Or, in more simple terms:

if you use general terms, when you might be talking about games that you play, it can sound like you are talking about games that I(or those like me) play, whether you mean to or not.

Quote from: John Morrow;390234What 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?

Let's call it the last two.  You are 'submerged' into the character, so you identify with (their goals are your goals) and think as (making decisions from their point of view) the character.  I'd say thinking about them is just normal stuff.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;390242Or, in more simple terms:

if you use general terms, when you might be talking about games that you play, it can sound like you are talking about games that I(or those like me) play, whether you mean to or not.

For fuck's sake: no one gives a fuck about whether you play any particular game or not. Defending some game you didn't write is not your job.

Defending some game you didn't write from people who weren't even talking about it isn't just not your job, it's you being an asshole and a thread crapper. Please: do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up.

Quote from: JMSo 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.

Opacity is, I will admit, bad. But for a technical discussion, opacity is preferable to ambiguity. Opacity can be explained away. Hell, opacity can be untangled in an FAQ. Ambiguity needs to be clarified for each statement to each observer. It's the death of conversation.

Now, I am totally with you on Luck points (or Fate, or Edge, or whatever) acting as a sort of barrier to in-character thought. The player knows when things will and will not work out, thereby leading the character to play it safe and take crazy risks alternately without reference to any inputs in the world. Because from the standpoint of the decision maker, the relative level of risk isn't actually changing - because they are spending points to manipulate odds in a manner that would be invisible to the characters.

However, even in that case I think it is a highly genre dependent question. In a horror game, the characters are supposed to be irrational. They are horror movie characters after all. So having a reserve of totally out of character get-out-of-jail-free cards could be totally helpful in getting into the mindset of someone who intends to go make out with her boyfriend while there is a guy with a hockey mask on the loose doing amateur butchering of promiscuous teens. The character evidently irrationally thinks they are going to live and stay young forever, having some dissociative mechanic on hand to make those delusions true can be really helpful.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390247However, even in that case I think it is a highly genre dependent question. In a horror game, the characters are supposed to be irrational. They are horror movie characters after all. So having a reserve of totally out of character get-out-of-jail-free cards could be totally helpful in getting into the mindset of someone who intends to go make out with her boyfriend while there is a guy with a hockey mask on the loose doing amateur butchering of promiscuous teens. The character evidently irrationally thinks they are going to live and stay young forever, having some dissociative mechanic on hand to make those delusions true can be really helpful.

-Frank

This is an important point because it identifies two different design goals for a game.  One is "genre emulation".  For genre emulation, going in you know that you are trying to emulate the style of the book, comic, genre, what have you.  In this type of game dissociated mechanics can be very helpful, because the players are by design a level removed from their character through the genre awareness.  Yet to people playing that game, they can become engrossed in it because the dissociated mechanics help suspension of disbelief of the genre.  The role someone is playing in a game like this is the role of a person in a movie, in a comic, in a book, in a tv series, etc.

The other is "world simulation" where the goal is to create a "World in Motion" that allows the players to get "submersed" "immersed in character" "DeepIC" etc. Here the rules exist as a physics engine, merely to determine the outcome of character action.  Usually, there is no other agenda for the rules, and if there is a secondary agenda for the rules like achieving a "feel" of swashbuckling adventure at the same time, then those mechanics are usually associated, not dissociated.

So, if you are talking about a generically defined immersion, then yes, it is true that a dissociated mechanic can in fact aid immersion.  However, JA wasn't talking about that kind of immersion in this thread.  I actually like the term DeepIC.

@Lord Vreeg  I know you like the term immersion, but you have to qualify it with 4 other sentences in your disclaimer, wouldn't it be easier to just try and get a different term going here?

Quote from: CRKrueger;390252This is an important point because it identifies two different design goals for a game.  One is "genre emulation".  For genre emulation, going in you know that you are trying to emulate the style of the book, comic, genre, what have you.  In this type of game dissociated mechanics can be very helpful, because the players are by design a level removed from their character through the genre awareness.  Yet to people playing that game, they can become engrossed in it because the dissociated mechanics help suspension of disbelief of the genre.  The role someone is playing in a game like this is the role of a person in a movie, in a comic, in a book, in a tv series, etc.

