TheRPGSite

I've noticed lately that some theory people have been talking about immersion as if it's a stupid/antiquated/badwrongfun concept.

I've noticed an undercurrent of this on a few other fora (notably RPG.net) but it really hit home that there was an issue with the idea amongst theorynistas when the Sons of Kryos kinda mocked it as a concept (very, very briefly) in their latest episode.

Did I miss a memo somewhere?  When did this happen and what's up with that?  

I mean, isn't method acting acceptable in Hollywood?  Why isn't method acting acceptable in RPGs?

I'm sure this is old news to some people, but I'm 99% certain I missed something.

Whoever's suggesting this seriously, that we should somehow be rid of immersion, should be fucking shot now, before the disease spreads further.  

I mean seriously, what the hell?  Isn't immersion part of the whole goddamn point of roleplaying?  To jump into a fantasy world that doesn't exist?  I might go so far as to say it's the very definition of it.

Where are these people, and where is my gun?

It's probably just some reactionary trend against something equally ridiculous, like the idea that you can write immersion into the mechanics of a game. Immersion is a GM's job and a GM's skill, IME.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhoever's suggesting this seriously, that we should somehow be rid of immersion, should be fucking shot now, before the disease spreads further.

So, am I crazy then and it's not a theory thing?  Or am I seeing something for the first time?

Quote from: J ArcaneI mean seriously, what the hell? Isn't immersion part of the whole goddamn point of roleplaying? To jump into a fantasy world that doesn't exist? I might go so far as to say it's the very definition of it.

I always thought so.  I like method acting when I play.  I don't lose sight of reality obviously, but sometimes it's nice to get lost in the roleof another person.

QuoteSo, am I crazy then and it's not a theory thing? Or am I seeing something for the first time?

I've never encountered it, but I'm rather insulated from the latest idiot theory fads these days, what with this site being the only roleplay site I frequent now.  

I usually don't learn about stuff like that until someone pops up like yourself with a "WTF is this shit?" sort of post.

Quote from: joewolzI mean, isn't method acting acceptable in Hollywood?  Why isn't method acting acceptable in RPGs?

Method acting is of course acceptable in Hollywood. But I always find myself thinking of the English actor saying to the American, "my dear boy, why don't you just act?" Among some actors, the thought is that if you need to method act, it must be because you're a poor actor; if you can only portrary something you genuinely feel, you're not as skilled as someone who can portray something they don't feel. So, method acting is a sign of bad acting skill.

It may be that some of the opposition to "immersion" comes from that; if you have to "immerse" to roleplay, you can't be much of a roleplayer.

But anyway, roleplaying is not acting, any more than, say, rolling dice for combat is gambling. It's similar in form, but the essence is different. In acting, the actor aims to convince the audience that they're a different person. In roleplaying, the roleplayer aims to use words to describe a different person. Roleplaying in this way is more like writing than it is like acting; adding other players simply makes it "collaborative writing," which is a different thing to acting.

"Immersion" gets laughs and mockery because it's patently absurd. You cannot truly be the half-elven ranger any more than Marlon Brando, a rich man, could ever truly be homeless - however long he spent on the street preparing for his role, he always had an easy way out, and removing that desperation, that hopelessness and helplessness, removes the most important aspect of homelessness. He was just a rich boy pretending to be a poor boy, however deeply he was into his character, it was still just a character.

Obviously, there are degrees to these things. We can feel strongly for our characters, and have regrets and laughter about them, think about them outside the session. But if we think we're "immersed" in them, we're just kidding ourselves.

"Immersionism" is also, rightly or wrongly, associated with the worst pretentiousness of the Forgers and the World of Darkness goth types. It's associated with fake attention-junkie angst, and bored middle-lcassed kids whining about their hard lives of idleness.

I always thought that immersion was a good indicator as to the level of interest folks had in the game. The whole point of gaming to me at least and one of the GM skills I'm most proud of, is my ability to cultivate (whatever the genre/game) an immersive atmosphere.

Regards,
David R

You know... I play both ways and I a) don't think there's anything to prefer one over the other and b) doubt that you can force an imersive group to take a step back from their characters or force a detached knob-gag spouting group to start immersing themselves.

I just think that non-immersive playing is a different style with its own dos and don'ts and is only inherrently problematic when there's a style mismatch.  I've had games where people made jokes all evening and around 1am when the caffeine and sugar kicks in I've seen a whole group laugh until they had tears in their eyes over something someone said.

That's a good feeling, it's fun.  I'd seek it out again.

I think most games dart in and out of immersion. Within one session you can be THERE, you can be deciding on the most efficient deployment of experience points, or you can be laughing that your guy just fell in the toilet.

Ned

I think there's a whole lot of fluff talked about this subject, myself. Nobody ever seems to be meaning quite the same as anybody else.

Anyway, the big argument is over 'immersionism': is it something or not? Some people, notably Bruce Baugh, John Snead and Plume say 'immersion' is their main reason for playing; above and beyond any other reason.

To me, 'immersion' doesn't seem to mean much more than 'getting into it'.

Agreed... I think it's one of those pointless game-theoretical terms.

I agree with that definition.  "Getting into it" and I'll add everything that has to do with Suspension of Disbelief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief) to the mix.

I honestly think that Traditional RPGs lend themselves to Suspension of Disbelief, and thus "Immersion" better than non-traditional GM-less, "narrativist" RPGs.  Although it's not just limited to Forge-brand games.

Things that break suspension of disbelief / immersion:

-- Non-game discussions
-- Looking up Rules *
-- Arguing about Rules *
-- Narrative inconsistencies **
-- Violation of "canon" **
-- "Doesn't make sense" **
-- Changes the initial premise **

* more common in rules heavy games
** more common in GM-less / shared narrative games

So it's not surprising that Immersion gets mocked by people who like games that don't support it very well...

Some of the guys heavily into immersion started talking about it on rpg.net.  Some of the more aggressive GNS guys told them that they didn't understand what they were playing for, as immersion is a tool and not a creative agenda.  Much fun ensued.

And that's it, the entire debate is nothing more than a bunch of internet theorists telling some folk that they don't understand what they find fun.  I no longer read threads on the topic, as I don't think the proposal that people don't understand what they game to actually merit discussion.

I have seen many theory threads in which people posted sensibly and tried to be helpful, these were not those threads.  People focussing on immersion as a goal for play seems to be an issue for some of the GNS guys, as it doesn't really fit the model.  Rather than adapt the model, they attacked the immersion crowd.  It was most procrustean.

But you see, then somebody like Brand Robins or Mike Holmes comes along and says he likes immersion and a game like HQ or DitV supports it. Both of those guys are significant players in the Forgista movement.

Quote from: droogBut you see, then somebody like Brand Robins or Mike Holmes comes along and says he likes immersion and a game like HQ or DitV supports it. Both of those guys are significant players in the Forgista movement.

Which is cool, but doesn't change the fact that people were talking about their fun and got corrected.

I mean, it's wrong both ways.  Old Scratch talked about how he had found DitV really immersive and the immersive guys told him he was wrong, them making the same mistake as had been made to them just made the whole thing worse though.  A whole bunch of people all telling each other that the others didn't understand their own play.  Awful.

OS gets immersion from DitV, awesome.  John Snead finds games like DitV too intrusive and destructive of immersion, cool.  I'm fine with all of that, it's only when people start extrapolating I start to lose patience.  

Those threads, at first I really sympathised with the immersionist guys who were getting told they were wrong.  Then they did the exact same thing, the exact same fucking thing, to Old Scratch.  Then I stopped reading those threads.

It all comes down to everybody seeing the word 'immersion' and associating it with something they feel while playing.

Quote from: droogIt all comes down to everybody seeing the word 'immersion' and associating it with something they feel while playing.

Indeed, but what I would have liked to have seen was people saying "hey, clearly this is broader than I thought, let's look at the other guy's experiences" instead of "heretic!  Burn the heretic!"

That said, I don't think current theory has much to add to John Snead style immersionism, as that's all about the rules not getting in the way.  Current theory is about supportive rules, not unobtrusive rules.

Quote from: BalbinusThat said, I don't think current theory has much to add to John Snead style immersionism, as that's all about the rules not getting in the way.

I don't think anybody's got much to add to that set of ideas.

Quote from: droogI don't think anybody's got much to add to that set of ideas.

Dunno, I like the rules to get out the way, for me that's the mark of a good ruleset, I think one could usefully look at what makes rules inobtrusive and what makes them more intrusive.  I just don't think anyone is doing so in the theory world as that's not where their tastes are.

