy tells us about him rather than the things he does or doesn't like.

I'm not sure why you think people are misusing the term 'immersion'; how would you define it, as it relates to having a worthwhile conversation about a tabletop wargame? I mean, yeah, you can say 'what breaks immersion for one person doesn't break it for another', but I should think that would be obvious; that's just like saying some people prefer skirmish games as opposed to mass combat, or that some people prefer broadly-written constant battle scenes that you shell out fifty to seventy-five dollars every month or so to keep updated on instead of a rich and detailed setting with a wealth of hidden gems to mine for your own army. People have different tastes, I think we know that by now

And as for what someone does and doesn't enjoy saying more about them than about the thing...not sure I agree with that either. Sure, it tells you about that person. If they tell you why they like or don't like the thing, though...I mean, you can't just say that tells you nothing, unless you don't believe in objective criticism. Or criticism at all, in fact.

 Spinner wrote:
how would you define it, as it relates to having a worthwhile conversation about a tabletop wargame?

I am not sure what "immersion" means (or can mean) when it comes to miniatures gaming:

 Manchu wrote:
Something to consider here is, what is meant by "immersion"?

This term comes up all the time in roleplaying crowds. It is often defined as when the players are so emotionally involved in "the moment" that they are no longer thinking about the game mechanics.

That sense is probably inapplicable to a miniatures wargame, where the players are constantly fiddling with the playing pieces, not all of which (e.g., rulers and dice) stand in for objects in the setting of the game, as the miniatures themselves (albeit sometimes abstractly) stand in for soldiers or tanks or dragons, etc. Furthermore, miniatures games rarely ask us to assume the limitations of an "in-setting" perspective. The players hover over the "world" of the game from a godlike perspective. The "fourth wall" analogy therefore makes no sense to me.

 Spinner wrote:
People have different tastes, I think we know that by now

Sure -- some people may like these rules and other may not. But the subject of the thread is not what Poster X likes or doesn't like. OP offered a theory as to why some players might find these rules jarring but the theory makes no sense to me, as described above. There are any number of factors that should "break immersion" like reaching down from above like some god to move the figures, the terrain, to roll dice, to take measurements, but, according to you and Bottle, they don't. Whatever you are immersed in, therefore, it seems unlikely that it is the setting or plot or story of the fictional world. Rather, it seems like you guys have a very firmly established idea of what miniatures gaming is all about and the AoS fun time rules are just not a part of that.

 Manchu wrote:
...There are any number of factors that should "break immersion" like reaching down from above like some god to move the figures, the terrain, to roll dice, to take measurements, but, according to you and Bottle, they don't. Whatever you are immersed in, therefore, it seems unlikely that it is the setting or plot or story of the fictional world. Rather, it seems like you guys have a very firmly established idea of what miniatures gaming is all about and the AoS fun time rules are just not a part of that.

Hey - really good point.

I think there would be a pretty broad swath of things that a fairly big # of people accept as part of the wargaming experience that aren't realistic but don't break immersion because we've learned to just accept them. Like watching TV and movies - most shows don't don't have a single camera with one continuous take and tell a story in real time. We've learned to look past cuts and time jumps as part of the medium.

So why does a set of rules designed to enhance immersion feel, to some, like they're breaking it?

I'm trying to imagine a rule like this in an RPG. Like something that said you must always talk in a funny voice and never break character or your character dies or loses a level.
Or to blend miniature elements into a roleplaying game - imagine some rule in the game that required you to always have a miniature for your character fully painted and wyswig or you lose XP, equipment etc.

Clearly it should only *enhance* the immersion? But I would feel like they would be breaking the immersion.

I've accepted the rules, and the dice, and the measuring as all part of the thing that creates the experience in my mind, but the extra rules telling me *how* to create that experience feel wrong and break the immersion.

Spinner wrote:Didn't you just say that it was a Vorthos argument? Like, in the post before that? I dunno, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Yes, it wasn't very clear. I was saying that your comment was a Vorthos argument, but I don't believe that this discussion, as a whole, is a Vorthos argument. I'm generally not a Vorthos (so Melvin it hurts), except when it comes to miniature games. I value the aesthetic considerably more with miniature games, to the point where I find the game mechanics to be an obstacle to enjoyment in many cases. And I think that the silly rules, which give so much personality and theme to the models, are awesome.

The M:tG player 'types' are almost always intermingled.

