Immersion is pretty plain english, but I've basically had to resort to "Immersion using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" to not have a knock-down dragout fight over what the hell I'm referring to.

I'm not the jargonator.

No one has ever said someone who doesn't "character immerse" doesn't matter, we're just trying to get people who apparently don't "character immerse using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" to stop telling the people that do "character immerse using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" that 4e by design doesn't make it hard to do something that they don't do. Instead they tell us, even though they don't "character immerse using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" that we're just coming up with lame justifications for not liking 4e.

...and say it every time they can.

Quote from: CRKrueger;390181Immersion is pretty plain english, but I've basically had to resort to "Immersion using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" to not have a knock-down dragout fight over what the hell I'm referring to.

I'm not the jargonator.

No one has ever said someone who doesn't "character immerse" doesn't matter, we're just trying to get people who apparently don't "character immerse using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" to stop telling the people that do "character immerse using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" that 4e by design makes it hard to do something that they don't do. Instead they tell us, even though they don't "character immerse using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" that we're just coming up with lame justifications for not liking 4e.

...and say it every time they can.

I've got it!  How about 'submersion' when you are totally into the character instead of 'immersion'.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390165Where do you get that from.

Where the hell do you think I get this from? I dreamed it in a dream!

No, it was actually from:
1) Seeing 4e players play, and
2) Listening to 4e players complain about this phenomenon.

I think it comes down to playstyle. No one is saying disassociated mechanics is bad in an rpg. Everybody says they can roleplay perfectly with chess and monopoly. At one point in rpg.net I was asking, why Descent boardgame isn't called an rpg.

The main difference that I see is which rpg system requires roleplaying to be fun, and rpg with disassociated mechanics has the "optional roleplaying" feature. I can choose not to roleplay my character and just treat it as a chess piece in 4e, which I do, and still have fun. When I attack, I don't describe my attacks as my powers already has a preset fluff of what my "chess piece" does. Many times I just say "I at-will him". Same like chess, you don't describe a mounted knight charging and jumping over pawns, it is hardcoded the way he moves.

I think that is one goal the designers want as to make it easier for a newbie to get into. No descriptions or acting required, as long as you play the power and hit, you are playing the game properly. This of course led to many haters calling it a minis game with free form roleplaying.

Does Arkham Horror encourages roleplaying or is it optional? That is the question.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;390211Where the hell do you think I get this from? I dreamed it in a dream!

No, it was actually from:
1) Seeing 4e players play, and
2) Listening to 4e players complain about this phenomenon.

So they did it themselves, and then they complained about their own actions?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;390220So they did it themselves, and then they complained about their own actions?

You know, more than one person sits at a table when playing the typical RPG.

You really will say anything to deflect a perceived slight to your precious, won't you?

Quote from: Benoist;390174I got that, personally. I also happen to agree with CRK's point, which isn't specific to you, dude. Just for the record.

I ended up spending large protions of a thread in defining very basic terms again and again recently.  I will use them first.

"On the truly positive side, I am building a full cut-and-paste library of answers through this thread."

"Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player"

"In an RPG, it is used as shorthand for, 'character immersion' or 'first-person immersion', whereas other perfectly legitimate uses of the term outside the industry would include 'immersing' (being submerged) in the setting of a play or a book."

So in my opnion, the phenomenon of thinking in character and repsonding as the character in the game setting is 'Character Immersion', the main one we speak about.


AS to weapons, armor, gear, backstory, etc, we've always called the phenomenon of creating the character based on the character's background and personality (as opposed to optimizing in any way) the process of identifying with the character.  Steeped in a culture, a guild, a school, using an heirloom of the family, whatever, all good.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;390222You know, more than one person sits at a table when playing the typical RPG.

You really will say anything to deflect a perceived slight to your precious, won't you?

No, I'm trying to understand. You said "4e players do this: _(whatever negative thing, entirely within the abilities of the group themselves to control)_" and then you said they also complain about it. That to me is contradictory.

So we're really talking about more than one group, but you made it sound like "4e players" as if they were all one.

I know that I've encountered the griefer types who only take part in 4th edition games because

1) it's all they can find, and sometimes
2) they want to break them.

The first one seems kind of excusable, but to that I say, get over it. You decide what you want to play or not and stick to it. Otherwise, have the maturity and the self-respect to leave.

But that second thing is one of the most screwed up and detestable human behaviors I've ever encountered.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;390227No, I'm trying to understand. You said "4e players do this: _(whatever negative thing, entirely within the abilities of the group themselves to control)_" and then you said they also complain about it. That to me is contradictory.

So we're really talking about more than one group, but you made it sound like "4e players" as if they were all one.

TCO asked where this observation comes from. I listed two sources of that observation. They weren't meant to be sequential. In fact it's sort of the opposite. Someone drew my attention to it, then I observed it first hand.

QuoteI know that I've encountered the griefer types who only take part in 4th edition games because

1) it's all they can find, and sometimes
2) they want to break them.

The first one seems kind of excusable, but to that I say, get over it.

Eh. The one player I personally knew who pointed this out was an active decision maker in that group, and they ended up moving on to some else. Its not like he was forced into iplaying 4e and was looking for something to complain about.

Quote from: Peregrin;390173In other words, why not just cut out all of the cultural context and use plain English since so many in the hobby have a problem with "jargon" and "buzzwords" in the first place?

