TheRPGSite

OK apologies for the random stream of consciousness:-

I put up this poll on the Big Purple:-

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?582606-Do-you-imagine-being-your-character-Do-you-kind-of-identify-with-him-Or-if-not...

What's likely to make the immersive roleplayers slightly smug is that (with 174 people having voted so far) the results can be interpreted in this way:-

...although only 49 sometimes attain deep immersion, 44 (presumably therefore 44 out of those 49) have had their most memorable experiences through deep immersion;

... whereas the corresponding ratio for storygaming is only 58 out of 84, and for tactical/strategic gaming 34 out of 51.

Now you could pick a million holes in this, but it goes some way towards supporting the Pundit's theory that immersive roleplay is "more fun". Which if you were trying to be remotely serious you would then have to qualify by saying "but by no means for everyone".

It's also weird to note the contrast that on the Big Purple only 83 out of 174 said they generally imagine being their characters during play, whereas in a simpler poll I put up for one of my local LARP groups, 100% of those voting said they do imagine being their character during play. (Votes in so far are however still in the low double figures.)

I've been working on ways to accommodate the storygaming types in immersion-focused games and (on the theory that a lot of them like GMing and in effect all the players are "mini-GMs" in some hardcore storygames) I've come up with the concept of a permanent assistant referee (deputy GM) who is actually a player but with a few bells and whistles on which should give the storygamers a little more of what they want. The whole idea is to find a way to integrate the storygamers into the game without in any way negatively affecting the immersive players' immersion. I'm not sure if it will work, but the point is if you have storygamers among your gaming buddies you're not going to want to exclude them from play just because they happen not to roleplay immersively. If anyone has any thoughts on how to get around that problem please let me know.

I think the choices in your poll are badly formulated, and I'm pretty sure that most gamers won't really know what you mean and imply by using such formulations.

And how precisely would you have worded them given that there is a strict word limit?

The "identify with" choice is broken, I've figured that much out already.

Quote from: Omnifray;467547And how precisely would you have worded them given that there is a strict word limit?

The "identify with" choice is broken, I've figured that much out already.

"I like to play first-person : I (try to) feel what my character feels, I (try to) think what my character thinks."
"I like to play third-person : My character is the narrative construct I manipulate while playing out the story."

Something to that extent.

RPGnet stinks anyway, and it's a hangout for storytelling types, forgists and storygamers so... there.

Closest I got to full immersion was at a Cam LARP.

I was playing a Ventrue of the Lancea Sanctum who, though liberal, had a real problem with vampires eating human food.

There was an Ordo Dracul visitor who knew all about this LS prejudice and was taunting them by offering them pringles and polos.

I could really feel Harry's rising irritation and it struck me that if I was the bloodsucking monster I was portraying I'd have torn his throat out Elysium or no Elysium.

Quote from: Benoist;467549"I like to play first-person : I (try to) feel what my character feels, I (try to) think what my character thinks."
"I like to play third-person : My character is the narrative construct I manipulate while playing out the story."

That's a kind of loaded language, don't you think? The choices you're offering amount to "I like to use clear, understandable language," and "I like to use specialized, opaque jargon."

Some players prefer using third person to refer to their character, that doesn't mean they view the character as a "narrative construct" to be cooly "manipulated".

Also there should be an option in that quiz for the most memorable moments being when everyone was completely on the same page, improvising freely with each other, and making something as a group that every participant was excited about.

Or how about an option for most memorable game resulting from playing a character which felt as if he were real, living figure making his own choices independent of you as a player.

Quote from: two_fishes;467560Some players prefer using third person to refer to their character, that doesn't mean they view the character as a "narrative construct" to be cooly "manipulated".

Are we going to rewind to past discussions ad nauseam forever like this? If you remember, Mark this point about the way one refers to one's character has been raised before, several times, in fact. Whether you are talking about your character as "he" or "I" has little (a bit, but little) to do with whether you are actually playing first or third person in your mind. Which is what I'm talking about. You can refer to your character as "he" and still think as him and feel like him and base your decisions as him for all intents and purposes, just like you can refer to your character as "I" and not be immersed a single tiny bit in the make-believe.

It's about the actual role playing you're engaging in in your head. It's not about you saying "my character does this" or not.

It's insane. Sometimes it's like you guys can't fucking get it. Like you've never actually experienced immersion at a role playing game table ever in your life.

PS: Sorry. Frustrated with all the shit going on with the move, boxing up stuff and all. -Ben

I was responding to your choice of language as much as anything--expressing the style of play you prefer in language that suggests "immersive" players are passionate and engaged while "storygamers" are dispassionate and clinical.

I do think you also seem to miss that 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.

Quote from: two_fishes;467599I do think you also seem to miss that 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.

I 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.

Quote from: Omnifray;467519The whole idea is to find a way to integrate the storygamers into the game without in any way negatively affecting the immersive players' immersion. I'm not sure if it will work....