I think there are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, as I pointed to with Brand and Mike, it's not a given what rules are obtrusive and what aren't. For example, I don't feel DitV to be any more or less obtrusive than RQ (it's possible I'm hypersensitive to rules in general). Secondly, being unobtrusive seems already to be an implicit or explicit goal of much mainstream design, at least in the rhetoric. You've got your BRP, your Unisystem etc. A couple of people I mentioned are doing games (ie Baugh and Snead).

I can't find any consistency. I mean, you're playing Pendragon, which I would have thought was an exceptionally obtrusive system from certain angles, yet you're not keen on HQ, which from my point of view is barely there as a system.

Quote from: droogI think there are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, as I pointed to with Brand and Mike, it's not a given what rules are obtrusive and what aren't. For example, I don't feel DitV to be any more or less obtrusive than RQ (it's possible I'm hypersensitive to rules in general). Secondly, being unobtrusive seems already to be an implicit or explicit goal of much mainstream design, at least in the rhetoric. You've got your BRP, your Unisystem etc. A couple of people I mentioned are doing games (ie Baugh and Snead).

I can't find any consistency. I mean, you're playing Pendragon, which I would have thought was an exceptionally obtrusive system from certain angles, yet you're not keen on HQ, which from my point of view is barely there as a system.

My issues on HQ have nothing to do with intrusiveness, if that helps, the only intrusive bit for me was the extended contests and that's probably more to my not being used to them than anything else.  I just don't like all rolls being contested and there are some other design choices that don't quite work for how I currently like to game, it's a great game though and I think could work rather well potentially for immersion.  I've had fun with it at cons, certainly, any game in which my clan mother can face down raiders by shaming them with her nagging tongue ability can't be all bad.

Pendragon isn't especially immersive, but then I'm not really in the John Snead camp myself.  I enjoy a bit of immersion, but it's not the sole reason I game or anything.  He's pretty serious on that front, for me immersion is important but I play as well for having a laugh with friends and all so I don't really want anything too heavy most of the time.

Otherwise, yes, it is being catered to, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be catered to better.  But then, I suspect there are few young designers out there with a burning passion to create rules that nobody will notice much.

QuoteBut you see, then somebody like Brand Robins or Mike Holmes comes along and says he likes immersion and a game like HQ or DitV supports it. Both of those guys are significant players in the Forgista movement.

"Immersion" like "Fun" seems to be a term that means different things to different people, even though they seem pretty straight forward to me.

Some people on the Forge side of things seem to like "Immersion" to mean "Flow" or "Getting into the Zone" during gameplay.  This means just about anything you get absorbed in can be immersive.  Watching a movie. Doing your taxes. Playing Basketball.

It's why I've started explicitly linking Immersion with Suspension of Disbelief.  It's the sense of being immersed IN the story -- like when you're reading a good book or watching a good movie.  You feel like you're in that other world of the story.

That type of Immersion is what you get when you're being told a story.  You don't get quite the same feeling when you're TELLING the story.

So a GM-Less / Narrativist / Forge-Style game can be something "Immersive" -- meaning you get really "into" playing it.  But it's less "Immersive" a story world for the players compared to a well run traditional RPG, because the players have to keep stepping OUT of their immersion in the story to spend more time telling it, rather than just responding to it.

Yes, that means in a traditional RPG the GM has relatively little "Immersion" in the narrative / suspension of disbelief sense, and would have more "Immersion" in a game where the other players were more responsible for overall narrative direction.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhoever's suggesting this seriously, that we should somehow be rid of immersion, should be fucking shot now, before the disease spreads further.  

I mean seriously, what the hell?  Isn't immersion part of the whole goddamn point of roleplaying?  To jump into a fantasy world that doesn't exist?  I might go so far as to say it's the very definition of it.

Where are these people, and where is my gun?

It goes beyond that, these people are suggesting that Immersion is actually impossible, that its a lie; that people who value immersion are either delusional fools or liars; and that if someone really "immersed" they'd go insane.

Its all part of the effort to put down RPGs as being about actual roleplaying, so that they can sell pathetic little microgames where everything, including the roleplaying, is decided by gimmicky new mechanics ("My Life With Maude: an RPG exploring the clash between old-wave and new-wave feminism in the context of two room-mates sharing an apartment, with the radical new hopscotch-based mechanics.. Now NON-Patriarchal!").

RPGPundit

Quote from: beejazzIt's probably just some reactionary trend against something equally ridiculous, like the idea that you can write immersion into the mechanics of a game. Immersion is a GM's job and a GM's skill, IME.

Not exactly. Its part of the reaction to GMs themselves.  The forgeites don't want anything that would allow a GM authority. Immersion comes into that package deal.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzMethod acting is of course acceptable in Hollywood. But I always find myself thinking of the English actor saying to the American, "my
dear boy, why don't you just act?"

That was Sir Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman.

And the quote applies more directed at Forge-ite swine than at gamers who end up immersing.  Because really "gamers who immerse" is really just synonymous with "gamers having fun roleplaying".

Whereas the Forgeites are the ones who are trying to replace roleplaying with gimmick-rules and systems that try to replace the fiat of a GM and the need of a player to do anything that would bring about that fiat, like roleplaying social situations.

That's why they "roll to raise the stakes" or whatever the fuck they call it, while we just roleplay it.

Quote"Immersion" gets laughs and mockery because it's patently absurd. You cannot truly be the half-elven ranger any more than Marlon Brando, a rich man, could ever truly be homeless - however long he spent on the street preparing for his role, he always had an easy way out, and removing that desperation, that hopelessness and helplessness, removes the most important aspect of homelessness. He was just a rich boy pretending to be a poor boy, however deeply he was into his character, it was still just a character.

Obviously, there are degrees to these things. We can feel strongly for our characters, and have regrets and laughter about them, think about them outside the session. But if we think we're "immersed" in them, we're just kidding ourselves.

Only if you utterly re-define the concept of "immersion" to mean "mentally ill".  If you define immersion as the experience that virtually all REAL roleplayers have had once in a while, where they get "lost in the game", where they think of their characters as nearly-real persons, or get very deeply into the world-view of the character they portray, then "immersion" is neither impossible nor unwantable, it is in fact one of the primary GOALS of RPGs.

Quote"Immersionism" is also, rightly or wrongly, associated with the worst pretentiousness of the Forgers and the World of Darkness goth types. It's associated with fake attention-junkie angst, and bored middle-lcassed kids whining about their hard lives of idleness.

Well, you're half-right. Its associated with WW-swine, but its also a legitimate phenomenon.
But the Forgers are where you got it wrong, they're the anti-immersion dudes.  Ron Edwards claimed varyingly that immersion is impossible, and that if it were possible whoever practiced it would be mentally ill. He hates immersion because it creates an "agenda" for gamers that doesn't fit nicely into his "GNS" fantasy world.

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogBut you see, then somebody like Brand Robins or Mike Holmes comes along and says he likes immersion and a game like HQ or DitV supports it. Both of those guys are significant players in the Forgista movement.

Heroquest is not a Forge game, its a (admittedly pretentious swiney) game that the Forge-ites subverted to retroactively count as "one of theirs", because Ron Edwards creams his pants for it.

Dogs in the Vinyard doesn't support Immersion, just the opposite. It tries to make mechanics act as a substitute, and I would say a barrier, to any immersion and/or roleplay.

RPGPundit

Thanks all for clarifying the argument and hashing it out here!  I think I understand enough to add:

I really like the points combining immersion and suspension of disbelief.  That pretty sums up my feelings on the subject.

Whether or not certain games support it or not...well, that's up to the individual gamer.  Suspension of disbelief is a bit personal to attempt in every single game.

And Pundit, not all Forge games are alike.  Clinton R. Nixon's "The Shadow of Yesterday" is very much a traditional RPG with one nod to Forge style theory.  It even states in the Story Guide (I know, it's a pretentious title for GM) section:  "You want something to happen, do it.  It's everybody's game, but YOU are the Story Guide."  I paraphrased that but if anyone calls me on it, I'll get a page reference after I'm done with my book reviews for today (yay end of the semester!).

Quote from: JimBobOz"Immersion" gets laughs and mockery because it's patently absurd. You cannot truly be the half-elven ranger any more than Marlon Brando, a rich man, could ever truly be homeless - however long he spent on the street preparing for his role, he always had an easy way out, and removing that desperation, that hopelessness and helplessness, removes the most important aspect of homelessness. He was just a rich boy pretending to be a poor boy, however deeply he was into his character, it was still just a character.

