http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/Alan_Hook/immersion-transformation-and-agency

Sorry, I had a longer response typed earlier but my phone ate it.

It's interesting that Janet Murray (ideas summarized above) uses "immersion" to mean "you are there" and also sees it as a particular strength of computer media. I'd say it's been a thing in cinema for ages. Saving Private Ryan opening scene for example. You are there, but you're not anyone important, if you are anyone at all.

On the other hand she uses "Transformation" apparently to mean something more like "IC POV".

Quote from: Arminius;844948It's interesting that Janet Murray (ideas summarized above) uses "immersion" to mean "you are there" and also sees it as a particular strength of computer media. I'd say it's been a thing in cinema for ages. Saving Private Ryan opening scene for example. You are there, but you're not anyone important, if you are anyone at all.

On the other hand she uses "Transformation" apparently to mean something more like "IC POV".

In a movie you don't act, you only view. So any presence you have can only be as an observer who cannot act in or effect the scene you are viewing. RPGs are mostly the opposite - you are an actor who has an effect in and on the scene, acting and effecting the scene is mostly the point of the player role in a traditional RPG.

Quote from: Bren;844957RPGs are mostly the opposite - you are an actor who has an effect in and on the scene, acting and effecting the scene is mostly the point of the player role in a traditional RPG.

Which is where the newer non-traditional mechanics can interfere with the process.  If the game allows me to ignore the fiddly bits and just effect the scene as the character, then we're good.  If, however, it forces me through some kind of point economy to pull back and move from actor to director/author, then Houston, we have a problem.

Now, in the 2d20 System's defense, from a player's side of things, it is possible to simply not use Chronicle Points (Bennies, Fate Points) or Threat Points (Story Escalation Dice), as long as you understand you're limited to 4 out of the 5 possible difficulty levels.

From the GM's side of things, if the beta adventure is any indication, Threat allows NPCs/Monsters to
-notice things earlier
-move farther or faster
-use a signature power of the Big Bad
etc.

Essentially, if the players are always grabbing three dice to make themselves superheroic, then the GM has the "legal" tools he needs to throw the bookshelf at them without any call of GM Bullshit. "If you didn't want Thoth-Amon to have a Servant of the Ring waiting, you shouldn't have grabbed so many dice that you could slaughter his castle full of guards without taking a single wound."

Supposedly this is actually freeing to the GM and not restrictive, because the GM now knows how hard to throw things at the players because the number of Threat Dice tells him so.  In other words, more training wheels to create yet another generation of GMs who can't GM by thinking for themselves.

Of course this completely throws setting consistency out the window in favor of session-based narrative drama.  The enemies aren't difficult based on whether they are actually difficult, they are difficult because the players say it's ok for them to be difficult because the players chose to ramp up the literary protagonist awesomeness.

Quote from: Bren;844914The distinction I am making is between being there as an actor in the setting, i.e. as the PC vs. being there as an observer to the actions of the PCs.

I understand. It isn't a distinction I am terribly worried about, though much of the  time, immersion for me will depend on not breaking that in character POV. But fundamentally it is about feeling like I am there (and sometimes for me that requires stepping out of POV once in a while to do things like ask the GM questions about my surroundings). I do understand why folks make the distinction, for me personally, focusing on it doesn't really help me enhance my game (because I tend to worry too much about it). As I mentioned before, I just don't want to get overly rigid about these principles because I find I feel too constrained by them. That said, I am not  all that interested in PC as observer or doing things like wielding mechanics that let me control the narrative if that is the sort of thing you have in mind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;844970Which is where the newer non-traditional mechanics can interfere with the process.

Agreed.