I don't think it will ever work very well. It would be like two authors collaborating on a novel where one insists on writing in first person while the other insists on writing in third person omniscient. Two really great authors might be about to pull this off, but most would produce a barely readable mess.

Quote from: RandallS;467603I don't think it will ever work very well. It would be like two authors collaborating on a novel where one insists on writing in first person while the other insists on writing in third person omniscient. Two really great authors might be about to pull this off, but most would produce a barely readable mess.

An interesting analogy.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;467592Are we going to rewind to past discussions ad nauseam forever like this? If you remember, Mark this point about the way one refers to one's character has been raised before, several times, in fact. Whether you are talking about your character as "he" or "I" has little (a bit, but little) to do with whether you are actually playing first or third person in your mind. Which is what I'm talking about. You can refer to your character as "he" and still think as him and feel like him and base your decisions as him for all intents and purposes, just like you can refer to your character as "I" and not be immersed a single tiny bit in the make-believe.

It's about the actual role playing you're engaging in in your head. It's not about you saying "my character does this" or not.

It's insane. Sometimes it's like you guys can't fucking get it. Like you've never actually experienced immersion at a role playing game table ever in your life.

PS: Sorry. Frustrated with all the shit going on with the move, boxing up stuff and all. -Ben

Well this just shows how totally inappropriate your preferred formulation would have been for RPG.net. How on Earth are the people on that site, or even the majority of people responding to some random poll on THIS site, supposed to know what YOUR definition of "playing first person" or "playing third person" is? Personally I would have assumed you did indeed mean the grammatical first or third person. You can't use jargon like that for polls that any Tom, Dick or Harry could be voting on.

I tend to play first person but in writing games I've switched to third person for references to Characters. Mainly because it makes the distinction clearer for those new to the hobby but also because of the fact I tend to be writing about dubious characters.

Quote from: Omnifray;467724Well this just shows how totally inappropriate your preferred formulation would have been for RPG.net. How on Earth are the people on that site, or even the majority of people responding to some random poll on THIS site, supposed to know what YOUR definition of "playing first person" or "playing third person" is? Personally I would have assumed you did indeed mean the grammatical first or third person. You can't use jargon like that for polls that any Tom, Dick or Harry could be voting on.

Must make you feel better about your own completely fucked up formulations. Good for you!

Quote from: Omnifray;467519I've been working on ways to accommodate the storygaming types

What if we stop trying to label people as "types" and just focus on playing the game in front of us with enthusiasm and honest effort?  You're assuming that "story-gamers" don't ever seek to immerse.  This is patently false.  Just because someone enjoys what story-games do doesn't mean they can't appreciate or want what traditional RPGs have to offer.  

I love me some FATE, and I love me some Fiasco, but I've also had some fucking awesome Call of Cthulhu games that focused more on atmosphere and RP.  I "integrate" with the group by playing the game we chose to play, the way it's supposed to be played.

If you want to make a compromise game, go ahead, but I don't think you're going to please anyone on the extreme sides of the story-game/trad RPG preference spectrum.

Quote from: Benoist;467734Must make you feel better about your own completely fucked up formulations. Good for you!

At least I understand HOW yours are fucked up!!

Quote from: Peregrin;467736What if we stop trying to label people as "types" and just focus on playing the game in front of us with enthusiasm and honest effort?  You're assuming that "story-gamers" don't ever seek to immerse.  This is patently false.  Just because someone enjoys what story-games do doesn't mean they can't appreciate or want what traditional RPGs have to offer.  
...
If you want to make a compromise game, go ahead, but I don't think you're going to please anyone on the extreme sides of the story-game/trad RPG preference spectrum.

I am NOT assuming that ALL people who sometimes or often storygame don't ever seek to immerse. I am working on the footing that SOME people who storygame have no ability to immerse or perhaps no desire to do so.

I am not trying to create a compromise game. I am creating an immersive game, but I am trying to make SOME MINOR allowance by way of an optional bolt-on for those particular storygamers who have no desire or ability to immerse to get a storygamey kick out of the game at the same time, if that can be fitted around the central immersive play goals.

I don't think one's ability to enjoy a trad RPG has anything to do with their ability to immerse.  I know plenty of people who aren't story-gamers who aren't "immersionists."

What constitutes an "immersive" game that would make it significantly different from any other trad RPG?

Quote from: Peregrin;467756I don't think one's ability to enjoy a trad RPG has anything to do with their ability to immerse.  I know plenty of people who aren't story-gamers who aren't "immersionists."

What constitutes an "immersive" game that would make it significantly different from any other trad RPG?

I dont think he disagrees. It just sounds like he has a couple of players who dont want immersion and would rather play storygame. I know plenty of people who make mean builds in 3e but can just as eadily make an interesting underpowered character if it suits the needs of the game. Hower i know a few powergamers who simply cant make that transition.

