Quote from: D-503;569018Not by me, that makes pretty good sense to me. I've seen that description extrapolated into some bizarre assumption of mental illness, but that always strikes me as near wilful misreading.

Yes, I've heard that one too. Which is the crux of the problem; this isn't really about a word.

It's about hostility to a playstyle. The basic assertion I've seen in this thread (and in other, similar threads) is that people who don't play the way we do want to tell us we're wrong about our playstyle and preferences, that we don't exist, that we're liars or mentally ill, or that their play is no different from ours, so there's no reason we can't enjoy the same narrative control mechanics as they do, or whatever.

There's an agenda attached to this particular semantic debate. I'm not really sure what the motive for it is, but it's there, and it's not an attempt to come to understanding. It's an attempt to marginalize.

QuoteTrue. Plus if you followed the definitions they were often circular. Basically it was a pile of pseudo-academic bollocks. The RGFA thing was much better, in that it was at least written in English, but the Forge pretty much poisoned that particular well.

No argument here.

Yeah, the whole defining people out of existence thing is really fucking tired. I've seen it used all over the place. Against storygamers. Against "simulationists". Against people into immersion. It's someone finding their theory at odds with reality, and so attempting to smother reality. The theory varies, the response doesn't as much as it should.

Table-Top RPGs, to Computer RPGs, to MMOs, there does seem to be a memetic war being waged against those who prefer to "roleplay" from within the point of view of a character and those who do not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569057Table-Top RPGs, to Computer RPGs, to MMOs, there does seem to be a memetic war being waged against those who prefer to "roleplay" from within the point of view of a character and those who do not.

Really though when you get right down to it, money talks. I have only the barest grasp on the shifting tides of D&D, but did someone say 4e flopped because it contained narrative mechanics or what? No matter how much of a war some think they are waging on the internet, people will do what people enjoy, and that seems to be roleplaying.

Quote from: D-503;569024Yeah, the whole defining people out of existence thing is really fucking tired. I've seen it used all over the place. Against storygamers. Against "simulationists". Against people into immersion. It's someone finding their theory at odds with reality, and so attempting to smother reality. The theory varies, the response doesn't as much as it should.

Yeah, this.

Theory will help you make a game that really nails one particular thing. And that's fine, some people will play it and enjoy it and that's great, but it won't be for everyone.

To make something massively popular, though, you need to truly fucking understand all the theories and what they mean for your game, and which ones are and aren't relevant for you and why.

Both sorts of games can be successes, relatively speaking, as long as they meet the publisher's goals, but if your goal is making big money (As big as money gets in this industry!) then you can't afford to specialise.

Quote from: D-503;569024Yeah, the whole defining people out of existence thing is really fucking tired. I've seen it used all over the place. Against storygamers. Against "simulationists". Against people into immersion.

I've seen those who claim storygamers don't role-play (on this very board), and those into simulation (especially combat simulation) as not role-playing (again on this very board).

But I don't think I've every seen anyone attempt to define immersion as "not role-playing". If there was someone, it was so uncommon that the memory didn't stick.

Now I have seen people who wish they'd shut up and get out of the way (for I have never seen a group who opposed so much in the way of game design), or who think they're a bit crazy (in relation to 'deep immersion', often with some reason to be honest). But no one who claimed they weren't role-players.

I think the problem of the definition of immersion is this:

Person A uses one definition of immersion that is more inclusive, then claims that "Immersion is Role Playing. If you aren't immersed you aren't role playing."

Person B uses another definition of immersion that is MUCH more restrictive. He doesn't claim that immersion is synonymous with roleplaying, but because of its place in the overall argument, it seems implied.

Person C gets annoyed because he feels he has been told that he doesn't roleplay.

Now, its a fallacy, but its an UNDERSTANDABLE fallacy. I think its less a conspiracy against deep IC immersionists, and more a mistaken attack on people who don't do it.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;569023Yes, I've heard that one too. Which is the crux of the problem; this isn't really about a word.

It's about hostility to a playstyle. The basic assertion I've seen in this thread (and in other, similar threads) is that people who don't play the way we do want to tell us we're wrong about our playstyle and preferences, that we don't exist, that we're liars or mentally ill, or that their play is no different from ours, so there's no reason we can't enjoy the same narrative control mechanics as they do, or whatever.

There's an agenda attached to this particular semantic debate. I'm not really sure what the motive for it is, but it's there, and it's not an attempt to come to understanding. It's an attempt to marginalize.

Amen.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;569023Yes, I've heard that one too. Which is the crux of the problem; this isn't really about a word.

It's about hostility to a playstyle. The basic assertion I've seen in this thread (and in other, similar threads) is that people who don't play the way we do want to tell us we're wrong about our playstyle and preferences, that we don't exist, that we're liars or mentally ill, or that their play is no different from ours, so there's no reason we can't enjoy the same narrative control mechanics as they do, or whatever.