Obviously, there are degrees to these things. We can feel strongly for our characters, and have regrets and laughter about them, think about them outside the session. But if we think we're "immersed" in them, we're just kidding ourselves.

"Immersionism" is also, rightly or wrongly, associated with the worst pretentiousness of the Forgers and the World of Darkness goth types. It's associated with fake attention-junkie angst, and bored middle-lcassed kids whining about their hard lives of idleness.

Man, I've read stuff of yours I've disagreed with in the past, but never have I read such a total fucking crock of shit from you.

Quote from: RPGPunditOnly if you utterly re-define the concept of "immersion" to mean "mentally ill".  If you define immersion as the experience that virtually all REAL roleplayers have had once in a while, where they get "lost in the game", where they think of their characters as nearly-real persons, or get very deeply into the world-view of the character they portray, then "immersion" is neither impossible nor unwantable, it is in fact one of the primary GOALS of RPGs.

snip

Well, you're half-right. Its associated with WW-swine, but its also a legitimate phenomenon.
But the Forgers are where you got it wrong, they're the anti-immersion dudes.  Ron Edwards claimed varyingly that immersion is impossible, and that if it were possible whoever practiced it would be mentally ill. He hates immersion because it creates an "agenda" for gamers that doesn't fit nicely into his "GNS" fantasy world.

Once again, I find myself mostly agreeing with Pundit, which is a pretty scary thing.

I strongly disagree with associating immersion with the WW crowd.  They latched hold of it strongly, because it was more or less promised by their Vampire books.  But of the WW gamers I've encountered, they are the least likely to be able to have an immersionistic game.

I fought that fight before. There are some people - note that I said some, not all - from the Forge who do not believe it is possible, are uttery confused by its existence, and are mystified why anyone would want it even if it were possible. I was told to my virtual face that I was in effect lying, and immersion as I described it was a type of insanity. I avoid such discussions like the plague now. It's just a freaking pain. There are some other folks from the Forge who - while they didn't have a clue what I was on about - at least granted the possiblility I wasn't lying or deluded or insane, and were curious why I would want such an experience. These guys were cool. They accepted the possibility that there was something they didn't understand and wanted to understand it. There are also - as noted - a few immersive players from the Forge as well.

-clash

Immersion is a state of mind sometimes you get it other times you don't.  There are certain tricks that you can use to help it happen but it's nothing you can actually put into a prioritized format for it to work.  Generally speaking you'll have points in a game where you click into it and then suddenly snap out.  It's just the brains natural reaction.  If you didn't snap out of it, well you're probably mildly retarded, and have a dissociative disorder.

I mean immersion in an RPG is no different then if you are reading a book with the radio on and you no longer hear the radio.  It's all just a trick of the mind where it suddenly focuses on one specific thing at the cost of other stimuli.

Quote from: flyingmiceThere are some people - note that I said some, not all - from the Forge who do not believe it is possible, are uttery confused by its existence, and are mystified why anyone would want it even if it were possible. I was told to my virtual face that I was in effect lying, and immersion as I described it was a type of insanity.

To me this screams that those people at the Forge have never experienced functional play or anything close to it.  It also very loudly tells me that they aren't as into gaming as they proclaim to be, and are actually very casual about it, if not mere observers.

I know JimBob is into gaming more than I would typically define as casual, so his stance on immersionism completely and utterly bewilders me.  I guess its either a side effect of Cheetohism (where he admits that his goals for gaming more or less never involve the game itself), or a definition thing.

I've been a musician, and I've played sports. In music, we called it being caught up in the flow - where you are so deep into the music that you can tell what the other musicians are going to do as they do it, so you can stop on a dime and change tempo or key or whatever without planning. In sports it's called getting in the zone, where you can feel where all the other players are, and know where you have to be and what you have to do as it happens so that the optimum result is achieved. It's not psychic or mystical, it's reading and processing a million different subtle inputs on a sub-aware level by shedding the voice in your head that yammers all the time, distracting you. I achieved this state in music, in sports, and in walking zen long before I came to roleplaying. It's the same thing. It can be light or it can be deep, or it can be in between, but it's the same state.  

-clash

I'm tempted to post my "double immersion" theory of HackMaster... :emot-geno:

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI'm tempted to post my "double immersion" theory of HackMaster... :emot-geno:

Calithena put me on to that a couple of years ago. Very clever, Colonel.

QuoteI've been a musician, and I've played sports. In music, we called it being caught up in the flow - where you are so deep into the music that you can tell what the other musicians are going to do as they do it, so you can stop on a dime and change tempo or key or whatever without planning. In sports it's called getting in the zone, where you can feel where all the other players are, and know where you have to be and what you have to do as it happens so that the optimum result is achieved. It's not psychic or mystical, it's reading and processing a million different subtle inputs on a sub-aware level by shedding the voice in your head that yammers all the time, distracting you. I achieved this state in music, in sports, and in walking zen long before I came to roleplaying. It's the same thing. It can be light or it can be deep, or it can be in between, but it's the same state.

I don't agree that it's the same.  Deep focus is not the same as what (I believe) the majority of RPG players are talking about.  You can get deeply focused on just about any activity, and any RPG.  I don't think you need to be in a pseudo-trance state to get "Immersed" in the game.

It's certainly not what I'm talking about -- and why I'm trying to link the idea with Suspension of Disbelief.

Maybe "Narrative Immersion" is a more descriptive term?  "Character Immersion"?  "Story Immersion"?  I'm not sure...

I like immersion. Seriously, and I think for me there are different levels of it.

For example in the game I ran Saturday as a GM, I was so into it by the second half that I felt like I was reading a comic book--that's a step removed from classic immersion, simply because often as GM I can't quite immerse the same way entirely as a player, there are some circumstances when I'm running NPC's (like the Gamesmaster in my recent game) where I can see through their eyes in that way, almost feel the tactile aspects of the world from his cane and the heavy weight of his body on the prosthetic leg he  has, to the mustache and goatee that hang just so that he can see if he looks down just so the edges of them.


As a player I get into the world, I can imagine quite fully the scents, sounds, point of views and so on of my character--what its about is the feeling of "being their"--I can do it with novels. It's pretty much a sensation that if I closed my eyes just a second and opened them, I wouldn't see this world but the world of the game. It of course is all about the power of imagination, about how it can suspend for a moment the truth of reality.


Consider this: Someone is watching a horror movie the dim glow of the TV/movie screen flickering as they watch and listen, suddenly a noise makes the on screen protaganist jump--and the WATCHER also jumps with their own fear sensation. Not for the character but because for that one moment the fiction of fear reached out and worked on that viewer. Their heart raced, their panic button hit, and boom, they jump a little in there seat.

That's all immersion is really, experiencing those moments of fiction that thrill us/excite us in the same manner as if we were "really" experiencing them.

Quote from: droogCalithena put me on to that a couple of years ago. Very clever, Colonel.

Thanks. I dunno if it's clever, but at the time I first posted it, it caused a small stir. I just posted the original posts in my blog here, for those with any interest.

QuoteConsider this: Someone is watching a horror movie the dim glow of the TV/movie screen flickering as they watch and listen, suddenly a noise makes the on screen protaganist jump--and the WATCHER also jumps with their own fear sensation. Not for the character but because for that one moment the fiction of fear reached out and worked on that viewer. Their heart raced, their panic button hit, and boom, they jump a little in there seat.

That's all immersion is really, experiencing those moments of fiction that thrill us/excite us in the same manner as if we were "really" experiencing them.

Yes, exactly.  It's linked to the fictional world / story.  It's not just being focused on an activity.

(deleted)

Quote from: StuartYes, exactly.  It's linked to the fictional world / story.  It's not just being focused on an activity.

OK. If you insist, I won't argue. I have other things to do.

-clash

I'm not sure, but I think that Judd might have been poking fun of the Immersion-nazis that have been emerging on the net recently who call themselves "Immersionists".

I'm not talking the "immersion" as "Wanting to get in character" or "wanting to pretend that you're in a fantasy environment for a few minutes" or "Want to act and roleplay in character", I'm talking "IMMERSIONIST!!!"

The two famous recent examples of this kind of Immersion that self-proclaimed Immersionists use:

1) Someone was saying that in his area (not just his group, but lots of local roleplayers), none of the players roll dice.  Rather, the person NEXT to them rolls the dice for them and tells them the result. The reason? Because dice-rolling and rules BREAKS IMMERSION!!! They get to stay completely in character while the action happens, all while the person to their left or whatever rolls their skills and tells them what they got.

I dunno, when I hear this I think turtleneck sweaters and wine glasses.

