Quote from: James J SkachWhether in Games or Theory, I just want to thank you, E., for articulating some things that were never quite connected for me. Between your two posts, you made some things that were bothering me for reasons unknown, quite a bit clearer for me.

I'm pleased to hear that -- one of the things that bugs me most about theory discussion is how bad it is at actually communicating. I really do think a lot of effort has been put into making this stuff *more* difficult to parse out than it would be if theory wasn't around...

(That's not to say everyone's born knowing it -- but taking nothing but this thread aside, it's clear that theory isn't helping: quite the contrary).

I'm a believer in the *goals* of theory: clear communication, a deeper understanding of roleplaying, etc. etc. etc.

I think this site is a good place for that; there aren't really sacred cows. There's not a presumption that pre-existing work is valuable or needs to be defended... it's a good place to talk about this stuff.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm pleased to hear that -- one of the things that bugs me most about theory discussion is how bad it is at actually communicating. I really do think a lot of effort has been put into making this stuff *more* difficult to parse out than it would be if theory wasn't around...

(That's not to say everyone's born knowing it -- but taking nothing but this thread aside, it's clear that theory isn't helping: quite the contrary).

I'm a believer in the *goals* of theory: clear communication, a deeper understanding of roleplaying, etc. etc. etc.

I think this site is a good place for that; there aren't really sacred cows. There's not a presumption that pre-existing work is valuable or needs to be defended... it's a good place to talk about this stuff.

Cheers,
-E.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm glad you're part of the community.

BTW, -E, you've mentioned a couple times that you have a simple demonstration that most people (current roleplayers? potential roleplayers?) want immersion (as in "virtual experience"). I've given my reasons elsewhere for believing that immersion has historically been the core attraction of RPGs.

Basically, my argument is: RPGs grew from wargames, and much of the attraction of wargames is not only creating a narrative of a conflict, but of imagining yourself in a certain role--an individual commander, or a cohesive group with common interests. Therefore, for RPGs it's been natural to associate character identification with reproducing the limitations on the character's ability to understand and manipulate its environment.

But my argument only explains why "traditional" RPGs are as they are, why they aren't "dysfunctional" when understood properly, and why they often don't work especially well for people who are trying to actively "create a story" in the  midst of play. I don't exclude the possibility that "story-games" might ultimately prove popular to the general public...although so far, I don't think the empirical evidence suggests that they're going to be anything more than a niche.

So I'm wondering what your take on this is.

Quote from: JimBobOz"Immersion" gets laughs and mockery because it's patently absurd. You cannot truly be the half-elven ranger any more than Marlon Brando, a rich man, could ever truly be homeless - however long he spent on the street preparing for his role, he always had an easy way out, and removing that desperation, that hopelessness and helplessness, removes the most important aspect of homelessness. He was just a rich boy pretending to be a poor boy, however deeply he was into his character, it was still just a character.

I disagree.  Just as it's possible to visualize a scene while reading a book, it's possible to imagine being in a situation that one is not actually in.  Years ago, while playing a paintball game, I decided to convince myself that being hit would cause real pain and do the real physical damage of a bullet rather than harmlessly bouncing off of me.  The intense fear and anxiety I experienced were quite real, even if the pain and damage I imagined were not.  

Did I actually feel what it would be like to be shot at with real bullets?  I don't know.  But I do know that I shiften my perception of consequences substantially away from the reality (that getting hit wasn't much of a big deal) and toward the reality I was trying to imagine (that getting hit would be very bad) and my decisions and emotional responses changed as a consequence.  As such, I don't think it's impossible for a Marlon Brando to think as though he wasn't rich as really was homeless.

I've experienced a similar ability to will certain mindsets into existence while role-playing immersively (by which I largely mean "thinking in character"), and have had characters behave in ways I didn't intend, couldn't predict, and didn't (at the time) undestand.

The clearest example was a character I had played through a fairly intense game involving smuggling an illegal artifact.  In the process, my character and his NPC girlfriend bonded with another PC.  Late in the game, my character decided to have parts of his memory erased -- the parts dealing with the illegal artifact -- so that he could pass police truth scans.  When that happened, I adjusted the memories that the character had access to and something strange happened.  After a short period of time interacting with the NPC and PC, the character became paranoid and his fight-or-flight responses were triggered.  

At the time, I didn't understand what was going on and psychoanalyzed the character to understand what happened.  Basically, the memories that were removed included all of the most intense bonding experiences he'd had with the NPC and PC during the game.  So instead of seeing an NPC who he'd been through some tough scrapes with and a PC that he'd become close friends with giving him good advice, he was an PC he hardly knew being chummy with his girlfriend (who seemed to be in on whatever was going on) trying to corral him into doing something he didn't unhderstand.  