I see the kind of disruption these sorts of mechanics provide as being on a sliding scale. Reasonable people will find different places on the scale and different mechanics disturb their feeling of being immersed in their character's POV. I'll try to make the scale for me clear with a few examples:
   When I play Runequest (v2 or v3) or Call of Cthulhu all mechanics that connect to the character's abilities in their world and there are no mechanics or widgets that I, as a player, have access to that don't correlate to some ability of my character in the world.
   D&D levels and hitpoints seems a little disconnected from character ability, mostly because they seem odd and artificial. This is a little anti-immersive though variants that divide hit points into Body and Fatigue tend to be less disruptive for me. For me this is about the same level of immersion disruption as I get playing Star Wars D6 (see below).
   Star Wars D6 includes Character Points and Force Points that allow the player to add dice to a single roll or double dice for a single round. This is a bit more disruptive than RQ/CoC. In universe these mechanics correspond to trying really hard or being lucky for Character Points (granted one can argue about the realism of 'trying really hard', but it does seem to fit the genre) or to "use the Force Luke" for Force Points. So the bennies almost always connect, albeit loosely, to something I'm doing as the character in universe rather than to something I as the player do ,not as my character, but as a co-author of the world, scene, or story.
   Honor+Intrigue includes Fortune Points that simulate trying really hard, luck, and the sorts of dramatic coincidence and escapes from death that one sees in swashbuckling fiction. These resources are only available to the two highest level of character types: heroes (the PCs) and villains (their antagonists). Some uses are much like Star Wars and can be seen as something the character does in the world, but often the use is a type of authorial power for the player not for the character. We use the mechanic, though it does tend to yank one out of an in-character point of view because: (1) the mechanic fits the genre and helps to emulate the genre, (2) we enjoy the possible effects of the mechanic, and (3) the mechanic doesn't get used too often (sometimes never in a session) and thus it doesn't disrupt the immersion of the players too much.
Games that have more direct authorial powers and GM limitations and rules for taking turns creating the setting disrupt my immersion in the character and give me nothing I really want as a player. As a GM they take away a lot of what I see as the GM role and that I enjoy about being the GM.

Often these sorts of GM binding, authority sharing rules seem like they were devised by a group of designers who are all GMs, but who are lousy at taking turns being the GM or at putting down the GM hat and just being a player.

QuoteSupposedly this is actually freeing to the GM and not restrictive, because the GM now knows how hard to throw things at the players because the number of Threat Dice tells him so. In other words, more training wheels to create yet another generation of GMs who can't GM by thinking for themselves.

Tracking that shit sounds like way more work for me as the GM than just paying attention the competence of the PCs, the threat level of their antagonists, and my players preferences regarding realism, genre simulation, and the lethality of play. Since those are already things I need to pay attention to anyway to be a GM and if I make a mistake it isn't usually an uncorrectable mistake, all that extra machinery would just get in the way of me playing my role as the GM.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;844972I understand. It isn't a distinction I am terribly worried about, though much of the  time, immersion for me will depend on not breaking that in character POV. But fundamentally it is about feeling like I am there (and sometimes for me that requires stepping out of POV once in a while to do things like ask the GM questions about my surroundings). I do understand why folks make the distinction, for me personally, focusing on it doesn't really help me enhance my game (because I tend to worry too much about it). As I mentioned before, I just don't want to get overly rigid about these principles because I find I feel too constrained by them. That said, I am not  all that interested in PC as observer or doing things like wielding mechanics that let me control the narrative if that is the sort of thing you have in mind.

That's more clear.

I agree that the player often needs to ask questions to be able to experience the the situation as their character. I don't concern myself too much with players asking questions as it isn't something I see people complain about as disruptive of immersion. On the contrary, a good description enhances IC immersion  and the GM can't always provide just the right information* to let the player see or be in the scene without the need for questions.


* Just the right information would be just enough information of the right kind, at the right time, in the right form, but not too much information. It's a high bar for a GM to hit, especially if there is more than one player involved.

Quote from: Arminius;844715If handing dice to the GM in exchange for extra effort doesn't harm immersion, then neither does anything a GM might do behind the screen in a traditional RPG.

You're dead wrong on this account:).
Then again, I'm not handing anything to the GM, I'm just taking dice from the bowl.

QuoteAnd so on. Play however you like but there's a clear and well-articulated reason why mechanics such as these are detrimental to sense of in-character POV,

You forgot to include "for some people". I'm not part of those people, for example.

Quotejust as GMing advice that calls for behind-the-scenes manipulation does.

And again, "for some people". I happen to be part of those people, though;).

Quote from: Bren;844979I agree that the player often needs to ask questions to be able to experience the the situation as their character. I don't concern myself too much with players asking questions as it isn't something I see people complain about as disruptive of immersion. On the contrary, a good description enhances IC immersion  and the GM can't always provide just the right information* to let the player see or be in the scene without the need for questions.

.

Descriptions are a tricky thing. I realized long ago that no matter how clear, if you have five people in a room, there are five different settings being imagined. That isn't a weakness of the hobby, that is one of its strengths. I've also learned that longer descriptions with lots of flavorful words can be boring to some players. Now I worry more about finding one or two words that convey the image well. I also try using comparisons (If an NPC's appearance is important for example, I find saying 'he looks like Jim Carey' is a lot faster describing him).

