I've put up a poll on immersion on The Big Purple which has had 137 votes so far.

If you've still got your TBP account (and most of you have probably come from there originally ) please mosey on over, join the discussion on the thread and vote :-)

I think the results in so far are very interesting and in particular show that around two thirds of immersively-oriented gamers find that their immersion is broken or strained by "rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making", whereas comparatively few find it troublesome to be "feeling that we’re all just making it all up as we go along" and about two in seven find it troublesome to be "expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting".

QuoteWhen I’m immersed in character, what breaks/strains my immersion in character is

    being railroaded (or feeling that I’m being railroaded)
    59 voters, thus 43.07%

    mechanics I personally find excessively complicated
    56   voters, thus 40.88%

    when what happens in the game isn’t believable
    57   voters, thus 41.61%

    feeling that we’re all just making it all up as we go along
    20   voters, thus 14.60%

    rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making
    83   voters, thus 60.58%

    being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting
    34   voters, thus24.82%

    rules dictating my PC’s normal reactions (hardcore social conflict / personality mechanics)
    43   voters, thus 31.39%

    metagame incentives for my PC to behave/react a certain way / ALL personality mechanics for PCs
    20   voters, thus 14.60%

    when there’s not enough of a chance for speaking in character
    36   voters, thus 26.28%

    a poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me
    37   voters, thus 27.01%

    I don’t experience immersion in character or don’t care about it [if so, please ONLY vote for this]
    16   voters, thus 11.68%

    none of the above, something very important not listed above, or special snowflake
    8   voters, thus 5.84%

Multiple Choice Poll.

This is a follow-up to the poll that I posted on TBP in September and then discussed here.

Any thoughts on how I've structured the poll or on what the results show?

Any particular anecdotes of your own to tie in with the results / poll options?

Well, the only surprises for me here was that "making it all up as we go along" was only 16%.
I was also a bit surprised to see "being railroaded" score as highly as it did - even though I think I actually picked that one myself. I guess since being obviously railroaded (as opposed to illusionism) means using obvious tools that are somewhat unbelievable/too convenient.

For reference;

Mechanics I personally find excessively complicated : This is the big one. "Immersive" play isn't something you can just turn on or off at will, it requires concentration. Spending more than thirty seconds looking something up in a rulebook kills it stone dead, and what's worse - the mechanical results of looking something up are rarely better than just calling for a quick die roll and moving on.
Feeling that we're all just making it all up as we go along : If I can just get what I want, just because, we're in la-la fantasy land. But compare this to something like Leverage; you can spend plot points to make items in the scene relevant, but it has to make sense that they were there. In the lobby of a major bank, I could spend a plot point to say there's a pot plant (Plot plant?). If I wanted to turn up first thing in the morning wearing a Starbucks uniform and say (Plot point!) "I start opening up the coffee stand that's there. If anyone asks, I'll say I'm cover for the usual girl"? That's just making stuff up, and won't work.
Rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making : Prevents me playing the character. Contrast to Pendragon, whose rules help me make decisions that are like the ones my character would.
Being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting : This, just this.
When there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character : If I can't play the character, then I can't immerse in them. This is usually a GM-side problem, by not giving the players enough time to, er, play.
A poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me : If I can't play the character, I can't immerse in them. But this is usually a player-side problem.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;614044Well, the only surprises for me here was that "making it all up as we go along" was only 16%.

I wasn't expecting it to be a big-scoring option (and it was a new one I came up with on the spur of the moment for this poll) but I think I was surprised it scored quite so low.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;614044I was also a bit surprised to see "being railroaded" score as highly as it did - even though I think I actually picked that one myself. I guess since being obviously railroaded (as opposed to illusionism) means using obvious tools that are somewhat unbelievable/too convenient.