That wasn't something I thought about.  It wasn't something I planned.  Heck, it wasn't something I even really understood at the time.  But I thought it was very cool.  Now, you can argue that I wasn't really thinking in character or the immersion was flawwed or whatever you want, but it won't change the fact that thinking in character produces an experience very different, for me, than thinking about the character and what they would do.  I see things and think things in character that I don't looking at the character.

Quote from: JimBobOzObviously, there are degrees to these things. We can feel strongly for our characters, and have regrets and laughter about them, think about them outside the session. But if we think we're "immersed" in them, we're just kidding ourselves.

It's possible to do both -- to fool one's self and, as a result, experience a primary experience rather than a secondary experience.  I also experience emotions in character -- fear, anger, anxiety, happiness, etc.  I understand what it means to identify with a character in a movie or book and what it means to feel things for them or to empathize with them.  That's not what I'm feeling.  It feels the same way things do when they are done to me and are felt by me, not when I observe them being done to someone else and identify with them.

Yes, I'm fooling myself the same way I was fooling myself when I was playing paintball.  But the experience playing paintball wasn't the experience of feeling empathy for someone dodging bullets.  It was the experience of dodging bullets, or the best approximation I could imagine.  Similarly, the emotional experience I get role-playing in character isn't the experience of feeling empathy for my character but the experience of experiencing what my character experiences.

And, yes, I can tell the difference.

You know, -E. old man, the very fact that Jim Bob  and I are saying fundamentally the same thing in this thread ought to tell you that the split is in no way between 'theorists' and 'non-theorists'.

I'm starting to think that what we've got here is deeper. I think it's actually a philosophical split echoing the split between idealism and materialism.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBTW, -E, you've mentioned a couple times that you have a simple demonstration that most people (current roleplayers? potential roleplayers?) want immersion (as in "virtual experience"). I've given my reasons elsewhere for believing that immersion has historically been the core attraction of RPGs.

Basically, my argument is: RPGs grew from wargames, and much of the attraction of wargames is not only creating a narrative of a conflict, but of imagining yourself in a certain role--an individual commander, or a cohesive group with common interests. Therefore, for RPGs it's been natural to associate character identification with reproducing the limitations on the character's ability to understand and manipulate its environment.

But my argument only explains why "traditional" RPGs are as they are, why they aren't "dysfunctional" when understood properly, and why they often don't work especially well for people who are trying to actively "create a story" in the  midst of play. I don't exclude the possibility that "story-games" might ultimately prove popular to the general public...although so far, I don't think the empirical evidence suggests that they're going to be anything more than a niche.

So I'm wondering what your take on this is.

My take is very much like yours -- a set of logic that works for me... it certainly won't convince anyone not-inclined to believe it.

My take goes like this:

1) People argue and complain on about stuff they care about

2) Historically there have been a lot of arguments about issues related to (my definition of) Immersion including character fidelity, game-world fidelity, etc.

I'm actually *not* counting arguments about "doing RPGing right" -- those happen, too, but those usually prioritize some other goal ("realism") for its own sake.

I'm talking about direct appeals to fun in the game.

So an argument that "real roleplayers should never metagame" wouldn't be counted (by me) as a vote for Immersion.

But an argument or a complaint that metagaming ruins their fun would be (unless the specific argument makes it clear that the issue is not one dealing with Immersion).

Give the prevalance and power of people wanting virtual experience, character fidelity, "realisim" and so-on, I think it's pretty clear that immersion is a widely held and widely respected goal.

Cheers,
-E.

Immersion (or immersionism) is a pretty crappy word (like fun, as Stuart mentioned), since it's used to cover a large scale of different things. Also, "immersion" tends to be something that happens inside players head - and thus it's hard to identify and it can be, well, pretty much anything. It's a personal experience thing and thus hard to describe and even harder to compare with experiences of other players. And could lead into people discussing about entirely different things, or probably the same thing, just on different scale.

Most roleplayers probably immerse on some degree or another; I'd think it's about "getting into the character" and suspension of disbelief. Some get into it occasionally, some make it a central thing in the game. Facilitating immersion is probably a learned thing; some get it with whatever game they are playing, some have hard time getting it with some type of mechanics; some want it and don't get it with a lot of mechanics that act against the learned style of play. I'm sitting in the last group. And it's mostly a matter of learned style of play and preferences.

Also, what E and Elliot said.

Then, my favourite part, immersion-nazism and us wacky Europeans.

Quote from: Andy KSo the often cited example of this is the actual play report where these dudes will basically go to a pub and watch a Football (Soccer) game "In Character" for hours.  That is, they may or may not give a shit about the game, and their comerades may not even be their real friends, but that is what their characters would do, as the character is a soccer lover who hangs out with these dudes.