That's because the Magic types don't cover temperament but instead a specific behavior that could be shared between temperaments. Arguably, two people could be Timmys, with regards to what the Magic profiles discuss, but they would be Timmys for different reasons, having different motivations and being rewarded in different ways. As such, the profiles would be useful only in predicting their response to game design, not explaining it.

It's a tabletop miniatures game; dice and tape measures are ways for me to interact with the models on the tabletop in front of me, and help me visualize the 'battle' in front of me. Penalizing me for kneeling isn't and doesn't, respectively.

I don't know. I recently played a video game called Until Dawn, which is largely a barely interactive movie. But there are points in the game where you must stay absolutely still (it uses the motion sensors in the controller) while hiding from monsters. I thought it was extremely effective and created extremely tense moments within the game. It isn't really breaking the fourth wall. More like engaging the player in a different way than is typical.

And yeah, some people hate that. I mean, have you ever seen the reviews for the Wii version of Twilight Princess. Some people loved swinging the remotes to make sword slashes and some people HATED it. And I don't think that it represents any sort of crime against game design or a mark against the purity of the game. It's just that some people have a reluctance towards certain things and they'd rather not have them. But I don't think they can make an objective argument against it. The best they could hope for is "I don't like thing", to which the typical response is, "So?"

Jack Flask wrote:You know what really breaks my fourth wall? Sound. Any sounds at all while I'm gaming.

I know you are just being facetious, but there is a name for that: "misophonia". If you've ever been stabbed by someone for chewing with your mouth open, that's why



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
So why does a set of rules designed to enhance immersion feel, to some, like they're breaking it?

I don't think they are designed to enhance immersion. I think they are meant to engage the players, as players, and to encourage social interaction. It's about community building and creating opportunities for mirth, not maintaining the purity of the canonical gaming experience.

There have been several video games that use some of the hardware in unexpected ways to form part of game play. Metal Gear Solid 2 had the section with Psycho Mantis, and there was a Vampire game on DS that used the camera to sense light levels, making the player stronger in daylight and weaker in darkness.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There have been several video games that use some of the hardware in unexpected ways to form part of game play. Metal Gear Solid 2 had the section with Psycho Mantis, and there was a Vampire game on DS that used the camera to sense light levels, making the player stronger in daylight and weaker in darkness.

Psycho Mantis was in the first Metal Gear Solid, though the entire MGS series is full of fourth wall breaking (like the entire last hour of MGS2). Actually, if you go through the list on TV Tropes, you'll find many of the most beloved and respected video games of all time. Immersion has never been a particular convincing argument.

It would seem that a vampire game in which the vampires get stronger at night and weaker at daytime is somewhat immersive.

Immersion might be one of those words that means something completely different in different settings. Like how "roleplaying" is used when it comes to video games; to me that has always seemed worlds apart from what roleplaying means on the tabletop. Marketing has a way of infiltrating our day-to-day vocabulary and I think "immersion" might be a good example of that elusive thing advertising primes us to want without ever really defining so we can't make a specific complaint when a designer fails to deliver.

I feel like it's only you, Manchu, who is striving to clearly define "immersion" in this thread. For me, it has always been a word describing a personal experience of being engrossed in something.

I think the way "immersion" is being used in this thread is like being engrossed in a math problem. To have all your attention focused on a singular task, oblivious to the world around you. When you have a dozen different things to keep track of, it can take all your attention and focus, and anything which distracts you temporarily takes you away from that, forcing you to rebuild your mental state and get back into that zone of hyper-awareness.

But I still don't think that applies to miniature games, since you are involving a second person, presumably talking with them the entire time. You can't be hyper focused to the exclusion of the social contract inherent in the game.

 Bottle wrote:
I feel like it's only you, Manchu, who is striving to clearly define "immersion" in this thread. For me, it has always been a word describing a personal experience of being engrossed in something.

Well, yes - but what?
If you're engrossed in a battle between two forces in the mist-covered ruins of an ancient garrison town, then reasonably anything that reminds you you're playing with toy soldiers will break that.
If you're playing a tabletop game as a technical exercise to hone your tactics, anything that snaps you out of that mindset is 'bad', and so on.

I think Manchu's point is that objectively, no-one has demonstrated that these rules break immersion - no matter how or why you play or define it - in any way that other rules don't or wouldn't already.
At which point, it's a matter of "I think those rules are dumb". Which is still fine.

