Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468516This is really key. In order to support immersion in a standard/traditional setup, it's pretty common to point out the players shouldn't have "out of character" stances thrust on them. But the other thing that's needed is the GM shouldn't do stuff that's obviously "for the sake of the story" or "for the sake of a good game". In a setup with any kind of co-GMs, the co-GMs need to recognize that this same responsibility comes with their GMing role.

It's interesting the way you relate that back to the actual GM's role. In my PDF on the Art and Theory of Immersive Roleplay I think I briefly mention avoiding obvious contrivances - certainly in the Art of Immersive Roleplay chapter for my forthcoming game (which is a cut-down and improved essay based on the earlier one) I do talk about avoiding obvious contrivances. I hadn't spotted the clear parallel to a-refs being "subtle" about their storygaming, which is actually something that was suggested by one or two posters on a thread on the Big Purple where I tried (relatively unsuccessfully) to get a debate going about how to get storygamers and immersive roleplayers to enjoy their own playstyles successfully at the same time in one and the same game.

I think both of these probably come back to what I would now term a kind of reification - making the world seem like a place which actually exists, rather than an element in a story which is being made up on the spot. It's not exactly the same as believability - if the GM does something which is obviously "for the sake of a good game" or "for the sake of a good story", it could yet be believable. But it might impact on your suspension of disbelief not because it's not believable per se, but because it's obviously "under construction" as it were, rather than a pre-existing element of a quasi-real game-world. That might be for instance because of the way it's packaged and presented to the players (e.g. overt use of fate points and metagamey discussion beforehand) rather than because of the inherent nature of the underlying events, or because of coincidences which genuinely could occur (and in that sense are believable) but which seem too convenient, too nicely suited to the "drama" of the situation to be taken seriously (and so are difficult to believe in in the context of the game itself).

It's very interesting (to me, at least) that you point out, in effect, that this a-reffing "subtlety" and the GM's avoidance of "obvious contrivance" are in fact the same thing... because the GM and the a-ref are both, in effect, trying to push the game in interesting directions but trying not to make it obvious that that's what they are doing. In my terminology (though not Pundit's) that would be storygaming but being subtle about it.

Quote from: Omnifray;468438... if Pundit wants to use the term "storygame" in a manner which is meaningful,

It's very clear that he doesn't. He has decided on his tribal divisions, and his only goal is to diparage the "other side" by whatever means possible, including (as has been seen in this thread) insults and straw-men galore. It's patently clear that he either has no idea what goes on at the table of most of the "storygame" RPGs that he hates so much, or he knows but he doesn't care. Facts are just trivial dross in pursuit of his fake war.

Quote from: Omnifray;468568trying to push the game in interesting directions but trying not to make it obvious that that's what they are doing. In my terminology (though not Pundit's) that would be storygaming but being subtle about it.

This is why I prefer sandbox style play... With a sandbox, I'll setup a geographic area, and then stock it with villages, and towns, and castles, and ruins. Each of the areas, is of course populated with a variety of non-playing characters as well, and monsters too.

The characters and monsters each of have unique characteristics and while the game is in progress the various groups/creatures that are already there interact in a more or less natural fashion generating conflicts.

A random encounter generator adds some new spice to the mix at irregular intervals.

Now the players enter this world, an event that is in progress. From where they start, and where they choose to go after that a story will be generated.
The story might be influenced by the players interacting with an npc, or by an encounter with a monster, or by an interesting locale.

At no point am I overtly or subtly pushing the game to make it interesting. That is what the players do.

Now they might encounter an NPC/monster that for some reason or another, or no good reason at all... chooses to pursue the players, and they might encounter an NPC/Monster that goes out of their way to avoid the players. Often, they never even see the avoiding party. There is a whole scale or range of possibilities, and different creatures respond differently, depending on their characteristics and motivations, much of which is predetermined by the nature of the creature/npc in question. Where there is some doubt, or a range of possibilities, I as GM, administer the random dice throw to determine the course of action that the creature/npc opts to take.

The players are immersed in the game, only to the degree that they are interested in their character, and the accomplishments their characters achieve, and the interactions they choose to have by virtue of where they choose to travel, and who they choose to communicate with.

Beyond choosing the genre, and providing a plentiful amount of minor details to bring the world around the players to life, I deliberately try to avoid directing or pushing the story.

So it all started with two_fishes:-

Quote from: two_fishes;467599... even if I don't feel directly immersed with a character as if I "am" that character, I can feel a real connection to the character in my imagination. I can feel as if a character is a "real" person--acting and making decisions independently of myself.

Benoist possibly misinterpreted two_fishes when he replied:-

Quote from: Benoist;467602I do understand this, as in the way you empathize with a character when you type a story. Trust me, I know what that feels like. That is not role playing, to me. It's storytelling, writing, composition, however you want to call it. But it is distinct from role playing and immersion, in my mind.

Benoist's reply is phrased as if two_fishes were talking (which I'm not sure if two_fishes was or not) about something which Richard Stokes, a columnist at ukroleplayers.com, would (recalling The Big Model) call "immersion in Actor Stance" in the sense that you have a vivid experience of the character being real, but without in any way wanting to feel as if you "are" your character; let me rephrase that to - without in any way imagining being your character (I don't think that Richard Stokes would accept the rephrasing but I think it's a more useful concept for discussion when rephrased in that way). Thus rephrased, is that immersive roleplay in the true sense? Benoist, as I interpret what he says anyway, says no.

