Quote from: RPGPundit;468159I don't know anyone who treats their character as a "pawn".  Do you mean people who's character is just an extension of their own personality? Still Immersion...

Well let's start with reminding ourselves that the example of someone who treats their character as a pawn was raised by Peregrin, not by me.

Now here's a definition:- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pawn

"A person or an entity used to further the purposes of another"

Applying that definition, what does "pawn" imply in the context of a character in a roleplaying game or similar game? I would say it implies treating the character as "an entity used to further the purposes of another", a mere means to an end, as opposed to an end in itself, and nothing more than a tool.

How on earth do you read that as including someone whose character is an extension of their own personality? That wouldn't be an entity used to further the purposes of another, because there would be no "other", or I suppose you might say that the one entity is "part of" the other.

Quote from: RPGPundit;468159Do you mean people who's character is viewed as a set of stats to manipulate?

I think it means someone whose character is viewed as an element of the game to manipulate. "Element of the game" doesn't necessarily mean "set of stats"... the "element of the game" is a fictitious person with a fictitious history, personality, appearance etc. But the key here is "to manipulate". The player who treats his character as a pawn is treating his character as something to manipulate, a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

Let's take some examples.

Aaron.Brown on the Big Purple here http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?582606-Do-you-imagine-being-your-character-Do-you-kind-of-identify-with-him-Or-if-not.../page4 says this:-

QuoteI'm always conscious of the "story". I don't enjoy playing in games where heavy immersion (as typically talked about on RPG.net) is desired by the group. Usually, I make decisions based on what I the player find interesting, thougn sometimes I let the dice fall where they may and sometimes I even think, "what would make sense for this character, in this context"; sometimes all at the same time if that makes any sort of sense, however, at the end of the day my character dances for my enjoyment of the story and the world as a player and listener of the shared story.

But I never try to get into the mind-space of "being" my character because I don't care about that nor find it desirable or fun. Not for lack of trying or LARPing or because the bad immersionist touched me, just because I for whatever reason don't get any fun or interest out of that in my RPGs.

So, there's an example of that way of thinking.

Quote from: RPGPundit;468159But someone who honestly doesn't give a shit about their character? There aren't regular roleplayers who do that.  There's maybe a few people reluctantly dragged into gaming by their significant-other who might do that.  There's people who otherwise don't really want to be there who do that. And of course, the Storygaming Swine, do that all the time.
These people have the common trait of not actually being roleplayers.

Now we're starting to communicate a bit better, because actually, the guy who Peregrin refers to as treating his character as a pawn plainly has, in Pundit-speak, "the common trait of not actually being roleplayers". I wish to qualify that by saying that I mean - according to Pundit's world-view, in the Gospel according to Pundit. NOT NECESSARILY a view I share. But yes, this "pawn" guy is what you would call "not a roleplayer".

Now, I don't think that treating your character as a pawn literally means that you don't give a shit about them, but I do think it means that the character probably means less to you than it would if you were an immersive roleplayer. You are more detached from your character because you are treating him as a tool, a mere means to an end.

Quote from: RPGPundit;468159So the fact that you're suggesting that a few of these people exist does fuck all to invalidate the traditional understanding of Immersion, or to validate storygaming.  Its bullshit. ...

Once again, let's remind ourselves that it was not my original suggestion; it was Peregrin's. Peregrin in fact said this:-

Quote from: Peregrin;467847... I know a lot of people, people who only play trad games, who treat their character as a pawn, but they still enjoy moving through the fictional world and experience those events in third-person without any narrative control. ...

Which drew this response from me, quoting the quote I have just quoted again:-

Quote from: Omnifray;467861They are, even if only in a limited way, storygaming. They have control over their character and are treating him as a pawn, i.e. a narrative construct, rather than as an extension of themselves. That's storygaming. ...

So, basically, we seem to have reached more or less the same conclusion, except that you are talking in terms of people "not giving a shit about their character" and being "Swine", and I am talking in terms of people treating their character as a pawn and being storygamers. My version is arguably less offensive.