Quite right, RoperPG. As I mentioned earlier, "breaking immersion" seems to add up to nothing more or less than "don't like it" and if you don't like something then that's that, no point in arguing about it. I was just examining if there was anything about the rules, rather than a given individual's taste, that could be extracted from this ideas about the fourth wall or immersion and my conclusion so far is, no those aren't explanations so much as descriptions, like how someone may say they don't like broccoli because it is too "granular" -- I think it is an interesting choice of words but ultimately it doesn't really tell me much about what eating broccoli is like.

I think people articulated really well what they meant by "immersion breaking" earlier. It seems to me that your arguments about why they either aren't or why the description is inadequate miss those points. Just like for some people unpainted armies break their immersion enough to not want to play, being forced to do charades can ruin it for others. This will vary, of course, but it doesn't mean it isn't true or is a pseudonym for other things.

On a different note, as others said earlier, for me the real problem is the "funny" rules just aren't funny. I can get into character just fine without it being scripted, thanks! Worse, if you like a certain character you'll be doing the same "joke" move every game, maybe even every turn...

 RiTides wrote:
I think people articulated really well what they meant by "immersion breaking" earlier. It seems to me that your arguments about why they either aren't or why the description is inadequate miss those points. Just like for some people unpainted armies break their immersion enough to not want to play, being forced to do charades can ruin it for others. This will vary, of course, but it doesn't mean it isn't true or is a pseudonym for other things.

I can't speak for Manchu, but I think his argument is that the complaints against the rules are just "don't like it", and explanations have thus far been unable to explain exactly what it is they don't like, other than that they don't like it. I think Christopher Hitchens was the one who said, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

On a different note, as others said earlier, for me the real problem is the "funny" rules just aren't funny.

Wouldn't it depend rather strongly on the sense of humor of the person playing them? It may not appeal to you, but I've been a professional comedy writer. Like they gave me money and stuff to write jokes. Great reviews too. One said I was as funny as the holocaust! Playing against me is basically a free show. You can't beat that value!

Worse, if you like a certain character you'll be doing the same "joke" move every game, maybe even every turn...

Steve... The boys and me, we've been talking and we think... Steve, it's time for an intervention. Your Dwarf insults just aren't very funny. Absolutely awful. They repeat too often, way too many puns, and honestly, they get a little personal sometimes. I feel bad for my models. They ain't real, I know, but they have belts, and you just keep hitting below 'em... Oh, and the voices! Why?! We, the boys and me, we think you should try the Stormcast. We chipped in to buy you a box of Liberators...

I agree that they articulated what they meant very well, so well in fact that it was quite clear that the problem is they just don't like the rules. And yes, they can call it a matter of breaking immersion. As my learned colleagues have pointed out ITT, the "immersion" in question is a precisely individual matter of taste. Just like in the example you reiterated but unfortunately did not invert: if some people cannot stand unpainted miniatures and others are not at all troubled by them, and then there are others who fall anywhere else on the spectrum, then we aren't talking about immersion except inasmuch as immersion is just liking things and breaking immersion is a matter of disliking some factor among others that one likes. The only trouble is, saying "I don't like X to the point that it spoils the game" is that it is not an explanation of X, it is just a declaration of dislike. Okay, you dislike it. In other news ...

As to the supposedly funny rules not being funny, that is a great example. I also don't find them funny. I am not even sure if they are meant to be funny in the sense of jokes or funny in the sense of a dare or what I understand is called a penalty in the UK. The latter makes more sense to me. But explaining why you think a joke isn't funny can be tricky. One quick but misleading way to do so is to just to declare the joke bad, which of course has an unflattering implication as to anyone who laughed.

 Manchu wrote:
But explaining why you think a joke isn't funny can be tricky. One quick but misleading way to do so is to just to declare the joke bad, which of course has an unflattering implication as to anyone who laughed.

Personally I see these as the laugh track on a bad sitcom. It is the 'laugh here' factor that is entirely forced and after 3 episodes becomes annoying and ruins what might otherwise have been good jokes just because comedy should not be forced.

Sqorgar, I would say there were quite a few thorough explanations of why this is the case for people, but the rebuttal has been to focus on the semantics (or even definition) of the words. But what I'm saying is that you're then missing the point of what those who disagree with you are saying, and talking past them / missing the actual substance of what could have been discussed with them.

