Quote from: Levi KornelsenOkay, so I get the body of techniques here, and I get that you call it immersion - but, fuck, a lot of people mean a lot of things by that term (some of them mean "the setup where I get Kairosis/Catharsis/Empowerment", some mean "in flow" with the total experience of play, some mean engrossed like when watching a good movie, some mean "generally identifying with my character", some mean "vividly picturing the action to the point where the real world drops away"....).

One thing that I've noticed is that with terms like this, if they sound cool, everyone wants to claim that they do it so they bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate the term so that they can claim that they do it.  That's what ruined "simulation", too.  When a term means anything, it's worthless for making distinctions.

How about the original term used on rec.games.frp.advocacy -- "deep IC"?  That is, getting deeply into the In Character perspective or stance such that the player experiences the game through their character, if not thinking in character.

Quote from: John MorrowHow about the original term used on rec.games.frp.advocacy -- "deep IC"?  That is, getting deeply into the In Character perspective or stance such that the player experiences the game through their character, if not thinking in character.

Hmm.  I always thought that was referring to being "really into your character" in more of a character acting / LARPing kind of way.

I think a lot of people mean Immersion in the same way watching an escapist fantasy movie is immersive.   It's the way you feel like you're IN the fictional world.

Having thought about Janet Murray's book again, I think her terms "Immersive Trance" and "Immersive World" are good ones.

Quote from: StuartHmm.  I always thought that was referring to being "really into your character" in more of a character acting / LARPing kind of way.

There are different ways to play in character.  They can look similar from the outside but work different from the player perspective.

Quote from: StuartI think a lot of people mean Immersion in the same way watching an escapist fantasy movie is immersive.   It's the way you feel like you're IN the fictional world.

That begs the all important question of from which perspective the player feels like they are in the fictional world.  Is it as an audience, like a person watching a movie or reading a book?  Is it from their character's perspective?  Is it because they are thinking in character?  Is it something else?  And because all of those can be very different experiences, putting them all under an umbrella term isn't really useful, in my opinion.

Quote from: StuartHaving thought about Janet Murray's book again, I think her terms "Immersive Trance" and "Immersive World" are good ones.

What would you call thinking in character and experiencing the game world that way?

I'll start a thread about Immersion shortly... I need to get some reference material.

Quote from: StuartI'll start a thread about Immersion shortly... I need to get some reference material.

Read the one on Story-Games first.  It's -- odd.

I think this thread on Immersion will make it very clear what many people mean by "Immersion".  It also includes some of the related terms and concepts (Flow etc).

Let's keep discussion of immersion in that thread, and Levi's thread on The Manyfold Interviews on track again.

Quote from: droogNo, I'm happy to change up techniques. There are certainly some I'd prefer to stay away from.

Are the ones you avoid because of actually negative experience, mostly, or just generally unsatisfying times?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAre the ones you avoid because of actually negative experience, mostly, or just generally unsatisfying times?

Boredom, mainly. I've never had a truly awful experience in roleplaying, just boring ones. I'd rather try something entirely new than go back to something I've tried and been bored by.

OK Levi, for the purposes of answering the survey I am going to define "central" as "must be present in every session of a game". If an enjoyment source isn't present in a particular session, and it's central, I feel like I've wasted my time; if it's not central and the enjoyment source doesn't crop up, I don't feel cheated.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen1. Catharsis: Do you enjoy feelings of emotional release that follow after identifying with your character as they undergo tragic or painful events?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

Yes, in the same way that I enjoy the emotional high when my characters achieve awesome things. I think it's really difficult for a rules set to facilitate that - it's very much on the group, as they're able to react to me and the in-game situation appropriately far more than a written set of rules can. I also wouldn't say it's central, simply because especially intense catharsis is rare; it's usually a delicious side dish.

Quote2. Contentment: Do you take enjoyment from times when a character or a series of fictional events in an RPG ends is a satisfying way?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

Yes; the feeling of an IC job well done is great. As far as facilitating that goes, it helps if the GM has a decent sense of how long to spin out a particular plotline for, and when to bring it to a climax before it gets old. System rewards for completing plotlines or getting a "happy ending" for a character also help.

It's still not central, but I think it is slightly more central than catharsis: catharsis is more intense, but less frequent.

Quote3. Creative Expression: Do you enjoy creating bits of world, backstory, art, or game fiction, that surround or are included in the game?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

As a GM, world and backstory are obviously enormous fun to create; as a player, I like being able to come up with world elements and bits of backstory in character generation, but I prefer things to be "fixed" once the campaign actually begins; systems which allow me to do that on an ad-hoc basis actually end up devaluing world and backstory, because they seem "written on water" (also stuff you improvise mid-session isn't going to be as good as stuff you've gone away, thought about, and talked about with the GM).

