TheRPGSite

First we'll start with a very basic definition:

Quote from: WikipediaImmersion is the state where you cease to be aware of your physical self. It is frequently accompanied by intense focus, distorted sense of time and effortless action.

No exactly right for what we're looking at, particularly the part about effortless action.

A much more lengthy definition appears in Janet Murray's book Hamlet on the Holodeck (http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Holodeck-Future-Narrative-Cyberspace/dp/0262631873), where she devotes a chapter to the subject.

Quote from: Janet MurrayWe seed the same feeling from a psychologically immersive experience that we do from a plunge in the ocean or swimming pool: the sensation of being surrounded by a completely other reality, as different as water is from air, that takes over all of our attention, our whole perceptual apparatus.

A lot of writing about Immersion is done from the perspective of videogame immersion, which is more closely related to "Flow":

QuoteNarratives and videogames inspire contrasting kinds of immersion; different brain-states. Caught up in a story, you are cooperative, yielding, in a state akin to hypnosis. In a videogame you are ceaselessly active, in a state of flow. Proposed in the 1990 book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Hungarian-born psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced, he says, "chicks send me high"), flow is the zone, the groove - an enjoyable feeling of oneness with the activity.

From the article There is Nothing Virtual About Immersion: Narrative Immersion for VR and Other Interfaces (http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~brooks/storybiz/immersiveNotVirtual.pdf), and gives a good example of narrative immersion:

QuoteBy experiencing a good story well told, we create our own immersive environments, with details unrivaled by electronic media. We are able to see the anxiety in faces, we can hear the excitement in voices, we can smell the food in kitchens, we can feel the hairs on the back of our
neck react to scary situations. Technological additions should complement the immersion already present in the human system. While modern electronic media like film and television can be quite immersive and compelling (which is why examples from these media are referenced below) the traditional art form of oral storytelling offers particularly clear examples of narrative
immersion.

Immersion is something like hypnosis.  It's not so much suspension of disbelief as much as active creation of belief

Quote from: Janet MurrayBecause of our desire to experience immersion, we focus our attention on the enveloping world and we use our intelligence to reinforce rather than to question the reality of the experience.

From the article Two Myths About Immersion (http://www.pierregander.com/mytexts/immersion.doc):

Quote2. What is immersion?

What is immersion? A look in the Oxford pocket dictionary reveals the definition "mental absorption". In the context of storytelling, I understand immersion to be the state of mind of an individual where he or she excludes the outside world and is totally focused on experiencing another world. This state can be more or less intense. For example, if you read a book that you find uninteresting you might still hear the noise of outside traffic. But it is also possible that you become so absorbed by a good book that you do not even notice that someone is talking to you.

I will now compare this notion of immersion in a storytelling context to some concepts that appear to be similar to it: telepresence, virtual reality immersion, and flow. But as we will see, the phenomenon of immersion cannot be captured by any of these.

2.1 Immersion and telepresence

Immersion has some similarities to the phenomenon of telepresence, as it is discussed within the areas of virtual reality research and computer-mediated work. Telepresence means to be present somewhere without actually being there bodily. An example of telepresence is a human operator who is remote-controlling a robot on the bottom of the sea. The operator "sees" through the robot's cameras and can affect the distant environment with the robot's tools. Immersion is similar to what Draper, Kaber, and Usher (1998) calls "experiental telepresence" in their survey of research on telepresence. However, immersion in the context of storytelling is different from telepresence in several ways. First, it is hard to see a local environment versus a distant environment which are fundamental concepts in respect to telepresence (for instance, it is hard to see what would be information from a distant environment when reading a book). Secondly, and most important, there is no task with related performance in the context of storytelling (telepresence is concerned with work-related contexts where task performance can be measured). So, although telepresence might appear similar to immersion, it lacks several characteristics of the latter. Telepresence is a concept applied in a different domain.

A feature which immersion shares with telepresence is what Draper, Kaber, and Usher (1998) named "the measurement problem". There are no good measures of telepresence apart from questionnaires, which they largely consider undesirable. The same is true of immersion. Measures of immersion or degree of immersion in storytelling contexts have not been made, nor are there any measurements available. We only know that both traditional media and new media can be immersive. But we do not know whether one produces more immersion than the other. We do not even know what it means to say so, since we lack a theoretical explanation of immersion.

2.2 Immersion and virtual reality

Within the area of virtual reality (VR), "immersion" usually has a well-defined meaning. A common definition is Steuer's (1992) which defines immersion in terms of technological dimensions such as the number of sensory dimensions simultaneously presented and the resolution of these channels. In addition, "interactivity" also contributes to immersion. Interactivity in this context means that the user can modify the form and content of the mediated environment in real time. Thus, immersion in the VR sense is a technology-based characteristic.

Now, if one accepts this definition of immersion, then the beliefs "more is better" and "participation is better" become trivially true. Since the definition contains only technological elements, the only thing one has to do to obtain immersion (according to this definition) is to ensure that these elements are present. But what we are interested in in a storytelling context is the feeling of immersion, defined as a mental state, not as a technological characteristic. The VR definition of immersion says nothing about how these technological factors affect the feeling of immersion. Immersion as a mental phenomenon cannot a priori be determined by technological factors. So, we cannot say, by referring to purely technological terms, such as pixel resolution of a display, what effect this will have on the feeling of immersion. These are empirical questions.

2.3 Immersion and flow

When we do something we like and can exercise control over, such as when an athlete does a perfect high jump or when an artist is painting, we can experience a sense of flow. According to Csíkszentmihályi (1992), a flow experience has eight characteristics:

   1. It is a challenge that one is capable of handling
   2. It requires concentration
   3. It has clearly defined goals
   4. It provides immediate feedback
   5. It is an escape from everyday reality
   6. It involves a feeling of control
   7. The self tends to disappear
   8. Time is experienced subjectively, going either faster or slower than real time

Is experiencing a story a flow experience? It depends on how broadly one wants to interpret the eight conditions above. Some of the conditions are clearly met. Experiencing a story requires concentration (condition 2), it is an escape from everyday reality (condition 5), the self tends to disappear (condition 7), and time is experienced subjectively (condition 8). But is it really a challenge that requires special skill (condition 1)? In one sense, all activities require skills, as, for instance, distinguishing a chair from a table. But this is not the kind of skill involved in a flow experience. Reading a story does require special skills and is not mastered until years of practice. But what about listening to a story? Understanding a story appears to require skills mostly at an unconscious level. Even if these skills are learned, they are not learned consciously. Does experiencing a story have a clearly defined goal (condition 3), provide feedback (condition 4), and involve a feeling of control (condition 6)? I think none of these conditions are satisfied when it comes to stories. This is because experiencing a story is not a task at which one can consciously train and improve one's performance, as in golf or chess. Experiencing a story is not a challenge that requires special skills that one can improve in order to achieve control1. It is surely a rewarding experience but it is not a flow experience.

2.4 What is immersion, then?

In conclusion, the concepts of telepresence, technologically defined immersion, and flow can not explain the phenomenon of immersion when experiencing a story. These concepts apply do different domains and cannot be transferred to a storytelling domain without modification.

A tentative characterisation of immersion in a story context would include the following elements:

    * Attention is directed at the storytelling source (text, voice, images, etc.) (This creates the flow conditions 5, 7, and 8 above as side effects)
    * Mental construction of a story world, a plot (temporal and causal connections between events) and possibly other story elements, such as genre
    * An emotional state, as a response to elements in the story

A possible way to measure immersion would be to measure people's ability to detect vague stimuli while experiencing a story. One could put people in various immersive situations and measure how faint a stimulus (visual or auditory) they react to. But without a better theoretical explanation of story immersion, such tests will only be preliminary. In the meantime, we have to rely on an intuitive understanding of the concept. This should be sufficient for the point of this paper, which is to examine the validity of two claims about immersion.

...

I'll add more links and quotes to this entry as I find them.

Good stuff.

Whenever I say I play RPGs for the immersion, I get lumped into the 'amateur theatre' category of gamers. That's not it at all. My players and I like to immerse ourselves in a setting, not our characters. Our characters are simply our eyes, ears, and hands in that setting. They give us a physical and narrative point of view. But it isn't really about the characters and their histories, personalities, and ambitions; it's about the fictional world and the actions we take in that world.

And that fictional world does not have to simulate the real world or an established setting from books or movies. It just has to be a cool and evocative place to explore.