The other is "world simulation" where the goal is to create a "World in Motion" that allows the players to get "submersed" "immersed in character" "DeepIC" etc. Here the rules exist as a physics engine, merely to determine the outcome of character action.  Usually, there is no other agenda for the rules, and if there is a secondary agenda for the rules like achieving a "feel" of swashbuckling adventure at the same time, then those mechanics are usually associated, not dissociated.

So, if you are talking about a generically defined immersion, then yes, it is true that a dissociated mechanic can in fact aid immersion.  However, JA wasn't talking about that kind of immersion in this thread.  I actually like the term DeepIC.

@Lord Vreeg  I know you like the term immersion, but you have to qualify it with 4 other sentences in your disclaimer, wouldn't it be easier to just try and get a different term going here?

Well, that was a nice request.
The least I can do is answer.
I use 'Character immersion' when I am talking about 1st person perspective.  I have also used  '1st person immersion' and '3rd person immersion', using the writing POV, sincce many people who think about how their character would think describe their character in 3rd person, "My character, He jumps over the table!"  as opposed to, " I jump across the table."

Quote from: FrankTrollman;390247However, even in that case I think it is a highly genre dependent question.

The problem of disassociated mechanics has to do with verisimilitude, which is independent of genre.  Some genres and works of fiction have better verisimilitude than others.  

That the Star Trek genre is often thought to include "red shirts" is a good example.  That red shirts die and heroes don't is a story convention that not only doesn't make any sense in the story but noticing it as a genre convention is actually detrimental to verisimilitude.  Noticing it reminds you that story logic rather than setting logic is in play.

The irrational behavior of characters in horror movies is another good example.  I've been at movies where people openly mocked the characters for being irrational by shouting things out at the screen.  It may be appropriate in genre but not good for verisimilitude or even immersion into the story, even in movies.  In fact, I might argue that being strongly genre, any genre, is detrimental to verisimilitude.

That many genres have elements of genre that are hostile to verisimilitude is why parodies and comedies of those genres are quite common.  See movies like Police Squad, Airplane, Hot Shots, or Scary Movie for good examples.

Quote from: John Morrow;390263The problem of disassociated mechanics has to do with verisimilitude, which is independent of genre.  Some genres and works of fiction have better verisimilitude than others.  

That the Star Trek genre is often thought to include "red shirts" is a good example.  That red shirts die and heroes don't is a story convention that not only doesn't make any sense in the story but noticing it as a genre convention is actually detrimental to verisimilitude.  Noticing it reminds you that story logic rather than setting logic is in play.

The irrational behavior of characters in horror movies is another good example.  I've been at movies where people openly mocked the characters for being irrational by shouting things out at the screen.  It may be appropriate in genre but not good for verisimilitude or even immersion into the story, even in movies.  In fact, I might argue that being strongly genre, any genre, is detrimental to verisimilitude.

That many genres have elements of genre that are hostile to verisimilitude is why parodies and comedies of those genres are quite common.  See movies like Police Squad, Airplane, Hot Shots, or Scary Movie for good examples.

This was my problem with a few earlier comments as well.  Mechanics that modelled the genre were actaully modelling the genre's difference/distance from a realistic setting.  If the setting world really worked the way the genre convention did, less people would respond the way they did.
(BTW, the red shirt example is perfect.)

Quote from: LordVreeg;390266This was my problem with a few earlier comments as well.  Mechanics that modelled the genre were actaully modelling the genre's difference/distance from a realistic setting.  If the setting world really worked the way the genre convention did, less people would respond the way they did.
(BTW, the red shirt example is perfect.)

Exactly, which is why being engrossed into a horror genre game, or a tv-series game isn't the same as DeepIC verisimilitude even though people might use the term immersion to describe both.

Quote from: LordVreeg;390266This was my problem with a few earlier comments as well.  Mechanics that modelled the genre were actaully modelling the genre's difference/distance from a realistic setting.  If the setting world really worked the way the genre convention did, less people would respond the way they did.
(BTW, the red shirt example is perfect.)

Examples of red shirt parodies:

The Newz Star Trek red shirt parody:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Family Guy

Quote from: LordVreeg;390266This was my problem with a few earlier comments as well.  Mechanics that modelled the genre were actaully modelling the genre's difference/distance from a realistic setting.  If the setting world really worked the way the genre convention did, less people would respond the way they did.
(BTW, the red shirt example is perfect.)