2) There is some sort of European heavy Immersionist crowd that basically 100% all the time stay in character when they roleplay. They don't do anything "active" to pursue conflict and the like in-game, but rather pursue the game at the pace that they would if they were really that character in-person.

So the often cited example of this is the actual play report where these dudes will basically go to a pub and watch a Football (Soccer) game "In Character" for hours.  That is, they may or may not give a shit about the game, and their comerades may not even be their real friends, but that is what their characters would do, as the character is a soccer lover who hangs out with these dudes.

------

So yeah, that's "IMMERSIONISM" (edit: That's Immersionism with a "Big I", vs say "Wanting to stay in character", "Wanting to immerse into a world of fantasy", etc). This type of "method acting/do not make any physical actions that your character wouldn't do" style Big-I Immersionism is out there, and that's why it gets some ribbing.

-Andy

Remember that scene in Robert E. Howard's "Queen of the Black Coast" where Conan and Bêlit are talking about the gods and the afterlife and such, and he says that he doesn't think too much about it because the philosophers and such take care of that, while he prefers "the mad exultation of battle" and the pure joy of life, whatever it is, whether it's an illusion or not?

That comes to mind when I see people thinking so hard about gaming, like I used to.

I'm not saying it's pointless.  I'm just saying that I prefer to watch the blue blades flash and crimson, these days.  Been there, done that, came back, pass the ammo.

Quote from: GabrielTo me this screams that those people at the Forge have never experienced functional play or anything close to it. It also very loudly tells me that they aren't as into gaming as they proclaim to be, and are actually very casual about it, if not mere observers.

Uh, wait, so you're one of these Immersionist folks then?

That's cool and all, I guess. But I guess I'm just in the camp where I can, like, roll dice, or eat a snack at the table, and not worry about "Breaking the Immersion" and whatnot.

I mean, most RPGs use dice and all, I like the feel of rolling dice for myself, not having another player stepping in and doing it for me, telling me how I did, just so I can "keep up that veil".

I'm really curious; What else do you do to ensure that you have "total immersion" or whatever at the table?

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KI'm not sure, but I think that Judd might have been poking

*SNIP* 2 examples of seriously LOL people.

So yeah, that's "IMMERSIONISM".  It's out there, and that's why it gets some ribbing.

-Andy

See, i usually hang back and just glance over this theory stuff, cause it doesn't interest me and seems like a huge waste of time, but Andy's examples gave me pause.

i mean...christ, are all RPG Theory peeps that retarded??  this makes the 'Elven Apocalypse' and Furry crowd just seem like odd kinks.

Andy, that's an awful argument.  You can do better than that. :)

Quote from: Andy KI'm not sure, but I think that Judd might have been poking fun of the Immersion-nazis that have been emerging on the net recently who call themselves "Immersionists".

I'm not talking the "immersion" as "Wanting to get in character" or "wanting to pretend that you're in a fantasy environment for a few minutes" or "Want to act and roleplay in character", I'm talking "IMMERSIONIST!!!"

The two famous recent examples of this kind of Immersion that self-proclaimed Immersionists use:

1) Someone was saying that in his area (not just his group, but lots of local roleplayers), none of the players roll dice.  Rather, the person NEXT to them rolls the dice for them and tells them the result. The reason? Because dice-rolling and rules BREAKS IMMERSION!!! They get to stay completely in character while the action happens, all while the person to their left or whatever rolls their skills and tells them what they got.

I dunno, when I hear this I think turtleneck sweaters and wine glasses.

2) There is some sort of European heavy Immersionist crowd that basically 100% all the time stay in character when they roleplay. They don't do anything "active" to pursue conflict and the like in-game, but rather pursue the game at the pace that they would if they were really that character in-person.

So the often cited example of this is the actual play report where these dudes will basically go to a pub and watch a Football (Soccer) game "In Character" for hours.  That is, they may or may not give a shit about the game, and their comerades may not even be their real friends, but that is what their characters would do, as the character is a soccer lover who hangs out with these dudes.

First part, yes, there are some extremely stupid ideas about immersion and the stupidest one of all is the idea that the game gets in the way of being immersed in the game.

Second part, sounds like idiots.  Truthfully, that sounds like the Vampire players I've run into.

But one thing about immersionism.  Sometimes, you just want to play the "boring parts".  I know I do.  It helps me get into things.

That's why I never use the word "immersionism." Immersion, immersive, immerse, yes, but "Immersionism?" It's not a religion or way of life! It's a technique and/or a play goal. I try to stay away from "isms," especially those that deal with games, and especially where the "ism" concerns a word that isn't defined, means different things to different people, and moreover those people all seem to think they are the only ones who know what it really means.  

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThat's why I never use the word "immersionism." Immersion, immersive, immerse, yes, but "Immersionism?" It's not a religion or way of life! It's a technique and/or a play goal. I try to stay away from "isms," especially those that deal with games, and especially where the "ism" concerns a word that isn't defined, means different things to different people, and moreover those people all seem to think they are the only ones who know what it really means.  

The flying rodent speaks wisdom.

Quote from: Andy KThat's cool and all, I guess. But I guess I'm just in the camp where I can, like, roll dice, or eat a snack at the table, and not worry about "Breaking the Immersion" and whatnot.

Y'know, I can do that too.

When I speak of immersion, it simply informs my goals in why I like games the way that they are. Table manners are pretty much a different matter. So long as everyone is paying attention and not being a distraction, it's not a problem.

Quote from: Andy KThe two famous recent examples of this kind of Immersion that self-proclaimed Immersionists use:

1) Someone was saying that in his area (not just his group, but lots of local roleplayers), none of the players roll dice.  Rather, the person NEXT to them rolls the dice for them and tells them the result. The reason? Because dice-rolling and rules BREAKS IMMERSION!!! They get to stay completely in character while the action happens, all while the person to their left or whatever rolls their skills and tells them what they got.

I dunno, when I hear this I think turtleneck sweaters and wine glasses.

2) There is some sort of European heavy Immersionist crowd that basically 100% all the time stay in character when they roleplay. They don't do anything "active" to pursue conflict and the like in-game, but rather pursue the game at the pace that they would if they were really that character in-person.

So the often cited example of this is the actual play report where these dudes will basically go to a pub and watch a Football (Soccer) game "In Character" for hours.  That is, they may or may not give a shit about the game, and their comerades may not even be their real friends, but that is what their characters would do, as the character is a soccer lover who hangs out with these dudes.

------

So yeah, that's "IMMERSIONISM".  It's out there, and that's why it gets some ribbing.

I don't see what the problem is here.  Also, I think it's an inappropriate use of the term "immersion-nazi".  I can vaguely understand using "immersion-nazi" to someone with a manifesto who says that other styles are inferior.  However, someone who simply likes an immersive style?  Not hardly.  Maybe "immersion geek".  

If someone simply doesn't like rolling dice in the middle of active play, and instead plays a game variant where they don't have to, that seems like a perfectly valid preference.  I thought we were past the stage of moronic arguments like "You have to enjoy rolling polyhedral dice for its own sake if you're a real gamer".  

Similarly, I sympathize with the second as well -- since lots of my role-playing has been stuff where there is no overt conflict.  Nothing wrong with slaying dragons or over-the-top melodrama, but there's plenty of potential interest in ordinary situations as well.  While at Knutepunkt, I've roleplayed a bunch of child scouts lost in the woods, or a bunch of old friends getting together for lunch after years apart.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadY'know, I can do that too.

When I speak of immersion, it simply informs my goals in why I like games the way that they are. Table manners are pretty much a different matter. So long as everyone is paying attention and not being a distraction, it's not a problem.

See, that's the thing, though.  Jeff and Judd (IIRC, I can't remember the specific reference) were talking about the people who are like "Don't Eat or Roll the Dice! It breaks Immersion!!!" - "Immersionists" as they call themselves.

...but everyone seems to be thinking that they're just talking against "people who like to get into character". immersion with a "small i".

So, I think the ranting against "Those Damn Dirty Apes and their anti-immersion speech: Why are they oppressing me???" might be way off. They aren't ribbing "people who enjoy getting into character", but rather those wacky dudes in Helsinki who roll each others' dice and never say or do anything that their charcter would not be doing at that very moment.

At least, that's my read.  I think they have a forum or coments area or something, did someone here ask them what they meant before kicking them in the balls?