Pundit, as I see it in effect interpreting me as arguing that same point (as if I agreed with Benoist's view as I've interpreted it here), then says:-

Quote from: RPGPundit;467958Nonsensical Swine Theory Bullshit.  Immersion is Immersion ...  The division you're talking about exists only in your ridiculous semantics.  You can both feel deeply connected to a character and feel that the character has a life of its own outside of your own persona, that happens ALL the fucking time.

He goes on and says:-

Quote from: RPGPundit;468048You're still just using semantics to try to create problems or divisions that aren't there, ...

It doesn't matter how a person gets to the experience of immersion, by trying to claim "well, this person does it by x and another does it by y so immersion doesn't exist/isn't really a single thing/is really just storygaming/etc.etc. ad nauseum" you're creating an imaginary crisis ....

Now Pundit was barking up the wrong tree at the time because I was in fact talking about a guy treating his character as a mere pawn, and I only mentioned that because Peregrin raised that example. But now reading Richard Stokes's stuff has got me thinking.

I don't really care, to be honest, whether what Richard Stokes would call "immersion in Actor Stance" strictly counts as in-character immersive roleplay or not. FWIW my own definition of in-character immersion would require you to be imagining being your character, at a minimum, so pure Actor Stance would be out (though I would vociferously argue that you can as Pundit says both feel deeply connected to a character and feel that the character has a life of its own outside of your own persona; I don't think I like definitions which define categories in exclusive ways such as Actor Stance VERSUS Character Stance and which preclude the possibility of you being in both at once). But it could still be quasi-immersive roleplay, with basically all the same bells and whistles as immersive roleplay, and only a few minor differences (Richard Stokes seems to argue that the Actor Stance guy prioritises believability over the sensation of "being" the character - I can't immediately think of any big differences it would make to how you prefer to play, except for a minor difference in focus or emphasis on simulation/emulation rather than free flow of play, reliance on player skill/judgment, use of in-character direct speech dialogue and that sort of thing - not exactly likely to lead to tremendous incompatibilities).

Anyway, what I'm most interested in is - does this "Actor Stance" actually help people to have a more vivid, let's say quasi-immersive experience of the game? So I've tried to set up a poll to find out:-

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?584711-Poll-playing-totally-in-character-WITHOUT-imagining-being-your-character

If the answer is generally speaking yes, then "Actor Stance" would have quite a lot in common with true immersive roleplay and it would be worth thinking of it as at least quasi-immersive roleplay, possibly true immersive roleplay, and accommodating players who game that way in the main ways we think about true immersive roleplay and the best ways to facilitate it. If not, then it would seem to have more in common with other forms of what I consider to be storygaming, such as choosing your character's actions on the basis of what will make a good "story" or even being able to narrate general events in the game-world. My reasoning being that the distinguishing feature of true in-character immersive roleplay is its emphasis on the vividness of the game experience, as contrasted with storygaming's emphasis on the shape, course, direction and pace of events in the game being exciting, pleasing or whatever (though you can certainly desire both at the same time without having a clear preference or priority).

Ya know it took me a gazillion tries to edit the last post and get it right; I started off getting "Actor Stance" and "Author Stance" muddled though I knew what I meant...

Take a deep breath, step back, and reframe the problem you're trying to solve. Right now you're getting mixed up (and mixing up any readers you have left) worrying about Rich Stokes, Pundit, Benoist, et. al., and it isn't really contributing to anything.

Quote from: Omnifray;468991So it all started with two_fishes:-
Benoist possibly misinterpreted two_fishes when he replied:-
Benoist's reply is phrased as if two_fishes were talking (which I'm not sure if two_fishes was or not) about something which Richard Stokes, a columnist at ukroleplayers.com, would (recalling The Big Model) call "immersion in Actor Stance" in the sense that you have a vivid experience of the character being real, but without in any way wanting to feel as if you "are" your character;

I haven't read what Richard Stokes wrote, so I can't comment on that, but it does seem like both you and Benoist correctly characterized what I was talking about--the vivid sense of a character being real--if that helps you at all.

Do you have a link to any RS article in particular?

QuotePundit, as I see it in effect interpreting me as arguing that same point (as if I agreed with Benoist's view as I've interpreted it here), then says:-

My impression of Pundit is that he has a vested interest in mis-characterizing the crowd he dislikes as people who are always a drag at the table:

Quote from: RPGPundit;468159honestly doesn't give a shit about their character? ... And of course, the Storygaming Swine, do that all the time.

And he has constructed straw-men throughout this thread in order to derail it.

Quote from: Omnifray;468991Anyway, what I'm most interested in is - does this "Actor Stance" actually help people to have a more vivid, let's say quasi-immersive experience of the game? So I've tried to set up a poll to find out:-

I can certainly think of cases where strict "Actor" stance breaks immersion for me. I am not great at improvising dialogue. I am much more comfortable relating the content of what is said rather than the direct speech, except in little snippets here and there, a key phrase or two. If a GM demands that I relay what my character says in direct speech, it can pull me out of the imagined world and make me very aware that it is me, here at the table, giving a little performance to the other people at the table.

Quote from: two_fishes;469028...
Do you have a link to any RS article in particular?
...

http://www.ukroleplayers.com/columns/rich-stokes/the-roles-we-play-while-roleplaying-part-3-character-stance-actor-stance-and-the-gap-in-between/

And me embarrassing myself with excessive commentary:-

http://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=166&t=11026

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;469023Take a deep breath, step back, and reframe the problem you're trying to solve. Right now you're getting mixed up (and mixing up any readers you have left) worrying about Rich Stokes, Pundit, Benoist, et. al., and it isn't really contributing to anything.

To be honest what I'm trying to work out is whether I need to reframe my own working definition of immersion in character, and if so how. But I think it's time I did something more productive, so... I'm off to write a LARP!