I've noticed lately that some theory people have been talking about immersion as if it's a stupid/antiquated/badwrongfun concept.

I've noticed an undercurrent of this on a few other fora (notably RPG.net) but it really hit home that there was an issue with the idea amongst theorynistas when the Sons of Kryos kinda mocked it as a concept (very, very briefly) in their latest episode.

Did I miss a memo somewhere?  When did this happen and what's up with that?  

I mean, isn't method acting acceptable in Hollywood?  Why isn't method acting acceptable in RPGs?

I'm sure this is old news to some people, but I'm 99% certain I missed something.

Whoever's suggesting this seriously, that we should somehow be rid of immersion, should be fucking shot now, before the disease spreads further.  

I mean seriously, what the hell?  Isn't immersion part of the whole goddamn point of roleplaying?  To jump into a fantasy world that doesn't exist?  I might go so far as to say it's the very definition of it.

Where are these people, and where is my gun?

It's probably just some reactionary trend against something equally ridiculous, like the idea that you can write immersion into the mechanics of a game. Immersion is a GM's job and a GM's skill, IME.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhoever's suggesting this seriously, that we should somehow be rid of immersion, should be fucking shot now, before the disease spreads further.

So, am I crazy then and it's not a theory thing?  Or am I seeing something for the first time?

Quote from: J ArcaneI mean seriously, what the hell? Isn't immersion part of the whole goddamn point of roleplaying? To jump into a fantasy world that doesn't exist? I might go so far as to say it's the very definition of it.

I always thought so.  I like method acting when I play.  I don't lose sight of reality obviously, but sometimes it's nice to get lost in the roleof another person.

QuoteSo, am I crazy then and it's not a theory thing? Or am I seeing something for the first time?

I've never encountered it, but I'm rather insulated from the latest idiot theory fads these days, what with this site being the only roleplay site I frequent now.  

I usually don't learn about stuff like that until someone pops up like yourself with a "WTF is this shit?" sort of post.

Quote from: joewolzI mean, isn't method acting acceptable in Hollywood?  Why isn't method acting acceptable in RPGs?

Method acting is of course acceptable in Hollywood. But I always find myself thinking of the English actor saying to the American, "my dear boy, why don't you just act?" Among some actors, the thought is that if you need to method act, it must be because you're a poor actor; if you can only portrary something you genuinely feel, you're not as skilled as someone who can portray something they don't feel. So, method acting is a sign of bad acting skill.

It may be that some of the opposition to "immersion" comes from that; if you have to "immerse" to roleplay, you can't be much of a roleplayer.

But anyway, roleplaying is not acting, any more than, say, rolling dice for combat is gambling. It's similar in form, but the essence is different. In acting, the actor aims to convince the audience that they're a different person. In roleplaying, the roleplayer aims to use words to describe a different person. Roleplaying in this way is more like writing than it is like acting; adding other players simply makes it "collaborative writing," which is a different thing to acting.

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

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

"Immersionism" is also, rightly or wrongly, associated with the worst pretentiousness of the Forgers and the World of Darkness goth types. It's associated with fake attention-junkie angst, and bored middle-lcassed kids whining about their hard lives of idleness.

I always thought that immersion was a good indicator as to the level of interest folks had in the game. The whole point of gaming to me at least and one of the GM skills I'm most proud of, is my ability to cultivate (whatever the genre/game) an immersive atmosphere.

Regards,
David R

You know... I play both ways and I a) don't think there's anything to prefer one over the other and b) doubt that you can force an imersive group to take a step back from their characters or force a detached knob-gag spouting group to start immersing themselves.

I just think that non-immersive playing is a different style with its own dos and don'ts and is only inherrently problematic when there's a style mismatch.  I've had games where people made jokes all evening and around 1am when the caffeine and sugar kicks in I've seen a whole group laugh until they had tears in their eyes over something someone said.

That's a good feeling, it's fun.  I'd seek it out again.

I think most games dart in and out of immersion. Within one session you can be THERE, you can be deciding on the most efficient deployment of experience points, or you can be laughing that your guy just fell in the toilet.

Ned

I think there's a whole lot of fluff talked about this subject, myself. Nobody ever seems to be meaning quite the same as anybody else.

Anyway, the big argument is over 'immersionism': is it something or not? Some people, notably Bruce Baugh, John Snead and Plume say 'immersion' is their main reason for playing; above and beyond any other reason.

To me, 'immersion' doesn't seem to mean much more than 'getting into it'.

Agreed... I think it's one of those pointless game-theoretical terms.

I agree with that definition.  "Getting into it" and I'll add everything that has to do with Suspension of Disbelief to the mix.

I honestly think that Traditional RPGs lend themselves to Suspension of Disbelief, and thus "Immersion" better than non-traditional GM-less, "narrativist" RPGs.  Although it's not just limited to Forge-brand games.

Things that break suspension of disbelief / immersion:

-- Non-game discussions
-- Looking up Rules *
-- Arguing about Rules *
-- Narrative inconsistencies **
-- Violation of "canon" **
-- "Doesn't make sense" **
-- Changes the initial premise **

* more common in rules heavy games
** more common in GM-less / shared narrative games

So it's not surprising that Immersion gets mocked by people who like games that don't support it very well...

Some of the guys heavily into immersion started talking about it on rpg.net.  Some of the more aggressive GNS guys told them that they didn't understand what they were playing for, as immersion is a tool and not a creative agenda.  Much fun ensued.

And that's it, the entire debate is nothing more than a bunch of internet theorists telling some folk that they don't understand what they find fun.  I no longer read threads on the topic, as I don't think the proposal that people don't understand what they game to actually merit discussion.

I have seen many theory threads in which people posted sensibly and tried to be helpful, these were not those threads.  People focussing on immersion as a goal for play seems to be an issue for some of the GNS guys, as it doesn't really fit the model.  Rather than adapt the model, they attacked the immersion crowd.  It was most procrustean.

But you see, then somebody like Brand Robins or Mike Holmes comes along and says he likes immersion and a game like HQ or DitV supports it. Both of those guys are significant players in the Forgista movement.

Quote from: droogBut you see, then somebody like Brand Robins or Mike Holmes comes along and says he likes immersion and a game like HQ or DitV supports it. Both of those guys are significant players in the Forgista movement.

Which is cool, but doesn't change the fact that people were talking about their fun and got corrected.

I mean, it's wrong both ways.  Old Scratch talked about how he had found DitV really immersive and the immersive guys told him he was wrong, them making the same mistake as had been made to them just made the whole thing worse though.  A whole bunch of people all telling each other that the others didn't understand their own play.  Awful.

OS gets immersion from DitV, awesome.  John Snead finds games like DitV too intrusive and destructive of immersion, cool.  I'm fine with all of that, it's only when people start extrapolating I start to lose patience.  

Those threads, at first I really sympathised with the immersionist guys who were getting told they were wrong.  Then they did the exact same thing, the exact same fucking thing, to Old Scratch.  Then I stopped reading those threads.