Isn't the problem with railroading versus immersion more along the lines that if you don't feel you're really making any choices as your character... if nothing you try to decide as a player counts for anything... then it's harder to suspend your disbelief in the specific respect of you *being* your character? Because if you *were* your character, you would be making choices... And also because the fact you have no choices to make makes you feel as if it's not really your character, but a character the GM is playing, and you're just rolling the dice... so you have no investment in the character, no sense of ownership of them, and that kills your immersion...

Quote from: Ladybird;614119Mechanics I personally find excessively complicated Spending more than thirty seconds looking something up in a rulebook kills it stone dead

Is thirty seconds a good rule of thumb? I feel a poll coming on...

Quote from: Ladybird;614119you can spend plot points to make items in the scene relevant, but it has to make sense that they were there.

Surely it's a basic paradigm of any RPG or storygame that the fiction has to be sufficiently believable... ? (Whatever "sufficiently" may mean.)

Quote from: Ladybird;614119Rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making : Prevents me playing the character. Contrast to Pendragon, whose rules help me make decisions that are like the ones my character would.

Here's the big question. You seem to have read that option as if it meant "Rules making me make decisions as my character that are nothing like any decisions my character would believably be making". In fact I originally meant "Rules whose effect is that the decisions I have to make as a player are totally different to the decisions my character has to make". Thus, covering some of the ground of dissociated mechanics, and possibly some other stuff as well. (In fact, probably also covering the ground covered by the option we're coming to next...)

I wonder how many people have voted as if this option were about personality mechanics going wrong... what do you think?

This may explain the higher than expected vote.

Quote from: Ladybird;614119Being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting : This, just this.

And yet, curiously enough, not a high-voting option in the poll.

Quote from: Ladybird;614119When there’s not enough of a chance for speaking in character : If I can't play the character, then I can't immerse in them. This is usually a GM-side problem, by not giving the players enough time to, er, play.

Assuming of course that the other players are on board with the concept of speaking in character. Some gamers flat-out refuse to indulge in any of that "poncy arty-farty am-dram nonsense", to paraphrase their crustiness.

Perhaps the reason this poll option is voting relatively low is that it's a factor needed to get your immersion going in the first place, but not a factor that breaks/strains immersion by being temporarily absent.

being railroaded (or feeling that I'm being railroaded)

Not really an immersion breaker for me per se.  Shit happens in real life and you can get railroaded so I can see it happening in a fictional world as well.  I don't like it, in fact, I frickin' hate it, but it can also lend to my immersion if done right.

mechanics I personally find excessively complicated

This is neither here nor there for me as it relates to my immersion or ability to get immersed.  I can seperate the two, game mechanics and in-character game play, enough that it doesn't really affect my place in the game world.

when what happens in the game isn't believable

This is the greatest immersion killer for me personally.  If I can believe it then my character cannot believe it.

feeling that we're all just making it all up as we go along

This is not an immersion killer for me.  In fact, it can aid immersion if done right because it generates a sense of wonder and excitement in me which I can transfer to my character via immersion.

rules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making

Again, not such a big deal for me personally because I can suspend my immersion temporarily while game mechanic operations are being conducted.  Now, if this takes a long time, like more than several minutes, then it can become a detriment to immersion and eventually kill it if it spans more than five minutes or so.

being expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting

Life screws you over every chance it gets so it goes in fictional worlds as well.  This doesn't really bust my immersion if it happens organically, but if it's consistently forced upon me by either the GM or game system then I can see it breaking my desire to be involved with either the game or my character.

rules dictating my PC's normal reactions (hardcore social conflict / personality mechanics)

Yeah, this is a straight immersion killer for me.

metagame incentives for my PC to behave/react a certain way / ALL personality mechanics for PCs

As long as they're optional and not forced, then I can care less.  As long as I retain complete control of my character's actions and reactions, then I'm golden as far as immersion is concerned.

when there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character

I guess this could be an immersion killer if it's coupled with not being able to have my character interact with the setting.  My character doesn't necessarily have to speak for me to play it and have fun with it.

a poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me

No problems here for me as far as immersion is concerned; once it becomes my character, then I am off and running with immersion and development.

