Quote from: Elliot WilenDidn't you respond to John Morrow earlier by explaining that you aren't talking about "immersion", just "Narrative Immersion". I thought you were headed in the right direction there, except that you then kept using "immersion" and drawing in quotes like the ones from the Daedalus Project that are talking about something other than Narrative Immersion, at least if you look at how they contrast it with its absence.

I changed my mind.

I wasn't sure it was the best term (I almost posted something about 'immersive narrative world' but didn't). I didn't want to contribute new Jargon. I wanted to use the same language the source material (ie everyone else) was using, which seems to be just "immersion". And I was concerned the 'narrative' part might get just as confused as the immersion part.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityPredictable and and equally pointless retort: "No, you can't define the commonalities until you understand the differences, lest you confuse the one with the other."

Discussion on this level of high school Ad Absurdum 101 gets nobody anywhere. Nor does quoting one para from a book.

All media studies build on the theories established for earlier media.  It's not a rhetorical trick, that's the approach they take.  The Cavell quote was from an interview about the book, which I haven't read.  I assure you there's more relevant info in the books I've mentioned, but I can't quote the entire book.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOn a general note, I don't understand the fundamental point of your effort. I thought you're Mr. Anti-Storygame? And now you're elevating "interactive narrative" as a mega-category across all media, including RPGs? Why?

Curiosity.  If I had it all figured out I'd either just post something explaining how it all works, or possibly just use the applied knowledge from what I'd figured out to make my game better.  Some people who post here have good ideas, and their contributions to the topic are of interest to me.

I think we might be thinking different things about what "interactive narrative" means, but that's really for another thread.

And I don't think of myself as Mr. Anti-Storygame.  Mr. Anti-Jargon and nonsensical theory maybe.  There are one or two games that came out of the Storygame scene that look interesting, but I'm not sure how hand-wavey the actual gameplay would be.

Quote from: John MorrowHmmm.  You were serious.  :bawling:

Fie on't! :haw:

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOn a general note, I don't understand the fundamental point of your effort. I thought you're Mr. Anti-Storygame? And now you're elevating "interactive narrative" as a mega-category across all media, including RPGs? Why?

The original point of this thread to was to look at an aspect some of us enjoy in gaming - immersion - and try to figure out what it is. Personally, I found the Forge useless because it was clear none of the bigwigs there played RPGs for the same reason I did. I've tried to express what my group of players get out of D&D, and until now I haven't seen it discussed anywhere on the net this thoroughly. So this thread has been useful to me, for one.

Oh, and I have no interest in Storygame, or in amateur theatrics. The fact that immersion is still being confused with those two only proves how its not really understood by most gamers.

Quote from: StuartI changed my mind.

I wasn't sure it was the best term (I almost posted something about 'immersive narrative world' but didn't). I didn't want to contribute new Jargon. I wanted to use the same language the source material (ie everyone else) was using, which seems to be just "immersion". And I was concerned the 'narrative' part might get just as confused as the immersion part.

There's nothing wrong with exploration but ultimately you're risking falling into one of two traps, i.e. either the fallacy of equivocation (equating multiple concepts/categories simply because people use the same word for them), or creating a taxonomy which, like other RPG theories, tries to encompass everything by slicing it up--and very likely ignoring the way that different types of "immersion" operate within completely different aesthetic planes.

EDIT: OR you could end up confusing everybody by trying to create a canonical definition for immersion, which people will continue to associate with the various existing definitions.

Quote from: Elliot WilenEDIT: OR you could end up confusing everybody by trying to create a canonical definition for immersion, which people will continue to associate with the various existing definitions.

But redefining common words and jargon already widely in use always works so well.  Look how well it worked for Ron with the GNS and Forge theory. :rolleyes:

I think this quote might be worth re-posting:

Quote from: kev/nullWe don't know what exactly makes a game immersive. What we do know is that a lack of suspension of disbelief (SoD) or "willingness to forgive" is likely to break immersion so we want players to maintain SoD. So we use the definition that no SoD = no immersion.

Now... I think this is true for all the "types" of immersion I've seen people discussing so far.

So -- we don't really need to get our terms sorted out before moving on to look at that part more closely.  And it actually gives us something practical to apply to game design!

Remove elements that break Suspension of Disbelief and you will make a game more "Immersive".

