On the other hand, the application...well, in spite of what I've written up to now, I think that personally you're on to something very important in relating SoD with RPGs. It's just that it's a bit of an ideological stance, since as I suggested above it basically leads to defining RPGs as games where SoD is essential. What I like about it is that it problematizes SoD, instead of taking it for granted (which happens in other theories): Suspension of Disbelief is an area where, I suspect, many games, both as written and as played, falter.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIf "build on" means: "initially compare to check for similarities," the statement is true but banal.

Yes indeed, it's a true but rather banal point.  Let's move on.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityA storyfication of RPG theory promises to yield exactly analogous results.

That sounds like some other thread (maybe on Storygames?), or optionally another one you could start if you like.

Quote from: John MorrowBasically, if a setting isn't internally consistent and if the things that happen in the setting can't be noticed and understood by the characters as a real element of the setting that they can consider and exploit, then it's going to destroy verisimilitude for me, whether it's part of the "initial premise" or not. Why? Because many genre elements are story oriented and don't make any sense if the character notices they are in effect. Again, see Last Action Hero for a pretty good illustration of what it feels like for me.

That's why people make fun of and tell jokes about genre cliches. Many of them are utterly stupid. I'm going to notice, in character, that certain people die with one shot while others don't. I'm going to notice, in character, that my gun never runs out of bullets. I'm going to notice, in character, that I never die, no matter how much I should have died.

Interesting points.  I think it's a bit like the problem with Superman.  People have no difficulty believing in the initial premise that there's this guy from another planet who can fly and do all these super things.  Which are honestly quite unbelievable.  What they have a problem with is nobody recognizing that Clark Kent is superman.  Everyone in the world being an idiot isn't part of the initial premise.

I agree that genre cliches that people find stupid (instead of reassuring) will probably break suspension of disbelief.  You *know* the killer isn't really dead at the end of a horror movie -- but it pisses you off all the same because it's sooo cliched, and that breaks your suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: John MorrowA lot of genre conventions are essentially Deus Ex Machina because they are the result of authors waving their hands to make stories work out in a certain way. Why are there red shirts in Star Trek? So the writer can kill off a character to show a situation is dangerous without killing off a main character. But Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock can never actually become aware that red shirts serve that purpose or that they have script immunity or it would change their behavior.

Yes, I think this ties in with the other points -- all things that "don't make sense" to the viewer.

Quote from: John Morrow re:RetconMary Kuhner did this extensively and I've done it well. Done correctly, it can cause no problems for character immersion.

It probably has a lot to do with specifics.  I've had this bug me before (like when an item you're carrying is suddenly "gone") particularly if the Retcon changes something about the past and you would have done things differently if it had been done like that the first time.  Suddenly you're in a situation that doesn't make sense to you, because it's not something you/the character would have done.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think the problem is inconsistency with the "initial premise". I think the problem is internal inconsistency in the setting or character behavior that doesn't make sense based on what they know and their experiences.

I think we mean the same basic thing here. It could be expressed better, but I think it's the same general point.

Quote from: John MorrowSeeing things your character wouldn't know. Things like cut scenes. I sometimes purposely walk away from the table if there is a scene going on that will be important to my character but my character isn't a part of, so that I can react properly to the knowledge when I learn it in character. More broadly, anything that involves metagame thinking or thinking from a different perspective than my character for me. "Tell me why your character failed..." isn't a request that I can answer while being inside of the character's head. People don't decide how they fail.

I think this starts touching on the issue some other people have written about where Interactivity breaks Suspension of Disbelief.  For me I don't have a problem with saying what my character is doing -- I have a problem saying what the WORLD is doing to my character though.  For my game it's the difference between "how does he fail" and "what does he DO when he fails".  (ZOMG Stuart's game won't be easy to label!!! )

Quote from: John MorrowYes, both The Truman Show and Last Action Hero are movies that I've mentioned in the past as doing a pretty good job of explaining what it feels like when my characters notice genre conventions and game quirks that can't be noticed in character and still have the game make sense.

ADDED: I suppose I should also add that heroic attempts to make sense of silly genre conventions in character can result in insane characters. In short, characters in fiction don't always behave the way real people would logically behave when confronted with situations. When the ghost voice says, "Get out!" in the middle of the night, the first reaction of a normal person won't be to grab a flashlight and explore the basement alone.

Really good suggestion to think about Last Action Hero -- i'd forgotten about it and might need to rent it to watch more carefully.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat's the definition of Flow again? I'll rely on Wikipedia. Do you play chess, bridge, Euro board games, or wargames, Stuart? All of 1-9 are exactly possible, even likely, with a complex game, as long as you understand the rules well and enjoy a good challenge. (The understanding part is usually the problem for wargames since many of them don't get played enough. But my favorite games, with an opponent who also understands the rules well? Sure.) I don't think I get it in RPG combats so much, but I wouldn't be surprised if good D&D 3.x players get it.

