Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;3281951) "Clear goals" are actually fairly common in RPGs. PCs want to overcome their enemies, recover the treasure, complete the story, whatever it happens to be for that group.

5) Direct and immediate feedback is obvious - not only every time you throw the die, but every time you so much as interact with another character, you get feedback from it.

6) The "balance between the ability level and the challenge" is fairly obvious in ordinary discussions about things like Killer DMs. People discuss whether a given combat was too difficult or too easy all the time, whether something was "fair" to throw at the PCs, or whether something will be too hard for new players, etc.

7) This one is fairly obvious. I have to feel like my character has some agency in the game world.

Games are fun. I don't know how more obviously intrinsically rewarding something can be than straight out fun.

9) This is similar to 4, and its effects can be seen in discussions about people concentrating around the table, or paying attention to these games.

When you read people's discussion and evaluation of games they played, they are often complaining about a lack of one or another of these features. #9, for example, crops up a lot in discussions about PCs not paying enough attention to the game and dicking around with off-topic OOC chatter.

A few points.  First off, this is all going to be very subjective, and until some actual psychologist spends his grant money researching flow in relation to tabletop roleplaying (don't hold your breath), it will remain subjective.

In any case, I think I've been in flow states, both in athletic activities, and in my work (software developer).  So, I believe I have some sense of what flow is.

IC immersion feels different for me.  I mean, I think it is orthogonal to flow and you can have one, both, or neither present.

Regarding your points above, I think some kinds of play work like you describe, but not how I play.  I am often working, and thinking of, and drawn into, very long term goals for my character, and the immediate, almost trance like state of flow does not apply.  I'm just not getting the immediate feedback like you describe.  Overcoming challenges is absolutely not what is charging me (And keep in mind I've overcome some freakishly difficult challenges on my job, and know the feeling).

Anyhow, I guess you can fund the research (not a reasonably request, I know), wait for the research (forever maybe), tell me I don't know my own mind or my own gaming, or accept what I say.

For the record, I fully accept that some gamers, and some types of immersion, are flow related, and I do think it is worth talking about.

I'm going to tell you a truth so obvious and profound that I will be berated for its meaninglessness. The player's effort and teamwork with the gm make a character substantial in the minds of the people around the table.

There are plenty of games that take various psychological reinforcement strategies and attempt to direct the effort of the player to playing a character. Many are novel, some are ingenious. But none of them work without the player investing effort.

The thing that keeps coming up in design notes of games and discussions of different games or various editions of games is that the trend right now is to develop games that require less effort. I suppose that's a laudable goal, but there will never be a reinforcement strategy or other character development trick that is so effective that it can accommodate low player effort.

All games require concentration--that's why they're fun. The act of concentrating on something can be fun and relaxing. Of course, it can be tedious, as well. Every chess match I've ever played involves the excitement of opening, the kind of the middle game, and the thrill or agony of the end game. Playing guitar is similar. Writing novels is similar. Making gumbo is similar. Anything requiring concentration is similar, because it's the nature of concentration.

Insubstantial characters at the table come from inattention or poor concentration. Insubstantial characters in a weblog or the back of a game book or somewhere like that are unfairly judged. Game characters aren't like characters in fiction, you can't get a picture of them except as they are being played t the table. Insubstantial characters in game are the result of some sort of spell or Gloves of Discorporeality or some such.

So anyway. You can try to design around inattention on the part of the payers or the GM, but you can't do it.

Quote from: Jeffrey Straszheim;328315A few points.  First off, this is all going to be very subjective, and until some actual psychologist spends his grant money researching flow in relation to tabletop roleplaying (don't hold your breath), it will remain subjective.

In any case, I think I've been in flow states, both in athletic activities, and in my work (software developer).  So, I believe I have some sense of what flow is.

IC immersion feels different for me.  I mean, I think it is orthogonal to flow and you can have one, both, or neither present.

Regarding your points above, I think some kinds of play work like you describe, but not how I play.  I am often working, and thinking of, and drawn into, very long term goals for my character, and the immediate, almost trance like state of flow does not apply.  I'm just not getting the immediate feedback like you describe.  Overcoming challenges is absolutely not what is charging me (And keep in mind I've overcome some freakishly difficult challenges on my job, and know the feeling).

Anyhow, I guess you can fund the research (not a reasonably request, I know), wait for the research (forever maybe), tell me I don't know my own mind or my own gaming, or accept what I say.

For the record, I fully accept that some gamers, and some types of immersion, are flow related, and I do think it is worth talking about.

Flow isn't the only kind of positive psychological experience we have while gaming. I don't mean to deny that you can shift through various states of consciousness as appropriate to the situation. I just don't think those states are "immersive" to the same extent.

I'm not familiar enough with your gaming to insist that you do face challenges, but I would encourage you to take a broad view of the notion of "challenge" - that can be anything from a conversation with a NPC to designing your castle.  It need not just be specific opposition in the form of enemies or something.

For example, I had a PC named Wayland Dessinger, who is close to being my favourite PC of all time. I used to enter into flow states while pretending to be him because he was very crafty and cunning, and was constantly working every angle and pushing every boundary. I found it quite a challenge to constantly be one step ahead of everyone else (including the NPCs) using only guess work, some logic, and my own character's goals, powers and connections.

Quote from: David R;328149Hold on, you say we can't talk objectively about immersion (on a thread that has become about immersion and where people are in fact talking about their experiences) and so you want to talk about emulation. Fair enough, go ahead but drop the fucking childish attitude.

Good luck on that.  

Your point regarding objectivity is well made.  As you are aware, I can talk about numbers and crunch all day long, but ultimately, it's not an objective discussion.  I may feel that armour represents a greater difficulty to hit someone, and D&D has done that wonderfully.  Approaching things from a different angle, if armour means less damage inflicted on the target but hitting someone is entirely derived from the attacker's own skill, D&D is not so good at that (I can explain the similarities if you are interested).  However, simply because D&D uses mechanics to re-inforce the 'harder to hit' version, it doesn't follow that it is the best at doing so, nor that this version is the best at emulation, immersion, or any other type of play.  A reasonable argument could be made, using the same numbers, to show that D&D is not very good at 'harder to hit'.

Mechanics and implementation thereof are favourite topics of mine, but they are hardly objective assessments.  Largely, the mechanic in question simply supports a preference of my own, hence, it is my subjective opinion that it is the 'best' abstraction representing a particular situation.

Well said Stormbringer (your post should be quoted in the rules & guidelines thread of this board).....however I obviously play games wrong so....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;328496Well said Stormbringer (your post should be quoted in the rules & guidelines thread of this board).....however I obviously play games wrong so....

Regards,
David R

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.  

Despite your enjoyment of badwrongfun.