I just thought that was worth pointing out; the terms and examples have all been given well by others earlier in the thread. I like to think people can change their minds discussing things on forums, so again, just thought it was worth mentioning that I think you've missed the content of what folks were saying here (whether or not you agree / disagree with it).

Sitcoms tend to do the same joke over and over. It's called a signature gag. I think something of the same logic is at work here. Then again, now that I think on it the rules do work out as funnier when you think of them as penalties. Just think of some stuffy power gamer forced to unbutton a little for a bonus. I'm certain he wouldn't be laughing but I sure would be from across the table.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think they are meant to engage the players, as players, and to encourage social interaction. It's about community building and creating opportunities for mirth, not maintaining the purity of the canonical gaming experience.

That may be their goal, in which case it's a terrible way of achieving it.

Thanks everyone for making the counter argument a little clearer. I think we can seperate these joke rules from standard game mechanisms (such as rolling dice), but I might not have the ability to articulate it just yet. If anyone is willing to take the mantle I would appreciate it.

I don't think for me personally these rules simply amount to me not liking them - as there are other rules and mechanics I may not like but they don't "break immersion" for me.

 Manchu wrote:
Sitcoms tend to do the same joke over and over. It's called a signature gag. I think something of the same logic is at work here. Then again, now that I think on it the rules do work out as funnier when you think of them as penalties. Just think of some stuffy power gamer forced to unbutton a little for a bonus. I'm certain he wouldn't be laughing but I sure would be from across the table.

Powergamers will do anything to win. If they're willing to lie, cheat and steal, they are definitely willing to belittle their opponents' units or shout waagh or whatever.

Hell, some of them belittle their opponents as part of mind games. Now they'll only have an excuse as it's "part of the rules".

 Manchu wrote:
I agree that they articulated what they meant very well, so well in fact that it was quite clear that the problem is they just don't like the rules. And yes, they can call it a matter of breaking immersion. As my learned colleagues have pointed out ITT, the "immersion" in question is a precisely individual matter of taste. Just like in the example you reiterated but unfortunately did not invert: if some people cannot stand unpainted miniatures and others are not at all troubled by them, and then there are others who fall anywhere else on the spectrum, then we aren't talking about immersion except inasmuch as immersion is just liking things and breaking immersion is a matter of disliking some factor among others that one likes. The only trouble is, saying "I don't like X to the point that it spoils the game" is that it is not an explanation of X, it is just a declaration of dislike. Okay, you dislike it. In other news ...

You are reading way too much in to it dude, either that or not enough

I think it's somewhat disingenuous to simplify it down to "you don't like it therefore it's immersion breaking". Sure, it may be breaking immersion because you don't like it, but the reason can be that you don't like it because that particular interaction is immersion breaking It's pretty obvious why some people find it immersion breaking and it's not just "they don't like it". It is not a "model-model" interaction nor is it an "omnipotent god - model" interaction nor is it an "observer - model" interaction. It is a new (and IMO, an entirely out of character) interaction for a GW game.

We're grown up enough to not have to need a more precise definition of "immersion" because it should be plainly obvious that something that is immersion building for one person may be immersion breaking for another, it does strike me as argument for the sake of argument. I guess it can be made more obvious by looking at other media like video games and movies. If a movie creates a wonderful universe and a great storyline, is it more or less immersive if you turn it in to an interactive movie where it pauses and waits for a response to carry the storyline? For some people it may be more immersive, but for many it's going to be immersion breaking, it's not a type of interaction people want in a movie. You could take it a step further and look at interactive story video games, The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones for example (or any Telltale games, I haven't played many), it walks you through the story and that could be more or less immersive than a game like Skyrim where you are just thrown in to a giant world and left to do whatever. Personally I really like The Walking Dead but sometimes I'd get drawn in to a sequence where I had no interaction and my immersion was broken when the game told me to press a button

It may be more subtle, but these rules are a different form of interaction than rolling dice, removing casualties, measuring ranges, etc. Sure, you can say the only reason people find them immersion breaking is because they don't like them, but they don't like them BECAUSE the interactions are immersion breaking (for them).

But explaining why you think a joke isn't funny can be tricky.

I don't know about that. Bad timing, trying too hard to lead the audience, unwanted audience interaction, hitting a raw nerve, over simplification, predictability along with bad timing, poor acting. It's hard to predict if a joke will be funny, I don't think it's as tricky to explain why a joke isn't funny, and some of those reasons I listed apply to AoS's silly rules. Obviously it's all subjective... I laugh at damned near anything, but then I still rate good and bad comedy differently even if I laugh at both at times.