EDIT: Oh, yeah I just caught flyingmice's comments on not using "ImmersionISM". Again, big difference between "I immerse in character" and "I am an Immersionist". The former may close their eyes to get into character or get the chills in a cool scene. The latter will watch hours of TV "in characer" and not touch the dice or snacks to Always Stay Immersed. I'll have to ask Judd, but I'd put money that they were talking about the Capital-I Immersionism.

EDIT 2:

QuoteAlso, I think it's an inappropriate use of the term "immersion-nazi".

Actually, you're totally right.  I guess I was thinking about the almost-obsessive "always stay in character" vibe that the participants play under, and not that they march around the internet poo-pooing other styles. But if they are all cool with that style of play, all the better. I just wanted to seperate this really extreme "Immersionists" from "Folks who dig immersion", which are all the people posting to this thread.

-Andy

Andy K makes some very good points. I mean I think most folks like getting into character and getting into the flow of the game and think of this as immersion.

If  on the other hand immersion means you know, not eating ,drinking  or rolling dice etc so as not to break the mood or flow of the game, then I'm sure a lot of gamers are not immersive gamers at least not by this definition.

But really, the above are the extreme end of the spectrum. Most folks think of immersion as getting into character and exploring a world etc. And as far as rules being intrusive, I think it really depends on how familiar one is with the rules being used. I've seen some gamers who use the most complicated rules - which I think would be intrusive - but seem to be immersed in the setting.

Regards,
David R

Andy, on the Sons of Kryos podcast, Luke Crane actually made the comment when he said that his game design philosophy allows for "'immersion' if you will..." (he specifically said "Air Quotes" after immersion).  He, Jeff, and Judd then chuckled at the concept.

This is what I don't get.  No single reference was made to this discussion being about some "Immersionist" movement that I have never heard of.  Not that I should have heard of it, I missed this ribbing on immersion and I spend about two hours a day on gaming forums...I guess you can't catch everything.  But I would have caught "I won't roll the dice" weirdos.

Why is the term "immersion" chuckle-worthy?  That's the main question I'm asking here!

Quote from: Andy KSee, that's the thing, though.  Jeff and Judd (IIRC, I can't remember the specific reference) were talking about the people who are like "Don't Eat or Roll the Dice! It breaks Immersion!!!" - "Immersionists" as they call themselves.

Shit. Well, I guess the -ism I see going on there is extremism. I mean I identify with simulationism too, but certainly feel there is such a thing as going too far in simulating things. Guess the same thing applies here. Guess my "fourth wall" just isn't that paper thin.

When I think of reaching immersion as a goal, I think of things with the game flow, setting, and narrative that take me there.

I will say this much. Repeated and persistent jokesy references are something I find jarring that way.

I found a dozen threads on this on RPG.net...using their search function.  I'm pretty sure the debate started in the thread:
Indie RPGs, BDSM, and Anarchy (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=241308&page=2)

Judd himself sounded off here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=244430), along with many other theory folk.

Yeah, the "-ism" stuff doesn't help.

And yes, there are a lot of concepts out there that get labelled "immersion" and the result is a severe lack of communication. On one hand you have people who think "immersion" means focus or "flow". Then you have the "deep in-character" folks who are all about becoming their characters. I personally don't aspire to that but when I use the term I think of it primarily in terms of simulating the perspective and agency of the character, like an analog holodeck or that gizmo in Total Recall.

The thing about immersion is that it's mainly used as an explanation for why someone doesn't like a particular set of mechanics. Sometimes rolling dice, looking stuff up, or doing various calculations are blamed for being "anti-immersive", but I think the biggest controversies come from mechanics that may be simple, but which force players to think in terms that don't synch up with stuff their characters would have to think about. Thus the way that Fallout is assigned in Dogs in the Vineyard is anti-immersive in the sense that you, the player, have to make up the details and even effects of bad stuff that happens to your character.

People complained about that kind of thing, and then various Forge partisans stepped in to say that they had no trouble "immersing" while making out of character decisions (without really paying much attention to what the critics meant by "immersion"), and therefore the people who say they can't immerse when they play Dogs (or whatever) are emotionally stunted morons.

I really have no sympathy for the people who talk about "flow", because every time I've seen them talk about immersion, it isn't really to describe their own tastes but to negate the experiences of others and deny their ability to express their tastes.

The only situations I can think of where someone appeared to be denying the experience of someone in the "flow" camp are where the conversation went something like this:

A: I don't like mechanic X because it hurts immersion.
B: Well, I'm a deeply immersive player and I find mechanics like that aid immersion.
A: I doubt that you're really talking about immersion as I experience it.

Superficially it may seem that A is negating B's right to express an opinion. But after the term has been hashed out numerous times it's clear that the arguments arise from fundamentally different experiences being given the same name. So B's interjection is just Humpty Dumptyism.

BTW, I'd love to see a new thread started by someone on "cool experiences with immersion" (no -isms).

Cause I myself, in terms of immersion, get a lot out of that style of play. As a player or GM, I often find myself closing my eyes, picturing the scene in my head, and that really helps me get into character. When our group is getting too sidetracked, we sometimes set a timer for "one hour", and for that hour it's full-on gameplay; we end up talking in character more, getting into some cool drama, etc. I mean, we roll dice and all that usual jazz, but when the timer is running we won't suddenly bust out in a 30-minute derailing discussion on politics or Something Cool on Youtube.

So maybe we can open a new thread to talk about positive things too.

-Andy

Quote from: joewolzI've noticed lately that some theory people have been talking about immersion as if it's a stupid/antiquated/badwrongfun concept.

I've noticed an undercurrent of this on a few other fora (notably RPG.net) but it really hit home that there was an issue with the idea amongst theorynistas when the Sons of Kryos kinda mocked it as a concept (very, very briefly) in their latest episode.

Did I miss a memo somewhere?  When did this happen and what's up with that?  

I mean, isn't method acting acceptable in Hollywood?  Why isn't method acting acceptable in RPGs?

I'm sure this is old news to some people, but I'm 99% certain I missed something.

You didn't miss much. But to talk about this, you need to understand the dialog historically, and you need to be aware of two things that'll confuse you:

1) Some folks will tell you that there's no good definition of "Immersion" -- while it's true that the term "immersion" isn't written on a stone tablet anywhere, there's a fairly common, reasonably widely used and functional definition

2) Some folks will tell you that the ridiculous stuff comes from bad behavior by the "Immersionists" (did someone mention nazi's?) -- while there has certainly been bad behavior by all "sides" all over the place, don't believe anyone saying it's Euro-weirdness that's the cause of this stuff.

It isn't -- the majority of the Immersionist clutter on RPG.net comes directly from what GNS theory has to say about immersion. It's one of the most amazing examples of forge theory utterly failing in practice.

But that's getting ahead:

First, a functional definition:

Immersion generally means getting into the game where you have a strong identification with your character. Exactly how this experienced and what supports/"breaks" it varies from person to person.

Note that we're not necessarily talking about a neurotic attraction: for most people Immersion is no deeper or more hypnotic than the kind of emotional connection they'd have to an engaging movie or story.


For many people, it's a primary attraction to a game -- and to movies, books, radio plays, etc: fiction that engages us at an emotional and intellectual level is often very enjoyable.

Immersion is often experienced as

• Focus on the game so that awareness of exactly how much time is passing is secondary ("Time flies when you're having fun")
• Emotional connection to what the character is experiencing (like feeling plesantly creeped out when hearing ghost stories around the campfire or feeling fired up while watching an action movie)
• Vivid mental imagry of imaginary in-game events

This is, I suspect, a very common experience for most folks and it's an extremely common and valid goal in rpgs.

Important Note: Exactly what makes an RPG experience "immersive" seems to vary from person to person. Some classic things that, for some people, damage immersion (and thus their enjoyment of the game)

• Stopping the game to look up rules
• Playing out of character
• Having very unrealistic things happen in the game (someone survive a point-blank shotgun blast to the head, or walking away from a 100-story fall)
• Lots of out-of-character chatter or meta-game discussion
• Distracting environment (noise, tv playing nearby, etc.)
• Etc.

This isn't, by any means, a universal list, but it covers a lot of the usual complaints about things people say "break" immersion in games for them.

How Forge Theory Gets It Wrong
Forge Theory has some key problems with Immersion --

1) A lot of Forge games give players a degree of authorial control that breaks immersion. This means that a lot of Forge theory creates games that many players simply won't want to play (immersion is, I think, an overwhelmingly common goal -- I can explain why I believe that if anyone's interested, but it's a reasonably simple proof).