I don't think you can really make a game that caters to both if the "story-game" players won't play a game without any narrative control.  Some people are willing to just deal with their character being their means of exerting their will on the game at-hand, but if they can't deal with just that, I don't see how you can have them invoking meta-stuff or discussing story without totally funking up the immersive players' groove.

I guess it depends on what story mechanics
 your immersive players can tolerate.

Quote from: Peregrin;467756I don't think one's ability to enjoy a trad RPG has anything to do with their ability to immerse.  I know plenty of people who aren't story-gamers who aren't "immersionists."

What constitutes an "immersive" game that would make it significantly different from any other trad RPG?

A "trad" RPG will often be played as an immersive game but not necessarily.

An "immersive" RPG would be one which is specifically designed with immersion in mind. It's still a trad RPG. Many "trad" RPGs may well be in essence immersive RPGs (with a high level of focus on immersion) - I guess it depends to what extent the designer was consciously or subconsciously pushing for an immersive experience for the players and making sure rules didn't get in the way of that.

But many features of some trad RPGs may be counterimmersive if the designer didn't have immersion specifically in mind. And many features of immersive RPGs may be counterimmersive for some players even though the designer DID have immersion in mind.

What sorts of gamers do you think there are who enjoy trad RPGs who aren't storygamers and don't immerse? What sorts of gamers do you think there are who don't consciously influence the course of the events of the game to make for a more satisfying narrative and don't roleplay immersively? Surely most gamers will be doing at least one of the following:-

* playing a casual game, Beer & Pretzels game, Cheetoes game etc.
* playing a wargame or other game of strategy/tactics
* consciously influencing the course of the game's fictional events
* at least imagining being their character

What gamers are there who don't do any of these things yet enjoy play?

The difference between us could be semantic. In my book, if you're doing what immersive roleplayers do all the time and choosing actions for your character which influence how the game plays out, and if the game-fiction has "story-like" qualities in the sense that it's not JUST about going into a 10' x 10' room, killing the orc and grabbing his stuff... then the only reason I wouldn't call that "consciously influencing the course of the game's fictional events" or storygaming is because you are, in Benoist's language, playing first person:- the fact that you are immersed means that you are in a sense not "consciously" influencing the "story", but you are influencing it, just subconsciously.

This:

Quoteat least imagining being their character

is the problem.

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.  I also know people who treat the game as if they are "there" without being sympathetic to a construct/character's mind -- they are "immersed" in the sense of "being there" -- vicariously experiencing events, but not tied to an imaginary character's mind -- their experience is just as immersive, but they are merely "acting" when it comes time to portray their character.

Even hardcore immersionists on RPGnet who I've gotten into debates with recognize the subtle differences between these stances and the problems it poses for trying to design or define an "immersive" game.  Different people require different things to enter their preferred stance/state, and talking with someone who immerses in first-person, but does not "become" their character the way another might, sometimes takes quite a bit of talking to sort out what they mean, yet in the end I've had character immersionists tell me that they require different things from "being there" immersionists.

So, designing to include all of the people who already play trad RPGs and satisfy them?  Already pretty hard to do as evidenced by the tons of trad systems out there.  Attempting to design a game that includes one specific subset of immersionists with extremely picky, but often arbitrary needs in order to get "in character", and sit them alongside people who are story-gaming at the same table?  Insanely hard.

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.  

They 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. It may not be full-on, redesign the world storygaming, but it's certainly influencing the story (ALL gamers do that, at least if they're not HEAVILY railroaded), and as they treat the character as a pawn, they are consciously influencing the story. What more do you need before you class it as "play centred around story"?

Quote from: Peregrin;467847I also know people who treat the game as if they are "there" without being sympathetic to a construct/character's mind -- they are "immersed" in the sense of "being there" -- vicariously experiencing events, but not tied to an imaginary character's mind -- their experience is just as immersive, but they are merely "acting" when it comes time to portray their character.

I'm not sure that "experiencing the game-fiction vividly" really adds much to "engaging deeply with the game" and one would hope that all non-casual gamers would do that, immersive, storygamey or other.

Quote from: Peregrin;467847Attempting to design a game that includes [edited by Omnifray to read.... in-character immersive roleplayers] with extremely picky, but often arbitrary needs in order to get "in character", and sit them alongside people who are story-gaming at the same table?  Insanely hard.

I'm not disagreeing with that. One can but try.

Nonsensical Swine Theory Bullshit.  Immersion is Immersion and its the central purpose of playing regular RPGs.   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.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;467958Nonsensical Swine Theory Bullshit.  Immersion is Immersion and its the central purpose of playing regular RPGs.   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.