So it's not about pretending to be an elf. Or about simulating a realistic assault on a fortified tower. It's about being in a shared imaginative space.

I think that a definition as broad as the one you are proposing is going to be fairly useless for making practical suggestions because it's going to include several different approaches to play that have nothing in common with each other.  Worse, it might encourage people to think that they have more in common than they really do so that they'll start making assumptions that techniques that work for one style of "immersion" should work for others when, in fact, they don't.

This is the same problem suffered by the Forge "Simulation" category.  Once they used a definition of "Simulation" that included both story-based genre elements and verisimilitude-based concerns, they were putting two things in the same bucket that have very little to do with each other.  Sure, you can use a definition of the word "simulation" where both seem to fit together but that's the wrong way to do theory.  Don't start with a word and see what you can fit into that word.  Start with what people are doing, group the things they do into like categories that work well together, then label the categories.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that a definition as broad as the one you are proposing is going to be fairly useless for making practical suggestions because it's going to include several different approaches to play that have nothing in common with each other.

I think it's saying something quite specific.  It's also not a term I'm inventing for RPG Theory discussions on the Intarwebs.  It's something people are already discussing.

Quote from: StuartI think it's saying something quite specific.  It's also not a term I'm inventing for RPG Theory discussions on the Intarwebs.  It's something people are already discussing.

Correct.  But this is a discussion board about RPGs.  And to quote the description of this particular category, "Here we use Theories based on what we know to work, to make new games, new mechanics, new settings, new whatever. This isn't a place to just chitchat about theory, its where we USE it!"

OK.  You've got a description of "immersion".  Now what?  How do you actually use it?  And if two players identify what they enjoy as "immersion", are they likely to enjoy the same sort of game?  If I suggest a technique that helps me "immerse", is it likely to be useful to someone else who says that they "immerse"?  What's the purpose of putting things into a common category if you can't make practical generalizations about everything in that category when it comes to actual game-play?

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun on you here, but humor me.  You've got a definition of something that people claim that they want in a role-playing game.  How might you translate your definition into practical play advice if people say that they want "immersion"?

My eyes glaze over at immersion discussions precisely because they amount to arguing over use of a term that clearly means different things to different people...or, in some cases I suspect is actually meaningless or irrelevant to some of the parties, so they grasp at something they're familiar with to slot under the term.

If people think of immersion as anything other than "seeing/acting in the world from the perspective of the character", I'm not that interested in it personally. As an analytical tool I'd rather that the word "immersion" be an immediate flag for the researcher to ask the other person to elaborate on what they mean when they say they value "immersion" when they play an RPG.

Quote from: John MorrowOK. You've got a description of "immersion". Now what? How do you actually use it? And if two players identify what they enjoy as "immersion", are they likely to enjoy the same sort of game? If I suggest a technique that helps me "immerse", is it likely to be useful to someone else who says that they "immerse"? What's the purpose of putting things into a common category if you can't make practical generalizations about everything in that category when it comes to actual game-play?

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun on you here, but humor me. You've got a definition of something that people claim that they want in a role-playing game. How might you translate your definition into practical play advice if people say that they want "immersion"?

I think the relationship between interactivity and immersion is an interesting one.  In the last article I linked the author suggests that by increasing the amount of interactivity -- the amount of choices the player makes in the game -- the level of immersion is decreased.  I'm not yet sure how I feel about that, but it's worth considering.  It might also explain why some players seem to enjoy "railroaded" games, or say things like "I don't like rolling the dice because it breaks my sense of immersion".

The article also talks about increasing the amount of detail and how that too can decrease immersion.  So if while you're GMing you're giving your players too much detail about unimportant things, you might be making the game less immersive.  Also something to think further about.

I'm very interested in thinking more about this, hearing other peoples thoughts and seeing where it takes us.

I'm *not* interested in jargon, or arguing about terms.  I'm going to use "Narrative Immersion" to attempt to keep this seperate from Flow and Immersive VR concepts, but ultimately what we do with the ideas is a lot more important (and useful) than what we call the thing. :)

Quote from: StuartThe article also talks about increasing the amount of detail and how that too can decrease immersion.  So if while you're GMing you're giving your players too much detail about unimportant things, you might be making the game less immersive.  Also something to think further about.

And, see, this is where I think the whole thing starts to break down.  When I'm "immersed" in my character (thinking in character -- to the point where my characters have done things for subconscious reasons that I didn't understand), the GM can give me boatloads of in character detail and that can actually draw me into the game, because it's engaging the perspective through which I'm immersed.  But out of character details, like complex systems, cut scenes, and books of setting background that are irrelevant to my character can hurt immersion for me.  In other words, if the GM is engaging me through the point of immersion (my character), it's good for immersion.  If the GM is engaging me through some other frame of reference (e.g., the system, "Pass me the Cheetos", etc.), that's bad for immersion.  So without actually defining how or into what the player is immersed, I don't think you can make generalizations like you are trying to here.

Quote from: StuartI'm very interested in thinking more about this, hearing other peoples thoughts and seeing where it takes us.

What are you looking to get out of it?  And could you describe your own immersive experiences, if you've had them?

Quote from: StuartI'm *not* interested in jargon, or arguing about terms.  I'm going to use "Narrative Immersion" to attempt to keep this seperate from Flow and Immersive VR concepts, but ultimately what we do with the ideas is a lot more important (and useful) than what we call the thing. :)

Why are you calling it "Narrative Immersion"?  Why are you assuming the "narrative" is what people will get immersed in?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf people think of immersion as anything other than "seeing/acting in the world from the perspective of the character", I'm not that interested in it personally.

And one of the things that drives me nuts about the new wave of discussion about "immersion", much of it driven by the Forge diaspora with their story-oriented focus, is that they never seem to take that particular form of immersion into account and it never seems to cross their mind that it happens or that other players do that.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd, see, this is where I think the whole thing starts to break down. When I'm "immersed" in my character (thinking in character -- to the point where my characters have done things for subconscious reasons that I didn't understand), the GM can give me boatloads of in character detail and that can actually draw me into the game, because it's engaging the perspective through which I'm immersed.

You're talking about something else.  You're talking about being immersed in your character (thinking in character -- to the point where your characters have done things for subconscious reasons that I didn't understand).  I'm not.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy are you calling it "Narrative Immersion"? Why are you assuming the "narrative" is what people will get immersed in?

I'm calling it that because that's what other people are calling it.  It also keeps it seperate from the concept you're describing, which is an other kind of immersion.  I don't know what other people are calling that, but I'd suggest something like "Immersive Acting".  

The concept I'm talking about has more to do with being immersed in reading a book, watching a movie, or being told a story.  I get this all the time from watching a good movie, reading a good book, or being in an RPG where it's not all rules bickering, tactical combat, or goofing about and telling jokes.  Those things are all fine, but they don't help with the "immersion".

The concept you're talking about is more linked to performance.  I've had that kind of immersion too, when doing improv acting, or being on stage and getting really into character.

If there's a better set of words I'll use them, but I do *not* want to make up gibberish words, or use words in ways the rest of the world isn't. :)  So for now "Narrative Immersion" is as close as I've got.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd one of the things that drives me nuts about the new wave of discussion about "immersion", much of it driven by the Forge diaspora with their story-oriented focus, is that they never seem to take that particular form of immersion into account and it never seems to cross their mind that it happens or that other players do that.

People absolutely do that.  Like I said, it's linked to performance, and a very important part of the LARP scene.  There's lots of writing about that over in Scandinavia, and it's very interesting. :)

Not what I'm talking about right now though.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd one of the things that drives me nuts about the new wave of discussion about "immersion", much of it driven by the Forge diaspora with their story-oriented focus, is that they never seem to take that particular form of immersion into account and it never seems to cross their mind that it happens or that other players do that.

That was the first thing that twigged me to the fact that Forge theory is a load of crap; the theorists all seem oblivious to the style of play I've always prefered - a style that I've never considered especially uncommon. That showed me that the Forge theorists are people who already have particular notions of what they want out of RPGs, and those notions are fundamentally contrary to what everyone I've played with wants.

I have a serious, if naif, question.

When people talk about "immersion" and "choices or die rolling break my immersion"...

I don't know, it sounds kind of like a light dream or something.  I've seen people use the term "I forget where I am or what I'm doing, I'm so into the game".