Now, I cannot be absolutely sure what proportion of the roleplaying population actually treat their characters as pawns. I would suggest that the 50% of RPG.netters who (on current voting) do not imagine being their character are at least most of the way there. But fundamentally, I am not, and never have been, "trying to invalidate the traditional understanding of Immersion". I'm not trying to "validate" or "invalidate" either immersion or storygaming, but merely:- (1) get together a game which is a good as it possibly can be for immersion; (2) insofar as it doesn't conflict with the first goal, work out a mechanism to get storygamers to enjoy the game too, meaning while immersive roleplayers are playing it immersively, storygamers present at the same table can get on with their storygaming, disguised as far as possible as immersive roleplay so it doesn't interfere with anyone's immersion.

And why would that offend you? As long as immersion is facilitated and has absolute priority, why would you give a shit if some people also get a storygaming kick out of the game at the same time?

I agree, Pundit is reacting to an intent that isn't there on your part. I think you put it very well when you write "They have control over their character and are treating him as a pawn, i.e. a narrative construct, rather than as an extension of themselves."

There are other types of pawn-play, though--simply substitute "game" for "narrative" in the above sentence and you get the sort of gamer who just sees an RPG as a variety of boardgame. Pundit calls them "powergamers", which is close enough to how I see things, although there may not be a perfect equivalence between the two.

The problem I've seen with use of the term "pawn", though, is that people aren't entirely clear on the amount & quality of character-identification needed to qualify for non-pawn play. It's just as ambiguous as the term "in-character point of view". For some (including me), it's sufficient to say I'm imagining things as if I'm standing in the character's shoes, and as if the imagined world "around me" is real. E.g., NPCs aren't just bags of XP, they're relatable persons. For others, I think this would still be "pawn stance" unless & until I felt myself possessed by the character's personality and past life history.

As far as I'm concerned, the latter can be a byproduct of the former, since interacting from the perspective of the character, being reacted to by virtual entities as if one were the character, has an effect on one's mindset. It's nice to the extent it happens, but I'm happy with the "virtual mind transplant" of minimal/baseline IC-POV. Furthermore I think that elevating the requirement for notional "true immersion" serves to wall it off as a fringe practice while making baseline IC-POV subject to co-optation by anti-immersionists.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468184...I think you put it very well when you write "They have control over their character and are treating him as a pawn, i.e. a narrative construct, rather than as an extension of themselves."

Thanks.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468184There are other types of pawn-play, though--simply substitute "game" for "narrative" in the above sentence and you get the sort of gamer who just sees an RPG as a variety of boardgame. Pundit calls them "powergamers", which is close enough to how I see things, although there may not be a perfect equivalence between the two.

I agree.

Pedantically, you could say that a "narrative construct" in the context of a "storygame" or a roleplaying game "played for the story" would be a kind of game construct, without the boardgamey connotations.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468184The problem I've seen with use of the term "pawn", though, is that people aren't entirely clear on the amount & quality of character-identification needed to qualify for non-pawn play. It's just as ambiguous as the term "in-character point of view". For some (including me), it's sufficient to say I'm imagining things as if I'm standing in the character's shoes, and as if the imagined world "around me" is real. E.g., NPCs aren't just bags of XP, they're relatable persons. For others, I think this would still be "pawn stance" unless & until I felt myself possessed by the character's personality and past life history.

I think I sort of agree. I think that "imagining being" your character is either very light immersion or at least a step along the way. I don't think all that many people would literally accuse you of treating your character as a pawn if you were imagining being him just because you didn't feel "possessed" as such. I think the vast majority of immersive roleplayers would accept that lighter forms of immersion exist and are still kinds of immersion.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468184As far as I'm concerned, the latter can be a byproduct of the former, since interacting from the perspective of the character, being reacted to by virtual entities as if one were the character, has an effect on one's mindset. It's nice to the extent it happens, but I'm happy with the "virtual mind transplant" of minimal/baseline IC-POV. Furthermore I think that elevating the requirement for notional "true immersion" serves to wall it off as a fringe practice while making baseline IC-POV subject to co-optation by anti-immersionists.