Quote from: StuartNow... I think this is true for all the "types" of immersion I've seen people discussing so far.

I would be interested to know if anyone who enjoys "genre simulation" (that is, playing games that seek to emulate a genre, goofy cliches and all) immerse and, if so, how they deal with genre elements that should clearly destroy suspension of disbelief (e.g., knowing that your character can't run out of bullets, knowing that your character can't die, knowing that certain NPCs are mooks and aren't really a threat, etc.).  I'm not sure it's safe to assume that they don't or that they reconcile the genre elements with conventional suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: StuartRemove elements that break Suspension of Disbelief and you will make a game more "Immersive".

I've spent some time saying pretty much that, because that's how it works for me, but there are quite a few people who claim that it's not a problem for them.  I'm not sure whether they really immerse or not, but I'm not sure it's safe to say that people can't reconcile elements that should clearly shatter suspension of disbelief with immersion of one sort or another.

Quote from: John MorrowI would be interested to know if anyone who enjoys "genre simulation" (that is, playing games that seek to emulate a genre, goofy cliches and all) immerse and, if so, how they deal with genre elements that should clearly destroy suspension of disbelief (e.g., knowing that your character can't run out of bullets, knowing that your character can't die, knowing that certain NPCs are mooks and aren't really a threat, etc.). I'm not sure it's safe to assume that they don't or that they reconcile the genre elements with conventional suspension of disbelief.

These sorts of things won't break suspension of disbelief if they're part of the initial premise, under which I think genre falls.  It's when something breaks those genre conventions (the character *does* die etc) that suspension of disbelief would likely be broken.

Quote from: WikipediaSuspension of disbelief is also supposed to be essential for the enjoyment of many movies and TV shows involving complex stunts, special effects, and seemingly "unrealistic" plots, characterizations, etc. The theory professes to explain why action movie fans are willing to accept the idea that the good guy can get away with shooting guns in public places, or never running out of ammunition, or that cars will explode with a well-placed shot to the gas tank.

Things that might break Suspension of Disbelief:

Deus Ex Machina - an unlikely / contrived ending that does not follow the narrative's internal logic

This would explain why some players who value "Immersion" do not like some types of "Railroading"

Retcon - Retroactive Continuity, sometimes called a "reality shift" where the GM announces a change to previous events

Interesting.  That makes a lot of sense to me.  I think it might include people who complain about having backstory being created during play.

Inconsistency - narrative elements that do not follow the internal logic of the initial premise

I think this is an area that would include a lot of Storygames, or at least the ones where people say they have a tendency to "get a bit gonzo".  Lots of other types of inconsistencies would fall under this heading too.

Breaking the 4th Wall - breaking the boundaries between the fictional world and the audience.

Still thinking about what this would mean in the context of an RPG session...

Could it be some kinds of "acting" at the table that focuses you more on the person in front of you than imagining the fictional world?

I need to think about that some more... but I have a feeling that's an important area to look at...

EDIT: One more I found over on MobyGames

The Truman Show

QuoteWhen all the world waits for you. Do you remember "The Truman Show"? Well, a lot of story based games are like that, you enter a room and everybody seem to start following the script (of the corresponding event)

...

when there is something immediately about to happen but you can wander around and take your time doing side quests and whatever else.

That's not bad, but if you want to use that as your criterion I suggest renaming your phenomenon "suspension of disbelief", for two reasons.

First, you may very well run into someone who claims to "immerse" (perhaps Flow) without "suspending disbelief". Perhaps they're really into the mechanical aspects of the game, treating it more or less as a tabletop roguelike with a detailed tactical subsystem. Granted that I would like to actually hear from someone who feels this way. But I think you will find them, and then you have a choice. You can either see your definition fracture (because there's no longer a single criterion) or you can define RPGs/roleplaying in such a way that those people aren't really roleplaying. They're just playing a wargame with some elements of an RPG. You may or may not be comfortable with that. You may find it difficult to get people to accept your theory, though, if in order to do so they have to swallow a somewhat contentious axiom.

Second, you may run into someone who "suspends disbelief" but doesn't "immerse". SoD may or may not be a prerequisite to "immersing". The examples I gave above are suggestive: there are people who "suspend disbelief" while GMing. In itself this doesn't contradict what you're saying. But it seems to me that if you call this quality "immersion", it differs from the "first person character immersion" that some people (like me) associate with the term. So you'll get confusion over canonizing the term.

