Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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)