Andy, that's an awful argument.  You can do better than that.

Quote from: Andy KI'm not sure, but I think that Judd might have been poking fun of the Immersion-nazis that have been emerging on the net recently who call themselves "Immersionists".

I'm not talking the "immersion" as "Wanting to get in character" or "wanting to pretend that you're in a fantasy environment for a few minutes" or "Want to act and roleplay in character", I'm talking "IMMERSIONIST!!!"

The two famous recent examples of this kind of Immersion that self-proclaimed Immersionists use:

1) Someone was saying that in his area (not just his group, but lots of local roleplayers), none of the players roll dice.  Rather, the person NEXT to them rolls the dice for them and tells them the result. The reason? Because dice-rolling and rules BREAKS IMMERSION!!! They get to stay completely in character while the action happens, all while the person to their left or whatever rolls their skills and tells them what they got.

I dunno, when I hear this I think turtleneck sweaters and wine glasses.

2) There is some sort of European heavy Immersionist crowd that basically 100% all the time stay in character when they roleplay. They don't do anything "active" to pursue conflict and the like in-game, but rather pursue the game at the pace that they would if they were really that character in-person.

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

First part, yes, there are some extremely stupid ideas about immersion and the stupidest one of all is the idea that the game gets in the way of being immersed in the game.

Second part, sounds like idiots.  Truthfully, that sounds like the Vampire players I've run into.

But one thing about immersionism.  Sometimes, you just want to play the "boring parts".  I know I do.  It helps me get into things.

That's why I never use the word "immersionism." Immersion, immersive, immerse, yes, but "Immersionism?" It's not a religion or way of life! It's a technique and/or a play goal. I try to stay away from "isms," especially those that deal with games, and especially where the "ism" concerns a word that isn't defined, means different things to different people, and moreover those people all seem to think they are the only ones who know what it really means.  

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThat's why I never use the word "immersionism." Immersion, immersive, immerse, yes, but "Immersionism?" It's not a religion or way of life! It's a technique and/or a play goal. I try to stay away from "isms," especially those that deal with games, and especially where the "ism" concerns a word that isn't defined, means different things to different people, and moreover those people all seem to think they are the only ones who know what it really means.  

The flying rodent speaks wisdom.

Quote from: Andy KThat's cool and all, I guess. But I guess I'm just in the camp where I can, like, roll dice, or eat a snack at the table, and not worry about "Breaking the Immersion" and whatnot.

Y'know, I can do that too.

When I speak of immersion, it simply informs my goals in why I like games the way that they are. Table manners are pretty much a different matter. So long as everyone is paying attention and not being a distraction, it's not a problem.

Quote from: Andy KThe two famous recent examples of this kind of Immersion that self-proclaimed Immersionists use:

1) Someone was saying that in his area (not just his group, but lots of local roleplayers), none of the players roll dice.  Rather, the person NEXT to them rolls the dice for them and tells them the result. The reason? Because dice-rolling and rules BREAKS IMMERSION!!! They get to stay completely in character while the action happens, all while the person to their left or whatever rolls their skills and tells them what they got.

I dunno, when I hear this I think turtleneck sweaters and wine glasses.

2) There is some sort of European heavy Immersionist crowd that basically 100% all the time stay in character when they roleplay. They don't do anything "active" to pursue conflict and the like in-game, but rather pursue the game at the pace that they would if they were really that character in-person.

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

------

So yeah, that's "IMMERSIONISM".  It's out there, and that's why it gets some ribbing.

I don't see what the problem is here.  Also, I think it's an inappropriate use of the term "immersion-nazi".  I can vaguely understand using "immersion-nazi" to someone with a manifesto who says that other styles are inferior.  However, someone who simply likes an immersive style?  Not hardly.  Maybe "immersion geek".  

If someone simply doesn't like rolling dice in the middle of active play, and instead plays a game variant where they don't have to, that seems like a perfectly valid preference.  I thought we were past the stage of moronic arguments like "You have to enjoy rolling polyhedral dice for its own sake if you're a real gamer".  

Similarly, I sympathize with the second as well -- since lots of my role-playing has been stuff where there is no overt conflict.  Nothing wrong with slaying dragons or over-the-top melodrama, but there's plenty of potential interest in ordinary situations as well.  While at Knutepunkt, I've roleplayed a bunch of child scouts lost in the woods, or a bunch of old friends getting together for lunch after years apart.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadY'know, I can do that too.

When I speak of immersion, it simply informs my goals in why I like games the way that they are. Table manners are pretty much a different matter. So long as everyone is paying attention and not being a distraction, it's not a problem.

See, that's the thing, though.  Jeff and Judd (IIRC, I can't remember the specific reference) were talking about the people who are like "Don't Eat or Roll the Dice! It breaks Immersion!!!" - "Immersionists" as they call themselves.

...but everyone seems to be thinking that they're just talking against "people who like to get into character". immersion with a "small i".