2) The forge taxonomy doesn't handle non-CA agendas well. There's 3 of them Immersion isn't one of them... it gets categorized as a technique which causes problems for the theory (or would if anyone ever actually tried to apply the theory)

3) Immersion can be problematic in-play: many, many RPG players want a "good story" without having to do any authorial work (they just want to 'play their character') -- this can result in a lot of work for the GM and some negative rpg experiences... exactly the sort of thing you'd expect theory to address...

But forge theory doesn't address it well, so instead of altering the theory to address the problems, they end up claiming immersion doesn't exist -- or if it does, it's some kind of psychosis... or that even if it's not a kind of madness, it's *selfish*!

This results in theory people telling folks who prioritize immersion that what they enjoy in a game is bad, crazy, or that they're simply *wrong* about it.

It also has theory people claiming (oddly) that their games *are* immersive! And that anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand their games! (exclamation points added for effect).

This covers the majority of the immersion nonsense on RPG.net. Certainly there probably are weird things going on in Europe (how could there not be), but if you're running into theorists (of the non-European kind) talking down immersion, it's probably related to the stuff above.

Cheers,
-E.

Elliott -- Yes!
E -- YES!

This is my main complaint with the Forge theories and the games developed from them.

Holy Crap -E., I think you just illuminated a long running argument within my group.  And solved a conundrum I've had articulating feelings about RPGs.

Thank You!

Hallelujah!

Quote from: joewolzJudd himself sounded off here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?referrerid=&t=244430), along with many other theory folk.

That was a decent thread that I had entirely forgotten about.  Neat and thanks.

I wasn't laughing at the idea or concept of immersion.  I love it when the game get's heavy and I can smell the sweat in my fighter's helmet or whatever.  I love when the game world comes alive as much as anyone and it happens and happens often.

But I was chuckling over the constant internet arguments and debates over immersion that have nothing at all to do with immersion or even gaming but a kind of RPG identity politics where we choose our sides and defend our ways of doing things as if other people's ways will somehow muss up our own fun.

That was my chuckle, at the hot-button word immersion has become.

Thassall.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for listening to the show, Joe.

Quote from: joewolzHoly Crap -E., I think you just illuminated a long running argument within my group.  And solved a conundrum I've had articulating feelings about RPGs.

Thank You!

Absent smoke and mirrors, it's pretty straight forward stuff. When someone tells you immersion is a "hot button" -- the latest Internet war, with passions flaring on both sides or whatever, or that it's all about Europeans who hate dice, or that it's something that's so esoteric it defies description, don't buy it:

There's usually a simpler explanation (their games/theory doesn't do immersion well). You'd be amazed what theory folks telling people Immersion doesn't exist or that it's bad-wrong or whatever can do to stir up Internet debate when there fundamentally isn't any.

In this case that's all that's happening.

Cheers,
-E.

But look, E., old chap. You say:

QuoteImmersion is often experienced as
Focus on the game so that awareness of exactly how much time is passing is secondary ("Time flies when you're having fun")
Emotional connection to what the character is experiencing (like feeling plesantly creeped out when hearing ghost stories around the campfire or feeling fired up while watching an action movie)
Vivid mental imagry of imaginary in-game events

This is, I suspect, a very common experience for most folks and it's an extremely common and valid goal in rpgs.

And I say, okay, if that's immersion then yes, been there. I recommend marijuana, but I agree with John Snead that LSD will ruin your immersion, not to mention your capacity to speak.

You also say:

QuoteImportant Note: Exactly what makes an RPG experience "immersive" seems to vary from person to person. Some classic things that, for some people, damage immersion (and thus their enjoyment of the game)
Stopping the game to look up rules
Playing out of character
Having very unrealistic things happen in the game (someone survive a point-blank shotgun blast to the head, or walking away from a 100-story fall)
Lots of out-of-character chatter or meta-game discussion
Distracting environment (noise, tv playing nearby, etc.)
Etc.

And I say, absolutely, those are all sorts of things that distract people from the fiction. Obviously, people will have different sorts of tolerances and affinities where mechanics are concerned.

So we're agreed. But I think the Forge stuff does handle that quite adequately: it's an accumulation of techniques, social agreements, certain sorts of rules etc. The word 'immersion' itself is to be scrutinized, as it has a range of meaning.

You might not like the Forge account, but it's coherent enough.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Remember that scene in Robert E. Howard's "Queen of the Black Coast" where Conan and Bêlit are talking about the gods and the afterlife and such, and he says that he doesn't think too much about it because the philosophers and such take care of that, while he prefers "the mad exultation of battle" and the pure joy of life, whatever it is, whether it's an illusion or not?

That comes to mind when I see people thinking so hard about gaming, like I used to.

I'm not saying it's pointless.  I'm just saying that I prefer to watch the blue blades flash and crimson, these days.  Been there, done that, came back, pass the ammo.

Gods yes.

Quote from: PakaBut I was chuckling over the constant internet arguments and debates over immersion that have nothing at all to do with immersion or even gaming but a kind of RPG identity politics where we choose our sides and defend our ways of doing things as if other people's ways will somehow muss up our own fun.

That was my chuckle, at the hot-button word immersion has become.
...
Thanks for listening to the show, Joe

Cool, that makes sense.  I really enjoy the show, and respect you and Jeff's opinions and thoughts.  My question wasn't asked as a dig on anyone's fun, I was just wondering when immersion became a hot-button issue.

I can't wait for 29!

Story and Narrative Paradigms in Role-Playing Games (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html) by John Kim is an excellent article that actually deals with this disconnect we're seeing over the "Immersion" word.  

QuoteProblems can arise within* games due to disagreements over the understanding and construction of narrative. A participant who understands RPGs as Collaborative Storytelling may get into arguments with another participant who understands them as Virtual Experience.

* And apparently when talking about games / game design as well!

QuoteExperiential players faced with storytelling play may complain about breaking suspension of disbelief, or lack of depth.

I started a thread in the theory section for further discussion of the article and Collaborative Storytelling vs Virtual Experience (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2744) to try and move the theory discussion back out of the general forum. ;)

Edit: Added the second quote

Quote from: droogBut look, E., old chap. You say:

And I say, okay, if that's immersion then yes, been there. I recommend marijuana, but I agree with John Snead that LSD will ruin your immersion, not to mention your capacity to speak.

You also say:


And I say, absolutely, those are all sorts of things that distract people from the fiction. Obviously, people will have different sorts of tolerances and affinities where mechanics are concerned.

So we're agreed. But I think the Forge stuff does handle that quite adequately: it's an accumulation of techniques, social agreements, certain sorts of rules etc. The word 'immersion' itself is to be scrutinized, as it has a range of meaning.

You might not like the Forge account, but it's coherent enough.

The Forge has a reasonable definition as far as it goes (looking in the glossary). The idea that it's less defined than other theory concepts is somewhat amusing.

But the real problem with the forge stuff isn't how it defines (or doesn't define) immersion -- it's where it puts it in the The Big Model and what GNS/TBM inherently believes about "story"

The Big Model's Broken on Immersion
I'll start with the model stuff. A quick review of TBM:

• What makes a game "fun" is achieving one of the three CA's.
• Techniques are used to realize CA's

But, contrary to GNS/TBM, immersion is a primary goal for many people and something a lot of people strongly identify with enjoyable roleplaying experiences.

Putting it in the technique layer (as TBM does) means that it's being described as a means to another end (realizing a creative agenda). This is simply an incorrect modeling of the experience and the goals of play.

It also mis-informs game design based on the theory (or would, if the theory were used for game design). Designing a fun game in GNS means focusing on realizing an agenda -- designing a game to realize a technique isn't especially meaningful in the model (in practice the model gets ignored during actual game design, but it has to be actively ignored in this case)

The miss-modeling of player goals is especially problematic when addressing a key design consideration for most players and game designers: how do you write or play a game so that you get a good story *and* maintain immersion?

Theory ought to help here, but forge theory doesn't...

Immersion, Story, and other  Problems for forge theory
Story is a big issue for forge theory and for many roleplayers. Getting a good story out of games is often a goal of players across a spectrum of preferences and games.

Forge theory believes that good stories don't "just happen" -- that to have story emerge someone (or someones) has to be intentionally guiding it. A huge amount of theory relates to issues with this (e.g. TITBB and power struggle, force, etc.)

The model is actually pretty convoluted on this issue because the forge's answer to effectively creating story is one that doesn't work for many roleplayers: play in Author stance in a game that allows shared authorial powers.

In other words, the forge's answer to getting a good story is to make all the players significantly more of a story-teller than they would be in a traditional game.

This can certainly work for some groups, but it doesn't work for everyone, and is actually incompatable with most people's definitions / needs for immersion (I can explain why I believe this, if necessary).