I mean, no matter HOW into the game I am, I never lose sight of the fact that I'm sitting around a table jawing about pretending to be a Jedi Knight.  I can speak in character, and decide things from the perspective of my character, but I never lose sight of the fact that I'm sitting on my fat middle-aged ass around a table, drinking Guinness and eating too much sharp Cheddar or Stilton.

Seriously, what am I missing?

Quote from: Old GeezerI have a serious, if naif, question.

When people talk about "immersion" and "choices or die rolling break my immersion"...

I don't know, it sounds kind of like a light dream or something.  I've seen people use the term "I forget where I am or what I'm doing, I'm so into the game".

I mean, no matter HOW into the game I am, I never lose sight of the fact that I'm sitting around a table jawing about pretending to be a Jedi Knight.  I can speak in character, and decide things from the perspective of my character, but I never lose sight of the fact that I'm sitting on my fat middle-aged ass around a table, drinking Guinness and eating too much sharp Cheddar or Stilton.

Seriously, what am I missing?

You never lose sight of the fact you're in a movie theatre watching a film, and not in fact in a world full of Jedi Knights.  It's the same idea.

I guess the things that break the immersion in the theatre would be the person next to you talking, a heckler, etc.

Now, I think immersion is important... but I think gameplay is also important so the "no choices" and "no dice rolls" stuff doesn't work for me.  Still thinking about that...

Quote from: StuartYou never lose sight of the fact you're in a movie theatre watching a film, and not in fact in a world full of Jedi Knights.  It's the same idea.

Yep. I actually have scenes in my memory of stuff that happened in RPG games - scenes as vivid as my memories of movies. I can see the giant crab, faintly illuminated by the glow from green fungus, scuttling across the flooded chamber beneath the shrine of Tamoachin, waving its claws. If I stop and think, I can remember that I was playing in Mike's parent's basement at the time, sitting on a lurid orange couch. The two memories were created in tandem.

Quote from: StuartYou're talking about something else.  You're talking about being immersed in your character (thinking in character -- to the point where your characters have done things for subconscious reasons that I didn't understand).  I'm not.

Correct.  But that's also what a lot of people mean when they talk about "immersion" (including a few of us here) and it also fits much of not all of the characteristics in your description.  That's what I'm trying to say.  You need to qualify what you are talking about further or it's going to confuse people.

Quote from: StuartI'm calling it that because that's what other people are calling it.  It also keeps it seperate from the concept you're describing, which is an other kind of immersion.  I don't know what other people are calling that, but I'd suggest something like "Immersive Acting".

It's not acting(*).  And what that suggests is that the term "immersion", alone, is not only not very useful but suggests a relationship that's not very strong.  I strongly suggest finding another term to describe what you are talking about.  Like "simulation", it's a perfectly good term but it's also irreparably damaged goods because of all of the different ways that people use it in RPG theory discussions.  It's not adding clarity.  It's diminishing it.

Quote from: StuartThe concept I'm talking about has more to do with being immersed in reading a book, watching a movie, or being told a story.  I get this all the time from watching a good movie, reading a good book, or being in an RPG where it's not all rules bickering, tactical combat, or goofing about and telling jokes.  Those things are all fine, but they don't help with the "immersion".

I find it curious that you compare the immersion that you get from role-playing with the immersion one gets from a passive activity like reading a book, watching a movie, or being told a story rather than an active activity like playing a sport, writing a program, or exploring the woods.  Does railroading or at least having the GM create and move the plot along have any impact on your enjoyment of the game?

And what is important to realize is that rules bickering and goofing around are an extreme distraction because they have nothing to do with the game.  But for a player who is tactically immersed in a combat, the tactical details of the combat could be what created that feeling of immersion for them, even though it destroys the feeling for you.  

My point?  Immersion, itself, is not really that important in the sense that you are talking about it.  It simply means that a person is deeply engrossed in the game.  The key is what the person's focus is.  Once you know the focus and play toward it, immersion or engrossment is a natural side-effect.

Quote from: StuartThe concept you're talking about is more linked to performance.  I've had that kind of immersion too, when doing improv acting, or being on stage and getting really into character.

No, it's not performance at all.  It's all going on inside of my head.  That's why I can enjoy the heck out of a game even if the other players don't see my character doing or saying that much at all.  It's the experience of thinking like someone else.  I suppose you could call it a performance but the audience is myself.

Quote from: StuartIf there's a better set of words I'll use them, but I do *not* want to make up gibberish words, or use words in ways the rest of the world isn't. :)  So for now "Narrative Immersion" is as close as I've got.

I think that both of those words have been so used and misused in theory discussions that you'd be better off calling it Foobar and telling people what you think it means.  How about something like "getting deeply engrossed in the game situation"?

(*) There seem to be two big schools of acting, one which gets into character (Method Acting) and the other that just emotes on cue.  It was interesting listening to Jewel Staite talk about how she just does what the director says while Adam Baldwin gets into character.  She talked about Adam walking up to her in the food line and asking, in character, "So what do you think of Mal's latest plan?" and replying that he needed to knock it off because she was eating.  Similarly, Bill Mummy described Andreas Katsulas getting deeply into character even when the cameras weren't rolling and he and some of the other actors who would turn it off when the cameras stopped rolling trying to taunt him out of character by talking about subjects that Andreas Katsulas found interesting.  So there are definitely two ways to approach acting.  What I do when I role-play is closer to what Adam Baldwin does than what Jewel Staite does.

Quote from: StuartYou never lose sight of the fact you're in a movie theatre watching a film, and not in fact in a world full of Jedi Knights.  It's the same idea.

I guess the things that break the immersion in the theatre would be the person next to you talking, a heckler, etc.

Okay, I see.

That actually makes sense.

Making sense in a discussion about RPG theory?  Cut that shit out!  :p

Quote from: StuartPeople absolutely do that.  Like I said, it's linked to performance, and a very important part of the LARP scene.  There's lots of writing about that over in Scandinavia, and it's very interesting. :)

Yes, and a lot of that seems to blur the distinction between player and character far more than I'd be comfortable with, in part because of the LARP medium.  

Quote from: StuartNot what I'm talking about right now though.

Perhaps not, but it's what a lot of other people think of when they hear the term "immersion", and it fits much of the material that you started this thread with, too.

Quote from: John MorrowI find it curious that you compare the immersion that you get from role-playing with the immersion one gets from a passive activity like reading a book, watching a movie...

Ah, but reading a book is not a passive activity in the way movies are; it's a collaboration between the author and the reader. The words feed the imagination of the reader, who then creates his own scenes. Unlike a movie, everyone reading a book has a different idea of how things look and feel. Immersion in RPGs is a lot like that.

True, it's harder to get that sort of immersion in a collaborative game. But we do manage to achieve it most sessions - where you can tell everyone is in the zone. Some of my players actually sketch out the scenes that we create together, like that guy on children's tv who draws the stories while the narrator reads them.

Quote from: HaffrungAh, but reading a book is not a passive activity in the way movies are; it's a collaboration between the author and the reader.

It's still closer to riding a bus than driving a car.  The author is telling you what to think about and imagine.  Translate the relationship between author and reader into an RPG.  What would that kind of RPG look like?

Quote from: HaffrungThe words feed the imagination of the reader, who then creates his own scenes. Unlike a movie, everyone reading a book has a different idea of how things look and feel.

Yes and no, especially if they read carefully.  If an author spends a page telling me that the hero has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye, most readers who are paying attention will imagine a person who has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye.  Sure, details will differ but I can look at the art book for A Game of Thrones, for example, and have a pretty good idea of which characters I'm looking at, even though they don't perfectly match what I've imagined.

Quote from: HaffrungTrue, it's harder to get that sort of immersion in a collaborative game. But we do manage to achieve it most sessions - where you can tell everyone is in the zone. Some of my players actually sketch out the scenes that we create together, like that guy on children's tv who draws the stories while the narrator reads them.

In other words, they are deeply involved in imagining the "shared imaginary space".  OK.  From what perspective do the imagine it?

ADDED:  Where I'm going with this is that I think there is a translation process between the input that the player gets and imagining what's going on in the game setting.  I think that interface and how it works is more important than the idea that people get deeply engrossed in what's going on in the game.

Quote from: John MorrowYes and no, especially if they read carefully.  If an author spends a page telling me that the hero has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye, most readers who are paying attention will imagine a person who has red hair, a beard, and a scar over his right eye.  

The better writers leave much to the imagination of the reader. You fill in the blanks with your imagination. That's the way I DM. I provide enough detail to inspire my players' imagination, then they fill in the rest. We've all agreed that when I'm on my game, and they're in the immersive trance, the images going through our minds are way better than any movie.