I'll take the blame for this one; just to clear it out, this was in a live-roleplaying game which lasted for a few days and I had a character who was into soccer (and I don't mind watching soccer). Would have liked to see the match since I had bet on it; didn't get to see it since I had to do all kinds of criminal stuff. Didn't win the bet, either.

The reason why live-roleplaying sneaks it's way into immersion discussion is because a lot of European players (though certainly not all, or even a majority - mostly the immersion folks) have experiences with it and these experiences have a lot to do with why and how they play in tabletop as well. Live-roleplaying, by it's nature, tends to emphasize slow pace and getting into your character (aside from immersing into the character inside your head, you also get to do actual physical stuff and interact with real enviroment). Live-roleplaying is also a chaotic thing, with no central GM to facilitate things. There's no central story as such, and no drive nor need for a lot of stuff that can be found in tabletop rpg's.

All this combined leads to character immersion and suspension of disbelief becoming a central goal of playing. Works best when you disgard the feeling that you're playing in some sort of game, and just concentrate that you're someone else, in some other place. Also, running around, waving that replica gun feels kind of stupid if you're thinking in terms of playing a game.

When you learn a playing style like that, it tends to affect how you roleplay in general. That's probably how character immersion became the end of all -goal in certain circles. A lot of things which are really distruptive in live-roleplaying can be a lot less distruptive in tabletop playing, but since you've learned to play in a certain way, they tend to affect your experience more strongly that they do for someone who's used to play in a different way. In a sense, it's a self-made golden cage (a damn comfy cage, if you ask me, though).

Some people approach character immersion with different preferences, different playing styles and get something else out of it. Which is cool.

Quote from: droogYou know, -E. old man, the very fact that Jim Bob  and I are saying fundamentally the same thing in this thread ought to tell you that the split is in no way between 'theorists' and 'non-theorists'.

I'm starting to think that what we've got here is deeper. I think it's actually a philosophical split echoing the split between idealism and materialism.

The fact that you and Jim Bob agree on anything frightens me on a deep, fundamental level.

-clash

Quote from: droogYou know, -E. old man, the very fact that Jim Bob  and I are saying fundamentally the same thing in this thread ought to tell you that the split is in no way between 'theorists' and 'non-theorists'.

I'm starting to think that what we've got here is deeper. I think it's actually a philosophical split echoing the split between idealism and materialism.

... I dunno. I read JimBob as arguing that desiring Immersion is, in some way, believeing that I'm my elf.

That would be absurd if it were true.

And given the nature of the Internet, there's probably someone out there who really feels like, or believes that they're their elf.

It's a strange world.

But most of the dialog around immersion or suspension of disbelief  isn't nearly that extreme. You don't need LSD to suspend disbelief in a movie or vividly imagine characters and scenes when you're reading a book. You don't need dope to feel excited or sad or intrigued by fiction.

Games are no different.

Characterizing immersion as some extreme altered state isn't a philosophical approach. It's a rehtorical one: by insisting that folks who say they enjoy immersion are talking about really believing they're an elf or experiencing the game as some kind of all-encompassing halucination, or whatever, the idea can be dismissed.

I say: don't buy it. Lots of people complain when movies break them out of the experience (bad special effects, bad acting, implausible story lines, etc.)

Games are simply being held to same low standard that entertainment is.

Some games can't even manage that.

Cheers,
-E.

From Mo's Blog

QuoteSince last fall when I started shifting my focus towards specifics and away from some nebulous idea of the body immersive, I've found it more and more helpful in actually establishing some kind of communal understanding and explorative progress with the people who I'm talking to. So from here on in, (on SA and wherever possible) I will be using words like goal and socket and payoff as a kind of matrix to point to specific things rather than try and situate things that are clearly different in a catch all word like immersion.

Socket?

Look to the next entry, Stuart: Covering the Bases

I see immersion as simply being the process of encouraging the group to be in character for in character moments. ie.

I may say:

"Watch out Jimmy, there's a mook on your left."

or

"I tell him *points* there's a mook to his left"

I prefer the former and encourage my players (in my games and others) to partake. I joined a group in May and the GM sent this after the second session:

"Overall - I'm happy with how it's going and am enjoying the sessions. However, I'm noticing that you have more of an 'in-character' style compared to ******* and ****** and that's closer to what I am looking for (ie less metagame references to stats, skill choices etc) - am of the opinion that keeping it 'in-character' aids the immersiveness / atmosphere...... Right now its fun - but I'd like the atmosphere to be more 'spooky fun' at the right points if you know what I mean. Any ideas of what we can do to get there ?"

I get the feeling there's a movement to put a label on everything we took for granted in the olden days. Gamist. Narritivist. Simulationist. Immersionist. Label it and it gets a new gilded surface. Too many psychology classes maybe.