So, I think the ranting against "Those Damn Dirty Apes and their anti-immersion speech: Why are they oppressing me???" might be way off. They aren't ribbing "people who enjoy getting into character", but rather those wacky dudes in Helsinki who roll each others' dice and never say or do anything that their charcter would not be doing at that very moment.

At least, that's my read.  I think they have a forum or coments area or something, did someone here ask them what they meant before kicking them in the balls?

EDIT: Oh, yeah I just caught flyingmice's comments on not using "ImmersionISM". Again, big difference between "I immerse in character" and "I am an Immersionist". The former may close their eyes to get into character or get the chills in a cool scene. The latter will watch hours of TV "in characer" and not touch the dice or snacks to Always Stay Immersed. I'll have to ask Judd, but I'd put money that they were talking about the Capital-I Immersionism.

EDIT 2:

QuoteAlso, I think it's an inappropriate use of the term "immersion-nazi".

Actually, you're totally right.  I guess I was thinking about the almost-obsessive "always stay in character" vibe that the participants play under, and not that they march around the internet poo-pooing other styles. But if they are all cool with that style of play, all the better. I just wanted to seperate this really extreme "Immersionists" from "Folks who dig immersion", which are all the people posting to this thread.

-Andy

Andy K makes some very good points. I mean I think most folks like getting into character and getting into the flow of the game and think of this as immersion.

If  on the other hand immersion means you know, not eating ,drinking  or rolling dice etc so as not to break the mood or flow of the game, then I'm sure a lot of gamers are not immersive gamers at least not by this definition.

But really, the above are the extreme end of the spectrum. Most folks think of immersion as getting into character and exploring a world etc. And as far as rules being intrusive, I think it really depends on how familiar one is with the rules being used. I've seen some gamers who use the most complicated rules - which I think would be intrusive - but seem to be immersed in the setting.

Regards,
David R

Andy, on the Sons of Kryos podcast, Luke Crane actually made the comment when he said that his game design philosophy allows for "'immersion' if you will..." (he specifically said "Air Quotes" after immersion).  He, Jeff, and Judd then chuckled at the concept.

This is what I don't get.  No single reference was made to this discussion being about some "Immersionist" movement that I have never heard of.  Not that I should have heard of it, I missed this ribbing on immersion and I spend about two hours a day on gaming forums...I guess you can't catch everything.  But I would have caught "I won't roll the dice" weirdos.

Why is the term "immersion" chuckle-worthy?  That's the main question I'm asking here!

Quote from: Andy KSee, that's the thing, though.  Jeff and Judd (IIRC, I can't remember the specific reference) were talking about the people who are like "Don't Eat or Roll the Dice! It breaks Immersion!!!" - "Immersionists" as they call themselves.

Shit. Well, I guess the -ism I see going on there is extremism. I mean I identify with simulationism too, but certainly feel there is such a thing as going too far in simulating things. Guess the same thing applies here. Guess my "fourth wall" just isn't that paper thin.

When I think of reaching immersion as a goal, I think of things with the game flow, setting, and narrative that take me there.

I will say this much. Repeated and persistent jokesy references are something I find jarring that way.

I found a dozen threads on this on RPG.net...using their search function.  I'm pretty sure the debate started in the thread:
Indie RPGs, BDSM, and Anarchy

Judd himself sounded off here, along with many other theory folk.

Yeah, the "-ism" stuff doesn't help.

And yes, there are a lot of concepts out there that get labelled "immersion" and the result is a severe lack of communication. On one hand you have people who think "immersion" means focus or "flow". Then you have the "deep in-character" folks who are all about becoming their characters. I personally don't aspire to that but when I use the term I think of it primarily in terms of simulating the perspective and agency of the character, like an analog holodeck or that gizmo in Total Recall.

The thing about immersion is that it's mainly used as an explanation for why someone doesn't like a particular set of mechanics. Sometimes rolling dice, looking stuff up, or doing various calculations are blamed for being "anti-immersive", but I think the biggest controversies come from mechanics that may be simple, but which force players to think in terms that don't synch up with stuff their characters would have to think about. Thus the way that Fallout is assigned in Dogs in the Vineyard is anti-immersive in the sense that you, the player, have to make up the details and even effects of bad stuff that happens to your character.

People complained about that kind of thing, and then various Forge partisans stepped in to say that they had no trouble "immersing" while making out of character decisions (without really paying much attention to what the critics meant by "immersion"), and therefore the people who say they can't immerse when they play Dogs (or whatever) are emotionally stunted morons.

I really have no sympathy for the people who talk about "flow", because every time I've seen them talk about immersion, it isn't really to describe their own tastes but to negate the experiences of others and deny their ability to express their tastes.