I agree, although I like to engineer deeper immersion if I can. I particularly agree that it is important to avoid making "true immersion" sound like some sort of relatively fringe practice of literally feeling "possessed" by your character (although maybe I've kind of been there myself... just not that often). The danger of defining immersion in terms of "possession" is something I discuss here:- http://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=10897&start=70 (customary request:- if anyone chooses to post on that forum please be polite, it's not theRPGSite.com!)

I'm making the same point there that you've just made, specifically in the context of The Big Model and its proponents' descriptions of (what they would consider to be one of many equally valid meanings of) immersion.

Also I'm not sure how many people out there are really "anti-immersionists". I think it's more a case of "immersionists" and "non-immersionists" for the most part. "Anti-" isn't really so much of a thing, IMHO, YMMV.

The antiquated arguments over GNS are a surprise...but for what it's worth, I'm not surprised to see the association between "immersion" and "Sim". (I have an aside on the history here, showing the connection as far back as RGFA theory; back when I was still taking GNS somewhat-seriously, I also wrote this.)

Even more of a surprise is seeing the quote from RE where, though he invokes the "possession" concept, he does basically get it right about the association between in-character decision-making & perception, what he calls "actor stance", and immersion. (This is in contrast to many other occasions where "immersion" discussion has gotten shut down or deliberately sidetracked via to the "many different definitions" issue that you document extremely well.)

While I'm at it, I should say that even if "possession" is too strong a term, there certainly is, for me, a goal beyond merely engaging in, for its own sake, the activity or "mode of reasoning" of "character stance". In other words, the activity fosters a sensation. It may not be "possession", but it is an enhanced sense of pretending to be the character.

Are there anti-immersionists? Yes. What I mean is people who are hostile to the concept, not people who just don't enjoy it. The hostility is something you document on the page you linked, and is expressed either by trying to obfuscate "immersion" through definitional arguments (see above), or simply by categorically devaluing it--which at least has intellectual integrity. You don't find this in all fans of Forge games, or even among everyone who dislikes or doesn't understand immersion. The reason behind anti-immersionism, I think, is that some people are either (a) frustrated by past experiences with games that "pro-immersion" people like (probably because they had a bad GM from the "pre-plotted story" school), or (b) somehow invested in promoting games that aren't very immersion-friendly.

Quote from: Omnifray;468174And why would that offend you? As long as immersion is facilitated and has absolute priority, why would you give a shit if some people also get a storygaming kick out of the game at the same time?

First, let me note that we do seem to be in agreement with regards to the facts: Peregrin and the "lots of gamers" he mentioned in his mind are just storygaming-swine-plants. Or storygamers in drag, if you will.

As to "offend" it would not offend me except that it is impossible. You are trying to reconcile two utterly opposing viewpoints: either the story is the primary goal or the game is, at some point one has to give.  Storygamers would be better off going away to make their own hobby, and try to make it on their own if they have enough people really interested in those types of games.

But they don't; and that's where I'm offended: Peregrin's storygamer-in-drag scenario is just a wedge to try to once more force semantic arguments favoring storytelling into the discussion but taking them as assumptions, when they are very much not so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Omnifray;468185Also I'm not sure how many people out there are really "anti-immersionists". I think it's more a case of "immersionists" and "non-immersionists" for the most part. "Anti-" isn't really so much of a thing, IMHO, YMMV.

That's an amusing way of trying to set the groups involved when Ron Edwards and the Forge Swine basically claimed that Immersion was either impossible, or mentally damaging if it could be possible.

That's a bit like saying there aren't really "anti-choice" people out there, just pro-choice people, and people who claim that people who get an abortion have committed homicide.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468201The reason behind anti-immersionism, I think, is that some people are either (a) frustrated by past experiences with games that "pro-immersion" people like (probably because they had a bad GM from the "pre-plotted story" school), or (b) somehow invested in promoting games that aren't very immersion-friendly.

Its easier than that... if you are a Storygamer, then you can't really want Immersion.  If story is king, the whole point, then immersion becomes a dangerous side-track that will prevent you from creating the best possible story as you become too connected with individual characters.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;468241Its easier than that... if you are a Storygamer, then you can't really want Immersion.  If story is king, the whole point, then immersion becomes a dangerous side-track that will prevent you from creating the best possible story as you become too connected with individual characters.

