Quote from: CRKrueger;844736One of the problems with describing immersion is

that people who didn't understand what it meant when they first encountered it in RPG context went ahead and made up their own definitions.

http://ewilen.livejournal.com/51188.html

But that's history. Even if it were true that RPG discussion just spontaneously started using "immersion" without any precedent or priority in meaning, all you have to do if someone sounds confused is: "IC POV". From there you either get an interesting conversation or you can wonder at the variety of human cognition, because someone who won't give you one or the other from that point is either a troll or dumber than a box of rocks.

Quote from: CRKrueger;844736The 2d20 system actively forces immersion into story through mechanics, thus actively inhibiting in-character immersion by definition.  Because making a decision as Robert E. Howard is not making a decision as Conan.

Immersion into story and immersion into character aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The 2d20-system attempts (and utterly fails IMO) to force immersion into story.
It is a peculiar system. I dare say that from a player's perspective it is as immersive as anything else - it kinda depends on the players and GM. It is from the other side of the screen that it makes me want to claw my eyes out.

Quote from: Arminius;844747Then awareness of behind-the-screen manipulation definitely should. Because handing the dice is just a formal mechanic for GM manipulation.

I thought that's what you meant, but that post was less transparent than usual so I wanted you to clarify.

QuoteThis all falls under definition. It's easily handled by specifying IC-POV when there's any doubt.

I agree it is a definitional issue. But those are definitions where using the word immersion isn't very useful to my mind. Engrossed is a better word for those situations than immersed.

Quote from: baragei;844752Immersion into story and immersion into character aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I agree. They can be compatible, and to be honest I also suspect there are limits to how much anyone would want to immerse into character: http://ewilen.livejournal.com/54760.html

Well, "compatible" may be overstating it a bit, but the fantasy of engaging an imaginary situation as if one were really a participant provides a kind of pleasure that an actual participant would not experience. As e.g. I don't think Snoopy would have nearly so much fun if he were really being shot down by the Red Baron every week.

Quote from: RPGPundit;844640In a general sense, it means the same experience though.  The whole "you can't define immersion" thing is more of a rhetorical/semantic trick on the part of anti-immersionist storygamers than anything else.

I don't mean the definition so much that experience itself is subjective so what enhances or takes away from it can be very different. And that makes discussing it in an objective sense very tricky.

Quote from: CRKrueger;844736Because making a decision as Robert E. Howard is not making a decision as Conan.

I like this comparison; it nicely sums up the basic different between many "narrative" games and "traditional" games.

Quote from: baragei;844752Immersion into story and immersion into character aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The 2d20-system attempts (and utterly fails IMO) to force immersion into story.
It is a peculiar system. I dare say that from a player's perspective it is as immersive as anything else - it kinda depends on the players and GM. It is from the other side of the screen that it makes me want to claw my eyes out.

We've only played through the Infinity playtest packets, but after running the game I had a very different experience as a GM.

Combat was fast, with tactical options and the 'maneuvers after you roll' is similar to AGE or Runequest 6.

Players can 'buy' small story elements (Hey I do have a shotgun in the trunk of my car), but it isn't Cortex+ or Fate level of 'narrative'.

It is also not nearly the PITA to run that Pathfinder is (itself a giant metagame about planning your levels to get medieval superpowers IMHO)

I do suspect that the Heat/Dark Symmetry/Threat mechanic may make sense in some genres and not others, similar to Cyphers in the Cypher system.

Quote from: baragei;844752Immersion into story and immersion into character aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The 2d20-system attempts (and utterly fails IMO) to force immersion into story.
It is a peculiar system. I dare say that from a player's perspective it is as immersive as anything else - it kinda depends on the players and GM. It is from the other side of the screen that it makes me want to claw my eyes out.

You're right, I meant decision-making from a story perspective and decision-making from a character perspective are mutually exclusive.  Yeah I can do both in a fraction of a second, but they are two different things.