 RiTides wrote:
Sqorgar, I would say there were quite a few thorough explanations of why this is the case for people, but the rebuttal has been to focus on the semantics (or even definition) of the words. But what I'm saying is that you're then missing the point of what those who disagree with you are saying, and talking past them / missing the actual substance of what could have been discussed with them.

No, no, I actually do understand what they are saying. I get it, and I can agree that if you take this one approach to wargaming, these silly rules stick out in uncomfortable ways. It's just that there's no discussion to be had there. The "why" is purely subjective, the effect is purely subjective, so the only responses that you can really have is to commiserate or shrug. And though the internet is full of people commiserating things they can't change, threads quickly become an echo chamber as people reinforce their own subjective beliefs until they become, in their mind, incontrovertible fact. That's how you get completely subjective options becoming a de facto standard on the internet, like the Star Wars prequels being the worst movies ever made (have they seen Species 2?)

So when someone says something like, "I would feel uncomfortable using these rules", why do you feel uncomfortable? Are there situations where you wouldn't feel uncomfortable? Could your discomfort be the result of assumptions you make, or even the result of preferences you've never had to challenge? Is your discomfort keeping you from an experience which you could enjoy? Does your discomfort cause you to distance yourself from AoS, and would it cause you to never try another game that had similar rules? Does your reticence here represent a simple preference, or is it an overly conservative viewpoint that could ultimately affect the acceptance of other new ideas in the field?

So simply stating that "I don't like these rules because they are immersion breaking" is worthless. What if there are other rules in other games that are similar? What about a war council where you have to negotiate the upcoming battles with your allies and opponents, according to assigned character archetypes? What about a game where, to cast a magic spell, you have to recite a lengthy bit of text in real time, starting over when you screw up, while your opponent tries to kill your wizard before you finish? Or a campaign system where you begin with unpainted miniatures and earn paint (and special upgrades) through victory? How about a game where you play doubles, where your co-chair controls half the army, but can be convinced to join the opponent's side mid-battle through bribes of pretzels and nudie magazines? Or a game where you can only physical touch certain models and have to move the others by pushing them? Or a game which represents explosion by dropping confetti on the board - whatever is touched by the little paper circles is hit? Or a game where your opponent's hygiene and sportsmanship is factored into which models they can bring to battle (the "brushed teeth" model is overpowered)?

Which of these are immersion breaking? I can't tell, because even though I know exactly how the silly AoS rules are immersion breaking, it is so specific and unevenly applied that I wouldn't be able to use that to predict how any of these other ideas would be accepted. The end result is a chilling effect on game design where designers won't try something new because they can't tell if it is "silly rule immersion breaking" or "girl in yoga pants immersion breaking", erring on the side of the tried and tired.

What does "immersion breaking" REALLY mean and how far does it extend? How is that attitude affecting the future possibilities of wargaming? It's not enough to simply state it, get some back pats, and then complain that Games Workshop doesn't understand its players.

I just thought that was worth pointing out; the terms and examples have all been given well by others earlier in the thread. I like to think people can change their minds discussing things on forums, so again, just thought it was worth mentioning that I think you've missed the content of what folks were saying here (whether or not you agree / disagree with it).

I haven't missed it. You told me that discussing people's opinions is personally offensive to them, so I've been talking about everything BUT their opinions.

Well for the record I think you've done a good job transitioning on that front (your last point, although that's not how I would term it). We've been able to focus on the content and be civil, which is great and I personally really appreciate it (I mean this sincerely).

 Sqorgar wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Sqorgar, I would say there were quite a few thorough explanations of why this is the case for people, but the rebuttal has been to focus on the semantics (or even definition) of the words. But what I'm saying is that you're then missing the point of what those who disagree with you are saying, and talking past them / missing the actual substance of what could have been discussed with them.

No, no, I actually do understand what they are saying. I get it, and I can agree that if you take this one approach to wargaming, these silly rules stick out in uncomfortable ways. It's just that there's no discussion to be had there. The "why" is purely subjective, the effect is purely subjective, so the only responses that you can really have is to commiserate or shrug. And though the internet is full of people commiserating things they can't change, threads quickly become an echo chamber as people reinforce their own subjective beliefs until they become, in their mind, incontrovertible fact. That's how you get completely subjective options becoming a de facto standard on the internet, like the Star Wars prequels being the worst movies ever made (have they seen Species 2?)