There are ways to get a good story without railroading or shared authorial power (beyond the traditional model). These don't require special games or radical ideas -- they do require a modicum of GM skill and craft but they don't need a revolution.

Answering this key question without a revolution more or less makes a lot of the alternative/niche-game movement irrelevant to most gamers. If I were adovcating a position that fell apart this quickly under scrutiny, I'd claim that Immersion was a meaningless and ill-defined term, too.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.The Forge has a reasonable definition as far as it goes (looking in the glossary). The idea that it's less defined than other theory concepts is somewhat amusing.

words...words...stuff...words...stuff

Cheers,
-E.

seriously, doesn't this whole thread belong in RPG Theory??  this is getting a bit much for the 'rpg-general'-type forum.  i mean, no offense, but we're going to scare people who might come here wanting a break from rpg.net/the forge.

Quote from: kregmosierseriously, doesn't this whole thread belong in RPG Theory??  this is getting a bit much for the 'rpg-general'-type forum.  i mean, no offense, but we're going to scare people who might come here wanting a break from rpg.net/the forge.

Yeah probably: any thread that begins "some theory people have been saying..." probably could go in the theory forum...

Cheers,
-E.

Thread moved to the Theory forum.

Whether in Games or Theory, I just want to thank you, E., for articulating some things that were never quite connected for me. Between your two posts, you made some things that were bothering me for reasons unknown, quite a bit clearer for me.

Quote from: JimBobOzMethod acting is of course acceptable in Hollywood. But I always find myself thinking of the English actor saying to the American, "my dear boy, why don't you just act?" Among some actors, the thought is that if you need to method act, it must be because you're a poor actor; if you can only portrary something you genuinely feel, you're not as skilled as someone who can portray something they don't feel. So, method acting is a sign of bad acting skill.

Just had to comment on this.

Simply, roleplaying isn't a performance art like acting is. In acting, the method is less important than the results because there is an ultimate goal of producing a product for an audience.

With roleplaying, the individual player is there at the table to produce fun for himself, and that might very well neccessitate using a particular play technique over its alternatives.

Quote from: PakaI wasn't laughing at the idea or concept of immersion.  I love it when the game get's heavy and I can smell the sweat in my fighter's helmet or whatever.  I love when the game world comes alive as much as anyone and it happens and happens often.

Neither of these is at the core of the "virtual experience" paradigm--as described by John Kim (I'd forgotten how on-point that article was). So bringing them up is exactly the sort of Humpty-Dumptyism I pointed to above.

QuoteBut I was chuckling over the constant internet arguments and debates over immersion that have nothing at all to do with immersion or even gaming but a kind of RPG identity politics where we choose our sides and defend our ways of doing things as if other people's ways will somehow muss up our own fun.

Not really. It has to do with people being told their reason for preferring one set of game mechanics over another is invalid.

Quote from: James J SkachWhether in Games or Theory, I just want to thank you, E., for articulating some things that were never quite connected for me. Between your two posts, you made some things that were bothering me for reasons unknown, quite a bit clearer for me.

I'm pleased to hear that -- one of the things that bugs me most about theory discussion is how bad it is at actually communicating. I really do think a lot of effort has been put into making this stuff *more* difficult to parse out than it would be if theory wasn't around...

(That's not to say everyone's born knowing it -- but taking nothing but this thread aside, it's clear that theory isn't helping: quite the contrary).

I'm a believer in the *goals* of theory: clear communication, a deeper understanding of roleplaying, etc. etc. etc.

I think this site is a good place for that; there aren't really sacred cows. There's not a presumption that pre-existing work is valuable or needs to be defended... it's a good place to talk about this stuff.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm pleased to hear that -- one of the things that bugs me most about theory discussion is how bad it is at actually communicating. I really do think a lot of effort has been put into making this stuff *more* difficult to parse out than it would be if theory wasn't around...

(That's not to say everyone's born knowing it -- but taking nothing but this thread aside, it's clear that theory isn't helping: quite the contrary).

I'm a believer in the *goals* of theory: clear communication, a deeper understanding of roleplaying, etc. etc. etc.

I think this site is a good place for that; there aren't really sacred cows. There's not a presumption that pre-existing work is valuable or needs to be defended... it's a good place to talk about this stuff.

Cheers,
-E.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm glad you're part of the community.

BTW, -E, you've mentioned a couple times that you have a simple demonstration that most people (current roleplayers? potential roleplayers?) want immersion (as in "virtual experience"). I've given my reasons elsewhere for believing that immersion has historically been the core attraction of RPGs.

Basically, my argument is: RPGs grew from wargames, and much of the attraction of wargames is not only creating a narrative of a conflict, but of imagining yourself in a certain role--an individual commander, or a cohesive group with common interests. Therefore, for RPGs it's been natural to associate character identification with reproducing the limitations on the character's ability to understand and manipulate its environment.

But my argument only explains why "traditional" RPGs are as they are, why they aren't "dysfunctional" when understood properly, and why they often don't work especially well for people who are trying to actively "create a story" in the  midst of play. I don't exclude the possibility that "story-games" might ultimately prove popular to the general public...although so far, I don't think the empirical evidence suggests that they're going to be anything more than a niche.

So I'm wondering what your take on this is.

Quote from: JimBobOz"Immersion" gets laughs and mockery because it's patently absurd. You cannot truly be the half-elven ranger any more than Marlon Brando, a rich man, could ever truly be homeless - however long he spent on the street preparing for his role, he always had an easy way out, and removing that desperation, that hopelessness and helplessness, removes the most important aspect of homelessness. He was just a rich boy pretending to be a poor boy, however deeply he was into his character, it was still just a character.

I disagree.  Just as it's possible to visualize a scene while reading a book, it's possible to imagine being in a situation that one is not actually in.  Years ago, while playing a paintball game, I decided to convince myself that being hit would cause real pain and do the real physical damage of a bullet rather than harmlessly bouncing off of me.  The intense fear and anxiety I experienced were quite real, even if the pain and damage I imagined were not.  

Did I actually feel what it would be like to be shot at with real bullets?  I don't know.  But I do know that I shiften my perception of consequences substantially away from the reality (that getting hit wasn't much of a big deal) and toward the reality I was trying to imagine (that getting hit would be very bad) and my decisions and emotional responses changed as a consequence.  As such, I don't think it's impossible for a Marlon Brando to think as though he wasn't rich as really was homeless.

I've experienced a similar ability to will certain mindsets into existence while role-playing immersively (by which I largely mean "thinking in character"), and have had characters behave in ways I didn't intend, couldn't predict, and didn't (at the time) undestand.

The clearest example was a character I had played through a fairly intense game involving smuggling an illegal artifact.  In the process, my character and his NPC girlfriend bonded with another PC.  Late in the game, my character decided to have parts of his memory erased -- the parts dealing with the illegal artifact -- so that he could pass police truth scans.  When that happened, I adjusted the memories that the character had access to and something strange happened.  After a short period of time interacting with the NPC and PC, the character became paranoid and his fight-or-flight responses were triggered.  

At the time, I didn't understand what was going on and psychoanalyzed the character to understand what happened.  Basically, the memories that were removed included all of the most intense bonding experiences he'd had with the NPC and PC during the game.  So instead of seeing an NPC who he'd been through some tough scrapes with and a PC that he'd become close friends with giving him good advice, he was an PC he hardly knew being chummy with his girlfriend (who seemed to be in on whatever was going on) trying to corral him into doing something he didn't unhderstand.  

That wasn't something I thought about.  It wasn't something I planned.  Heck, it wasn't something I even really understood at the time.  But I thought it was very cool.  Now, you can argue that I wasn't really thinking in character or the immersion was flawwed or whatever you want, but it won't change the fact that thinking in character produces an experience very different, for me, than thinking about the character and what they would do.  I see things and think things in character that I don't looking at the character.

Quote from: JimBobOzObviously, there are degrees to these things. We can feel strongly for our characters, and have regrets and laughter about them, think about them outside the session. But if we think we're "immersed" in them, we're just kidding ourselves.

It's possible to do both -- to fool one's self and, as a result, experience a primary experience rather than a secondary experience.  I also experience emotions in character -- fear, anger, anxiety, happiness, etc.  I understand what it means to identify with a character in a movie or book and what it means to feel things for them or to empathize with them.  That's not what I'm feeling.  It feels the same way things do when they are done to me and are felt by me, not when I observe them being done to someone else and identify with them.