There's an agenda attached to this particular semantic debate. I'm not really sure what the motive for it is, but it's there, and it's not an attempt to come to understanding. It's an attempt to marginalize.

You're full of it, or projecting. Nobody is trying to take away your playstyle, and though I can't speak for anyone else, I was making a sincere effort to understand why some metagame mechanics are okay but others aren't. If you can't explain it without appealing to intangibles, then it's not a real mechanical distinction but something subjective.

And there's nothing wrong with things being subjective.

Hell, I don't think that the 4th Edition play-style is superior to the 3rd or 1st edition play-styles. I think that 4E implements its play-style vastly better than 1E or 3E did with theirs. I think that one can (and some have) recreate those play-styles with better mechanics born from a greater understanding of game design.

Your ability to channel your fictional character (and your requirement that everyone else also channel theirs or you can't enjoy the game) is weird to me, yes, but irrelevant to my contention: Storytelling game mechanics are generally no more metagame than D&D mechanics, storygames are just more frank about it. And that frankness is what freaks Immersionists out so much: you can learn to ignore the metagame when you're intimately familiar with the system, but not with a new system that waves its metagame in your face.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;568972Besides that, yes it is possible to have all relevant data and STILL jump to incorrect conclusions via assumptions.

Yes, entirely. And it's also entirely possible that the initial assumptions were incorrect as well. Not arguing that.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;568972My point was that cutting off the GM then getting pissy when assumptions don't match expected reality is stupid.

I agree, but I don't think that's what jhkim was saying at all.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568996You claimed your inner experience was the same experience those of us who are talking about the RGFA defined Immersion are having

No, I didn't. And it doesn't matter because the comment was...

Quote from: LordVreeg;568406Yes, your immersion is a lie, in my mind.

...not that immersion is a lie. Not that my definition is wrong. Not that it isn't the RGFA definition of immersion. MY immersion is a lie. MY personal experience is a lie.

You're getting too hung up on the word. Try to focus on the personal experiences and techniques being described, as those are the important bits.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568996It isn't, because it's definitionally the opposite.

Regardless, how is it the opposite?

Oh wait, here's your definition...

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568359It's Assuming the mindset and personality of a fictional person who lives in a fictional world without your own mind, personality, and world I intruding to the extent that they break the illusion.

***

I'm using the rgfrpa definition of Immersion, which may (and by may i mean "absolutely does") have a different meaning than your using.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/rgfa/faq0.html

...which is EXACTLY what I've been describing as my personal experience >_<

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568996Saying it was a lie was probably unnecessarily harsh, but your belief you're having the same experience we are is wrong.

I wasn't upset that someone called my experience a lie. I was upset at the sheer hypocrisy of doing so when the speaker has such an anti-Forge stance.

And the only experience I am confident we share is where we reflexively and subconsciously fill in the blanks of a description given by the GM. In fact, it takes a great deal of discipline and self-awareness NOT to do this. I assume there are exceptions, but I haven't found any.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;568996The fact that these limitations exist are viewed as a necessary evil and a limitation of the medium (people talking around a table) and not as something to be celebrated or enshrined in play, as narrative control does.

Or they're the STRENGTH of the medium, and you should be looking for ways to take advantage of those features, like you would in any other limited medium.

Quote from: D-503;569009People are debating what immersion means? Again?

I know. Seems like we can't get past the definition in order to discuss the actual facts and techniques. This is why we can't have nice things...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;569011Personally I am not terribly hung up on terms but I think its important not to throw away underlying concepts by redefining or broadening terms.

***

Personally i could care less if it is called immersion. But there is still a specific concept i have in mind that doesn't go away with the expansion of the word's definition.

...or maybe we can

Quote from: CRKrueger;569057Table-Top RPGs, to Computer RPGs, to MMOs, there does seem to be a memetic war being waged against those who prefer to "roleplay" from within the point of view of a character and those who do not.

Funny story.

My brother was playing 'Age of Conan' and encountered two high level campers. So he went back into town and rallied the townsfolk into attacking those brigands. The high level players accused him of 'cheating'.

It seems a lot of so called MMORPG players have no concept of actually playing a role, or an ability to take another player's PoV, and will do everything in their power to make such play impossible for everyone else.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;569015I agree. It's just that "immersion" is widely recognized

Except it's not.

Back in the days of rec.games.frp.advocacy, when the term was first being used in the context of an RPG, its meaning was relatively clear: An intense self-identification with a character resulting in literally thinking their thoughts and feeling their emotions, almost always resulting in alterations in physical and verbal traits.

AFAICT, absolutely no one in this thread is actually using that definition of immersion.

More generally, the meaning of the term expanded and shattered repeatedly as it spread out of Usenet and into various online forums. For awhile, you could track the "house definition" of RPGnet vs. ENWorld vs. the Forge. But as forum populations mixed and time passed even that went away.