As far as facilitating this goes, that depends on whether I'm playing or GMing.

As a player, systems can help by giving me ways and means of adding elements to the setting in character gen - for example, I can buy an "enemies" quirk and that prompts me to come up with a group of enemies. Groups can help by peer-reviewing the things I've come up with to cut away the crap and refine the gold; often GMs take on this role, but it can also happen if we do character gen as a group.

As a GM, systems can help by giving me the tools to characterise setting elements quickly. It's nice if, rather than just saying "The Empire of Ecks has a mighty army" I can say "The Empire of Ecks has a mighty army" and have some idea of how much mightier the Empire's army is than, say, that of the Kingdom of Wye. Players can help by pitching their own ideas to me in character creation; I really find that incorporating other people's ideas into my settings improves them, simply because it adds a little diversity and a few spins on established setting concepts that I wouldn't have thought of myself.

I would say this is central to my enjoyment.

Quote4. Humor: Do you enjoy playing RPGs for laughs (not just social fun, but viewing the game itself as a source of humor)?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

I like to have a laugh at the gaming table, but at the right time: it's irritating when an especially spooky, intense, or otherwise emotionally-charged bit fizzles because someone cracks a joke. So, on a system level unless the game in question is actually intended to be comedic, I prefer not to have too many comedic elements, to avoid situations like this:

"The vampire turns his gaze on you and you feel your will being slowly drained from you, as you fall under his mesmeric spell..."

"I counter with my Fuck You I Won't Do What You Tell Me spell!"

and on a group level, my fellow participants really need to be able to read the situation and know to keep quiet in an especially intense moment. Once the moment's passed, of course, all's fair.

This is on the borderline of being central to me: I wouldn't want to play a completely humourless game, but I don't demand a constant laugh riot.

Quote5. Empowerment: Do you enjoy identifying with your character at moments when they are taking actions that you are not free to take, or are not capable of, in reality?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

I know you hate this answer, but in this case it really does depend on the game. If I'm playing in a reasonably unrealistic setting which is highly divergent from our own world, then presumably I'm doing so with a certain amount of escapist intent, so part of that involves doing crazy/awesome things - whether that's casting a world-shattering spell in a high fantasy game like D&D or knifing a copper in the back in WFRP.

On the other hand, if I'm playing a highly realistic game - say, Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies - I prefer this sort of empowerment fantasy to be a bit more low-key. I suppose it's always present in RPGs to an extent, but it stretches my suspension of disbelief in a modern day game if the PCs are constantly throwing magic about in front of everybody or going on ludicrous crime sprees: at some point, I wonder "where the fuck is the police?"

So, systems can facilitate this by pitching the empowerment elements to an appropriate level for the realism of the campaign in question, and other players (and the GM) can help out by having their characters show appropriate levels of daring or restraint. Don't be a timorous coward in an epic fantasy game. Don't be a cut-throat maniac in a realistic real-world game.

This is vaguely central for me - certainly more central than humour, a bit less so than creativity.

Quote6. Kairosis: Do you enjoy identifying closely with your character at moments where the character must make defining choices or otherwise take action that changes ‘who they are’ in some defining way?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

This is very fun, when it happens, but here's the thing: the best thing the game could do in this situation is back off. I don't enjoy it when this sort of thing feels forced, so systems which intend to promote that sort of thing tend not to work for me; I much prefer it when these things crop up organically in play. The GM of the game is the person who's best placed to pitch particularly meaty and meaningful choices at my character.

This is very much a side dish, even more so than catharsis - it's not central enough that I deliberately go looking for it.

Quote7. Fun / Paidal: Do you enjoy times when the group plays for free-wheeling, no-worries-about-the-rules fun, comparable to “play” in the sense of kids goofing around imaginatively?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

It's good to have this sort of thing crop up once in a while; it's normally (for me) the realm of in-character conversations and other situations where the characters aren't doing anything especially difficult or dangerous. It's fun when there's nothing more concrete at stake than inter-character relations. When something more tangible is at risk (like my character's bodily well-being, for example) I prefer if we stick to the rules.

So, if you like, for me this bit is more "roleplaying" than "game": we're goofing around and not worrying about the rules because we're in an area where the game system chooses not to challenge us. (For example, most games choose to challenge the players' tactical skill when combat happens, and therefore have fairly detailed combat systems; conversely, many games don't really try to challenge player's acting and social skills, and so don't have very developed social interaction rules.)