Quote from: John MorrowIn other words, they are deeply involved in imagining the "shared imaginary space".  OK.  From what perspective do the imagine it?

They interract with the ficitonal world from the POV of their PCs. When they imagine it, it may be from a differen POV. For example, my players will sometimes draw a scene we gamed with their own PC fighting a monster. When I'm a player, I'm definitely imagining the action from the PCs POV.

Quote from: John MorrowWhere I'm going with this is that I think there is a translation process between the input that the player gets and imagining what's going on in the game setting.  I think that interface and how it works is more important than the idea that people get deeply engrossed in what's going on in the game.

Wheras I think it's important to identify what it is about the game that players find engrossing. The players who draw their PCs in action, or other scenes from gameplay, aren't especially interested in the mechanics behind their PCs. One of them still doesn't know what HP bonus a Con 16 gives his PC, even after 25 years of playing D&D.

Quote from: HaffrungThe better writers leave much to the imagination of the reader. You fill in the blanks with your imagination.

Sure, but they also provide the framework to hang those details on.

Quote from: HaffrungThat's the way I DM. I provide enough detail to inspire my players' imagination, then they fill in the rest. We've all agreed that when I'm on my game, and they're in the immersive trance, the images going through our minds are way better than any movie.

Why is it way better than any movie?

Quote from: HaffrungThey interract with the ficitonal world from the POV of their PCs. When they imagine it, it may be from a differen POV. For example, my players will sometimes draw a scene we gamed with their own PC fighting a monster. When I'm a player, I'm definitely imagining the action from the PCs POV.

My point here is that certain techniques that might help one perspective can hurt another.  For example, the idea of the cut scene can really involve players who look at the game like a movie, from an omniscient point of view, get more engrossed in the game.  But they can break that engrossment for a player who is imagining the action from their PC's POV.

What about the emotional context?  What do you feel in play?  Do you feel emotions from an audience perspective, from identification with your character, or do you feel emotions in character?

Quote from: HaffrungWheras I think it's important to identify what it is about the game that players find engrossing. The players who draw their PCs in action, or other scenes from gameplay, aren't especially interested in the mechanics behind their PCs. One of them still doesn't know what HP bonus a Con 16 gives his PC, even after 25 years of playing D&D.

It's easy to identify what's irrelevant, though there are certainly people who do get engrossed in the rules and mechanics.  When I've experienced that when playing tactically, it's closer to the Flow experienced writing a computer program than watching a movie.  

But let's take a step toward what I think Stuart is looking for.  What sorts of things seem to encourage immersion for your players and what seems to break it?  And are they all the same or do their tastes differ?

Quote from: Haffrungand they're in the immersive trance,

See, this is one of the phrases that gives me hives.

To me, the word "trance" implies a state of altered consciousness.  I don't think that's what you really mean, but to me "immersive trance" means you lose sight of the fact that you're a bunch of people sitting around a table jawing.

YMMThingummy, and all that.

Different words trigger different mental images in different people.  'Immersive trance' happens to be one that makes me choke up.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy is it way better than any movie?

For the same reason many of us find books way better than any movie - because they inspire our own imagination to fashion imagines that are vivid and meaningful to us. Peter Jackson depicts some pretty cool shit in the Lord of the Rings movies. Doesn't hold a candle to the scenes Tolkien and I evoked in my own head reading the books.

Quote from: Old GeezerTo me, the word "trance" implies a state of altered consciousness.

I'm comfortable using the same word to describe the sensation of reading an engrossing book. I'm sitting on my couch, with my dog snoring at my feet, but I'm also alongside Flashman being chased down the Khyber Pass by savage tribesmen.

I've seen the word 'fictional trance' used by authors to describe the effect they're trying to have on readers. The idea is that the reader should forget he's actually sitting there parsing the text on a page written by some schmuck on a laptop, and instead lose himself in the flow of language, sounds, and imagery of the fictional world.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect. But that's also what a lot of people mean when they talk about "immersion" (including a few of us here) and it also fits much of not all of the characteristics in your description. That's what I'm trying to say. You need to qualify what you are talking about further or it's going to confuse people.

I'm going to keep posting thoughts and quotes from others on Immersion.  Hopefully it will continue to become more clear. :)

Quote from: John MorrowI find it curious that you compare the immersion that you get from role-playing with the immersion one gets from a passive activity like reading a book, watching a movie, or being told a story rather than an active activity like playing a sport, writing a program, or exploring the woods.

Reader Response Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader_Response) is a group of approaches to understanding literature that emphasizes the reader's role in creating the meaning and experience of a literary work.  I've got a good quote from Murray's book tying this branch of Literary Theory to Immersion that I'll post later tonight.

Quote from: John MorrowDoes railroading or at least having the GM create and move the plot along have any impact on your enjoyment of the game?

I'm still pondering the relationship between game and (narrative) immersion.  Removing choices is bad for gameplay.  I don't know about immersion though...

Quote from: John MorrowThere seem to be two big schools of acting, one which gets into character (Method Acting) and the other that just emotes on cue.[/quoteThere's actually more than two schools, and Method Acting is more than just getting into character.  It involves tying your own real experiences to those of your character.  So if you need to play the part of someone who's starving, you don't eat.  That sorta thing. ;)

Quote from: HaffrungAh, but reading a book is not a passive activity in the way movies are; it's a collaboration between the author and the reader. The words feed the imagination of the reader, who then creates his own scenes. Unlike a movie, everyone reading a book has a different idea of how things look and feel. Immersion in RPGs is a lot like that.

Film isn't entirely passive either.  If you see a shot of someone buying groceries followed by a shot of them cooking dinner, you mentally fill in the events that take place between those two moments.

Quote from: Old GeezerTo me, the word "trance" implies a state of altered consciousness.  I don't think that's what you really mean, but to me "immersive trance" means you lose sight of the fact that you're a bunch of people sitting around a table jawing.

YMMThingummy, and all that.

Different words trigger different mental images in different people.  'Immersive trance' happens to be one that makes me choke up.

It is a type of altered consciousness, just not a voodoo crazy kind. ;)  If you're watching TV it's an altered state of consciousness from when you're walking the dog.

Quote from: HaffrungI've seen the word 'fictional trance' used by authors to describe the effect they're trying to have on readers. The idea is that the reader should forget he's actually sitting there parsing the text on a page written by some schmuck on a laptop, and instead lose himself in the flow of language, sounds, and imagery of the fictional world.

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is sometimes used as well.

Quote from: Stuart"Willing suspension of disbelief" is sometimes used as well.

Ding!  Okay, THAT makes sense.

Quote from: HaffrungI'm comfortable using the same word to describe the sensation of reading an engrossing book. I'm sitting on my couch, with my dog snoring at my feet, but I'm also alongside Flashman being chased down the Khyber Pass by savage tribesmen.

I've seen the word 'fictional trance' used by authors to describe the effect they're trying to have on readers. The idea is that the reader should forget he's actually sitting there parsing the text on a page written by some schmuck on a laptop, and instead lose himself in the flow of language, sounds, and imagery of the fictional world.

Well, I've gotten so engrossed in a book that four hours go by and I haven't moved, eaten, drunk, or peed.  So I know the sort of thing you mean, I think I just have different emotional resonances to the word 'trance'.

Quote from: StuartThere's actually more than two schools, and Method Acting is more than just getting into character.  It involves tying your own real experiences to those of your character.  So if you need to play the part of someone who's starving, you don't eat.  That sorta thing. ;)

Yeah, I know.  And there are different types of Method Acting, some more like in character role-playing and some less so (mapping personal experiences onto the character's experiences).  I was trying to keep it simple and more than once, I've heard actors talk of the disconnect between actors who approach their role by trying to understand their characters and actors who emote based on how the script and director tell them to emote, be it the classic "Why don't you just act?" line that Olivier supposedly delivered to Dustin Hoffman or the two anecdotes that I just described.  The "just act" people always seem to find getting into character to be an odd way to depict a character, while the people who do it seem to have a lot of fun with it.

I'm also saying that I think I'd rather have Adam Baldwin in a role-playing game with me than Jewel Staite, at least as far as character portrayal goes.

Quote from: StuartFilm isn't entirely passive either.  If you see a shot of someone buying groceries followed by a shot of them cooking dinner, you mentally fill in the events that take place between those two moments.