I suppose I should also point out that when some people run Star Trek games, they use the setting and technology but downplay and clean up the story-based quirks of the series as an undesirable side-effect of bad writing to be swept under the carpet and forgotten while others view those side-effects of story writing as the essence of what Star Trek and try to emphasize those elements as an essential part of the genre.  Both sets of people are looking for something very different out of a "Star Trek" game.

Quote from: John Morrow;390263The problem of disassociated mechanics has to do with verisimilitude, which is independent of genre.  Some genres and works of fiction have better verisimilitude than others.  

That the Star Trek genre is often thought to include "red shirts" is a good example.  That red shirts die and heroes don't is a story convention that not only doesn't make any sense in the story but noticing it as a genre convention is actually detrimental to verisimilitude.  Noticing it reminds you that story logic rather than setting logic is in play.

The irrational behavior of characters in horror movies is another good example.  I've been at movies where people openly mocked the characters for being irrational by shouting things out at the screen.  It may be appropriate in genre but not good for verisimilitude or even immersion into the story, even in movies.  In fact, I might argue that being strongly genre, any genre, is detrimental to verisimilitude.

That many genres have elements of genre that are hostile to verisimilitude is why parodies and comedies of those genres are quite common.  See movies like Police Squad, Airplane, Hot Shots, or Scary Movie for good examples.

I'd agree in general - that being immersed in the fictional character and setting is different than playing along with the genre.  Some genres are definitely less immersive than others.  

I'd take issue with the analysis of horror movies, though.  The audience of a horror movie knows that they are watching a horror movie - and know the story tropes of it.  So often when they shout things out at the screen, it is usually because they want the character to act like they know they are in a horror movie.  That's not really rational based on what the character knows.  

Any fiction inherently has a distance from the real world, and must use devices outside the fictional world to try to bridge that distance.  For example, movies are never filmed only viewing from the point-of-view of the main character.  i.e. Even though the character sees through their own eyes, the film can make you feel more in touch with the main character if other visual techniques are used.  

I think the same applies in a role-playing game.  There are different techniques, some of which could be called "meta-game," that might help the player immerse more in character.

Quote from: John Morrow;390281I suppose I should also point out that when some people run Star Trek games, they use the setting and technology but downplay and clean up the story-based quirks of the series as an undesirable side-effect of bad writing to be swept under the carpet and forgotten while others view those side-effects of story writing as the essence of what Star Trek and try to emphasize those elements as an essential part of the genre.  Both sets of people are looking for something very different out of a "Star Trek" game.

What that thing is, ain't immersion. It's realism.

Which in itself, is no big deal- one choice amongst many. Some people like things to be more .."realistic" I guess. Ok, hey, that's fine.

The problem comes when people start thinking of it as the "one true way" as if these preferences were actually supremacist political parties and we had less in common than we actually do. They'll use phrases like "exactly how it should be done", or "the right way to do it", and they'll have a big problem with genre conventions the further those genre conventions stray from their internalized mental models of simulation.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;390285What that thing is, ain't immersion. It's realism.

Without the latter, I can't get the former in character for a very basic reason.  When thinking in character, the character puts the various elements of the setting and their situation together to create their reality and decide what's possible and what they'll do.  When their setting and situation adds up to something that doesn't make any sense, either immersion breaks or the character starts acting crazy.  

I highly recommend watching Last Action Hero (e.g., this scene is a good one) and The Truman Show for great illustrations of what it feels like to become aware that the world around the character isn't real from the character's perspective and what it means to become aware of genre conventions in character.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;390285The problem comes when people start thinking of it as the "one true way" as if these preferences were actually supremacist political parties and we had less in common than we actually do. They'll use phrases like "exactly how it should be done", or "the right way to do it", and they'll have a big problem with genre conventions the further those genre conventions stray from their internalized mental models of simulation.

It's not about a problem with their "internalized mental models" but that there simply is no way to make a logical mental model that allows a character to simultaneously realize that they have script immunity yet still behave as if situations are really dangerous and they could die or for the character to simultaneously know that their guns will never run out of bullets or need to be reloaded yet count and keep track of the bullets.  Those genre conventions are, to be perfectly honest, the side-effects of lazy writing and pacing shortcuts and they are parodied precisely because they are silly and real people wouldn't react to them that way.  

