Quote from: LordVreeg;568785No, there is no doubt that you succesfully found a position you can hold despite what anyone else writes or theorizes or supports, because there really is not an agreed upon RPG definition of the game.  I wouldn't call you a contrarian so much as a strategic arguer.

I'm not holding a position on what immersion means, beyond holding that it varies by the person speaking.

There is little strategic in that, and less to be gained in itself. I'm merely pointing out that the immersion part of this thread has decayed into "Is Too!" /"Is Not" exchanges that can't be resolved. I'd like to see it go back to something more interesting.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568785Of course, since as you mention that no such master definition exists I assume that you'd find any source not friendly to you as 'lame'.  

I enjoy reading various sources, but not when they are presented as an appeal to authority as you did. Instead I wanted a direct answer to my questions:

1) Do you believe there is only one official definition of immersion (that by the way just happens to agree with you)?

2) Do you believe that there are only certain mechanics and methods (defined by you, or a source of your choice) that allow immersion?

I'm still waiting for my direct answer as you chase whatever it is that you're chasing around that bush.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568785What is your opinion (and others, please feel free) to the expanded comment, "Metagaming is considered the opposite of Immersive roleplaying"?  

I'm already on record as saying that the statement is misleading at best. The more I think about, the more I'm leaning towards calling it plainly false as I don't believe that role-playing requires or is even improved by consideration of only a direct character PoV.

Quote from: gleichman

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegNo, there is no doubt that you succesfully found a position you can hold despite what anyone else writes or theorizes or supports, because there really is not an agreed upon RPG definition of the game. I wouldn't call you a contrarian so much as a strategic arguer.

I'm not holding a position on what immersion means, beyond holding that it varies by the person speaking.

There is little strategic in that, and less to be gained in itself. I'm merely pointing out that the immersion part of this thread has decayed into "Is Too!" /"Is Not" exchanges that can't be resolved. I'd like to see it go back to something more interesting.

Well, in as much as a subjective experience is fundamentally unknowable, I can't help but agreeing to some extent.

Quote from: gleichman

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegOf course, since as you mention that no such master definition exists I assume that you'd find any source not friendly to you as 'lame'.

I enjoy reading various sources, but not when they are presented as an appeal to authority as you did. Instead I wanted a direct answer to my questions:

1) Do you believe there is only one official definition of immersion (that by the way just happens to agree with you)?

2) Do you believe that there are only certain mechanics and methods (defined by you, or a source of your choice) that allow immersion?

I'm still waiting for my direct answer as you chase whatever it is that you're chasing around that bush.

well, if we need to be correct, this was the extent of the supposed, "appeal"...

Quote from: LVOr, to quote one of the best set of articles I've read (although I do argue with the author on occasion)

I admit to calling it one of the best sets of articles, but there was no implication of authority, rather a direct comment that I was quoting a well written bit of an article.  

and

1) I believe and have stated that while there are definitions of the word, there is no agreed upon RPG definition.  

2) I believe that certain game mechanics that cause a dissonance with staying in an immersed position, sometimes with mechanics that don't match the setting, and some mechanics that force a metagamed position.

Quote from: LordVreeg;5688031) I believe and have stated that while there are definitions of the word, there is no agreed upon RPG definition.  

2) I believe that certain game mechanics that cause a dissonance with staying in an immersed position, sometimes with mechanics that don't match the setting, and some mechanics that force a metagamed position.

I don't see how you can make the leap from statement #1 to statement #2 without a qualifying phrase such "for immersion as I practice it (or as I understand it)".

One could claim that it's implied, however I would claim that idea has long since been lost in this thread.

Quote from: gleichman;568755Not really, it's just that an Appeal to Authority requires "legitimate expertise and expert consensus", and neither of those conditions have been proven. The Authority in this case is basically the same as mine, another gamer. Color me unimpressed (as far as an Appeal to Authority goes).

