Quote from: StuartYou're talking about something else.  You're talking about being immersed in your character (thinking in character -- to the point where your characters have done things for subconscious reasons that I didn't understand).  I'm not.

Correct.  But that's also what a lot of people mean when they talk about "immersion" (including a few of us here) and it also fits much of not all of the characteristics in your description.  That's what I'm trying to say.  You need to qualify what you are talking about further or it's going to confuse people.

Quote from: StuartI'm calling it that because that's what other people are calling it.  It also keeps it seperate from the concept you're describing, which is an other kind of immersion.  I don't know what other people are calling that, but I'd suggest something like "Immersive Acting".

It's not acting(*).  And what that suggests is that the term "immersion", alone, is not only not very useful but suggests a relationship that's not very strong.  I strongly suggest finding another term to describe what you are talking about.  Like "simulation", it's a perfectly good term but it's also irreparably damaged goods because of all of the different ways that people use it in RPG theory discussions.  It's not adding clarity.  It's diminishing it.

Quote from: StuartThe concept I'm talking about has more to do with being immersed in reading a book, watching a movie, or being told a story.  I get this all the time from watching a good movie, reading a good book, or being in an RPG where it's not all rules bickering, tactical combat, or goofing about and telling jokes.  Those things are all fine, but they don't help with the "immersion".

I find it curious that you compare the immersion that you get from role-playing with the immersion one gets from a passive activity like reading a book, watching a movie, or being told a story rather than an active activity like playing a sport, writing a program, or exploring the woods.  Does railroading or at least having the GM create and move the plot along have any impact on your enjoyment of the game?

And what is important to realize is that rules bickering and goofing around are an extreme distraction because they have nothing to do with the game.  But for a player who is tactically immersed in a combat, the tactical details of the combat could be what created that feeling of immersion for them, even though it destroys the feeling for you.  

My point?  Immersion, itself, is not really that important in the sense that you are talking about it.  It simply means that a person is deeply engrossed in the game.  The key is what the person's focus is.  Once you know the focus and play toward it, immersion or engrossment is a natural side-effect.

Quote from: StuartThe concept you're talking about is more linked to performance.  I've had that kind of immersion too, when doing improv acting, or being on stage and getting really into character.

No, it's not performance at all.  It's all going on inside of my head.  That's why I can enjoy the heck out of a game even if the other players don't see my character doing or saying that much at all.  It's the experience of thinking like someone else.  I suppose you could call it a performance but the audience is myself.

Quote from: StuartIf there's a better set of words I'll use them, but I do *not* want to make up gibberish words, or use words in ways the rest of the world isn't.  So for now "Narrative Immersion" is as close as I've got.

I think that both of those words have been so used and misused in theory discussions that you'd be better off calling it Foobar and telling people what you think it means.  How about something like "getting deeply engrossed in the game situation"?

(*) There seem to be two big schools of acting, one which gets into character (Method Acting) and the other that just emotes on cue.  It was interesting listening to Jewel Staite talk about how she just does what the director says while Adam Baldwin gets into character.  She talked about Adam walking up to her in the food line and asking, in character, "So what do you think of Mal's latest plan?" and replying that he needed to knock it off because she was eating.  Similarly, Bill Mummy described Andreas Katsulas getting deeply into character even when the cameras weren't rolling and he and some of the other actors who would turn it off when the cameras stopped rolling trying to taunt him out of character by talking about subjects that Andreas Katsulas found interesting.  So there are definitely two ways to approach acting.  What I do when I role-play is closer to what Adam Baldwin does than what Jewel Staite does.

Quote from: StuartYou never lose sight of the fact you're in a movie theatre watching a film, and not in fact in a world full of Jedi Knights.  It's the same idea.

I guess the things that break the immersion in the theatre would be the person next to you talking, a heckler, etc.

Okay, I see.

That actually makes sense.

Making sense in a discussion about RPG theory?  Cut that shit out!  

Quote from: StuartPeople absolutely do that.  Like I said, it's linked to performance, and a very important part of the LARP scene.  There's lots of writing about that over in Scandinavia, and it's very interesting.

Yes, and a lot of that seems to blur the distinction between player and character far more than I'd be comfortable with, in part because of the LARP medium.  

Quote from: StuartNot what I'm talking about right now though.

Perhaps not, but it's what a lot of other people think of when they hear the term "immersion", and it fits much of the material that you started this thread with, too.

Quote from: John MorrowI find it curious that you compare the immersion that you get from role-playing with the immersion one gets from a passive activity like reading a book, watching a movie...

Ah, but reading a book is not a passive activity in the way movies are; it's a collaboration between the author and the reader. The words feed the imagination of the reader, who then creates his own scenes. Unlike a movie, everyone reading a book has a different idea of how things look and feel. Immersion in RPGs is a lot like that.