Sure.  And if I fall asleep in the train, I can fill in how I got to my station.  But I can't do that if I'm driving, can I? :p

Quote from: Stuart"Willing suspension of disbelief" is sometimes used as well.

I think the use of "willing" is sometimes misleading, because the elements of a work of fiction can work for or against the suspension of disbelief and sometimes, even if the will is there, the work of fiction fights so hard to make a person disbelieve that they just can't suspend their disbelief.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm also saying that I think I'd rather have Adam Baldwin in a role-playing game with me than Jewel Staite, at least as far as character portrayal goes.

I'm glad you put that qualifier in there ;)

Another quote from Janet Murray's book "Hamlet on the Holodeck":

QuoteThe pleasurable surrender of the mind to an imaginative world is often described, in Coleridge's phrase, as "the willing suspension of disbelief." But this is too passive a formulation even for traditional media.  When we enter a fictional world, we do not merely "suspend" a critical faculty; we also excercise a creative faculty. We do not suspend disbelief so much as we actively create belief. Because of our desire to experience immersion, we focus our attention on the enveloping world and we use our intelligence to reinforce rather than to question the reality of the experience.

As the literary theorists known as the "reader response" school have long argued, the act of reading is far from passive: we construct alternate narratives as we go along, we cast actors or people we know into the roles of the characters, we perform the voices of the characters in our heads, we adjust the emphasis of the story to suit our interests, and we assemble the story into the cognitive schemata that make up our own systems of knowledge and belief.  Similarly when we watch a movie, we take the separate spaces of hte various sets and merge them into a continuous space that exists only in our minds. We take fragmentary scenes and mentally supply the missing actions; if someone is seen with a grocery bag and then working over a stove, we understand the meal is effortful. If someone is wearing an Ivy League sweatshirt, we might assume they are intelligent and earnest, or maybe spoiled and preppy. We bring our own cognitive, cultural, and psychological templates to every story as we assess the characters and anticipate the way the story is likely to go.

One thing that's come up on the parallel Story Games thread, which I've been wanting to say here, is that "having the in-game events seem real" version of "immersion" still obscures differences.

It's possible for "everything to seem real" without necessarily viewing the game action from the perspective of the character. It's a little like the difference I noticed, watching detective shows back in the 70's, between shows like Columbo, where the audience had a nearly omniscient perspective and could see both sides of the conflict between the detective and the criminal, and the more traditional Holmesian whodunnit. For that matter James Bond flicks usually show the viewer far more than what Bond himself sees (though details of the evil mastermind's plot are often revealed piecemeal until the moment the mastermind explains the full ramifications directly to Bond).

To an audience, either approach can be just as "real" as the other, and it seems the same can apply to a game where the players make decisions "outside of" their characters. I don't doubt that a game of collaboratively telling a story, where there's no fixed limitation of one player controlling one character, can "seem real". As has been suggested a number of times, this mode of play may be quite natural for people who are used to GMing "immersively", which I take to mean intuitively improvising details and events based on visualization and impression, possibly also portraying several NPCs at one time.

Nevertheless based on some experience I find that games which head in that direction (e.g. through use of round-robin GMing or lots of leeway for players to improv environment and backstory) fail to provide "immersion" in the sense I usually think of it. Which is: approaching the game and acting in it from the perspective of a person inside the game world. And in that sense I'm not particularly troubled by complex mechanics, table lookups, etc., the way that I've seen some "immersionists" describe. As far as I'm concerned those are all just mechanics of representation which once mastered are easily translated into the I/O interface of the PC relative to the game world.

As well, I don't think of "immersion" in terms of having a strong sense of the character as an independent entity. Yes, I've had emotional responses to things that also affected the PC, but that's simply from putting myself in their shoes. It's harder to get that sense of the character when it's someone very different but even when it's not there I think of the game as "immersive" when there's that character/world I/O interface, and no particular need for me to steer my character as an author would toward action that "contributes to the story". I'd rather just use the character do "stuff" that has an effect, maybe become more powerful, maybe take down somebody I don't like, or talk to someone interesting in the game world, whatever.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's possible for "everything to seem real" without necessarily viewing the game action from the perspective of the character.

This is certainly true. Many books and movies follow the action of more than just the protagonist.  It's why I wanted to make the distinction between narrative immersion and "VR Immersion" or "deep in-character" immersion (or whatever you want to call it).

Quote from: Elliot WilenNevertheless based on some experience I find that games which head in that direction (e.g. through use of round-robin GMing or lots of leeway for players to improv environment and backstory) fail to provide "immersion" in the sense I usually think of it. Which is: approaching the game and acting in it from the perspective of a person inside the game world.

I've found that any kind of "world creation" seems to really get in the way of "world immersion"

Quote from: StuartThis is certainly true. Many books and movies follow the action of more than just the protagonist.  It's why I wanted to make the distinction between narrative immersion and "VR Immersion" or "deep in-character" immersion (or whatever you want to call it).

You should change the title of the thread, then.

Quote from: StuartI've found that any kind of "world creation" seems to really get in the way of "world immersion"

There is a difference between preparation techniques and techniques using during play that's captured badly in most theory discussions.  World creation can be a great help to world immersion (in character or otherwise), in my opinion, when it happens as preparation for a game or campaign.  For example, the D&D 3.5 game that I recently played in (run by one of the authors of Castle Whiterock) took place in a village that was so detailed that the GM knew who lived in every building, how the different characters were related to each other, and so on and it was incredibly deep and realistic as a result.  Doing world creation on the fly, in an ad hoc manner, on the other hand, can be a problem.

Quote from: John MorrowThere is a difference between preparation techniques and techniques using during play that's captured badly in most theory discussions.  World creation can be a great help to world immersion (in character or otherwise), in my opinion, when it happens as preparation for a game or campaign.

Good point.  I meant world creation when done during gameplay.  I agree that if done before the game starts it can help with immersion.

Basically I'm pointing to the experience of people who say that when they GM, they "just know" what's going on in a given situation. E.g. Sarah Kahn mentioned that she would often do things that way, in a comment on my Livejournal, here (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/23950.html?thread=112014#t112014).

Apparently the approach was called "channeling" (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/search?group=rec.games.frp.advocacy&q=channeling+OR+channelling&qt_g=Search+this+group) on rec.games.frp.advocacy. Here's an example, from another poster (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/13c0e675a6631ee2). (Bear in mind that any time you see "Simulationist" on r.g.f.a it basically just means the game-world operates according to internal principles with a minimum of metagame-motivated influence in the course of play.)

I think that the channeling concept was later applied back from GMing to the idea, for players, of "just knowing" exactly how a character was thinking and behaving, even if the player didn't "immerse" in the sense of strongly seeing things through the character's eyes, first-person-style.

Neither of these approaches/experiences jibes very closely with what I do either as a GM or player, and in fact it's distracting when a GM does it in a game I'm playing. It makes me start thinking out-of-character (i.e. it disrupts "immersion" in my sense), especially if the GM's improv includes unlikely or frustrating events. (Being frustrated by dice isn't nearly as distracting.)

But the real point I want to make here is that if people are comfortable with this approach and they're used to perceiving it in terms of the world or character "coming alive", then I can understand (a) why they'd call it "immersion" and (b) why they'd find no contradiction between "immersion" and games with round-robin GMing, or mechanics & expectations that have players making decisions and affecting things from an out-of-character perspective.

Quote from: Elliott WilenNeither of these approaches/experiences jibes very closely with what I do either as a GM or player, and in fact it's distracting when a GM does it in a game I'm playing. It makes me start thinking out-of-character (i.e. it disrupts "immersion" in my sense), especially if the GM's improv includes unlikely or frustrating events. (Being frustrated by dice isn't nearly as distracting.)

This is a great point and ties in very well to what's discussed in the Murray book, and other writings on immersion, suspension of disbelief, breaking the 4th wall, etc.

From Marie-Laure Ryan's book Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media

Quote from: Poetics of immersionThree forms of textual immersion are distinguished and discussed in two chapters.
1. Spatial: the reader develops a sense of place, a sense of being on the scene of the narrated events.
2.Temporal : the experience of a reader caught up in narrative suspense, the burning desire to know what happens next.
3. Emotional : the phenomenon of developing a personal attachment to the characters, of participating in their human experience.

Narrative techniques are evaluated in terms of their ability to promote these various types of immersion, and immersivity is shown to be more important to the effect of literary realism than the life-likeness of the fictional world.