I don't experience immersion in character or don't care about it [if so, please ONLY vote for this]

I can get immersed in characters so this is a moot for me.

Obviously, all this is my own opinion, and just as worthless as anyone else's.

Quote from: Omnifray;614529

Quote from: LadybirdMechanics I personally find excessively complicated : This is the big one. "Immersive" play isn't something you can just turn on or off at will, it requires concentration. Spending more than thirty seconds looking something up in a rulebook kills it stone dead

Is thirty seconds a good rule of thumb? I feel a poll coming on...

For me, yeah. I'd be interested in the results of that poll, though.

Time spent waiting for someone to read a book is time not spent engaging with the game world, or watching others engage with it. It's just dead time that doesn't add any value to the session. Ditto with adjudicating funny die results, or hands of cards, or whatever.

Get close enough and keep things moving. The details aren't worth the time taken to worry about them.

Quote from: Omnifray

Quote from: Ladybirdyou can spend plot points to make items in the scene relevant, but it has to make sense that they were there.

Surely it's a basic paradigm of any RPG or storygame that the fiction has to be sufficiently believable... ? (Whatever "sufficiently" may mean.)

Yes, but, there's some logic behind it. Our characters have a lot more access to the game world than we do; a GM can't provide every detail they experience second-by-second. To keep the players immersed, the game world has to work in a way that we can understand, with our cultural biases and experiences. Say to a player, "your character is in a bar", and they will fill in the details themselves. They'll expect people, tables, beer, scratchings, maybe a quiz machine, and they'll act as if those things are there.

This is why "wierd settings" don't tend to take off. People can't fill in the details in their own minds. And the more familiar eements you add, the more players will latch on to them and turn everything back into Somerset But With More Hobbits.

Quote from: Omnifray

Quote from: LadybirdRules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making : Prevents me playing the character. Contrast to Pendragon, whose rules help me make decisions that are like the ones my character would.

Here's the big question. You seem to have read that option as if it meant "Rules making me make decisions as my character that are nothing like any decisions my character would believably be making". In fact I originally meant "Rules whose effect is that the decisions I have to make as a player are totally different to the decisions my character has to make". Thus, covering some of the ground of dissociated mechanics, and possibly some other stuff as well. (In fact, probably also covering the ground covered by the option we're coming to next...)

I wonder how many people have voted as if this option were about personality mechanics going wrong... what do you think?

This may explain the higher than expected vote.

I suspect a lot of people misread your option, to be honest. But I'd still have ticked the box.

Are we at "I have to choose between Hard Strike and Double Strike", ie. optimal combat maneuvre decisions? In which case, see the "mechanics I personally find excessively complicated" issue. If I have to choose the better move, then I have to analyse the situation, and that means using player-level knowledge rather than character-level (Because in that sort of game, everyone else will have access to almost all the same information as you, and expect an optimal, rather than in-character, choice). Takes me out of the character and reminds me that I am a HUMAN sat at a TABLE playing with LITTLE MEN. I don't need to be reminded of that, thanks, game.

Quote from: Omnifray

Quote from: LadybirdBeing expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting : This, just this.

And yet, curiously enough, not a high-voting option in the poll.

Interesting.

I have a sneaking suspicion "immersion" is one of those words that everyone agrees has something to do with RPG's, and could tell you that they're feeling immersed, but nobody quite agrees on what it means to feel immersed.

And the thing is, everyone's probably right. If you say you feel immersed or not, you probably are. Or not.

Doesn't do it for me, though.

Quote from: Omnifray

Quote from: LadybirdWhen there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character : If I can't play the character, then I can't immerse in them. This is usually a GM-side problem, by not giving the players enough time to, er, play.

Assuming of course that the other players are on board with the concept of speaking in character. Some gamers flat-out refuse to indulge in any of that "poncy arty-farty am-dram nonsense", to paraphrase their crustiness.

