But because I’m an old Forgie (HAHA INSIDE JOKE MOVE ALONG), let me try to explain why your
dissenting opinion still actually fits in my model. In my post I highlighted Willem’s observation that boredom OR overwhelm result in exhaustion (and by implication, non-engagement and non-fun). Overwhelm can come from sources outside the game environment as well! Long workdays, lack of sleep, personal life issues, and so forth all contribute to the amount of energy we have for engagement during the game. Like, of course, right?

From Willem’s post:

“Staying in that ‘sweet spot’ of fullest engagement will also require more energy and focus then you may normally expend, requiring you learn to monitor your (and others’) needs for breaks, rest. and pace change closely, through rules like FULL, PRESSURE VALVE, THE WALK, and so on.”

So, it looks to me like your group, due to work and whatever else, has a really low overwhelm point, and is damping down engagement to compensate for that. Which is totally within the bounds of what I’m talking about here. Yeah, you’re engaging less and learning less, but you’re having fun, right? And you wouldn’t have fun (or as much fun) if you pushed yourselves to engage more. I think this maximum enagagement stuff is about achieving the maximum engagement that is still fun for everyone, and in some contexts that means a very laidback game.

Willem and I frequently play with someone whose energy and focus level is pretty low; when this player gets gin the zone, they come up with amazing and imaginative input, but they’re likely to get overwhelmed/check out/turn in early if they’re hit with too much information or too many demands at once. So games with that player are much more chill than games with more energetic friends. They’re rewarding games, but I wouldn’t want to play at that energy/engagement level all the time.

So, y’know, like the man says, Each rule is very contextual; these are not silver bullets or cure-alls.