Even if we limit ourselves to just "immersion in character", people mean a lot of widely different things by that.

Now, you can say "why can't people just accept the definition I'm saying that I'm using". And, in an ideal world, you would be right. But we don't live in an ideal world. What happens instead is a cavalcade of confusion and miscommunication whenever the word "immersion" gets used in an RPG discussion.

As a word, "immersion" is a profligate whore. Pretending that it still has some definable meaning is a fantasy. It's not just trying to close the barn door after the horse has left: The horse has left, had baby horses, been taken to the slaughterhouse, turned into sausages, and you had those sausages for breakfast this morning.

(Personally, when I see the word "immersion" I immediately assume we're talking about the style of play Mary Kuhner described when she started using the term: A form of roleplaying involving techniques and a mindset similar to Method acting. This, notably, is not the definition which appears in J.H. Kim's FAQ because Kim was never able to really grok what Kuhner was talking about.

So there are two reasons why I don't use the word "immersion" in the RPG vs. STG article LordVreeg quoted earlier in the thread: First, because the term has no meaning and only serves to confuse people. Second, because I don't think immersion -- as I understand the term and in the way the term was originally used -- is required for roleplaying. It is, instead, an incredibly specialized form of roleplaying which only an incredibly small portion of the hobby ever experiences.)

Quote from: CV

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg Yes, your immersion is a lie, in my mind.

...not that immersion is a lie. Not that my definition is wrong. Not that it isn't the RGFA definition of immersion. MY immersion is a lie. MY personal experience is a lie.

You're getting too hung up on the word. Try to focus on the personal experiences and techniques being described, as those are the important bits.

You know, getting by the insults and all from earlier, I was responding to this..

Quote from: CVYes I am. Are you saying my immersive experience is a lie and doesn't exist?

It is important to note that I am a believer in fundamental subjectiviity and Isolation.  There is an unknowability that exists in another's mind, a fundamental mystery of the dynamics and processes of another that I need to declare as a preamble.

But it is not, contrary to many poster's usage, a perfect castellation.  I see it used as the cornerstone of too many defences and attitudes.  As a matter of fact, it is that attitude of internal perfection and self-knowledge that bedevils therapists and behavioral experts, for when a subject is not open to change or analysis, it drastically reduces the means to affect change or allow for growth.
Because the discovery of the partial or full falseness of a person's perception of their internal experience or process is not just commonplace, it is constant.

Fundamental Subjectivity, while real, is NOT a blanket defence against analysis or questioning the internal process.  It is not an unassailable position or even a decent argument.  

So let me be more surgical, because I was responding to a blunt statement with a blunt statement, and because I personally deal with that particuar logical flaw often in the real world. I am stating that just because your immersion and your opinion of that experience is internal and personal does not make it true, and I tried, perhaps poorly or perhaps in the wrong way, to follow and to justify the position of why that might be.  Please feel to engage from here and we can restart if necessary.  
 

Quote from: JAPersonally, when I see the word "immersion" I immediately assume we're talking about the style of play Mary Kuhner described when she started using the term: A form of roleplaying involving techniques and a mindset similar to Method acting. This, notably, is not the definition which appears in J.H. Kim's FAQ because Kim was never able to really grok what Kuhner was talking about.

But no response to my Quik e Mart?

Only ribbing.  I think we all tend to look at the definition as we learned it and used in originally, and reinforced by how we come into contect with it. I have made the point many times that Roleplaying had a thereputic definition before RPGs existed, and I always looed at the RP definition as colored by the earlier usage.  Similar to your comments above, I often see 'Immersion" used (often as a quantifiable, by the way) in studies dealing with roleplay therapy  as well as in studies about skill acquisition and newer ones about VR enviroments.  The term is slippery, and while one can argue it (as certainly have), I would also say the manifold and various definitions provide much of the means of questioning and defending in this arena.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;569185As a word, "immersion" is a profligate whore.

Would the word "identification", as in "some degree of identification with the character" be more acceptable, in your view?

Quote from: Benoist;569321Would the word "identification", as in "some degree of identification with the character" be more acceptable, in your view?

Too vague. Which roleplayers or storygamers or 4vengers wouldn't have at least some degree of identification with the character?

Quote from: The Traveller;569070Really though when you get right down to it, money talks. I have only the barest grasp on the shifting tides of D&D, but did someone say 4e flopped because it contained narrative mechanics or what? No matter how much of a war some think they are waging on the internet, people will do what people enjoy, and that seems to be roleplaying.

Clearly in MONOPOLY you're playing an individual who is trying to accumulate properties in a game environment, but that's not the same thing as roleplaying.
D&D and other RPGs were innovative in that they allowed you to roleplay.  Games in which you're manipulating a game piece are not as innovative.

JG