And in my experience, strongly unrealistic genre elements don't immerse people in the story but, instead, makes them aloof from it.  The reaction I've seen people have to movies with overt genre conventions like script immunity or red shirts is more akin to the opening of Last Action Hero, where the kid accurately predicts what's going to happen in a movie he's never seen because he's got the genre conventions down pat.  The very reason why things like the deaths in the movie Serenity or the ending of Seven are so surprising and powerful is because they violate genre conventions that many people take for granted about script immunity and happy endings.  

And this goes back to the related complaint raised against games where its impossible for the characters to lose or die because for the characters to behave as if situations are dangerous when the player knows that they aren't dangerous and all of the evidence in the setting shows that they aren't dangerous requires the player and their character to ignore the evidence and facts before them and behave as if they don't know about them.  To willingly suspend disbelief means to avert ones eyes from what actually happens in the game and setting and pretend it doesn't exist.

Quote from: jhkim;390284I'd take issue with the analysis of horror movies, though.  The audience of a horror movie knows that they are watching a horror movie - and know the story tropes of it.  So often when they shout things out at the screen, it is usually because they want the character to act like they know they are in a horror movie.  That's not really rational based on what the character knows.

It depends on the movie but some horror movies have characters do things that no real sane person would do.  One critic described what he called the "stupid person plot", which is a movie with a plot that can only advance due to the characters being willfully stupid.

Further, let's assume that the reaction I described was because the audience knows something that the character doesn't.  As soon as you tell the players you are running a horror game, the players know what the audience knows and the only way they'll get their characters to behave in the innocently naive way requires to advance the horror plot (and should, by genre convention, get their characters killed) is for the player to ignore what they know about the game.  The way to get the movie Alien from a group of people who think in character is to tell them you are running a game about space miners in hock to a large corporation on a deep space mission and then turn it into a horror game.  But then you run the danger of the players being annoyed by playing in a type of game that they don't want to play.

ADDED:  Yes, I know that players can firewall what they know from their characters.  But the more they know about such genre conventions, the more they have to firewall.

Quote from: jhkim;390284Any fiction inherently has a distance from the real world, and must use devices outside the fictional world to try to bridge that distance.  For example, movies are never filmed only viewing from the point-of-view of the main character.  i.e. Even though the character sees through their own eyes, the film can make you feel more in touch with the main character if other visual techniques are used.

Sure, but that explanation points out that these devices are a response to a problem that can create it's own problems, not a desirable and integral part of the setting or characters.  

By analogy, preservatives are added to food to keep them from spoiling.  Like various bits of genre artifice, they are a necessary evil.  But the way some people talk about genre elements in role-playing is like hearing someone talk about purposely adding preservatives to their fresh foods because they believe preservatives are an integral part of food and make any food better.

Quote from: jhkim;390284I think the same applies in a role-playing game.  There are different techniques, some of which could be called "meta-game," that might help the player immerse more in character.

For example?

I'd definitely second Morrow's request for an example, since its not clear to me either what is being meant here.
I'm probably reiterating, however...
With regard to genre emulation vs. reality emulation, it seems to me that some genres have less capacity to support meaningful in-character motivation or feeling, so a detailed genre emulation still means the immersion has less "depth"

e.g. 1: When you go and watch an "Indiana Jones" movie, you're sure beyond reasonable doubt that he's not going to die. You can build game systems for this, which probably involve giving an Indiana Jones character enough "plot points" or Luck points for him to be indestructible. Its very difficult to duplicate moments when Indiana is then going "uh on" since the player knows how many plot points are left. To create a feeling of excitement that emulates the genre here, you may have to have rules that break the genre conventions? Say, a character might have to have some chance to die - either because their luck points can't always save them or because they need to be able to provide some wacky but remotely plausible in-character scheme to spend them - however low.

e.g. 2: if you're emulating an action genre, there's going to be less immersion because the characters have less depth. Your average bad action hero is usually one- or two-dimensional in the literary sense (they have a Physical Description and may or may not have Personality or Background). Again, prospects for immersion being actually interesting here are limited or uninspiring. That may not be a concern here though, people don't watch Rambo for the deep and complex emotional connections between characters.