I understand (or at least, I think to) your logic, but I don't think I agree with it.
That is totally fine.
(If you listen to Lore by Night podcast, imagine me saying it in that voice.
)
It's the old argument of "If there is an optional feature that bothers you, don't use it" but I don't like it very much to be honest.
Well, the important part is that you are *able* (and willing as it seems) to follow it ...
Wich i presume based on the that you said "i didnt since i didnt want to" ...
Therefore you dont stand in your own way ... and that is good (and important) starting point.
It's not up to the player to ignore bad features, it's up to the development team to change/erase them.
Depends ...
First of all (i dunno how much you were active lately, but i didnt seen you often around here) we are unable to even agree what is "bad feature" ...
And second ...
I believe that its up to the development team change/erase those systems THEY are not satisfied with ... sure we can say wich and why we dislike ... and then its up to them if they double check it if that is working as it should, or if there is any way to make it better, but in the end its still their (basicaly Swens) decision.
You know ... to explain this, i believe that i dislike this modern "im a customer and i dont like this, so they have to change it" kind of mindset, exactly as you dislike that "if you dont like it, dont use it" argument ... there is no way to explain it fully, at least not for me with my poor english skills.
The feeling is simply just right there, once somebody brings that up.
Otherwise, we can justify 90% of bad decisions because, if we are not forced to experience them (like shoving everything, cheese super Mario jumping everywhere etc), we can just pretend they do not exist.
I believe so, yes ...
Even tho shoving is bad example, since even if you avoid is as much as you want to ... NPCs are still using it against you. :-/ So *that* is ineed unavoidable.
And jumping as Mario has ben removed when they split Jump and Disengage few patches back.
Curent and still valid examples would be ...
- Wizards being able to learn Cleric scrolls ...
- Everyone being able to Hide as Bonus Action (this one is one of harder to self-moderate, since even if you waste your action since your Fighter "would have need it to hide" you still lost your Bonus Action :-/ but in cases you dont need it, its possible)
- Party being able to Fast Travel from everywhere ...
- Party being able to Long Rest everywhere (except Hag's Lair) ...
And im sure there is more, but i bet those will be enough for now.
After all, some people start to speak around here about that there should rather be strict rules, with option to turn them off ... is that so different? O_o
If a game can be exploited, then it has a flaw. Sure, some people may like to exploit games but the problem still exists.
Every game can be exploited ...
Maybe except old school things like Pacman, Sonic or Tetris.
But i dont believe this even "is" a problem ... exploits are things people do purposefully, and willingly (never accidentaly) ... so as long as you avoid them, there are none for you.
I cant help the feeling that we have different deffinition of "immersion". O_o
I mean ...
How can you "break" out of immersion by something that is system-mechanic ... and therefore it dont even exists, from story (in wich you are immersing) perspective? O_o
Walking through beautifully crafted environments is part of the cRPG experience.
Indeed ...
But if i feel experienced enough by walking there, i see no reason to walk back just to someone else feels happy about the way i enjoy the scenery.
If one finds the part between combat encounters to be boring then an Arcade, Hack&Slash or RogueLike game is a much more suitable experience than an RPG.
In this case i would quote Auntie:
Im affraid thats my business petal.
---
You snipped out a very important part of his post
Yup ... intentionaly and for purpose.
What am i suppose to tell somebody who express his own feeling?
Should i start persuating him that he was actualy still immersed?