Perhaps the reason this poll option is voting relatively low is that it's a factor needed to get your immersion going in the first place, but not a factor that breaks/strains immersion by being temporarily absent.

There are also gamers who just can't do it, who would rather describe what their character says than word-by-word say it themselves, or just don't have the available brainpower that evening to convincingly talk in character (Which is pretty demanding). But I think your analysis is basically sound.

Nothing, because I don't do it.  I'm free, I'm free!

Quote from: Ladybird;614711For me, yeah. I'd be interested in the results of that poll, though.

I doubt I've done the best ever job of this one but here goes.

Quote from: Ladybird;614711I have a sneaking suspicion "immersion" is one of those words that everyone agrees has something to do with RPG's, and could tell you that they're feeling immersed, but nobody quite agrees on what it means to feel immersed.

And the thing is, everyone's probably right. If you say you feel immersed or not, you probably are. Or not.

Doesn't do it for me, though.

Did the best I could to avoid that problem by using the phrase "in character" twice in the poll question itself and explaining what I meant by "immersion" in the OP, but, ya know. Life is what it is.

Quote from: Ladybird;614711the available brainpower that evening to convincingly talk in character (Which is pretty demanding)

... puzzled face ...

Maybe my standards of being "convinced" are lower than yours... (especially when it's me doing the talking and I'm trying to convince myself!!)

Quote from: Omnifray;614529Is thirty seconds a good rule of thumb? I feel a poll coming on...

Thirty seconds once an hour? Definitely okay. 30 seconds for 50% of the players in each every round of combat? Definite not okay. In between? I'm not sure I could give a general rule.

Quote from: Omnifray;614529Isn't the problem with railroading versus immersion more along the lines that if you don't feel you're really making any choices as your character... if nothing you try to decide as a player counts for anything... then it's harder to suspend your disbelief in the specific respect of you *being* your character? Because if you *were* your character, you would be making choices... And also because the fact you have no choices to make makes you feel as if it's not really your character, but a character the GM is playing, and you're just rolling the dice... so you have no investment in the character, no sense of ownership of them, and that kills your immersion...

As Drohem said, IRL you don't necessarily get choices either ? What I think is problematic is if there is a situation where clearly you're intended to go A)....>B)....>C) and either
--players need to go along with the plot in order to keep the adventure running, regardless of what as characters they should do
or, so as a player you're making choices contrary to what your character would make;
--credulity-straining coincidences or obvious retconning occurs to force PCs back onto the tracks when they try to leave.

I can't really relate so much to the other idea here. I don't know if we need to distinguish between a true railroaded adventure the PCs are forced to go on, and just a linear adventure which is one the characters would go on because the GM has provided sufficient incentive in keeping with the character's motivations ?

Interesting how much of the pool would suggest moving to a rules-light sandbox setting would improve immersion, even though few very rules-light games are long-term successful.

Quote from: Omnifray;614728Maybe my standards of being "convinced" are lower than yours... (especially when it's me doing the talking and I'm trying to convince myself!!)

It probably varies, heavily, dependent on person.  I'll admit that I find even ordinary everyday conversation to require at least some degree of concentration, and acting in-character adds several constraints (character knowledge, personality, and current setting) on top of that.  Other people can and do find talking to increase their ability to focus on other things, though.

Quote from: gattsuru;615497few very rules-light games are long-term successful

Long-term successful in what sense?

Everything but "metagame incentives" (which I took to mean all kinds of incentives, including stuff like XP for gold and the like), and the last two options obviously.

Quote from: Omnifray;615505Long-term successful in what sense?

That's a good point.  Dead Inside was pretty obviously meant as award bait, and succeeded beautifully at that.