True, it's harder to get that sort of immersion in a collaborative game. But we do manage to achieve it most sessions - where you can tell everyone is in the zone. Some of my players actually sketch out the scenes that we create together, like that guy on children's tv who draws the stories while the narrator reads them.

Quote from: HaffrungAh, but reading a book is not a passive activity in the way movies are; it's a collaboration between the author and the reader.

It's still closer to riding a bus than driving a car.  The author is telling you what to think about and imagine.  Translate the relationship between author and reader into an RPG.  What would that kind of RPG look like?

Quote from: HaffrungThe words feed the imagination of the reader, who then creates his own scenes. Unlike a movie, everyone reading a book has a different idea of how things look and feel.

Yes and no, especially if they read carefully.  If an author spends a page telling me that the hero has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye, most readers who are paying attention will imagine a person who has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye.  Sure, details will differ but I can look at the art book for A Game of Thrones, for example, and have a pretty good idea of which characters I'm looking at, even though they don't perfectly match what I've imagined.

Quote from: HaffrungTrue, it's harder to get that sort of immersion in a collaborative game. But we do manage to achieve it most sessions - where you can tell everyone is in the zone. Some of my players actually sketch out the scenes that we create together, like that guy on children's tv who draws the stories while the narrator reads them.

In other words, they are deeply involved in imagining the "shared imaginary space".  OK.  From what perspective do the imagine it?

ADDED:  Where I'm going with this is that I think there is a translation process between the input that the player gets and imagining what's going on in the game setting.  I think that interface and how it works is more important than the idea that people get deeply engrossed in what's going on in the game.

Quote from: John MorrowYes and no, especially if they read carefully.  If an author spends a page telling me that the hero has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye, most readers who are paying attention will imagine a person who has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye.  

The better writers leave much to the imagination of the reader. You fill in the blanks with your imagination. That's the way I DM. I provide enough detail to inspire my players' imagination, then they fill in the rest. We've all agreed that when I'm on my game, and they're in the immersive trance, the images going through our minds are way better than any movie.

Quote from: John MorrowIn other words, they are deeply involved in imagining the "shared imaginary space".  OK.  From what perspective do the imagine it?

They interract with the ficitonal world from the POV of their PCs. When they imagine it, it may be from a differen POV. For example, my players will sometimes draw a scene we gamed with their own PC fighting a monster. When I'm a player, I'm definitely imagining the action from the PCs POV.

Quote from: John MorrowWhere I'm going with this is that I think there is a translation process between the input that the player gets and imagining what's going on in the game setting.  I think that interface and how it works is more important than the idea that people get deeply engrossed in what's going on in the game.

Wheras I think it's important to identify what it is about the game that players find engrossing. The players who draw their PCs in action, or other scenes from gameplay, aren't especially interested in the mechanics behind their PCs. One of them still doesn't know what HP bonus a Con 16 gives his PC, even after 25 years of playing D&D.

Quote from: HaffrungThe better writers leave much to the imagination of the reader. You fill in the blanks with your imagination.

Sure, but they also provide the framework to hang those details on.

Quote from: HaffrungThat's the way I DM. I provide enough detail to inspire my players' imagination, then they fill in the rest. We've all agreed that when I'm on my game, and they're in the immersive trance, the images going through our minds are way better than any movie.

Why is it way better than any movie?

Quote from: HaffrungThey interract with the ficitonal world from the POV of their PCs. When they imagine it, it may be from a differen POV. For example, my players will sometimes draw a scene we gamed with their own PC fighting a monster. When I'm a player, I'm definitely imagining the action from the PCs POV.

My point here is that certain techniques that might help one perspective can hurt another.  For example, the idea of the cut scene can really involve players who look at the game like a movie, from an omniscient point of view, get more engrossed in the game.  But they can break that engrossment for a player who is imagining the action from their PC's POV.

What about the emotional context?  What do you feel in play?  Do you feel emotions from an audience perspective, from identification with your character, or do you feel emotions in character?

Quote from: HaffrungWheras I think it's important to identify what it is about the game that players find engrossing. The players who draw their PCs in action, or other scenes from gameplay, aren't especially interested in the mechanics behind their PCs. One of them still doesn't know what HP bonus a Con 16 gives his PC, even after 25 years of playing D&D.

It's easy to identify what's irrelevant, though there are certainly people who do get engrossed in the rules and mechanics.  When I've experienced that when playing tactically, it's closer to the Flow experienced writing a computer program than watching a movie.  

But let's take a step toward what I think Stuart is looking for.  What sorts of things seem to encourage immersion for your players and what seems to break it?  And are they all the same or do their tastes differ?