I don't think you get 2 (complex means not so limited), 3, 5 (it's not direct+immediate feedback, there's often a delay), 8 (there's no effortless of action), 9 (it's really a very compound activity, so you can't narrow it to "an" activity). -- but again, I'd rather not go too far on that tangent, at least in this thread.

Instead of thinking about whether you can have flow without needing suspension of disbelief, would the presence of things that BREAK Suspension of Disbelief also break Flow?

I'm probably repeating myself, but SoD is just irrelevant to Flow in the general sense, and therefore possibly in some specific senses within RPGs. There's no SoD in a game of Go-Moku, or if that's too abstract, there isn't really SoD in Acquire or Princes of Florence. In Victory in the Pacific, a great deal of the fun of the game--for me--comes from the fictional representation, but that's completely orthogonal to "Flow". There's just as much if not more SoD in other wargames, but it's harder to "Flow" with them because of the rules familiarity problem.

Even if you suspect that SoD is a necessary precondition for "immersion", I'd suggest that you avoid defining "immersion" in terms of SoD. Not only do you run into the objection above (that you might have Flow without SoD), but you also have the question of whether SoD is sufficient for "immersion". If not, you risk privileging SoD in any discussion of "immersion".

So I'd suggest that if SoD turns out to be an area of interest, you just investigate that and avoid directly linking it to "immersion".

Well, right now looking at things that break Suspension of Disbelief is the practical application of our discussion of Immersion.  It moves things from the purely theoretic to things we can actually apply to game design -- so this is very good.

Indeed. Time for a new thread?

Quote from: StuartInteresting points.  I think it's a bit like the problem with Superman.  People have no difficulty believing in the initial premise that there's this guy from another planet who can fly and do all these super things.  Which are honestly quite unbelievable.  What they have a problem with is nobody recognizing that Clark Kent is superman.  Everyone in the world being an idiot isn't part of the initial premise.

I agree that genre cliches that people find stupid (instead of reassuring) will probably break suspension of disbelief.  You *know* the killer isn't really dead at the end of a horror movie -- but it pisses you off all the same because it's sooo cliched, and that breaks your suspension of disbelief.

Correct.  And that's why there are two approaches to emulating a genre, one of which embraces the fact that a pair of glasses is sufficient to disguise Clark Kent and another which removes that sort of thing from the genre to make the genre more supportive of suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: StuartYes, I think this ties in with the other points -- all things that "don't make sense" to the viewer.

And wouldn't really make sense to the characters in the setting, either, if they noticed them.  Which means that certain genre clichés, which generally don't make sense or seem silly to the viewer, are inherently hostile to suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: StuartIt probably has a lot to do with specifics.  I've had this bug me before (like when an item you're carrying is suddenly "gone") particularly if the Retcon changes something about the past and you would have done things differently if it had been done like that the first time.  Suddenly you're in a situation that doesn't make sense to you, because it's not something you/the character would have done.

Well, there are ways to mitigate that. It helps to retcon as soon as possible when the problem is noticed.  It also helps to figure out how to make the differences in the second run make sense.

For example, I was playing in a superhero game where my impulsive character collided with a hostage situation in the context of a different understanding of the genre conventions in operation between the player and GM and the game started to step off the edge of dead hostages and the heroes becoming murderous vigilantes.  So we stopped the game and figured out where things started to really go wrong.  I adjusted my character's attitude a little by making him take the threat to the hostages more seriously, we played it forward and the outcome changed.

Quote from: StuartI think this starts touching on the issue some other people have written about where Interactivity breaks Suspension of Disbelief.  For me I don't have a problem with saying what my character is doing -- I have a problem saying what the WORLD is doing to my character though.  For my game it's the difference between "how does he fail" and "what does he DO when he fails".  (ZOMG Stuart's game won't be easy to label!!! )

Basically, I think people immerse (broad sense) through a perspective or view into the game.  If they do it from an omniscient perspective, then things like cut scenes won't force them to change their perspective.  But if they do it from a single character's perspective, then a cut scene forces them to change perspective and the immersion is lost.

Quote from: StuartReally good suggestion to think about Last Action Hero -- i'd forgotten about it and might need to rent it to watch more carefully.

A lot of people complain that Last Action Hero purposely picks or even makes up absurdly bad clichés to make fun of and there is certainly quite a bit of that in the movie.  That said, I still think it illustrates what it means for characters to become aware of, and change their behavior because of, story-oriented genre conventions that don't have any in-setting rationale.

Quote from: StuartWell, right now looking at things that break Suspension of Disbelief is the practical application of our discussion of Immersion.  It moves things from the purely theoretic to things we can actually apply to game design -- so this is very good.

You might find this article from John Wick interesting if you haven't read it or haven't read it in a while.

I also like this quote from J.R.R. Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories" (the whole thing may be worth reading):

QuoteChildren are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called "willing suspension of disbelief." But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.

Thanks for the links John!  I hadn't read either one yet.