Take a few minutes to watch this Schoolhouse Rock video about why people use pronouns.  People use jargon for the same reason.  It becomes very difficult to carry out a conversation when you need a repeat a dozen words every time you describe a concept to make it clear in "plain English".  So the challenge is, how do you describe these concepts in no more than two or three words that are easy to say over and over again without creating confusion?  

And even if you do meet that challenge, it still won't stop someone who is determined to undermine the discussion, not because they find the words confusing but because they don't experience or clearly understand what's being discussed.

For example, I've been talking about using "thinking in character" as a short hand for the particular sort of immersion that involves approaching the game thinking about what's happening in the game as one's character.  But even that phrase could be undermined by a person determined to insist that when they think about what their character would do next that it's the same thing as "thinking in character", either because they don't experience such play themselves or perhaps disbelieve the very idea that someone could think in character.

Quote from: CRKrueger;390181Immersion is pretty plain english, but I've basically had to resort to "Immersion using the criteria of character/setting verisimilitude" to not have a knock-down dragout fight over what the hell I'm referring to.

The development of the term "immersion" to refer to thinking in character happened, at least on rec.games.frp.advocacy, because the stances categories that were being used to describe the perspectives from which a player or GM could look at the game included the "In Character" point-of-view (aka IC or IC POV) and that perspective included both players who thought in character and players who thought about what their characters were thinking.  Externally, the two approaches can be very difficult to distinguish between because they produce similar play to an observer but they are quite different internally.  So people started talking about "Deep IC" to describe thinking in character (do a Google Groups search on the title "dice and the ic pov" to find some very long discussion threads using the original "ic pov").  Believe it or not, people found "Deep IC" to be more opaque and difficult to understand than "immersion" so the term "immersion" replaced it in discussions.  It made sense in a closed group that knew what they were talking about.  It works less well with people trying to use broad plain English definitions to understand the terms.

Quote from: StormBringer;390189I've got it!  How about 'submersion' when you are totally into the character instead of 'immersion'.

What does being "totally into the character" mean?  Does it mean thinking in character?  Does it mean identifying with the character?  Does it mean understanding the character?  Any replacement term or phrase that is going to be less confusing needs to describe how a player is engaged with their character.  Thinking about them?  Identifying with them?  Thinking as them?

Quote from: JMThe development of the term "immersion" to refer to thinking in character happened, at least on rec.games.frp.advocacy, because the stances categories that were being used to describe the perspectives from which a player or GM could look at the game included the "In Character" point-of-view (aka IC or IC POV) and that perspective included both players who thought in character and players who thought about what their characters were thinking.

I still vehemently oppose the use of that term in this context however, because "Immersion" also has several Natural English meanings that are subtly or substantially different, but more importantly are still incredibly relevant to discussions about role playing games and the way people interact with them. Basically you got Immersion (Story Telling) and Immersion (Role Playing), and I don't think either can make any headway in any conversation as long as everyone is shouting at each other "No, you get another word!"

The only responsible choice is for both groups to get another word. Like how conflicts over Realism (Our World) and Realism (In World) and Realism (In Genre) eventually caused us to abandon the word "Realism" altogether. Now we talk about Grittiness, Verisimilitude, and Conventions. If your word is specifically and unavoidably vague, the mature response is not to shout at the heavens to stake your claim on it and drive other uses away - it's to pack up and get a new word you can actually defend.

It doesn't even matter what jargon you use, so long as it is clear. This is English. You can even coin a new word like "Protagonism" or "Voicing." "Immersion" is not clear. And cannot ever be clear because it has been separately claimed by different theories of game design to mean different things.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390236I still vehemently oppose the use of that term in this context however, because "Immersion" also has several Natural English meanings that are subtly or substantially different, but more importantly are still incredibly relevant to discussions about role playing games and the way people interact with them. Basically you got Immersion (Story Telling) and Immersion (Role Playing), and I don't think either can make any headway in any conversation as long as everyone is shouting at each other "No, you get another word!"

The only responsible choice is for both groups to get another word. Like how conflicts over Realism (Our World) and Realism (In World) and Realism (In Genre) eventually caused us to abandon the word "Realism" altogether. Now we talk about Grittiness, Verisimilitude, and Conventions. If your word is specifically and unavoidably vague, the mature response is not to shout at the heavens to stake your claim on it and drive other uses away - it's to pack up and get a new word you can actually defend.

It doesn't even matter what jargon you use, so long as it is clear. This is English. You can even coin a new word like "Protagonism" or "Voicing." "Immersion" is not clear. And cannot ever be clear because it has been separately claimed by different theories of game design to mean different things.

-Frank

Frank, I disagree.
And my ass has spent far too much time defining as well.
But 'Choosing' how other people will use words is rather difficult and somewhat imprecise. It's not like these groups have member lists and bylaws.  
And I don't feel like holding up conversation waiting for the zeitgeist to catch up; this is a common phenomenon.  Opposing the use of the word does not help advance the conversation one bit.

Though it certainly is better than those who use the seperate definitions as an arguing point.

Where people get into trouble is when they make blanket statements about something(playing RPGs) that has many different and conflicting forms. Immersion and associative/dissociative mechanics may be clear, but they are not at all specific. When you use blanket general terms like these along with the even more general term "role playing" to discuss a very specific style of playing RPGs, it is going to sound like you are belittling other styles of play to people who don't share your tastes.

Using general terms like this might work in a completely homogenous environment, but that isn't the case on this forum, despite a majority of like minded people here forming a weak echo chamber.