As a player, getting extra dice by giving the same to the GM certainly would affect my immersion, as it's a tactical decision made for reasons at a OOC meta-level.  As this type of "narrativium(a name given to these mechanical resources on the Conan forums by a designer)" is becoming more common among the new school, I expect many players who always have a certain meta-level to their characters to see no difference at all.

As you said, on the GM side, however, is where the full mechanical structure hits home, as the game fully embraces the philosophy of "enriching the GM's experience" through strict rules there to handcuff creativity and limit action.  Designer Uber Alles.

Quote from: Bren;844753I thought that's what you meant, but that post was less transparent than usual so I wanted you to clarify.

I agree it is a definitional issue. But those are definitions where using the word immersion isn't very useful to my mind. Engrossed is a better word for those situations than immersed.

Usually when I say immersion, I mean 'feeling like I am really there'. It definitely doesn't have quite the same connotation as engrossed to me. I do think what makes s person feel like they are really there will vary from person to person and that everyone who values immersion will have different toleration levels for the things they perceive as interfering with it (I.e. A person may feel something that reduces immersion has other benefits that outweigh its negative impact on 'being there')

But what would you think someone means if they say that a game or a GMing style fosters (or harms) the sense of in-character perspective?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844899Usually when I say immersion, I mean 'feeling like I am really there'. It definitely doesn't have quite the same connotation as engrossed to me. I do think what makes s person feel like they are really there will vary from person to person and that everyone who values immersion will have different toleration levels for the things they perceive as interfering with it (I.e. A person may feel something that reduces immersion has other benefits that outweigh its negative impact on 'being there')

If by 'feeling like I am really there' one means you as your character are really there, that's what I mean by in-character POV. It is a first person point of view. If one means you as an observer, that is a third person omniscient or limited omniscient POV, which is obviously very different than a first person, IC POV.

Quote from: Arminius;844907But what would you think someone means if they say that a game or a GMing style fosters (or harms) the sense of in-character perspective?

That statement has only one reasonable interpretation to me, which is that the game or GMing style takes one out of the first person, IC POV, possibly by forcing the player to make decisions from a third person, OOC POV.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844899Usually when I say immersion, I mean 'feeling like I am really there'. It definitely doesn't have quite the same connotation as engrossed to me. I do think what makes s person feel like they are really there will vary from person to person and that everyone who values immersion will have different toleration levels for the things they perceive as interfering with it (I.e. A person may feel something that reduces immersion has other benefits that outweigh its negative impact on 'being there')

If by 'feeling like I am really there' one means you as your character are really there, that's what I mean by in-character POV. It is a first person point of view. If one means you as an observer, that is a third person omniscient or limited omniscient POV, which is obviously very different than a first person, IC POV.

Quote from: Arminius;844907But what would you think someone means if they say that a game or a GMing style fosters (or harms) the sense of in-character perspective?

That statement has only one reasonable interpretation to me, which is that the game or GMing style takes one out of the first person, IC POV, possibly by forcing the player to make decisions from a third person, OOC POV.

Quote from: Bren;844909If by 'feeling like I am really there' one means you as your character are really there, that's what I mean by in-character POV. It is a first person point of view. If one means you as an observer, that is a third person omniscient or limited omniscient POV, which is obviously very different than a first person, IC POV.

I would say generally I mean feeling like I am in my character's shoes but I am not terribly rigid it about it, or POV. The key for me is feeling like I am there.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844911I would say generally I mean feeling like I am in my character's shoes but I am not terribly rigid it about it, or POV. The key for me is feeling like I am there.

The distinction I am making is between being there as an actor in the setting, i.e. as the PC vs. being there as an observer to the actions of the PCs.

Yeah, Eliot's right, the definition has been co-opted and by some even purposely so, so being specific about in-character perspective is the key to avoiding useless quibbling and the "you don't get to define my immersion" obfuscations.