So when someone says something like, "I would feel uncomfortable using these rules", why do you feel uncomfortable? Are there situations where you wouldn't feel uncomfortable? Could your discomfort be the result of assumptions you make, or even the result of preferences you've never had to challenge? Is your discomfort keeping you from an experience which you could enjoy? Does your discomfort cause you to distance yourself from AoS, and would it cause you to never try another game that had similar rules? Does your reticence here represent a simple preference, or is it an overly conservative viewpoint that could ultimately affect the acceptance of other new ideas in the field?

So simply stating that "I don't like these rules because they are immersion breaking" is worthless. What if there are other rules in other games that are similar? What about a war council where you have to negotiate the upcoming battles with your allies and opponents, according to assigned character archetypes? What about a game where, to cast a magic spell, you have to recite a lengthy bit of text in real time, starting over when you screw up, while your opponent tries to kill your wizard before you finish? Or a campaign system where you begin with unpainted miniatures and earn paint (and special upgrades) through victory? How about a game where you play doubles, where your co-chair controls half the army, but can be convinced to join the opponent's side mid-battle through bribes of pretzels and nudie magazines? Or a game where you can only physical touch certain models and have to move the others by pushing them? Or a game which represents explosion by dropping confetti on the board - whatever is touched by the little paper circles is hit? Or a game where your opponent's hygiene and sportsmanship is factored into which models they can bring to battle (the "brushed teeth" model is overpowered)?

Which of these are immersion breaking? I can't tell, because even though I know exactly how the silly AoS rules are immersion breaking, it is so specific and unevenly applied that I wouldn't be able to use that to predict how any of these other ideas would be accepted. The end result is a chilling effect on game design where designers won't try something new because they can't tell if it is "silly rule immersion breaking" or "girl in yoga pants immersion breaking", erring on the side of the tried and tired.

What does "immersion breaking" REALLY mean and how far does it extend? How is that attitude affecting the future possibilities of wargaming? It's not enough to simply state it, get some back pats, and then complain that Games Workshop doesn't understand its players.
.

Hey, some of those ideas seem fun! The war council one could be very interesting as part of an RPG or wargame campaign, actually (no fair on the confetti one, though; Simpsons: the Gathering did it with their actually fun goofy ruleset). I think the difference is that these game ideas are designed around the real life/game interaction; the charades rules are more bolted on Big Mek-style in Age of Sigmar. If you're all roleplaying a war council, then...roleplaying a war council is what you're expecting. It's inherently part of the game. There's nothing about Age of Sigmar that needs you to talk to your models to get +1 to hit; the social interaction it encourages is the same style as a Monty Python joke from the Bret player. A little awkward, a little out of place, but maybe funny if it's delivered in the right way. The first time.

Not the twenty-fifth.

That's part of why I keep talking about a clash in tone, and why it's important that only some models and factions have these rules. On the one hand, they're trying to create a grim universe full of epic conflict (how successful they are with that is a different matter). Everything points to that. The artwork, the writing, the model design...except for the goofy rules. There's nothing inherently wrong with said rules; some of those examples you came up with were pretty good, like I said. But in this case, in this instance, they do not fit with the rest of the design, and THAT is why they are immersion breaking.

Hope that makes things clearer; I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Those ideas were specifically created around things that people would consider immersion breaking - untainted models, external influences, gameplay rewards for hygiene, role playing, etc. I was trying to show that immersion breaking is too broad and offers too much potential to be outright dismissed. You can't just say, it's immersion braking, like that, in and of itself, is bad.

The not funny thing... Well, that's pretty situational and would depend greatly on the company you keep. I have some close friends and family I play with, and those kinds of rules would create many amusing games. There are some folks in my warmachine group that are completely joyless and it would suck to play them (but it already kinda does), and there are others who would fail spectacularly at their attempts to be funny (but I value playing with happy opponents who make an attempt at mirth, so I'd easily overlook bad jokes). In short, the people I like to play with, I'd still like to play with, and the people I don't like to play with would not be measurable worse because of it. The needle hasn't moved. But among my close friends, it would create much more memorable games.