RPGPundit

Pundit, haven't you ever set some NPCs in a stalemate, knowing nothing would disturb them until the PCs arrive? Or have you ever written up an NPC knowing how your players would respond to them? Have you ever given an NPC something better to do than push the end of the world button so that he can be suddenly snapped back into action when the PCs arrive and shit hits the fan?

I think traditional gamer masters, in the pursuit of both immersion and story, do some pretty tricking acrobatics to get everything to come together.

In my whole life I've had maybe half a dozen things happen that would have made for exciting RP sessions, unless you think EMS qualifies. Probably not even that many. If you REALLY timed things logically, fucking nothing would ever happen in your game. People would miss each other, random encounters would be 2 or 3 in a life time, bad guys would complete their plans and then be punished later, probably by someone that isn't the PCs...

Stances, shmances. A typical Traveller session run by yours truly will involve more "stances" than ever have been given a name, while strictly keeping being within the simulation mindset. Only "author" stance will never be in there...

Quote from: RPGPundit;468239First, let me note that we do seem to be in agreement with regards to the facts: Peregrin and the "lots of gamers" he mentioned in his mind are just storygaming-swine-plants. Or storygamers in drag, if you will.

Well, we agree that the "lots of gamers" choose to storygame.

We're not agreed that:-
(1) they do so because they are pretentious motherfuckers (your view, not mine), or
(2) it is therefore appropropriate to call them Swine (your view, not mine), or
(3) gamers who play trad RPGs in a storygamey fashion are best referred to as "storygamers in drag" (your view, not mine).

Instead of "storygamers in drag" I would propose the term "playing a trad RPG as a storygame". One guy I know talks about how his group play "trad RPGs with indie sensibilities" but to be honest when he described the three best things about his most memorable roleplaying experiences, two of them sounded very much as if they were probably down to immersion. A lot of people just don't really analyse what they're doing when they're gaming or aren't that naturally introspective or maybe haven't got the analytical framework or vocabulary to deal with immersion and storygaming. They may be immersing (or by the same token IMHO, YMMV storygaming) in ways they don't consciously realise.

But those are matters of (let's call it) rhetoric, rather than (let's say) substance. On the matters of (let's say) substance, we are agreed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;468239As to "offend" it would not offend me except that it is impossible. You are trying to reconcile two utterly opposing viewpoints: either the story is the primary goal or the game is, at some point one has to give.  Storygamers would be better off going away to make their own hobby, and try to make it on their own if they have enough people really interested in those types of games.

But not everyone at the table is necessarily doing the same thing all the time; the most central example of course is that (as others allude to on this thread), in the traddest, most immersive RPG around, the GM is not constantly roleplaying immersively - he's often not playing a specific role at all, so how can be be roleplaying immersively at that point?

Quote from: RPGPundit;468239But they don't; and that's where I'm offended: Peregrin's storygamer-in-drag scenario is just a wedge to try to once more force semantic arguments favoring storytelling into the discussion but taking them as assumptions, when they are very much not so.

RPGPundit

Well the interesting question is how many gamers really are pawn-gamers. And that's an empirical question which I don't have the answer to. And as I say, I'm not even sure that most gamers would necessarily be able to give a 100% accurate answer about themselves in that respect, because even those of us who roleplay immersively, maybe very occasionally do things which could be said as treating the character as a pawn, without even realising that we're doing it. Just like lots of people who claim to be storygamers probably experience immersion from time to time, even if they don't realise it themselves. (Some do realise it of course - I know one such guy at least.)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468201... back when I was still taking GNS somewhat-seriously, I also wrote this.)