Hmm.  More writing about the problems of having immersion and interactivity at the same time...

Quote from: Marie-Laure RyanWhile interactivity and immersion support each other in VR, it is argued that they conflict in literature because interactivity requires an awareness of signs, while immersion depends on their disappearance. The more actively and lucidly the reader participates in the textual game of the construction of meaning, the less she will be caught in the illusion of reality projected by the textual world. Some postmodern texts alternate between immersive and interactive moments, but as long as language is the only medium involved, the two dimensions cannot be experienced at the same time.

More sources, more quotes!

First from a Master's student working on a thesis related to videogames:

Quote from: kev/nullWe don't know what exactly makes a game immersive. What we do know is that a lack of suspension of disbelief (SoD) or "willingness to forgive" is likely to break immersion so we want players to maintain SoD. So we use the definition that no SoD = no immersion.

I tend to agree with this, and while there's not *that much* written about immersion, there is a good deal written about Suspension of Disbelief.  This could be very useful in game design, even if we don't have a airtight definition of "immersion" that every RPG theory-type agrees to. :)

From The Daedalus Project: MMORPG Research, Cyberculture, MMORPG Psychology.

Quote from: In Their Own Words: The Immersion ComponentA prevalent theme among players who enjoy being immersed in a game centers on developing a back-story or history for their characters. For them, it is crucial that their character makes sense and is rooted in the lore and mythos of the world.

A couple of the interviewed gamers:

Quote from: Interviewed Gamer 1Immersion is an important part as far as feeling like I'm really part of the game world. I don't necessarily Role-Play a lot, but feeling like I'm 'in' the game is really fun. For example, in EQ, I felt like I was just playing a random computer game. Whereas with WoW I really feel like I'm involved because there's a rich history and I know a lot of the history about it. WoW has more depth and immersion than EQ in my opinion because of this.

Quote from: Interviewed Gamer 2i started playing mmorpg games (primairly FFXI) as an escape.. a way to deal with the stress i was having. I don't do drugs, i don't smoke, i don't drink... so gaming was my method of escape... i loved being immersed in the virtual world and playing a role (i was a white mage ... level 67). i loved playing the role of a magician/healer ... working together as a team and having everyone involved play the very best they could.... it was so much fun!

Stuart, while I don't want to explain this in detail I have to say I find those quotes on the experience of literature deeply questionable, both empirically (not my experience) and theoretically (thank GOD not my experience). And as El Rabbit stated earlier on, the term "immersion" is used far too generally and far too metaphorically. IME, whenever you see something like that happening it means an intellectual inquiry has hit a dead end.

The dead end here being, I suspect, the effort to assimilate RPG experience to non-RPG experience. What needs to happen is to get at the root uniqueness of RPGs, not their supposed commonality with films or novels or comics or TV serials or music. In other words, what needs to be established is the specificity of the RPG as a medium in its own right, over against other media. *That* should be the first step.

If you want to start a thread about for RPGs are different from everything else, why not do so?

I think that the majority of theory on RPGs (at least the type discussed on RPG forums) is created in a vacuum without any reference to other forms of media, performance, or gameplay.  To date that hasn't produced any theory that's been helpful in designing a new game.

I'm also not drawing quotes from sources looking exclusively at books and film.  The quotes all come from sources primarily concerned with interactive narratives.  They discuss roleplaying, LARPs, MUDs, MMORPGs, and Interactive Fiction.

QuoteI think that the majority of theory on RPGs (at least the type discussed on RPG forums) is created in a vacuum without any reference to other forms of media, performance, or gameplay.  

Not so. "Story" is an example for how a free-floating umbrella term is used to subsume vastly different experiences produced in vastly different media under a single rubric.

QuoteI'm also not drawing quotes from sources looking exclusively at books and film.  The quotes all come from sources primarily concerned with interactive narratives.  They discuss roleplaying, LARPs, MUDs, MMORPGs, and Interactive Fiction.

Exactly, and that's the problem as I see it. We need specificity, not generalization, and "interactive narrative," like "immersion," is an example for the latter.

Quote from: StuartIf you want to start a thread about for RPGs are different from everything else, why not do so?

Coz I'm a busy guy. I can point the way, but I can't chart the territory. I don't have the time Ron Edwards permits himself to have.

But... if you want to check out what I'm getting at, re. a medium and the specific experience it generates, have a look at Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed, a book on film as medium.

It is a very tough and partly infuriating book, but also a very smart one. Just the tip of the iceberg, but an important tip.

I've read enough books on "what is film" for a while. :)

Quote from: Stanley CavellSo my first philosophical question was when I asked myself, "What is film?" [which] came in the form of "What are its differences?" From painting, from theater, from any of the arts, from literature -- how is a script different from a libretto, all of these questions. And that produced this book that I see on the table here, The World Viewed.

Cavell couldn't have written about how the script was different from the libretto if he didn't understand what it was and how it worked.

I agree that there are things specific to each media that are unlike the others... but you can't tell what those differences are until you know which ones they have in common with the others.

Quote from: StuartIf you want to start a thread about for RPGs are different from everything else, why not do so?

I know this has become a common way of demanding focus in threads on RPG forumabobs, but I really think you should consider whether you're diverting constructive criticism.

That said I think you started off well early on in the thread by drawing a line around a specific phenomenon you wanted to examine. The problem is that we've somehow gotten diverted into, basically, arguing over whether that's the phenomenon of interest. I'm sure I've contributed to that drift myself, but I think you may want to be a lot more careful about your use of outside sources. E.g. ask yourself if those Daedalus Project quotes are really germane to your specific topic or if they just contribute to the "what is 'immersion'" cacophony.

It might help if you began by sticking to "Narrative Immersion" consistently, to indicate that other phenomena have an equal claim to the term "immersion", then asked how it translates from the article to the RPG context. This will give you a precise definition to work with.

The next pitfall I'd want to avoid is defining "other immersions" as categories in the same space as "Narrative Immersion"--disjoint sets, subsets, or supersets. For example I've seen a drive over at story games to turn the "immersion" I've described above, which could maybe be called "first-person play", "character immersion" (and may also share characteristics with usages of terms like "virtualism" and "avatarism") into a subset of other immersions, maybe Narrative Immersion or Flow. Not so, as I've tried to show. I can be floundering while learning new mechanics or trying to learn my way around an unfamiliar setting, but still have a sense of "character immersion".

It might be that I'm being purposefully vague about the terms so as to subvert the process of RPG theory discussions generating new jargon. :raise:

The Storygames thread seems to have moved into selecting a new 3-letter acronym to categorize playstyles with.

So far "FIE" seems to be in the lead.  (totally serious)

:haw:

Quote from: StuartIt might be that I'm being purposefully vague about the terms so as to subvert the process of RPG theory discussions generating new jargon. :raise:

The Storygames thread seems to have moved into selecting a new 3-letter acronym to categorize playstyles with.

So far "FIE" seems to be in the lead.  (totally serious)

:haw:

Three...it's a magic number...yes it is....

Quote from: StuartIt might be that I'm being purposefully vague about the terms so as to subvert the process of RPG theory discussions generating new jargon.

Didn't you respond to John Morrow earlier by explaining that you aren't talking about "immersion", just "Narrative Immersion". I thought you were headed in the right direction there, except that you then kept using "immersion" and drawing in quotes like the ones from the Daedalus Project that are talking about something other than Narrative Immersion, at least if you look at how they contrast it with its absence.

I know I criticize jargon a lot, but it's one thing to avoid creating new jargon and another to embrace a conceptual muddle.

Quote from: StuartCavell couldn't have written about how the script was different from the libretto if he didn't understand what it was and how it worked.

I agree that there are things specific to each media that are unlike the others... but you can't tell what those differences are until you know which ones they have in common with the others.

Predictable and and equally pointless retort: "No, you can't define the commonalities until you understand the differences, lest you confuse the one with the other."

Discussion on this level of high school Ad Absurdum 101 gets nobody anywhere. Nor does quoting one para from a book.

If you don't want to go there, fine. But don't claim you're engaging an argument you haven't absorbed in its full extent.

On a general note, I don't understand the fundamental point of your effort. I thought you're Mr. Anti-Storygame? And now you're elevating "interactive narrative" as a mega-category across all media, including RPGs? Why?

I bring forth this wonderful word:

ambience

Not everything is "immersion", most stuff is ambiance.