To point this out is not an attack on Justin (who I may or may not agree with on individual items), nor even his ideas. It's just a statement that his judgement is not Law. No one is bound by his opinion save those who wish to be.

Generally, the only person who refers to Justin Alexander as an appeal to authority is Justin Alexander.

Quote from: gleichman;568806that idea has long since been lost in this thread.

Only by people who want to re-define something so as to make the definition essentially meaningless.  Of course I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that under the proposed definition used (by the rest of the world outside RPGs) those same people don't immersively roleplay by any previous definition. :rolleyes:

I guess the definition of roleplaying and immersion once it gets to RPGs consists of "goddamn dice are cool".

Quote from: CRKrueger;568822Only by people who want to re-define something so as to make the definition essentially meaningless.

Meaningless or not in your view, once they define what the terms means to them you should accept that it is what it means to them.

Quote from: gleichman;568857Meaningless or not in your view, once they define what the terms means to them you should accept that it is what it means to them.

Hmm, why does the term "immersion" get tossed into the "definition of this word is an opinion" pile?

I'm asking, honestly, because you don't strike me as a person who goes for subjective word definitions, generally speaking.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568861Hmm, why does the term "immersion" get tossed into the "definition of this word is an opinion" pile?

It gets tossed in there because I see no way to keep it from getting tossed in there. The pile is already too deep to sort, the online culture has poisoned the well (in much the same way as moral relativism has poisoned the concept of Good and Evil).


But mostly because the typical use of the word (no matter how much much the person saying it believes in their defintion) is used as a conversation ender. "I can't do X because it breaks my immersion...", therefore game X isn't a role-playing game (or is a terrible role-playing game, or a diseased turtle, whatever the claim is)".

In practical terms something that does in truth little other then define the speaker's limits (i.e. what breaks his immersion) is used to attack others. From this mindset comes the claims by many here that my use of maps and minis means I'm wargaming and not role-playing. Or that Story-Games aren't role-playing.

Quote from: gleichman;568869From this mindset comes the claims by many here that my use of maps and minis means I'm wargaming and not role-playing.

Yeah but someone using the term to make a false statement doesn't mean we need to toss out the term, does it?  We'd lose half our economic, legal and political language if we did (maybe you have something there )

Quote from: gleichman;568869Or that Story-Games aren't role-playing.

Some Storygames are not roleplaying games, by their own author's admission, others you can have a lot of discussion about.

IME, nothing leads to a faster "Is so/Is not" clusterfuck then a lack of useful terminology and definitions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568881Yeah but someone using the term to make a false statement doesn't mean we need to toss out the term, does it?

Given how often that happens here at therpgsite? I say we have little choice.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568881IME, nothing leads to a faster "Is so/Is not" clusterfuck then a lack of useful terminology and definitions

Online there's one thing that does, the attempt to make useful terminology and definitions.

QuoteHmm, why does the term "immersion" get tossed into the "definition of this word is an opinion" pile?

Because there are different types of immersion. Some people get immersed in the character and thinking as he or she would, others get immersed in the fiction and want to see what happens next. Others get immersed in the gameplay and want to figure out the best course of action, combat or otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with this, it's just different people finding different aspects of RPGs interesting.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568893Because there are different types of immersion. Some people get immersed in the character and thinking as he or she would, others get immersed in the fiction and want to see what happens next. Others get immersed in the gameplay and want to figure out the best course of action, combat or otherwise.

For me, the best RPG campaign experience is when a person does all three and fully engages the gameplay, the character and the resulting fiction. Anything less seems a waste to me.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;568893Because there are different types of immersion. Some people get immersed in the character and thinking as he or she would, others get immersed in the fiction and want to see what happens next. Others get immersed in the gameplay and want to figure out the best course of action, combat or otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with this, it's just different people finding different aspects of RPGs interesting.