So, games can help with this by identifying what skills they want to challenge, and by leaving the rules vague and freeform when it comes to skills they don't want to challenge. Groups can help with this by not trying to stuff subsystems into those areas of the game: if you're mad keen to play a game with a developed trading system you should perhaps be playing Traveller instead of trying to back-engineer one into D&D.

This is borderline central to me - right at the edge of the border, in fact. A game with none of this wouldn't work for me (that's one of the reasons I'm less keen on Dogs In the Vineyard - the rules get into everything there, and there's no points where you can relax and feel that there isn't anything at risk), at the same time it's not the sort of thing I usually seek out.

Quote8. Fun / Ludus: Do you enjoy times when the group plays to and with the rules, trying focusing on the mechanisms of the game as a source of enjoyment in and of themselves?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

Closely linked with the previous answer, this. The answer is "yes", and this is where the "game" in "roleplaying game" comes in for me. The obvious proviso is that I don't want all ludus all the time; let me kick back and have some Paidal once in a while. Games can help this by selecting the areas where they intend to challenge the player's skills, and coming up with good, robust systems there with lots of options. Groups can help this by selecting games which challenge the skills that the group wants to flex; if nobody's interested in resource management over a scale of years we shouldn't be playing Ars Magica.

This is more central to me than Paidal: a game which offers no ludus isn't a game, to me. In fact, I think it's more central than anything that's been mentioned so far.

Quote9. Sociability: Do you come to the gaming table to hang out with friends, using the game as a platform for social activity with the other players?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

Yes, I do. There's very little a game can really do to help this; as far as groups go, it helps if people aren't insanely focused on the game to the point where they won't chat OOC. This is very central; of the elements mentioned so far, only ludus beats it - because without the ludus, the game, the platform for socialisation is lost, at which point we may as well not play an RPG at all and just hang out.

Quote10. Sensory: Do you take enjoyment from the props of play – with rolling a big handful of dice, with well-painted miniatures, with tossing tokens around, that kind of thing?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

Props are always cool. A game can help here by including props in a non-gimmicky fashion (don't give me a pop-o-matic when I could just roll a bunch of dice like a normal person), and a group can help here by... well, by respecting the game props and not wrecking them. It's only a tiny thrill, though, a lower priority even than Kairosis.

Quote11. Triumph / Fiero: Do you enjoy play where you, as a player, face active and meaningful (in the sense that you could “lose”, and badly) opposition at the table, and the thrill of   overcoming it?  If so, is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”, and is this central to your enjoyment of RPGs?

Yes, that's always awesome. System-wise, a game can help by giving the GM the information he/she requires to "pitch" challenges at the right level - too easy and there's no challenge, and too overwhelming (as opposed to just the right level of overwhelming - there is a difference) is no fun. Groupwise, the GM is important here: he/she needs to know how to pitch challenges at the right height, and needs to have the decency to remain quiet when they've just engaged in a bit of illusionism and the odds weren't actually as unstoppable as we thought they were.

This is actually very central, even more so than ludus: ludus without fiero is meaningless.

Quote12. Other: Is there some other, specific enjoyment that you get from playing in RPGs?  How central to is it to your enjoyment, and is there anything that a game or a group can do to reliably give you that “the right amount”?

Pure escapism. Leaving the real world behind for a few hours for the sheer enjoyment of dipping into realms of the imagination. This isn't quite the same as creativity: if creativity is the productive part of fantasy, escapism is where you sit back and enjoy your creation. To me, this is an enjoyment which is supported by all the others: if the system and group are firing correctly on all the other cylinders, the escapism will follow naturally, as an inherent part of the RPG experience. It is therefore the most central part of my enjoyment.

Quote13.  Playstyle: Do all of these goals and the techniques by which you seek them create a whole playstyle that you prefer and can describe?

Well, let's arrange them in order, from most central to least central:

Escapism
Triumph/Fiero
Fun/Ludus
Socialisation
Creative Expression
Empowerment
Humour
Fun/Paidal
=== - This is the borderline - things below this simply aren't "central".*
Contentment
Catharsis
Kairosis
Props

I would call this: "escapist adventure gaming": the ultimate goal is escapism, the medium is through adventuring against challenges (fiero) and playing a game (ludus), and the end result is a fun social activity.

EDIT TO ADD: Incidentally, I think "immersion" is part of escapism, but not all of it. It's one form the escapism can take. So, I'm cool with immersion, but at the same time I'm cool if it doesn't happen if there's some other form of escapism going on instead.

Quote14.  Game: Does any specific game "best fit" these things?  If so, which one?

By and large, Greg Stolze's REIGN is currently pushing my buttons in a good way.

Wheee! That was fun. It was interesting to think about all those different things; it was also interesting how they naturally arranged themselves into a particular order in my head.