"Suspension of disbelief" is very clear, I think, and it also gives you some flexibility in that you can apply to to the "imagined role" of the player. I.e., if you're talking about a game where the player is supposed to imagine being the character, then "suspension of disbelief" will imply those things which support that perspective. If you're talking about a game where the player doesn't necessarily have a specific role but the goal is to have an engaging fiction that "feels real", then "suspension of disbelief" will imply something different--automatically.

Quote from: Eliot WilenFirst, you may very well run into someone who claims to "immerse" (perhaps Flow) without "suspending disbelief".

I'm not sure that you could get into a Flow state playing a complex tabletop game, like the detailed tactical subsystem of an RPG.  I don't know if you could achieve a flow state playing Warhammer 40K for example.  I think your mind would be changing modes too much to get into "the zone" in the same way you could playing a videogame or sport.  I think there's a difference between Flow and Focus, and people might be confusing the two.  I'm not sure, but I'm not convinced either.  :confused:

As for people who Suspend Disbelief without Immersion, that's not a problem.  I think the key is in how we've got it worded.

SoD is not Immersion, however
No SoD means no Immersion.

Again, I'm more interested in the application than the terminology, and today I'm feeling pretty good about where the discussion has led!

Quote from: StuartAll media studies build on the theories established for earlier media.  It's not a rhetorical trick, that's the approach they take.  

"They" includes me, Stuart. I study twentieth-century art professionally, and that includes thinking about film and photography, knowing what goes on in these fields and talking to my colleagues who specialize in them. You're simply off the mark, irrespective of what google or some undergrad class you took may tell you.

If "build on" means: "initially compare to check for similarities," the statement is true but banal. The important work gets done beyond that initial point, when a new medium's actual novelty is examined, using new concepts.

If "build on" means: "assimilate new medium to old," that has been done in the past, to the detriment of the people who did it.

When photography appeared on the scene in the nineteenth century, people tried to think it in terms of painting, as a better or more accurate version of it. Huge mistake that produced a lot of pointless ideas as well as some really bad photos. A storyfication of RPG theory promises to yield exactly analogous results.

Quote from: StuartThese sorts of things won't break suspension of disbelief if they're part of the initial premise, under which I think genre falls.  It's when something breaks those genre conventions (the character *does* die etc) that suspension of disbelief would likely be broken.

I don't think that's true at all.  

Have you ever seen the movie Last Action Hero?  There is a scene where the hero walks into his bedroom and shoots into the closet without opening it.  A dead ninja falls out.  Why did he shoot into the closet?  Because there is always a ninja in there.

Years ago on rec.games.frp.advocacy, Mary Kuhner wrote extensively about her problems with Feng Shui.  Another example was the combat rules in one of the Torg settings that required characters to try and fail and try again to eventually win.  I have a lot of trouble with the genre conventions of 4-color superheroes.  Why?  Because they don't make sense in character.

That's why people make fun of and tell jokes about genre cliches.  Many of them are utterly stupid.  I'm going to notice, in character, that certain people die with one shot while others don't.  I'm going to notice, in character, that my gun never runs out of bullets.  I'm going to notice, in character, that I never die, no matter how much I should have died.

Basically, if a setting isn't internally consistent and if the things that happen in the setting can't be noticed and understood by the characters as a real element of the setting that they can consider and exploit, then it's going to destroy verisimilitude for me, whether it's part of the "initial premise" or not.   Why?  Because many genre elements are story oriented and don't make any sense if the character notices they are in effect.  Again, see Last Action Hero for a pretty good illustration of what it feels like for me.

Quote from: StuartThings that might break Suspension of Disbelief:

Deus Ex Machina - an unlikely / contrived ending that does not follow the narrative's internal logic

A lot of genre conventions are essentially Deus Ex Machina because they are the result of authors waving their hands to make stories work out in a certain way.  Why are there red shirts in Star Trek?  So the writer can kill off a character to show a situation is dangerous without killing off a main character.  But Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock can never actually become aware that red shirts serve that purpose or that they have script immunity or it would change their behavior.