RPGPundit

Hang on a minute, who said that you couldn't both feel deeply connected to a character and feel that the character has a life of its own outside your own persona? I don't think anyone said that. I certainly didn't. if you feel "deeply connected to a character" that sounds like it's probably "immersion in character" to me (though... maybe not necessarily). And whether you feel that that character has a "life of its own outside your own persona" isn't really the point but I would guess most immersive roleplayers would feel that way; I think I do mostly; it's probably bound up with the way the game-world feels "real" to you, which is pretty central to immersion.

If you're saying that having a vivid experience of the game-fiction is the central purpose of RPGs, then I can see your point of view (though I would qualify that by saying... it's the central purpose for me, and for most gamers I know, but some gamers prefer other things like for example Beer & Pretzels or tactical wargaming which they fit into RPGs as well; i would also qualify it by saying that that vivid experience is mostly attained, for immersive roleplayers, by immersion in character, adopting your character's outlook, feeling as if you are exploring the game-world from within rather than creating it from outside). I would be surprised if you could demonstrate that most people who play hardcore storygames do not desire or attain a vivid experience of the game-fiction, although I understand that that would be contrary to your dubious claim that storygamers do not in fact enjoy the games they play and only play them because they are pretentious motherfuckers. (I personally find that very hard to believe but we can agree to disagree on that one.)

But are you trying to say that someone who Peregrin refers to as "treat[ing] their character as a pawn" and who (in language Peregrin and I borrow from Benoist) experiences events "third person" is nonetheless "immersed" in some meaningful way that a person isn't who is simply playing a storygame and is really into the "story" and has a vivid imaginative experience of the story? Bearing in mind the "third person" reference is taken from Benoist's description, so if you have a problem with that, I would find that rather strange.

I would say such a gamer is arguably roleplaying and storygaming at the same time because the purpose of what they are doing is, well, at least arguably, simultaneously to play a role (as they are restricted to controlling their character) and to construct the fiction of the game. Unlike an immersive roleplayer they are not really exploring the fiction of the game from the inside because they are not imagining being their character, do not necessarily identify with their character, are not adopting their character's mentality, do not feel as "if they are their character" and are simply treating their character as something purely external to them - if not, why the word "pawn" which Peregrin used? It's not obvious that if you're treating your character as a "pawn" you can at the same time feel "deeply connected" to him though I guess that depends on in what sense you mean "deeply connected".

You're still just using semantics to try to create problems or divisions that aren't there, as a way to wedge in the concept of "storygaming".  Its control of language as warfare to get your agenda across.

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 that you seek to solve with Swine Theory.

Just like how you throw in the term "creating fiction" in there, when in fact a regular gamer does nothing of the sort; rather, he acts and lives in an emulated world through his character. There is no intentional and separate attempt to make story, story is merely a byproduct.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;468048You're still just using semantics to try to create problems or divisions that aren't there, as a way to wedge in the concept of "storygaming".  Its control of language as warfare to get your agenda across.

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 that you seek to solve with Swine Theory.

Just like how you throw in the term "creating fiction" in there, when in fact a regular gamer does nothing of the sort; rather, he acts and lives in an emulated world through his character. There is no intentional and separate attempt to make story, story is merely a byproduct.

RPGPundit

I'm scratching my head in some bafflement here.

I think you are slightly tilting at windmills (and not for the first time). I don't have a storygame agenda. I might be intellectually confused, I might even be talking utter stinking bullshit (in fact, the chances are nearly as high as the chances that you are), but I am not ideologically anti-immersion. On the contrary, I am very much pro-immersion. Although I have played Montsegur 1244 and other games with a view to understanding storygames better, I have never ever actually consciously approached a roleplaying game (or any other kind of game which resembled a roleplaying game) as a player with a view to putting "story" ahead of immersion. I don't think that back in 2009 when I played Montsegur 1244 I even realised that anyone would actually do that or even that it would even occur to anyone to do that. Nearly every decision I have ever made as a player I have made because (1) it felt like my character's decision or (2) it was what I reasoned my character would naturally do or (3) it seemed tactically or strategically advantageous.

In fact, I have been trying to make my latest RPG effort as convenient for immersion as possible. 321 pages designed with a view to being convenient for immersion. And now the 322nd page added which looks at how to accommmodate a storygamer at the table without ruining the efforts that the first 321 pages have gone to. Now this mystic page 322 might be completely bonkers but it's an optional bolt-on and the first 321 pages are still intact as originally designed to be as convenient as possible for immersion. I don't want storygamers to feel unwelcome at my games, but immersive roleplay gets the 100% priority; my attempt is to accommodate the storygamey types by fitting them around the immersive roleplayers' requirements, insofar as that can be done. I think it can be done. I may be wrong. I think storygamers are numerous enough that it's worth trying; you presumably disagree. I think a lot of them are nice people who it would be nice to have join in with my games; maybe you disagree with that too. But it's hardly a vast ideological gulf between us.

