It all comes down to everybody seeing the word 'immersion' and associating it with something they feel while playing.

Quote from: droogIt all comes down to everybody seeing the word 'immersion' and associating it with something they feel while playing.

Indeed, but what I would have liked to have seen was people saying "hey, clearly this is broader than I thought, let's look at the other guy's experiences" instead of "heretic!  Burn the heretic!"

That said, I don't think current theory has much to add to John Snead style immersionism, as that's all about the rules not getting in the way.  Current theory is about supportive rules, not unobtrusive rules.

Quote from: BalbinusThat said, I don't think current theory has much to add to John Snead style immersionism, as that's all about the rules not getting in the way.

I don't think anybody's got much to add to that set of ideas.

Quote from: droogI don't think anybody's got much to add to that set of ideas.

Dunno, I like the rules to get out the way, for me that's the mark of a good ruleset, I think one could usefully look at what makes rules inobtrusive and what makes them more intrusive.  I just don't think anyone is doing so in the theory world as that's not where their tastes are.

I think there are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, as I pointed to with Brand and Mike, it's not a given what rules are obtrusive and what aren't. For example, I don't feel DitV to be any more or less obtrusive than RQ (it's possible I'm hypersensitive to rules in general). Secondly, being unobtrusive seems already to be an implicit or explicit goal of much mainstream design, at least in the rhetoric. You've got your BRP, your Unisystem etc. A couple of people I mentioned are doing games (ie Baugh and Snead).

I can't find any consistency. I mean, you're playing Pendragon, which I would have thought was an exceptionally obtrusive system from certain angles, yet you're not keen on HQ, which from my point of view is barely there as a system.

Quote from: droogI think there are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, as I pointed to with Brand and Mike, it's not a given what rules are obtrusive and what aren't. For example, I don't feel DitV to be any more or less obtrusive than RQ (it's possible I'm hypersensitive to rules in general). Secondly, being unobtrusive seems already to be an implicit or explicit goal of much mainstream design, at least in the rhetoric. You've got your BRP, your Unisystem etc. A couple of people I mentioned are doing games (ie Baugh and Snead).

I can't find any consistency. I mean, you're playing Pendragon, which I would have thought was an exceptionally obtrusive system from certain angles, yet you're not keen on HQ, which from my point of view is barely there as a system.

My issues on HQ have nothing to do with intrusiveness, if that helps, the only intrusive bit for me was the extended contests and that's probably more to my not being used to them than anything else.  I just don't like all rolls being contested and there are some other design choices that don't quite work for how I currently like to game, it's a great game though and I think could work rather well potentially for immersion.  I've had fun with it at cons, certainly, any game in which my clan mother can face down raiders by shaming them with her nagging tongue ability can't be all bad.

Pendragon isn't especially immersive, but then I'm not really in the John Snead camp myself.  I enjoy a bit of immersion, but it's not the sole reason I game or anything.  He's pretty serious on that front, for me immersion is important but I play as well for having a laugh with friends and all so I don't really want anything too heavy most of the time.

Otherwise, yes, it is being catered to, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be catered to better.  But then, I suspect there are few young designers out there with a burning passion to create rules that nobody will notice much.

QuoteBut 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.

"Immersion" like "Fun" seems to be a term that means different things to different people, even though they seem pretty straight forward to me.

Some people on the Forge side of things seem to like "Immersion" to mean "Flow" or "Getting into the Zone" during gameplay.  This means just about anything you get absorbed in can be immersive.  Watching a movie. Doing your taxes. Playing Basketball.

It's why I've started explicitly linking Immersion with Suspension of Disbelief.  It's the sense of being immersed IN the story -- like when you're reading a good book or watching a good movie.  You feel like you're in that other world of the story.

That type of Immersion is what you get when you're being told a story.  You don't get quite the same feeling when you're TELLING the story.

So a GM-Less / Narrativist / Forge-Style game can be something "Immersive" -- meaning you get really "into" playing it.  But it's less "Immersive" a story world for the players compared to a well run traditional RPG, because the players have to keep stepping OUT of their immersion in the story to spend more time telling it, rather than just responding to it.

Yes, that means in a traditional RPG the GM has relatively little "Immersion" in the narrative / suspension of disbelief sense, and would have more "Immersion" in a game where the other players were more responsible for overall narrative direction.

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.  

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 goes beyond that, these people are suggesting that Immersion is actually impossible, that its a lie; that people who value immersion are either delusional fools or liars; and that if someone really "immersed" they'd go insane.