Quote from: StuartRetcon - Retroactive Continuity, sometimes called a "reality shift" where the GM announces a change to previous events

Mary Kuhner did this extensively and I've done it well.  Done correctly, it can cause no problems for character immersion.  

Quote from: StuartInconsistency - narrative elements that do not follow the internal logic of the initial premise

I think this is an area that would include a lot of Storygames, or at least the ones where people say they have a tendency to "get a bit gonzo".  Lots of other types of inconsistencies would fall under this heading too.

I don't think the problem is inconsistency with the "initial premise".  I think the problem is internal inconsistency in the setting or character behavior that doesn't make sense based on what they know and their experiences.  

Quote from: StuartBreaking the 4th Wall - breaking the boundaries between the fictional world and the audience.

Still thinking about what this would mean in the context of an RPG session...

Seeing things your character wouldn't know.  Things like cut scenes.  I sometimes purposely walk away from the table if there is a scene going on that will be important to my character but my character isn't a part of, so that I can react properly to the knowledge when I learn it in character.  More broadly, anything that involves metagame thinking or thinking from a different perspective than my character for me.  "Tell me why your character failed..." isn't a request that I can answer while being inside of the character's head.  People don't decide how they fail.

Quote from: StuartThe Truman Show

Yes, both The Truman Show and Last Action Hero are movies that I've mentioned in the past as doing a pretty good job of explaining what it feels like when my characters notice genre conventions and game quirks that can't be noticed in character and still have the game make sense.

ADDED: I suppose I should also add that heroic attempts to make sense of silly genre conventions in character can result in insane characters.  In short, characters in fiction don't always behave the way real people would logically behave when confronted with situations.  When the ghost voice says, "Get out!" in the middle of the night, the first reaction of a normal person won't be to grab a flashlight and explore the basement alone.

Quote from: SettembriniHell yesno!

Ambience is something that everybody understands, no?
Everyone tries to get into the same mood and creates  an ambience for furthering that.
Depending on the mood chosen the techniques vary wildly.
A military parade has an ambience that´s different from a teatime in Westfordshire.

So depending on the game and mood that is to be reached, IG and OOG may fly through the room. it sure does in most of my games.
But there are moods and games where that would be like farting in your face.

There´s nothing special about it. Sometimes it´s allowed to go for a pee, and sometimes it´s not. It´s ambience all the time. In life so in games.

No "immersion" needed.

So... "ambiance" = a specific form of sociability that determines which statements and conducts in the given situation are possible, appropriate and/or awesome?

But how does this relate to / contradict / trump / include / whatever immersion?

Well, ambience is not defined by the social element, although social behaviour is formed by the longing for ambience.

Immersion is not neccessary to discuss the matter, that´s all. There might be immersion involved, who knows, but you don´t need to talk about it.

Think about highly specialized ambiences and resulting moods. The way to reach them is via a ritual, or ritualistic techniques.

You don´t need special RPGing terminology for discussing that. Talk plainly about your rituals, techniques, ambience and the mood you aim for.

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure that you could get into a Flow state playing a complex tabletop game, like the detailed tactical subsystem of an RPG.  I don't know if you could achieve a flow state playing Warhammer 40K for example.

What's the definition of Flow again? I'll rely on Wikipedia. Do you play chess, bridge, Euro board games, or wargames, Stuart? All of 1-9 are exactly possible, even likely, with a complex game, as long as you understand the rules well and enjoy a good challenge. (The understanding part is usually the problem for wargames since many of them don't get played enough. But my favorite games, with an opponent who also understands the rules well? Sure.) I don't think I get it in RPG combats so much, but I wouldn't be surprised if good D&D 3.x players get it.

The thing is though, it can happen without much SoD. When I play Titan: the Arena (a sort of wargame/Euro/card game), the only real use I have for the names and pictures on the cards is as mnemonics. The game has a thinly painted-on theme of gladiatorial combat which livens it up visually and offers a quick metaphor for what the game's about, but the mental sense of a real combat is (a) missing and (b) completely non-essential.

Now it happens that I tend to shy away from Euros because I enjoy the SoD--the sense of something "really" happening--and the role-immersion that's provided by wargames. But if I "click" with a good Euro, it definitely Flows.

Ergo, if there are people who sincerely think that "immersion" = Flow, without requiring SoD, they may have trouble understanding why you're hogging "immersion" as a state that requires SoD.