Let's talk about your "regular gamer" who "acts and lives in an emulated world through his character". If I understand that phrasing correctly, what you are talking about is what I would call an immersive roleplayer in the true sense, i.e. someone who is immersed in character (or aiming to be). I agree that such a gamer is not intentionally and separately attempting to make a story. This is by the way the only kind of immersion which I think is worth discussing although some people do undoubtedly try to use the word "immersion" in other ways. I agree that story is merely a byproduct for such a "regular" gamer. It IS, however, a by-product, and an "irregular" gamer sitting at the same table might be trying to influence that "story" which for all the regular gamers at the table is a mere byproduct of no special interest in itself, but for the "irregular" gamers may have more significance.

The differences between us so far are surely paper-thin.

The "regular gamer" is of course constantly influencing the course of the in-game events, which I think can fairly be called "fiction" in the sense that they are fictitious, i.e. not actually real. I don't think "game-fiction" necessarily implies "story"; when I used that term in relation to what immersive roleplayers do [as opposed to in the last paragraph of my previous post where I was talking about the guy who treats his character as a pawn] it was just a short-hand for "fictitious events which are the subject-matter of the game" as opposed to what is actually happening at the game table in physical terms in the real world (which people could also find deeply engaging). We don't have to call it a "story" (even though you yourself in effect call it story-as-byproduct), but I think you would probably agree that if one gamer at the table stopped being a "regular gamer" and started trying to make a story out of it, as the purpose of play, then he would be trying to "influence" the "story" and he would be "storygaming" (or at least trying to).

Why do we not think of the "regular gamer" as influencing the "story"? Because that is not the point of play - because he is not consciously or deliberately influencing the "story". But he is damn well influencing the course of the game's fictional/fictitious events; he's just not doing so consciously or deliberately, and the reason why he's not doing so consciously or deliberately is, as you put it, that when he plays he acts and lives in an emulated world through his character. In other words, he influences the game's fictional events subconsciously - and those fictional events may be story-as-byproduct, and if he were influencing them consciously would certainly seem to be more storylike.

The kind of gamer which Peregrin mentions who is treating his character as a "pawn" would be someone who, despite playing a trad RPG, does not "live in an emulated world through his character". He might be someone who "lives in an emulated world watching his character, whom he views as a pawn, and the other characters too". This pawn-guy is not what you would term a "regular gamer". He is someone who is doing exactly what a lot of storygamers do when/if their "story" seems vividly real to them. This pawn-guy is controlling his character as a little pawn to dance to his tune in a way which makes for, in his view, a good "story". He is constructing fiction in the sense of story, because for him his character is just a pawn, an element in a story, and not in any way something that he has a deep affinity for. If he had that deep affinity, he would not be thinking of his character as a "pawn"!!

Or are you seriously saying that someone who treats his character as a "pawn" is "living in an emulated world through his character"? Because I think that's more or less a contradiction in terms.

I suspect the truth of it is that you just wouldn't accept that there are that many gamers out there who really do treat their characters purely as pawns to dance to their tune. I don't know many such gamers myself, but I know a few, and most of them aren't interested in "story" either - they seem to be Beer & Pretzels types. Peregrin is talking about people who are treating their characters as pawns, and that just isn't sinking in with you because to you, trad RPG = immersion. But that's simply not the case:- it's entirely possible for people to play a game using trad RPG rules with no actual experience of immersion. It's not something I personally prefer to do; it only happens to me when people are turning the game into a bit of hack-n-slash or Beer & Pretzels light entertainment. But it's definitely possible.

I 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.
Do you mean people who's character is viewed as a set of stats to manipulate? That's called a power-gamer and its just a case of a bad gamer.

But 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.

So 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.

RPGPundit

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.

No, we storygamer swine don't do that all the time. That is complete bullshit. Just more evidence that when it comes to your retarded war, you happily spout whatever bullshit you think will win you a point or two.

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 (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/54760.html), showing the connection as far back as RGFA theory; back when I was still taking GNS somewhat-seriously, I also wrote this (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/16351.html?thread=84447#t84447).)

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 (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/51188.html?thread=236276#t236276) 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 (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/16351.html?thread=84447#t84447).)

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 (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/51188.html?thread=236276#t236276) 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

Quote from: RPGPundit;468321Never 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

I just think its a thin difference. I've played in story games where the GM railed us with every trick in the book (hopeless cause, limited information, hated by the world, super powerful DMPC ally, only one good course of action - which is obvious, time dragging adventures such as spending whole games buying equipment and talking to commoners).

On the other hand, I know I'm basically coming up with a story when I put an adventure together. Sure, the players can skip one, BUT they almost certainly won't. If the party is X+2 powerful and I make the badguy only X-1 strong, I know they are going to win. Then I know what they can do with the winnings, so to speak. Sense I wrote up all the NPCs, I know what they are going to do to and its probably something interesting that I made them for in the first place, with this in mind.