Its all part of the effort to put down RPGs as being about actual roleplaying, so that they can sell pathetic little microgames where everything, including the roleplaying, is decided by gimmicky new mechanics ("My Life With Maude: an RPG exploring the clash between old-wave and new-wave feminism in the context of two room-mates sharing an apartment, with the radical new hopscotch-based mechanics.. Now NON-Patriarchal!").

RPGPundit

Quote from: beejazzIt'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.

Not exactly. Its part of the reaction to GMs themselves.  The forgeites don't want anything that would allow a GM authority. Immersion comes into that package deal.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzMethod 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?"

That was Sir Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman.

And the quote applies more directed at Forge-ite swine than at gamers who end up immersing.  Because really "gamers who immerse" is really just synonymous with "gamers having fun roleplaying".

Whereas the Forgeites are the ones who are trying to replace roleplaying with gimmick-rules and systems that try to replace the fiat of a GM and the need of a player to do anything that would bring about that fiat, like roleplaying social situations.

That's why they "roll to raise the stakes" or whatever the fuck they call it, while we just roleplay it.

Quote"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.

Only if you utterly re-define the concept of "immersion" to mean "mentally ill".  If you define immersion as the experience that virtually all REAL roleplayers have had once in a while, where they get "lost in the game", where they think of their characters as nearly-real persons, or get very deeply into the world-view of the character they portray, then "immersion" is neither impossible nor unwantable, it is in fact one of the primary GOALS of RPGs.

Quote"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.

Well, you're half-right. Its associated with WW-swine, but its also a legitimate phenomenon.
But the Forgers are where you got it wrong, they're the anti-immersion dudes.  Ron Edwards claimed varyingly that immersion is impossible, and that if it were possible whoever practiced it would be mentally ill. He hates immersion because it creates an "agenda" for gamers that doesn't fit nicely into his "GNS" fantasy world.

RPGPundit

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.

Heroquest is not a Forge game, its a (admittedly pretentious swiney) game that the Forge-ites subverted to retroactively count as "one of theirs", because Ron Edwards creams his pants for it.

Dogs in the Vinyard doesn't support Immersion, just the opposite. It tries to make mechanics act as a substitute, and I would say a barrier, to any immersion and/or roleplay.

RPGPundit

Thanks all for clarifying the argument and hashing it out here!  I think I understand enough to add:

I really like the points combining immersion and suspension of disbelief.  That pretty sums up my feelings on the subject.

Whether or not certain games support it or not...well, that's up to the individual gamer.  Suspension of disbelief is a bit personal to attempt in every single game.

And Pundit, not all Forge games are alike.  Clinton R. Nixon's "The Shadow of Yesterday" is very much a traditional RPG with one nod to Forge style theory.  It even states in the Story Guide (I know, it's a pretentious title for GM) section:  "You want something to happen, do it.  It's everybody's game, but YOU are the Story Guide."  I paraphrased that but if anyone calls me on it, I'll get a page reference after I'm done with my book reviews for today (yay end of the semester!).

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

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.

Man, I've read stuff of yours I've disagreed with in the past, but never have I read such a total fucking crock of shit from you.

Quote from: RPGPunditOnly if you utterly re-define the concept of "immersion" to mean "mentally ill".  If you define immersion as the experience that virtually all REAL roleplayers have had once in a while, where they get "lost in the game", where they think of their characters as nearly-real persons, or get very deeply into the world-view of the character they portray, then "immersion" is neither impossible nor unwantable, it is in fact one of the primary GOALS of RPGs.

snip

Well, you're half-right. Its associated with WW-swine, but its also a legitimate phenomenon.
But the Forgers are where you got it wrong, they're the anti-immersion dudes.  Ron Edwards claimed varyingly that immersion is impossible, and that if it were possible whoever practiced it would be mentally ill. He hates immersion because it creates an "agenda" for gamers that doesn't fit nicely into his "GNS" fantasy world.

Once again, I find myself mostly agreeing with Pundit, which is a pretty scary thing.

I strongly disagree with associating immersion with the WW crowd.  They latched hold of it strongly, because it was more or less promised by their Vampire books.  But of the WW gamers I've encountered, they are the least likely to be able to have an immersionistic game.

I fought that fight before. There are some people - note that I said some, not all - from the Forge who do not believe it is possible, are uttery confused by its existence, and are mystified why anyone would want it even if it were possible. I was told to my virtual face that I was in effect lying, and immersion as I described it was a type of insanity. I avoid such discussions like the plague now. It's just a freaking pain. There are some other folks from the Forge who - while they didn't have a clue what I was on about - at least granted the possiblility I wasn't lying or deluded or insane, and were curious why I would want such an experience. These guys were cool. They accepted the possibility that there was something they didn't understand and wanted to understand it. There are also - as noted - a few immersive players from the Forge as well.

-clash