Quote from: SettembriniI bring forth this wonderful word:

ambience

Not everything is "immersion", most stuff is ambiance.

I see.

Is "ambience" synonymous with "this big fuzzy cloud that's filling the room for the duration of the game, and in which IG and OOG communication almost but not quite blend into each other"?

Quote from: James J SkachThree...it's a magic number...yes it is....

If they want a three-way triangle, they'd be hard pressed to top this (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/9141476fcfa95187/81db63d48b390693?lnk=st&q=#81db63d48b390693):

                            Interactive
                             Storytelling
                               /     \
                             /         \
                           /             \
                         /                 \
                       /                     \
                     /                         \
                   /                             \
                IC ______________________________ Problem-
            Experience                            Solving

(Where "IC" is "In Character")

Hell yesno!

Ambience is something that everybody understands, no?
Everyone tries to get into the same mood and creates  an ambience for furthering that.
Depending on the mood chosen the techniques vary wildly.
A military parade has an ambience that´s different from a teatime in Westfordshire.

So depending on the game and mood that is to be reached, IG and OOG may fly through the room. it sure does in most of my games.
But there are moods and games where that would be like farting in your face.

There´s nothing special about it. Sometimes it´s allowed to go for a pee, and sometimes it´s not. It´s ambience all the time. In life so in games.

No "immersion" needed.

Quote from: StuartSo far "FIE" seems to be in the lead.  (totally serious)

Hmmm.  You were serious.  :bawling:

Yes, see, this is the problem with attempts at analysis through exhaustive categorization. In most every case I've seen, it starts from an attempt to define a particular category, and then turns into unified taxonomy of special interests.

Quote from: John MorrowIf they want a three-way triangle, they'd be hard pressed to top this (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/9141476fcfa95187/81db63d48b390693?lnk=st&q=#81db63d48b390693):

Code Select Expand


                             Interactive
                             Storytelling
                               /     \
                             /         \
                           /             \
                         /                 \
                       /                     \
                     /                         \
                   /                             \
                IC ______________________________ Problem-
            Experience                            Solving


(Where "IC" is "In Character")

I prefer Jeff's Threefold Model (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html)

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenDidn't you respond to John Morrow earlier by explaining that you aren't talking about "immersion", just "Narrative Immersion". I thought you were headed in the right direction there, except that you then kept using "immersion" and drawing in quotes like the ones from the Daedalus Project that are talking about something other than Narrative Immersion, at least if you look at how they contrast it with its absence.

I changed my mind. :)

I wasn't sure it was the best term (I almost posted something about 'immersive narrative world' but didn't). I didn't want to contribute new Jargon. I wanted to use the same language the source material (ie everyone else) was using, which seems to be just "immersion". And I was concerned the 'narrative' part might get just as confused as the immersion part.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityPredictable and and equally pointless retort: "No, you can't define the commonalities until you understand the differences, lest you confuse the one with the other."

Discussion on this level of high school Ad Absurdum 101 gets nobody anywhere. Nor does quoting one para from a book.

All media studies build on the theories established for earlier media.  It's not a rhetorical trick, that's the approach they take.  The Cavell quote was from an interview about the book, which I haven't read.  I assure you there's more relevant info in the books I've mentioned, but I can't quote the entire book.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOn a general note, I don't understand the fundamental point of your effort. I thought you're Mr. Anti-Storygame? And now you're elevating "interactive narrative" as a mega-category across all media, including RPGs? Why?

Curiosity.  If I had it all figured out I'd either just post something explaining how it all works, or possibly just use the applied knowledge from what I'd figured out to make my game better.  Some people who post here have good ideas, and their contributions to the topic are of interest to me.

I think we might be thinking different things about what "interactive narrative" means, but that's really for another thread.

And I don't think of myself as Mr. Anti-Storygame.  Mr. Anti-Jargon and nonsensical theory maybe.  There are one or two games that came out of the Storygame scene that look interesting, but I'm not sure how hand-wavey the actual gameplay would be.

Quote from: John MorrowHmmm.  You were serious.  :bawling:

Fie on't! :haw:

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOn a general note, I don't understand the fundamental point of your effort. I thought you're Mr. Anti-Storygame? And now you're elevating "interactive narrative" as a mega-category across all media, including RPGs? Why?

The original point of this thread to was to look at an aspect some of us enjoy in gaming - immersion - and try to figure out what it is. Personally, I found the Forge useless because it was clear none of the bigwigs there played RPGs for the same reason I did. I've tried to express what my group of players get out of D&D, and until now I haven't seen it discussed anywhere on the net this thoroughly. So this thread has been useful to me, for one.

Oh, and I have no interest in Storygame, or in amateur theatrics. The fact that immersion is still being confused with those two only proves how its not really understood by most gamers.

Quote from: StuartI changed my mind. :)

I wasn't sure it was the best term (I almost posted something about 'immersive narrative world' but didn't). I didn't want to contribute new Jargon. I wanted to use the same language the source material (ie everyone else) was using, which seems to be just "immersion". And I was concerned the 'narrative' part might get just as confused as the immersion part.

There's nothing wrong with exploration but ultimately you're risking falling into one of two traps, i.e. either the fallacy of equivocation (equating multiple concepts/categories simply because people use the same word for them), or creating a taxonomy which, like other RPG theories, tries to encompass everything by slicing it up--and very likely ignoring the way that different types of "immersion" operate within completely different aesthetic planes.

EDIT: OR you could end up confusing everybody by trying to create a canonical definition for immersion, which people will continue to associate with the various existing definitions.

Quote from: Elliot WilenEDIT: OR you could end up confusing everybody by trying to create a canonical definition for immersion, which people will continue to associate with the various existing definitions.

But redefining common words and jargon already widely in use always works so well.  Look how well it worked for Ron with the GNS and Forge theory. :rolleyes:

I think this quote might be worth re-posting:

Quote from: kev/nullWe don't know what exactly makes a game immersive. What we do know is that a lack of suspension of disbelief (SoD) or "willingness to forgive" is likely to break immersion so we want players to maintain SoD. So we use the definition that no SoD = no immersion.

Now... I think this is true for all the "types" of immersion I've seen people discussing so far.

So -- we don't really need to get our terms sorted out before moving on to look at that part more closely.  And it actually gives us something practical to apply to game design!

Remove elements that break Suspension of Disbelief and you will make a game more "Immersive".

Quote from: StuartNow... I think this is true for all the "types" of immersion I've seen people discussing so far.

I would be interested to know if anyone who enjoys "genre simulation" (that is, playing games that seek to emulate a genre, goofy cliches and all) immerse and, if so, how they deal with genre elements that should clearly destroy suspension of disbelief (e.g., knowing that your character can't run out of bullets, knowing that your character can't die, knowing that certain NPCs are mooks and aren't really a threat, etc.).  I'm not sure it's safe to assume that they don't or that they reconcile the genre elements with conventional suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: StuartRemove elements that break Suspension of Disbelief and you will make a game more "Immersive".

I've spent some time saying pretty much that, because that's how it works for me, but there are quite a few people who claim that it's not a problem for them.  I'm not sure whether they really immerse or not, but I'm not sure it's safe to say that people can't reconcile elements that should clearly shatter suspension of disbelief with immersion of one sort or another.

Quote from: John MorrowI would be interested to know if anyone who enjoys "genre simulation" (that is, playing games that seek to emulate a genre, goofy cliches and all) immerse and, if so, how they deal with genre elements that should clearly destroy suspension of disbelief (e.g., knowing that your character can't run out of bullets, knowing that your character can't die, knowing that certain NPCs are mooks and aren't really a threat, etc.). I'm not sure it's safe to assume that they don't or that they reconcile the genre elements with conventional suspension of disbelief.

These sorts of things won't break suspension of disbelief if they're part of the initial premise, under which I think genre falls.  It's when something breaks those genre conventions (the character *does* die etc) that suspension of disbelief would likely be broken.

Quote from: WikipediaSuspension of disbelief is also supposed to be essential for the enjoyment of many movies and TV shows involving complex stunts, special effects, and seemingly "unrealistic" plots, characterizations, etc. The theory professes to explain why action movie fans are willing to accept the idea that the good guy can get away with shooting guns in public places, or never running out of ammunition, or that cars will explode with a well-placed shot to the gas tank.