The fact that you write the encounters and the NPCs, presumably for players that are more predicable than random, you are still writing a story. I respect that you aren't attaching yourself to the outcome, but the transition to it being an intentional story is pretty narrow.

Not stalking you CW.

But having come over from Pundit's thread on Subway vs. Sandbox, I'd say you're making a boatload of unwarranted assumptions about how other people play & GM.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468350Not stalking you CW.

But having come over from Pundit's thread on Subway vs. Sandbox, I'd say you're making a boatload of unwarranted assumptions about how other people play & GM.

Probably.

Quote from: Cranewings;468336The fact that you write the encounters and the NPCs, presumably for players that are more predicable than random, you are still writing a story. I respect that you aren't attaching yourself to the outcome, but the transition to it being an intentional story is pretty narrow.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468350But having come over from Pundit's thread on Subway vs. Sandbox, I'd say you're making a boatload of unwarranted assumptions about how other people play & GM.

I don't really think of how I set up adventure material as really that much like writing a story. For example, when I am running a game, I often sketch out an area that has a couple different NPCs with differing/competing agendas, several of whom might be interested in working with the PCs, and usually I don't really even have that much of an idea which if any of them the PCs might take an interest in. So its not just the outcome that isn't attached, really it's most everything but the background before the PCs show up. For me most of the fun of running the game is seeing the unpredictable things the PCs might do.

Quote from: Cranewings;468336I just think its a thin difference. I've played in story games where the GM railed us with every trick in the book (hopeless cause, limited information, hated by the world, super powerful DMPC ally, only one good course of action - which is obvious, time dragging adventures such as spending whole games buying equipment and talking to commoners).

On the other hand, I know I'm basically coming up with a story when I put an adventure together. Sure, the players can skip one, BUT they almost certainly won't. If the party is X+2 powerful and I make the badguy only X-1 strong, I know they are going to win. Then I know what they can do with the winnings, so to speak. Sense I wrote up all the NPCs, I know what they are going to do to and its probably something interesting that I made them for in the first place, with this in mind.

The fact that you write the encounters and the NPCs, presumably for players that are more predicable than random, you are still writing a story. I respect that you aren't attaching yourself to the outcome, but the transition to it being an intentional story is pretty narrow.

I think you have to note the difference between "storytelling games", which are the games where the GM basically is the "author" of a story and removes choice from the players (or where, in the case of WW games, the editorial metaplot is author), and the gaming that amounts to basically "railroading"; and on the other hand, Storygaming, which is the intentional and collaborative effort between players and GMs (though usually with players being the protagonists of the effort and the GM's power being severely curtailed) to "collaboratively" create a story.

The former is just really bad regular Roleplaying. The latter is non-roleplaying.

So what you're describing above was basically a Railroading-GM.  He may have read too much Vampire or whatever.  He either needs some help to get better or a kick in the fucking head, depending on who you talk to.
The other thing would be where players are trying to create a story; in which case they are just plain in the wrong hobby.  RPGs will never satisfy them, because that's not what regular RPGs are meant to do.  You'd be about as successful if you tried to live your own life as a novel or something.  The second you come head-to-head with the reality of the WORLD, the story part falls apart, and the great idea you had for a guy who would have fucked his own mother but then been redeemed over time when he saves an orphan boy who hasn't shown up yet but that you hope to introduce somehow all goes to shit when a kobold kills you with its dagger in the second combat of the game. So much for "story", fuck you, the end.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;468383The second you come head-to-head with the reality of the WORLD, the story part falls apart, and the great idea you had for a guy who would have fucked his own mother but then been redeemed over time when he saves an orphan boy who hasn't shown up yet but that you hope to introduce somehow all goes to shit when a kobold kills you with its dagger in the second combat of the game. So much for "story", fuck you, the end.

RPGPundit

Jesus Christ.

Quote from: Cole;468358I don't really think of how I set up adventure material as really that much like writing a story. For example, when I am running a game, I often sketch out an area that has a couple different NPCs with differing/competing agendas, several of whom might be interested in working with the PCs, and usually I don't really even have that much of an idea which if any of them the PCs might take an interest in. So its not just the outcome that isn't attached, really it's most everything but the background before the PCs show up. For me most of the fun of running the game is seeing the unpredictable things the PCs might do.

I suppose I just have an extremely hard time writing up an environment and characters without predicting how it will all pan out. The fact that I can usually guess how players will respond to it just adds to it. I hear ya though.

Quote from: Cranewings;468336I just think its a thin difference. I've played in story games where the GM railed us with every trick in the book (hopeless cause, limited information, hated by the world, super powerful DMPC ally, only one good course of action - which is obvious, time dragging adventures such as spending whole games buying equipment and talking to commoners).