As for the juxtaposition between the mirthless lore and the silly rules... I don't know. It doesn't really stick out for me. It's kinda the Jar-Jar defense. Some people are really bothered about Jar-Jar in the movies, saying he is tone deaf to the Star Wars universe... But then you have Super Bombad Racing, a Star Wars dancing game for Kinect, and silly R2-D2 episodes of The Clone Wars. Basically, if you like something, you'll excuse it, and if you don't like something, nothing ever will. Jar-Jar isn't tonally at odds with Star Wars. Not if you allow for a dancing game to exist. You just don't like him, and thats why you won't excuse his inconsistencies...

I feel the same way about these rules as I do in the Peter Pan play when the audience is asked to clap to bring Tinkerbell back; I'm too old to be doing this.

Granted, I'm not above a bit of joking about when I play, mocking the actions of models on the board (Just ask my son about the running gag of deep-striking Terminators that ended with a Mawloc pizza delivery story), but I don't like the idea of missing out on an in-game bonus because I don't perform a bit of proscribed tomfoolery that I wouldn't otherwise engage in.

Honestly, I had long suspected that GW had incorporated the "funny" rules into the free warscrolls with the thought that players would switch over to paid-for rules that granted the same (or better) bonuses without the foolish actions being involved. In essence, that GW was trolling or mocking the 8th edition players, not that it was done in the spirit of fun.

 Stormonu wrote:
I feel the same way about these rules as I do in the Peter Pan play when the audience is asked to clap to bring Tinkerbell back; I'm too old to be doing this.

Granted, I'm not above a bit of joking about when I play, mocking the actions of models on the board (Just ask my son about the running gag of deep-striking Terminators that ended with a Mawloc pizza delivery story), but I don't like the idea of missing out on an in-game bonus because I don't perform a bit of proscribed tomfoolery that I wouldn't otherwise engage in.

Honestly, I had long suspected that GW had incorporated the "funny" rules into the free warscrolls with the thought that players would switch over to paid-for rules that granted the same (or better) bonuses without the foolish actions being involved. In essence, that GW was trolling or mocking the 8th edition players, not that it was done in the spirit of fun.

Don't go to a panto, because the audience interaction is an expected part of that particular theatrical art-form. You don't have to join in, but it's a lot more fun if you throw yourself into it. And to be realistic, you don't go to a panto for a gripping explanation of psychological drama.

However panto isn't 40K or AoS.

That doesn't deny games like Dixit, Charades, or Mag Blast that specifically make use of fun player interaction a key mechanism of the game.

I think a lot of the wall breaking is from GW events themselves. I don't think they went over very well, but I don't think they meant any harm by them.

I can recall going to GamesDay and all the guests being divided into Ork Clans. whoever had the loudest WAAAGH! was allowed entry into the event first, and so on. It was all in good fun, you yelled, and then went into the con. Their large events would often have similar rules, the Redshirt would tell you if you did something you could re-roll misses, are run, etc. most were made on the fly, in a large game that was designed to have players dropping in and out throughout the day. Most GW events I've attended were very "AoS," it was always about the experience of the even, rather then winning or losing. (Even the Grand Tournament was about the total hobby, tons of players build lavish armies based around a specific theme just to show on display.)

They probably also see how some players interact. While I'm playing I want to talk about Warhammer of 40k. Tactics, rules, insults, background, etc. I don't want to talk about The Walking Dead or Diablo 3 Torment X tactics. I also usually talk smack throughout the game if my opponent is so inclined, and that is usually in character and about our current campaign or one-off story. This is all if my opponent wants to do such things, if not I talk about paint techniques, modelling, background and lore, or just tactics and rules.

All that being said, It's not for everyone to act like that while playing. If a player enjoys the tactical part of the game above all else, they may not even want to talk much during the game. Even if this is the sort of thing you do like, having it shoe-horned into a specific rule always feels forced.

A good example is declaring the WAAAGH during 40K games. If I'm playing a fun opponent, or playing Apocalypse and the setting is right, I'll belt out a proppa' WAAAGH! If the setting is wrong though like a tournament, a crowded games store, or an opponent that is just too serious, I'll simply just say "my Warboss declares a waaagh."

Having a rule that de-facto would require me to yell at the top of my lungs regardless of circumstance is just awkward and silly at best, and uncomfortable or embarrassing at worst. (for me or my opponent!) I can also see how this would easily break my opponents immersion. There are other ways that people have touched on that you can RP your army without the 4th wall breaking rules. (My Warboss has always issued challenges or accepted challenges since they added that rule in 40k, regardless of any advantages or disadvantages for example)