But I can't think of a rules-light system that's the equivalent to D&D, or even equivalent to the WoD; there's no setup I can bring to a table and reasonably expect people to be roughly familiar with it.  Indeed, systems that become popular also tend to become more rules-crunchy : FUDGE could be arguably rules-light, but FATE is much more complicated*.  Over The Hedge is in many ways more playable than its World of Darkness counterparts, but it's not gotten near the commercial success nor received anywhere close to the critical recognition.  There are a lot of good rules-light games out there, and a lot of good games that play better when modded to be rules-light.  But by terms like financial results, name recognition, sales, anything like that, there seems to be a lot of evidence that our definition of good doesn't strongly correlate with "wanting to play a lot".

*The tendency to use difficult-to-compare words instead of easy-to-compare numbers bugs me in both the PDQ and FATE systems, which may color my perceptions.

That's correlation, not causation.  Wushu's a great game wrapped in either no corebook or an incredibly poorly written one, both Don't Rest Your Head and Usagi Yojimbo are built for a very specific and fairly short types of game, and Nobilis has many many problems unrelated to the underlying resource mechanic-based play (and to an extent plays better without a lot of the fiddly bits).  That rules-light games don't end up with a shelf-worth of useless paper is a feature, not a bug.  And the lack of One True Rules-Light Game is in many ways an advantage: the competition-heavy genre means that there are a lot of systems out there, and you can easily try one during a con-length game.

But it still raises questions about why people say they'd find less rules more immersive, if at the same time developers find it rewarding to create more rules and more invasive rules.

Quote from: gattsuru;615585That's a good point.  Dead Inside was pretty obviously meant as award bait, and succeeded beautifully at that.

But I can't think of a rules-light system that's the equivalent to D&D, or even equivalent to the WoD; there's no setup I can bring to a table and reasonably expect people to be roughly familiar with it.  Indeed, systems that become popular also tend to become more rules-crunchy : FUDGE could be arguably rules-light, but FATE is much more complicated*.  Over The Hedge is in many ways more playable than its World of Darkness counterparts, but it's not gotten near the commercial success nor received anywhere close to the critical recognition.  There are a lot of good rules-light games out there, and a lot of good games that play better when modded to be rules-light.  But by terms like financial results, name recognition, sales, anything like that, there seems to be a lot of evidence that our definition of good doesn't strongly correlate with "wanting to play a lot".

*The tendency to use difficult-to-compare words instead of easy-to-compare numbers bugs me in both the PDQ and FATE systems, which may color my perceptions.

That's correlation, not causation.  Wushu's a great game wrapped in either no corebook or an incredibly poorly written one, both Don't Rest Your Head and Usagi Yojimbo are built for a very specific and fairly short types of game, and Nobilis has many many problems unrelated to the underlying resource mechanic-based play (and to an extent plays better without a lot of the fiddly bits).  That rules-light games don't end up with a shelf-worth of useless paper is a feature, not a bug.  And the lack of One True Rules-Light Game is in many ways an advantage: the competition-heavy genre means that there are a lot of systems out there, and you can easily try one during a con-length game.

But it still raises questions about why people say they'd find less rules more immersive, if at the same time developers find it rewarding to create more rules and more invasive rules.

Rules light games just aren't as commercially viable as rules-heavy games.

If you make a rules-light game, and you do it well, no-one needs to buy any more stuff from you. They're all set. And if you do make something else, what is it? If it's more rules, you're taking away from the main advantage of your system. If it's setting and GM advice stuff, well fine, but not as many people buy that, and if you publish too much of it, it becomes a kind of game bloat in itself and again diminishes the core strength of the game.

But if you make a rules-heavy game, particularly an exception-based system with lots of fiddly feats and skills, you're simply not going to be able to fit everything in a single book. So you end up making a fighter supplement, a wizard supplement, an elves supplement. Because your game is so complicated, people find it harder to just make stuff up for themselves. And also because it's so complicated, there are so many fiddly gaps and potential variations in the mechanics that you can squeeze out an endless line of supplements. And then when the weight of supplements becomes so great that the whole game begins to creak? Great, let's do a second edition!

This is why the interests of the hobby and the interests of the industry are not always the same thing.