The only situations I can think of where someone appeared to be denying the experience of someone in the "flow" camp are where the conversation went something like this:

A: I don't like mechanic X because it hurts immersion.
B: Well, I'm a deeply immersive player and I find mechanics like that aid immersion.
A: I doubt that you're really talking about immersion as I experience it.

Superficially it may seem that A is negating B's right to express an opinion. But after the term has been hashed out numerous times it's clear that the arguments arise from fundamentally different experiences being given the same name. So B's interjection is just Humpty Dumptyism.

BTW, I'd love to see a new thread started by someone on "cool experiences with immersion" (no -isms).

Cause I myself, in terms of immersion, get a lot out of that style of play. As a player or GM, I often find myself closing my eyes, picturing the scene in my head, and that really helps me get into character. When our group is getting too sidetracked, we sometimes set a timer for "one hour", and for that hour it's full-on gameplay; we end up talking in character more, getting into some cool drama, etc. I mean, we roll dice and all that usual jazz, but when the timer is running we won't suddenly bust out in a 30-minute derailing discussion on politics or Something Cool on Youtube.

So maybe we can open a new thread to talk about positive things too.

-Andy

Quote from: joewolzI'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.

You didn't miss much. But to talk about this, you need to understand the dialog historically, and you need to be aware of two things that'll confuse you:

1) Some folks will tell you that there's no good definition of "Immersion" -- while it's true that the term "immersion" isn't written on a stone tablet anywhere, there's a fairly common, reasonably widely used and functional definition

2) Some folks will tell you that the ridiculous stuff comes from bad behavior by the "Immersionists" (did someone mention nazi's?) -- while there has certainly been bad behavior by all "sides" all over the place, don't believe anyone saying it's Euro-weirdness that's the cause of this stuff.

It isn't -- the majority of the Immersionist clutter on RPG.net comes directly from what GNS theory has to say about immersion. It's one of the most amazing examples of forge theory utterly failing in practice.

But that's getting ahead:

First, a functional definition:

Immersion generally means getting into the game where you have a strong identification with your character. Exactly how this experienced and what supports/"breaks" it varies from person to person.

Note that we're not necessarily talking about a neurotic attraction: for most people Immersion is no deeper or more hypnotic than the kind of emotional connection they'd have to an engaging movie or story.


For many people, it's a primary attraction to a game -- and to movies, books, radio plays, etc: fiction that engages us at an emotional and intellectual level is often very enjoyable.

Immersion is often experienced as

• Focus on the game so that awareness of exactly how much time is passing is secondary ("Time flies when you're having fun")
• Emotional connection to what the character is experiencing (like feeling plesantly creeped out when hearing ghost stories around the campfire or feeling fired up while watching an action movie)
• Vivid mental imagry of imaginary in-game events

This is, I suspect, a very common experience for most folks and it's an extremely common and valid goal in rpgs.

Important Note: Exactly what makes an RPG experience "immersive" seems to vary from person to person. Some classic things that, for some people, damage immersion (and thus their enjoyment of the game)

• Stopping the game to look up rules
• Playing out of character
• Having very unrealistic things happen in the game (someone survive a point-blank shotgun blast to the head, or walking away from a 100-story fall)
• Lots of out-of-character chatter or meta-game discussion
• Distracting environment (noise, tv playing nearby, etc.)
• Etc.

This isn't, by any means, a universal list, but it covers a lot of the usual complaints about things people say "break" immersion in games for them.

How Forge Theory Gets It Wrong
Forge Theory has some key problems with Immersion --

1) A lot of Forge games give players a degree of authorial control that breaks immersion. This means that a lot of Forge theory creates games that many players simply won't want to play (immersion is, I think, an overwhelmingly common goal -- I can explain why I believe that if anyone's interested, but it's a reasonably simple proof).

2) The forge taxonomy doesn't handle non-CA agendas well. There's 3 of them Immersion isn't one of them... it gets categorized as a technique which causes problems for the theory (or would if anyone ever actually tried to apply the theory)

3) Immersion can be problematic in-play: many, many RPG players want a "good story" without having to do any authorial work (they just want to 'play their character') -- this can result in a lot of work for the GM and some negative rpg experiences... exactly the sort of thing you'd expect theory to address...

But forge theory doesn't address it well, so instead of altering the theory to address the problems, they end up claiming immersion doesn't exist -- or if it does, it's some kind of psychosis... or that even if it's not a kind of madness, it's *selfish*!

This results in theory people telling folks who prioritize immersion that what they enjoy in a game is bad, crazy, or that they're simply *wrong* about it.

It also has theory people claiming (oddly) that their games *are* immersive! And that anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand their games! (exclamation points added for effect).

This covers the majority of the immersion nonsense on RPG.net. Certainly there probably are weird things going on in Europe (how could there not be), but if you're running into theorists (of the non-European kind) talking down immersion, it's probably related to the stuff above.

Cheers,
-E.

Elliott -- Yes!
E -- YES!

This is my main complaint with the Forge theories and the games developed from them.