Quote from: Haffrungand they're in the immersive trance,

See, this is one of the phrases that gives me hives.

To me, the word "trance" implies a state of altered consciousness.  I don't think that's what you really mean, but to me "immersive trance" means you lose sight of the fact that you're a bunch of people sitting around a table jawing.

YMMThingummy, and all that.

Different words trigger different mental images in different people.  'Immersive trance' happens to be one that makes me choke up.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy is it way better than any movie?

For the same reason many of us find books way better than any movie - because they inspire our own imagination to fashion imagines that are vivid and meaningful to us. Peter Jackson depicts some pretty cool shit in the Lord of the Rings movies. Doesn't hold a candle to the scenes Tolkien and I evoked in my own head reading the books.

Quote from: Old GeezerTo me, the word "trance" implies a state of altered consciousness.

I'm comfortable using the same word to describe the sensation of reading an engrossing book. I'm sitting on my couch, with my dog snoring at my feet, but I'm also alongside Flashman being chased down the Khyber Pass by savage tribesmen.

I've seen the word 'fictional trance' used by authors to describe the effect they're trying to have on readers. The idea is that the reader should forget he's actually sitting there parsing the text on a page written by some schmuck on a laptop, and instead lose himself in the flow of language, sounds, and imagery of the fictional world.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect. But that's also what a lot of people mean when they talk about "immersion" (including a few of us here) and it also fits much of not all of the characteristics in your description. That's what I'm trying to say. You need to qualify what you are talking about further or it's going to confuse people.

I'm going to keep posting thoughts and quotes from others on Immersion.  Hopefully it will continue to become more clear.

Quote from: John MorrowI find it curious that you compare the immersion that you get from role-playing with the immersion one gets from a passive activity like reading a book, watching a movie, or being told a story rather than an active activity like playing a sport, writing a program, or exploring the woods.

Reader Response Criticism is a group of approaches to understanding literature that emphasizes the reader's role in creating the meaning and experience of a literary work.  I've got a good quote from Murray's book tying this branch of Literary Theory to Immersion that I'll post later tonight.

Quote from: John MorrowDoes railroading or at least having the GM create and move the plot along have any impact on your enjoyment of the game?

I'm still pondering the relationship between game and (narrative) immersion.  Removing choices is bad for gameplay.  I don't know about immersion though...

Quote from: John MorrowThere seem to be two big schools of acting, one which gets into character (Method Acting) and the other that just emotes on cue.[/quoteThere's actually more than two schools, and Method Acting is more than just getting into character.  It involves tying your own real experiences to those of your character.  So if you need to play the part of someone who's starving, you don't eat.  That sorta thing.

Quote from: HaffrungAh, but reading a book is not a passive activity in the way movies are; it's a collaboration between the author and the reader. The words feed the imagination of the reader, who then creates his own scenes. Unlike a movie, everyone reading a book has a different idea of how things look and feel. Immersion in RPGs is a lot like that.

Film isn't entirely passive either.  If you see a shot of someone buying groceries followed by a shot of them cooking dinner, you mentally fill in the events that take place between those two moments.

Quote from: Old GeezerTo me, the word "trance" implies a state of altered consciousness.  I don't think that's what you really mean, but to me "immersive trance" means you lose sight of the fact that you're a bunch of people sitting around a table jawing.

YMMThingummy, and all that.

Different words trigger different mental images in different people.  'Immersive trance' happens to be one that makes me choke up.

It is a type of altered consciousness, just not a voodoo crazy kind.  If you're watching TV it's an altered state of consciousness from when you're walking the dog.

Quote from: HaffrungI've seen the word 'fictional trance' used by authors to describe the effect they're trying to have on readers. The idea is that the reader should forget he's actually sitting there parsing the text on a page written by some schmuck on a laptop, and instead lose himself in the flow of language, sounds, and imagery of the fictional world.

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is sometimes used as well.

Quote from: Stuart"Willing suspension of disbelief" is sometimes used as well.

Ding!  Okay, THAT makes sense.

Quote from: HaffrungI'm comfortable using the same word to describe the sensation of reading an engrossing book. I'm sitting on my couch, with my dog snoring at my feet, but I'm also alongside Flashman being chased down the Khyber Pass by savage tribesmen.

I've seen the word 'fictional trance' used by authors to describe the effect they're trying to have on readers. The idea is that the reader should forget he's actually sitting there parsing the text on a page written by some schmuck on a laptop, and instead lose himself in the flow of language, sounds, and imagery of the fictional world.

Well, I've gotten so engrossed in a book that four hours go by and I haven't moved, eaten, drunk, or peed.  So I know the sort of thing you mean, I think I just have different emotional resonances to the word 'trance'.