I guess for me, what I've found with this kind of thing (distilling why I like the game to one fundamental aspect of play) is it creates a model that starts to dominate my thinking and actually change the way I play. So if I focus in on In Character POV (which I have done in the past) I just starting nixing things from play that never used to bother me. There is a lot of stuff that goes on the table that adds to my enjoyment that has nothing to do with my in-character POV (everything from asking the GM questions like I mentioned, to out of character wisecracks or rampant speculation on what fate awaits out characters). I also just don't want to close myself off to gaming experiences or mechanics that I might enjoy, but avoid on strictly philosophical grounds. At the end of the day I do think that in character point of view is probably important to me, but I'd rather not construct my personal gaming philosophy as a contrast to people who are advocating approaches that I find muck with my immersion. Personally I don't care how one plays the game or defines roleplaying. As long as they aren't telling me I need to play a certain way or that its bad design if I like games that don't do something they like, I have no problem with alternative approaches.

I do recognize the people co-opting 'immersion' to make bad faith arguments  that CRKRueger mentions. I've bumped into folks doing this online (for instance, at EnWorld I've seen a cluster of folks who do this). I'd rather take those sorts of things on a case by case basis because I think every camp has those kinds of people. For every 1 person I encounter doing that (which usually results in me participating in a flamewar I probably should have avoided) I encounter 4 people who don't. I think there is just a personality type among gamers you see online (also in real life, but it seems less prevalent) who feel the need to position their approach as the one-true-way and occasionally try to win the argument by redefining key terms or making specious claims (i.e. "D&D is not a roleplaying game").

All that said, immersion is important to me and I am comfortable using it as a measure for a simple reason: it was the very first thing I noticed and enjoyed when I was introduced to the hobby. I didn't have that word at the time but I remember thinking how I just felt like I was there and how amazing that was. Getting into the details of how that works, isn't terribly important to me these days. Just so long as I have that feeling of being there.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;845082Descriptions are a tricky thing. I realized long ago that no matter how clear, if you have five people in a room, there are five different settings being imagined.

And thus the need for the players to ask questions.

Its also one reason I like using miniatures. It's not a perfect reflection of what the characters see by any means, but it avoids a lot of miscommunication about who is next to or farthest away from whom. Generally I don't care about exact distances, but I like to know who is down range of the guy with the blunderbuss when it gets fired.

Quote from: Bren;845293And thus the need for the players to ask questions.

Its also one reason I like using miniatures. It's not a perfect reflection of what the characters see by any means, but it avoids a lot of miscommunication about who is next to or farthest away from whom. Generally I don't care about exact distances, but I like to know who is down range of the guy with the blunderbuss when it gets fired.

Me too.  I understand the people who prefer Theatre of the Mind and have their IC immersion hurt by a map and/or minis.  For me, I know that the movie running in my head is NOT the exact same movie running in the GM's head, and in the end, the one running in his head is the "Official Version", so having some kind of objective truth with regards to the scene is a good thing I think.

A lot of time when the GM is describing things, I close my eyes, which helps me better generate what's happening in my mind, but I like to have some general layout on the table so I can merge the two.

Quote from: Bren;845293And thus the need for the players to ask questions.

Its also one reason I like using miniatures. It's not a perfect reflection of what the characters see by any means, but it avoids a lot of miscommunication about who is next to or farthest away from whom. Generally I don't care about exact distances, but I like to know who is down range of the guy with the blunderbuss when it gets fired.

For some reason when I use miniatures, my mind goes into boardgame mode: all I see are the pieces and I lose my mental image of what is going on. It definitely is more accurate with miniatures and a mat, I just don't work well with them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;845360For me, I know that the movie running in my head is NOT the exact same movie running in the GM's head, and in the end, the one running in his head is the "Official Version", so having some kind of objective truth with regards to the scene is a good thing I think.

I'm even OK with the movies being a little different for each participant. I'm even OK with there not really being one official version, but since the GM runs or at least adjudicates the NPCs a fairly accurate correlation of each player's version to the GM version is essential for my enjoyment.

QuoteA lot of time when the GM is describing things, I close my eyes, which helps me better generate what's happening in my mind, but I like to have some general layout on the table so I can merge the two.

Me too.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;845362For some reason when I use miniatures, my mind goes into boardgame mode: all I see are the pieces and I lose my mental image of what is going on. It definitely is more accurate with miniatures and a mat, I just don't work well with them.

As long as I treat movement as flexible and don't use hexes or grids I can stay out of boardgame mode. Hexes like the GURPS precursors Melee/Wizard used is worse than a grid and puts me into board game mode.