On the other hand, I know I'm basically coming up with a story when I put an adventure together. Sure, the players can skip one, BUT they almost certainly won't. If the party is X+2 powerful and I make the badguy only X-1 strong, I know they are going to win. Then I know what they can do with the winnings, so to speak. Sense I wrote up all the NPCs, I know what they are going to do to and its probably something interesting that I made them for in the first place, with this in mind.

The fact that you write the encounters and the NPCs, presumably for players that are more predicable than random, you are still writing a story. I respect that you aren't attaching yourself to the outcome, but the transition to it being an intentional story is pretty narrow.

This post and the ones which precede it lead me to make what I think is an important point for clarity of discussion here.

I'm fairly sure I've never, or at least almost never, approached the GMing of an RPG consciously thinking "how can I make this a great story". But on the other hand I HAVE approached it consciously thinking "how can I (whilst avoiding railroading) turn this into (something which is likely, depending on what the PCs do, to result in) a dramatic, exciting, mysterious adventure for the players full of intrigue, suspense, poignant dilemmas, fear and horror which the players experience immersively", or things along those lines.

Does the fact that I didn't think of it as setting up a good "story" mean that I was doing anything essentially different to what I would have been doing if I had thought of it as setting up a good "story"?

It seems like an important difference of mindset, but I can't see a practical distinction, from the GM's point of view. I mean, a GM could want to set things up to be what he might think of as a good "story" while at the same time wanting the players to be fully immersed (and thinking that without immersion it's pointless).

Now, Pundit seems to be defining storygaming as:-

Quote from: RPGPundit;468383...the intentional and collaborative effort between players and GMs (though usually with players being the protagonists of the effort and the GM's power being severely curtailed) to "collaboratively" create a story ...

I think you have to be very careful about defining "storygaming" in those terms.

The question to Pundit really is:-

... is it storygaming if there is an intentional and collaborative effort between players and GMs to "collaboratively" ensure that the adventure takes an interesting and pleasing course - even if nobody consciously thinks that they are creating a story?

For my own part, I can't see that the fact that nobody consciously thinks of it as a story is relevant to the true essence of what people are doing. I also don't think that "collaboratively" is the key concept here. I think that a game is generally or often named after what the players do. If what the players do is in substance consciously and deliberately push the adventure to take an interesting and pleasing course, they are doing exactly the same thing as storygamers. That's not to say that they're not also roleplaying immersively either at exactly the same time, or more or less at the same time. (Although if they are ONLY making their decisions from an immersed, in-character point of view, they are then more or less by definition not "consciously and deliberately" pushing the adventure in any direction at all.)

Anyway the important point I want to make is:-

... if Pundit wants to use the term "storygame" in a manner which is meaningful, he has to be careful to define storygaming in terms of its real substance and essence, and not in terms simply of what the participants in a consciously self-aware and analytical way think they are doing (as in are they thinking consciously that they are creating a story), nor in terms of success of outcome (e.g. collaboration, rather than merely attempting to collaborate), and certainly not in terms of absence of something (roleplaying or immersion).

Only once you have a definition of storygaming which goes to the root of what storygamers are actually doing and enjoying (or claiming to enjoy, if Pundit would rather see it that way), only then can you ask how storygaming and immersive roleplay compare, conflict or possibly might exist in combination. I will offer my definition:- playing a game which has as its subject-matter fictional events of a three-dimensional nature with a view to consciously influencing the shape, course, direction and pace of those events; "three-dimensional" is intended to exclude what are essentially wargames which could be said to be "two-dimensional"; "consciously" is an important adverb because you wouldn't generally apply it to what immersive roleplayers do when they are adopting their character's behaviours and only instinctually and subconsciously controlling the flow of the game - only through the natural-seeming actions of their characters which they choose by instinct and subconsciously, not by conscious design.

Also, I think that Cranewings and Pundit are liable to be at loggerheads, and Pundit may even end up calling me Swine again, because of what boil down to semantic, definitional, terminological differences. That's not to say that there aren't substantive differences, but they might get trumped by semantics.

As an aside, I find it ironic that a thread which started as a smug and slightly twattish boast about immersive roleplaying gamers having more memorable experiences of RPGs than other gamers has now been moved to "Other Games". I mean, I try to post a post which essentially (though in a more measured and reasonable way than Pundit would aspire to) supports Pundit's world-view of immersion being the key to fun - and because it doesn't have QUITE Pundit's foaming-at-the-mouth zeal, it ends up being classified as a storygames thread. Fascinating.

No, its because from the very start it read as a subversive attempt to wedge-in storygaming and Theory Swine bullshit.

Just like now you keep trying to play semantic games to suggest that there can be some kind of common ground between immersion and storygaming.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;468451...

Just like now you keep trying to play semantic games to suggest that there can be some kind of common ground between immersion and storygaming.

...