That was quite a good effort actually! The point that you make about how silly it is to define immersion in terms of what it is not is an interesting one. You can make the same point about defining storygaming in terms of what it is not. Sometimes, Pundit seems to define storygaming in terms of what it is not - as being "non-immersive". But I think it's more useful to define storygaming in terms of what it is - play focused on consciously influencing the fictitious events of the game so that they seem more pleasing (i.e. make a good "story"). Once you use only a positive definition, and not a negative definition, you can then recognise more explicitly the conceptual possibility of someone roleplaying immersively and storygaming at precisely the same time, or at least switching between the two. ("Consciously influencing" the events of the game is something you don't do if you're making the decision from an in-character perspective while immersed... but you might possibly be immersed and yet, because you have some kind of "dual consciousness" going on as simultaneously player and character, the "player" aspect of your consciousness could be storygaming... if that makes sense.)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468201(This is in contrast to many other occasions where "immersion" discussion has gotten shut down or deliberately sidetracked via to the "many different definitions" issue that you document extremely well.)

Thanks; it was just a bit of Googling really!

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468201In other words, the activity fosters a sensation. It may not be "possession", but it is an enhanced sense of pretending to be the character.

I would rather say an enhanced sense of imagining being the character. "Pretending" might mean "externally", but you are really pretending to yourself (internally).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468201Are there anti-immersionists? Yes. What I mean is people who are hostile to the concept, not people who just don't enjoy it. The hostility is something you document on the page you linked, and is expressed either by trying to obfuscate "immersion" through definitional arguments (see above), or simply by categorically devaluing it--which at least has intellectual integrity. You don't find this in all fans of Forge games, or even among everyone who dislikes or doesn't understand immersion. The reason behind anti-immersionism, I think, is that some people are either (a) frustrated by past experiences with games that "pro-immersion" people like (probably because they had a bad GM from the "pre-plotted story" school), or (b) somehow invested in promoting games that aren't very immersion-friendly.

I think that's probably right. But I also think that the actual "anti-immersionists" are rather thin on the ground. I mean, I know some fairly devoted storygamers who are actually interested in finding out more about immersive gaming.

Quote from: Cranewings;468245...

I think traditional gamer masters, in the pursuit of both immersion and story, do some pretty tricking acrobatics to get everything to come together.

...

In pursuit of both immersion and an interesting immersive experience for the players... the "interesting" immersive experience is one where the events of the game or the atmosphere they create or dilemmas they raise are entertaining. And that is a hair's breadth from an "interesting story", at most, even if most GMs probably don't think of it as a story but more as a series of fictional events in a game-world which exists almost as if it were a real place. But it's a paper-thin distinction.

To bring the conversation back around, I don't think it's terribly difficult to accommodate "first-person players" alongside "pawn players" in a traditional RPG. You do have to leave out the players who demand "director stance" narrative control, unless that's just a per-player option. I.e., the immersives can eschew narrative control and just look at the "directors" collectively as co-GMs, and the "directors'" characters as NPCs.

Where you have problems is where anyone brings to the table a mistaken expectation of how the GM will make decisions. (This could be broadened to cases where there are many GMs, but I'll stick to the normal model for simplicity.) A pawn player who gets a kick out of doing stuff with their character "because it'll be interesting to see what happens" is no problem, but if they expect the GM to give them a bonus for their (self-assessed) "cool move", they'll be disappointed if the GM just plays it straight and lets the dice fall as they may. "That was really cool how you spat in the governor's face and he had you impaled!" might not be what those players are looking for.

Quote from: Cranewings;468245Pundit, haven't you ever set some NPCs in a stalemate, knowing nothing would disturb them until the PCs arrive? Or have you ever written up an NPC knowing how your players would respond to them? Have you ever given an NPC something better to do than push the end of the world button so that he can be suddenly snapped back into action when the PCs arrive and shit hits the fan?

I think traditional gamer masters, in the pursuit of both immersion and story, do some pretty tricking acrobatics to get everything to come together.

Never in pursuit of "story".  Yes, to set up adventures, but that's utterly different.  You are not trying to "create a story" by setting up villains who begin to operate at set times where PCs may or may not get involved with them; not if you aren't investing on a certain result, even the result of the PCs following up on it in the first place. You're just providing venue for adventure, which in RPGs is almost always part of the emulation process.

RPGPundit

As this thread seems determined to be hijacked by people wanting to put things into terms of provably failed "theories", and therefore Storygaming, I'm moving it to the other-games forum.

And for the record, when the GM is running a game, he immerses in the world itself.

RPGPundit