Yes, I'm fooling myself the same way I was fooling myself when I was playing paintball.  But the experience playing paintball wasn't the experience of feeling empathy for someone dodging bullets.  It was the experience of dodging bullets, or the best approximation I could imagine.  Similarly, the emotional experience I get role-playing in character isn't the experience of feeling empathy for my character but the experience of experiencing what my character experiences.

And, yes, I can tell the difference.

You know, -E. old man, the very fact that Jim Bob  and I are saying fundamentally the same thing in this thread ought to tell you that the split is in no way between 'theorists' and 'non-theorists'.

I'm starting to think that what we've got here is deeper. I think it's actually a philosophical split echoing the split between idealism and materialism.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBTW, -E, you've mentioned a couple times that you have a simple demonstration that most people (current roleplayers? potential roleplayers?) want immersion (as in "virtual experience"). I've given my reasons elsewhere for believing that immersion has historically been the core attraction of RPGs.

Basically, my argument is: RPGs grew from wargames, and much of the attraction of wargames is not only creating a narrative of a conflict, but of imagining yourself in a certain role--an individual commander, or a cohesive group with common interests. Therefore, for RPGs it's been natural to associate character identification with reproducing the limitations on the character's ability to understand and manipulate its environment.

But my argument only explains why "traditional" RPGs are as they are, why they aren't "dysfunctional" when understood properly, and why they often don't work especially well for people who are trying to actively "create a story" in the  midst of play. I don't exclude the possibility that "story-games" might ultimately prove popular to the general public...although so far, I don't think the empirical evidence suggests that they're going to be anything more than a niche.

So I'm wondering what your take on this is.

My take is very much like yours -- a set of logic that works for me... it certainly won't convince anyone not-inclined to believe it.

My take goes like this:

1) People argue and complain on about stuff they care about

2) Historically there have been a lot of arguments about issues related to (my definition of) Immersion including character fidelity, game-world fidelity, etc.

I'm actually *not* counting arguments about "doing RPGing right" -- those happen, too, but those usually prioritize some other goal ("realism") for its own sake.

I'm talking about direct appeals to fun in the game.

So an argument that "real roleplayers should never metagame" wouldn't be counted (by me) as a vote for Immersion.

But an argument or a complaint that metagaming ruins their fun would be (unless the specific argument makes it clear that the issue is not one dealing with Immersion).

Give the prevalance and power of people wanting virtual experience, character fidelity, "realisim" and so-on, I think it's pretty clear that immersion is a widely held and widely respected goal.

Cheers,
-E.

Immersion (or immersionism) is a pretty crappy word (like fun, as Stuart mentioned), since it's used to cover a large scale of different things. Also, "immersion" tends to be something that happens inside players head - and thus it's hard to identify and it can be, well, pretty much anything. It's a personal experience thing and thus hard to describe and even harder to compare with experiences of other players. And could lead into people discussing about entirely different things, or probably the same thing, just on different scale.

Most roleplayers probably immerse on some degree or another; I'd think it's about "getting into the character" and suspension of disbelief. Some get into it occasionally, some make it a central thing in the game. Facilitating immersion is probably a learned thing; some get it with whatever game they are playing, some have hard time getting it with some type of mechanics; some want it and don't get it with a lot of mechanics that act against the learned style of play. I'm sitting in the last group. And it's mostly a matter of learned style of play and preferences.

Also, what E and Elliot said.

Then, my favourite part, immersion-nazism and us wacky Europeans.

Quote from: Andy KSo the often cited example of this is the actual play report where these dudes will basically go to a pub and watch a Football (Soccer) game "In Character" for hours.  That is, they may or may not give a shit about the game, and their comerades may not even be their real friends, but that is what their characters would do, as the character is a soccer lover who hangs out with these dudes.

I'll take the blame for this one; just to clear it out, this was in a live-roleplaying game which lasted for a few days and I had a character who was into soccer (and I don't mind watching soccer). Would have liked to see the match since I had bet on it; didn't get to see it since I had to do all kinds of criminal stuff. Didn't win the bet, either.

The reason why live-roleplaying sneaks it's way into immersion discussion is because a lot of European players (though certainly not all, or even a majority - mostly the immersion folks) have experiences with it and these experiences have a lot to do with why and how they play in tabletop as well. Live-roleplaying, by it's nature, tends to emphasize slow pace and getting into your character (aside from immersing into the character inside your head, you also get to do actual physical stuff and interact with real enviroment). Live-roleplaying is also a chaotic thing, with no central GM to facilitate things. There's no central story as such, and no drive nor need for a lot of stuff that can be found in tabletop rpg's.

All this combined leads to character immersion and suspension of disbelief becoming a central goal of playing. Works best when you disgard the feeling that you're playing in some sort of game, and just concentrate that you're someone else, in some other place. Also, running around, waving that replica gun feels kind of stupid if you're thinking in terms of playing a game.

When you learn a playing style like that, it tends to affect how you roleplay in general. That's probably how character immersion became the end of all -goal in certain circles. A lot of things which are really distruptive in live-roleplaying can be a lot less distruptive in tabletop playing, but since you've learned to play in a certain way, they tend to affect your experience more strongly that they do for someone who's used to play in a different way. In a sense, it's a self-made golden cage (a damn comfy cage, if you ask me, though).

Some people approach character immersion with different preferences, different playing styles and get something else out of it. Which is cool.

Quote from: droogYou know, -E. old man, the very fact that Jim Bob  and I are saying fundamentally the same thing in this thread ought to tell you that the split is in no way between 'theorists' and 'non-theorists'.

I'm starting to think that what we've got here is deeper. I think it's actually a philosophical split echoing the split between idealism and materialism.

The fact that you and Jim Bob agree on anything frightens me on a deep, fundamental level. :D

-clash

Quote from: droogYou know, -E. old man, the very fact that Jim Bob  and I are saying fundamentally the same thing in this thread ought to tell you that the split is in no way between 'theorists' and 'non-theorists'.

I'm starting to think that what we've got here is deeper. I think it's actually a philosophical split echoing the split between idealism and materialism.

... I dunno. I read JimBob as arguing that desiring Immersion is, in some way, believeing that I'm my elf.

That would be absurd if it were true.

And given the nature of the Internet, there's probably someone out there who really feels like, or believes that they're their elf.

It's a strange world.

But most of the dialog around immersion or suspension of disbelief  isn't nearly that extreme. You don't need LSD to suspend disbelief in a movie or vividly imagine characters and scenes when you're reading a book. You don't need dope to feel excited or sad or intrigued by fiction.

Games are no different.

Characterizing immersion as some extreme altered state isn't a philosophical approach. It's a rehtorical one: by insisting that folks who say they enjoy immersion are talking about really believing they're an elf or experiencing the game as some kind of all-encompassing halucination, or whatever, the idea can be dismissed.

I say: don't buy it. Lots of people complain when movies break them out of the experience (bad special effects, bad acting, implausible story lines, etc.)

Games are simply being held to same low standard that entertainment is.

Some games can't even manage that.

Cheers,
-E.

From Mo's Blog (http://www.spaceanddeath.com/sin_aesthetics/)

QuoteSince last fall when I started shifting my focus towards specifics and away from some nebulous idea of the body immersive, I've found it more and more helpful in actually establishing some kind of communal understanding and explorative progress with the people who I'm talking to. So from here on in, (on SA (http://www.story-games.com/forums/) and wherever possible) I will be using words like goal and socket and payoff as a kind of matrix to point to specific things rather than try and situate things that are clearly different in a catch all word like immersion.

Socket?

Look to the next entry, Stuart: Covering the Bases (http://www.spaceanddeath.com/sin_aesthetics/2006/11/covering-bases.html)

I see immersion as simply being the process of encouraging the group to be in character for in character moments. ie.

I may say:

"Watch out Jimmy, there's a mook on your left."

or

"I tell him *points* there's a mook to his left"

I prefer the former and encourage my players (in my games and others) to partake. I joined a group in May and the GM sent this after the second session:

"Overall - I'm happy with how it's going and am enjoying the sessions. However, I'm noticing that you have more of an 'in-character' style compared to ******* and ****** and that's closer to what I am looking for (ie less metagame references to stats, skill choices etc) - am of the opinion that keeping it 'in-character' aids the immersiveness / atmosphere...... Right now its fun - but I'd like the atmosphere to be more 'spooky fun' at the right points if you know what I mean. Any ideas of what we can do to get there ?"

I get the feeling there's a movement to put a label on everything we took for granted in the olden days. Gamist. Narritivist. Simulationist. Immersionist. Label it and it gets a new gilded surface. Too many psychology classes maybe.