I'm sorry, but I really think there can.

Frankly, after quite some time hanging around on these forums, I don't understand why there can't be.

I mean, I played Montsegur 1244 (just the once, in 2009). It's a hardcore storygame. We used direct speech for a lot of the dialogue, roleplaying it almost as if it were LARP (two of us were also LARPers), and I felt the same kind of immersion that I feel in roleplaying games. True, it was interrupted and broken up when I had to take on the role of mini-GM, which I found somewhat jarring; also true, the "facilitator", who is a proper storygamer, was trying to get me to give "punchier" narrations (not sure if that meant less use of direct speech).

Was this an example of perfect compatibility between immersion and storygaming? No. For me, it was an example of tension between them. But that tension could only arise in the first place because there was some element of immersion, quite a bit actually, despite it being probably pretty much the most hardcore storygame on the market. I mean, it's divided into pre-set episodes with more or less pre-set conclusions, and it's more or less entirely about so-called narrativism; there's no single GM - everyone gets a turn at being a mini-GM; everyone plays multiple characters; it's all about the dilemma of whether to die for your beliefs and even the answer to that is kind of pre-set.

I would definitely agree that trying to combine full-on immersive roleplay with full-on storygaming presents a special challenge. I'm not absolutely sure it can be done. My own priority is full-on immersive roleplay.

I also, to reiterate, have no personal attachment whatsoever to the notion of "collaboratively creating a story", I more or less never think of myself as being involved in "creating a story" and as a player at least my primary interest is in immersive roleplay and I prefer it when nearly every decision I make can be based more or less entirely on what my character would naturally want to do, or better still when nearly every decision feels as if it's my character's.

But is it insane to suggest that there is some inherent overlap between immersion and storygaming, despite all the much-hyped tension between them? Or that there might be some way of combining both to some extent without completely ruining either of them? I don't see why.

If you care to explain (1) exactly what it is that you identify as the true core essence of storygaming and (2) exactly why you say that that kind of gaming is not only going to disrupt but in fact destroy immersion whenever it rears its, in your view, ugly head, then please go ahead.

I appreciate the argument that gaming focused on creating a good "story" inherently detracts from the immersion of those players who are focusing on creating a good "story". I would even say that generally speaking (and for me personally, in my own experience) that argument tends to be correct (though there might well be some players for whom that is not true). What I don't understand is why the fact that Player A is focusing on creating a good "story" should have any intrinsic effect on Player B's immersion in character at all, provided of course that Player A keeps his character's actions believable, is subtle about what he's doing and doesn't for example sit there saying "hey guys I think I could spend my bennies on getting this and that plot-event to happen which would then create an interesting dilemma and make for a great story so tell you what instead of doing what my character would naturally and believably do I'm going to have him stab his lover in a fit of pique instead on some imaginary pretext because that will make a far better story aren't I cool!" or "hey Mr. GM do you mind if I just narrate a magic sword into existence we can pretend I had it all along seeing as this monster needs a +2 weapon to hit it and if we don't kill it we'll end up in prison which would make the game less interesting because it would mean we can't see the princess's reaction when we save her".

And I just can't believe that you honestly think my intention or agenda here is anything other than rigorous analytical engagement with the subject-matter. I mean the notion that someone who enjoys immersive roleplay, who wants more people to roleplay immersively, who wants to show them how and encourage them, that that person (me) would be trying to use disingenuous arguments to get people to somehow believe that roleplaying games are or should be about the players consciously creating a good story, and to do so with a view to destroying immersion... just makes me wonder where your marbles are. I suspect you don't know.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468271To 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.

To bring the thread back on track, does anyone substantially disagree with this or feel that more needs to be said about these sorts of things?

Personally I think there is room in the world for assistant GMs who are not fully co-GMs and whose characters are in some sense PCs.

In fact in the V:tR MET-LARP game I play there are numerous GMs and assistant GMs of various kinds and they all play PCs (though the actual GMs don't generally play PCs during the sessions which they are actually GMing... but I've seen them GM the odd "scene" while they were playing a PC).

Quote from: Benoist;467592PS: Sorry. Frustrated with all the shit going on with the move, boxing up stuff and all. -Ben

You moving to someplace else in Canada, or back to Europe?

P.S. Being older, I really hate moving. These days, if for some reason, I have to relocate... I'm inclined to just buy a new place to live, and decorate it as if it were new. I'm pretty sure I could fit the gaming stuff I would want to bring with me onto one rather tall pallet, but wouldn't have trouble building two pallets for the game collection. Everything else would stay, and this could always be a place I return to from time-to-time.

Quote from: Omnifray;468475Personally I think there is room in the world for assistant GMs who are not fully co-GMs and whose characters are in some sense PCs.

Quoteprovided of course that Player A keeps his character's actions believable, is subtle about what he's doing

This 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.

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!