Things that might break Suspension of Disbelief:

Deus Ex Machina - an unlikely / contrived ending that does not follow the narrative's internal logic

This would explain why some players who value "Immersion" do not like some types of "Railroading"

Retcon - Retroactive Continuity, sometimes called a "reality shift" where the GM announces a change to previous events

Interesting.  That makes a lot of sense to me.  I think it might include people who complain about having backstory being created during play.

Inconsistency - narrative elements that do not follow the internal logic of the initial premise

I think this is an area that would include a lot of Storygames, or at least the ones where people say they have a tendency to "get a bit gonzo".  Lots of other types of inconsistencies would fall under this heading too.

Breaking the 4th Wall - breaking the boundaries between the fictional world and the audience.

Still thinking about what this would mean in the context of an RPG session...

Could it be some kinds of "acting" at the table that focuses you more on the person in front of you than imagining the fictional world?

I need to think about that some more... but I have a feeling that's an important area to look at...

EDIT: One more I found over on MobyGames

The Truman Show

QuoteWhen all the world waits for you. Do you remember "The Truman Show"? Well, a lot of story based games are like that, you enter a room and everybody seem to start following the script (of the corresponding event)

...

when there is something immediately about to happen but you can wander around and take your time doing side quests and whatever else.

That's not bad, but if you want to use that as your criterion I suggest renaming your phenomenon "suspension of disbelief", for two reasons.

First, you may very well run into someone who claims to "immerse" (perhaps Flow) without "suspending disbelief". Perhaps they're really into the mechanical aspects of the game, treating it more or less as a tabletop roguelike with a detailed tactical subsystem. Granted that I would like to actually hear from someone who feels this way. But I think you will find them, and then you have a choice. You can either see your definition fracture (because there's no longer a single criterion) or you can define RPGs/roleplaying in such a way that those people aren't really roleplaying. They're just playing a wargame with some elements of an RPG. You may or may not be comfortable with that. You may find it difficult to get people to accept your theory, though, if in order to do so they have to swallow a somewhat contentious axiom.

Second, you may run into someone who "suspends disbelief" but doesn't "immerse". SoD may or may not be a prerequisite to "immersing". The examples I gave above are suggestive: there are people who "suspend disbelief" while GMing. In itself this doesn't contradict what you're saying. But it seems to me that if you call this quality "immersion", it differs from the "first person character immersion" that some people (like me) associate with the term. So you'll get confusion over canonizing the term.

"Suspension of disbelief" is very clear, I think, and it also gives you some flexibility in that you can apply to to the "imagined role" of the player. I.e., if you're talking about a game where the player is supposed to imagine being the character, then "suspension of disbelief" will imply those things which support that perspective. If you're talking about a game where the player doesn't necessarily have a specific role but the goal is to have an engaging fiction that "feels real", then "suspension of disbelief" will imply something different--automatically.

Quote from: Eliot WilenFirst, you may very well run into someone who claims to "immerse" (perhaps Flow) without "suspending disbelief".

I'm not sure that you could get into a Flow state playing a complex tabletop game, like the detailed tactical subsystem of an RPG.  I don't know if you could achieve a flow state playing Warhammer 40K for example.  I think your mind would be changing modes too much to get into "the zone" in the same way you could playing a videogame or sport.  I think there's a difference between Flow and Focus, and people might be confusing the two.  I'm not sure, but I'm not convinced either.  :confused:

As for people who Suspend Disbelief without Immersion, that's not a problem.  I think the key is in how we've got it worded.

SoD is not Immersion, however
No SoD means no Immersion.

Again, I'm more interested in the application than the terminology, and today I'm feeling pretty good about where the discussion has led! :)

Quote from: StuartAll media studies build on the theories established for earlier media.  It's not a rhetorical trick, that's the approach they take.  

"They" includes me, Stuart. I study twentieth-century art professionally, and that includes thinking about film and photography, knowing what goes on in these fields and talking to my colleagues who specialize in them. You're simply off the mark, irrespective of what google or some undergrad class you took may tell you.

If "build on" means: "initially compare to check for similarities," the statement is true but banal. The important work gets done beyond that initial point, when a new medium's actual novelty is examined, using new concepts.

If "build on" means: "assimilate new medium to old," that has been done in the past, to the detriment of the people who did it.

When photography appeared on the scene in the nineteenth century, people tried to think it in terms of painting, as a better or more accurate version of it. Huge mistake that produced a lot of pointless ideas as well as some really bad photos. A storyfication of RPG theory promises to yield exactly analogous results.

Quote from: StuartThese sorts of things won't break suspension of disbelief if they're part of the initial premise, under which I think genre falls.  It's when something breaks those genre conventions (the character *does* die etc) that suspension of disbelief would likely be broken.

I don't think that's true at all.  

Have you ever seen the movie Last Action Hero?  There is a scene where the hero walks into his bedroom and shoots into the closet without opening it.  A dead ninja falls out.  Why did he shoot into the closet?  Because there is always a ninja in there.

Years ago on rec.games.frp.advocacy, Mary Kuhner wrote extensively about her problems with Feng Shui.  Another example was the combat rules in one of the Torg settings that required characters to try and fail and try again to eventually win.  I have a lot of trouble with the genre conventions of 4-color superheroes.  Why?  Because they don't make sense in character.

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.

Basically, 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.

Quote from: StuartThings that might break Suspension of Disbelief:

Deus Ex Machina - an unlikely / contrived ending that does not follow the narrative's internal logic

A 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.

Quote from: StuartRetcon - Retroactive Continuity, sometimes called a "reality shift" where the GM announces a change to previous events

Mary Kuhner did this extensively and I've done it well.  Done correctly, it can cause no problems for character immersion.  

Quote from: StuartInconsistency - narrative elements that do not follow the internal logic of the initial premise

I think this is an area that would include a lot of Storygames, or at least the ones where people say they have a tendency to "get a bit gonzo".  Lots of other types of inconsistencies would fall under this heading too.

I 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.  

Quote from: StuartBreaking the 4th Wall - breaking the boundaries between the fictional world and the audience.

Still thinking about what this would mean in the context of an RPG session...

Seeing 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.

Quote from: StuartThe Truman Show

Yes, 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.

Quote from: SettembriniHell yesno!

Ambience is something that everybody understands, no?
Everyone tries to get into the same mood and creates  an ambience for furthering that.
Depending on the mood chosen the techniques vary wildly.
A military parade has an ambience that´s different from a teatime in Westfordshire.

So depending on the game and mood that is to be reached, IG and OOG may fly through the room. it sure does in most of my games.
But there are moods and games where that would be like farting in your face.

There´s nothing special about it. Sometimes it´s allowed to go for a pee, and sometimes it´s not. It´s ambience all the time. In life so in games.

No "immersion" needed.

So... "ambiance" = a specific form of sociability that determines which statements and conducts in the given situation are possible, appropriate and/or awesome?

But how does this relate to / contradict / trump / include / whatever immersion?

Well, ambience is not defined by the social element, although social behaviour is formed by the longing for ambience.

Immersion is not neccessary to discuss the matter, that´s all. There might be immersion involved, who knows, but you don´t need to talk about it.

Think about highly specialized ambiences and resulting moods. The way to reach them is via a ritual, or ritualistic techniques.

You don´t need special RPGing terminology for discussing that. Talk plainly about your rituals, techniques, ambience and the mood you aim for.

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure that you could get into a Flow state playing a complex tabletop game, like the detailed tactical subsystem of an RPG.  I don't know if you could achieve a flow state playing Warhammer 40K for example.

What's the definition of Flow again? I'll rely on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)). 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.

The thing is though, it can happen without much SoD. When I play Titan: the Arena (a sort of wargame/Euro/card game), the only real use I have for the names and pictures on the cards is as mnemonics. The game has a thinly painted-on theme of gladiatorial combat which livens it up visually and offers a quick metaphor for what the game's about, but the mental sense of a real combat is (a) missing and (b) completely non-essential.

Now it happens that I tend to shy away from Euros because I enjoy the SoD--the sense of something "really" happening--and the role-immersion that's provided by wargames. But if I "click" with a good Euro, it definitely Flows.

Ergo, if there are people who sincerely think that "immersion" = Flow, without requiring SoD, they may have trouble understanding why you're hogging "immersion" as a state that requires SoD.

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!!! :D)

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!!! :D)

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 (http://gamingoutpost.com/article/episode_10_even_more_trouble_or_what_snaps_your_disbelief_suspenders/) 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" (http://www45.homepage.villanova.edu/thomas.w.smith/on%20fairy%20stories.htm) (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.