SO are they all immersive roleplaying? in your mind?  Because there is no doubt you've used the english language correctly.  MOIst of the time on this thread, the term immersion I think I can say was being used to say "Immersed in the role of the character". so we are opening it up a bit here.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568689For example, I often mention the twin suns of my setting, the big yellow one and the little red one (tribin and red gerin) regularly, as they are an exception from our real world experience, which is the job of the GM to give exceptional data to the playerfor them to receive and act from.

In other words, it is the job of the GM to know what the expectations of their players are, and then correct those expectations when contradictions arise, sort of how drinks are labeled sugar and caffeine 'free' despite not listing those ingredients in the first place.

OK, fine. I agree. But you still need a way for the players to communicate those expectations to the GM. And most of the methods used in RPGs to do so break 1st person perspective.

Quote from: LordVreeg;568689In the former examples, we are passively receiving the data from the outside world and acting on it; not creating the data.

Wow, you really don't seem to understand the difference between reality and fantasy.

In reality we DO passively receive data. And ALL the details are present, whether or not we are aware of them. Fine. Agreed. You're good to go.

But in fantasy that's simply NOT POSSIBLE! Somebody somewhere is making up the details as it goes along, whenther it's the players or the GM. And if the GM is making most of it up, then synchronizing expectations with the players is going to disrupt immersion.

Quote from: jhkim;568746I find that extended Q&A about what my character sees can be harmful to immersion for some players.  Out-of-character Q&A doesn't work the way that senses and memory work in the real world.  If my character knows something, she just knows it - she doesn't mentally ask her memory things and then interpret the answer.

Thank you.

Quote from: jhkim;568746What's especially breaking of my immersion is assumption clash - where, say, I declare actions based on what I am imagining, but other players declare actions based on a different picture.  So one player might say, "I pull up a seat at a table" imagining that that is the norm - and when I say I go up to the bar, that player says "Wait, if there's a bar here I would have gone up to the bar, not sat at a table."

This is not so much an assumption clash as it is a simple lack of imagination, because none of the details were contradictory.

I personally believe that assumption clash is the perennial issue of RPG design however, and it's frustrating that it's so rarely addressed. I think it's because when it's working none of the participants are even aware of it, but when it's missing the game breaks down and suddenly people start looking to see what's wrong with the mechanics.

Quote from: jhkim;568746The point is that nothing is an exact simulation of being there, so it's more a question of which differences from reality are more important to you.

Thank you.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;568751Here's your problem. Assuming shit BEFORE you have all the data.

You never HAVE all the data, and even in the real world conclusions are a product of assumptions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;568758Immersion is binary because if I am thinking about my character's actions as "what my character would do" instead of "what he does", or "what I do", then I am looking at it from a point of view outside my character.

"What my character would do" is not Immersion if it is merely one of the factors I am considering.  It is only full immersion if there is no considering at all.

People who do prefer immersive roleplaying know it's difficult and you hardly ever get there, which is why mechanics that force you to look at things from an OOC POV automatically break immersion, by definition.

The idea that a metagaming mechanic prevents immersion is not a preference or an opinion, it's a fact.  Every roleplaying game on earth though contains some level of metagame, the idea is to reduce it as much as possible if you are shooting for a game that immersive roleplayers can enjoy.

And in a surprise move CRKrueger comes out from behind to WIN THE FUCKING THREAD!

Quote from: CRKrueger;568761An especially fine-tuned art is delivering a piece of info the players may notice if they were actually there, but isn't normally included in a bare-bones description.

And then continues winning.

This is also an issue I'd like to see addressed in RPGs with effective technique far more than it is, especially in mystery games where you need to give the players a clue, but you don't want to spell it out for them.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;568970You never HAVE all the data, and even in the real world conclusions are a product of assumptions.

Not ALL. The GM isn't going to tell you what someone is thinking just by looking at them (unless your character can actually do that). Besides that, yes it is possible to have all relevant data and STILL jump to incorrect conclusions via assumptions.

My point was that cutting off the GM then getting pissy when assumptions don't match expected reality is stupid.