Warthur:

Quote from: WarthurAs a GM, world and backstory are obviously enormous fun to create; as a player, I like being able to come up with world elements and bits of backstory in character generation, but I prefer things to be "fixed" once the campaign actually begins; systems which allow me to do that on an ad-hoc basis actually end up devaluing world and backstory, because they seem "written on water" (also stuff you improvise mid-session isn't going to be as good as stuff you've gone away, thought about, and talked about with the GM).

Just so you know, I'm totally stealing this whole bit, especially the phrase "writing on water".  I've heard the same idea expressed vaguely many times, and that sums what a lot of people say quite nicely.

Quote from: WarthurThis is actually very central, even more so than ludus: ludus without fiero is meaningless.

On the topics of Fiero / Ludus / Kairosis / Catharsis - a few examples and a question:

In Dogs in the Vineyard, by my lights, the conflict system (the Ludus-givng stuff) is better at giving low-level, constant hits of Kairosis than of Fiero; conflict fallout = character change.

Going for less often but more intense, the WFRP Ludus has a lot of fighty-fights.  Critical hits in WFRP sometimes include permanent damage.  There's something like Kairosis / Catharsis there, and it's part of the Fiero.

And then, for straight-up hard Fiero, we've got D&D combat (which is hell Ludus-serving) and the whole fully-traditional structures which don't serve Kairosis / Catharsis much at all.

Speaking about just those (and only those) bits, how does that strike you?

QuoteWheee! That was fun. It was interesting to think about all those different things; it was also interesting how they naturally arranged themselves into a particular order in my head.

Good!

To me, that means I'm getting closer to a fairly accurate and potentially useful theory of gaming, even if I'm still fucking about with silly-sounding words.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenJust so you know, I'm totally stealing this whole bit, especially the phrase "writing on water".  I've heard the same idea expressed vaguely many times, and that sums what a lot of people say quite nicely.

Neato.

QuoteOn the topics of Fiero / Ludus / Kairosis / Catharsis - a few examples and a question:

In Dogs in the Vineyard, by my lights, the conflict system (the Ludus-givng stuff) is better at giving low-level, constant hits of Kairosis than of Fiero; conflict fallout = character change.

This is correct. I've never found Dogs good at giving me Fiero - especially since the way characters are constructed means you're always going to solve problems the same way. For example, I once run a character in a postapocalyptic Care Bears Dogs variant - don't ask - who had a bitchin' guitar, who could solve any problem you care to mention with white-hot guitar solos. Need to talk to someone? Why talk when you can serenade them! In a fight? Intimidate your opponent with some Black Sabbath riffs! Getting shot at? Raise the dead with a crazy guitar solo and send them after your opponents! After a while, it just gets dumb and repetitive and unrewarding.

QuoteGoing for less often but more intense, the WFRP Ludus has a lot of fighty-fights.  Critical hits in WFRP sometimes include permanent damage.  There's something like Kairosis / Catharsis there, and it's part of the Fiero.

I'd say it's more Catharsis than Kairosis - I don't recall there being much choice as to whether or not you get critical hit, but I get you.

QuoteAnd then, for straight-up hard Fiero, we've got D&D combat (which is hell Ludus-serving) and the whole fully-traditional structures which don't serve Kairosis / Catharsis much at all.

Speaking about just those (and only those) bits, how does that strike you?

For me, WFRP and D&D are more appealing than Dogs, because (as you point out) they deliver Fiero with my Ludus. If I'm in the mood for something Cathartic I'm probably playing WFRP, but if I'm not I'd probably be playing D&D or something similar. I do enjoy it when other sources of enjoyment are delivered alongside my Ludus and Fiero, tempering them both; what I don't like is when the Fiero is absent - if there's no "win" for me to strive for (even if that "win" is simply surviving), the game element isn't engaging.

I will also point out that I really don't like Kairosis in my system at all. It meddles with my ability to make meaningful decisions about who my character is if there's a ludus element thrown in, because that means there will be a tactically superior decision. I want my character's decisions about himself to be influenced solely by IC ideas and concepts, not by how many dice I'll get OOC if I decide to rape the cabin boy.

EDIT TO ADD: In fact, I'd say that the whole "dice for raping the cabin boy" thing in Poison'd is a neat capsule summary of what I don't enjoy in narrativist game design: it dangles a carrot in front of me, as a player, that simply isn't there for the character; furthermore, it decides that people get harder and crueler and more dangerous when they cross that sort of line, as opposed to, say, horrified at themselves and filled with self-loathing and less effective in a fight because deep inside they want to die. They make decisions about how my character's mind works for me, and that's not cool. If I'm playing Dogs and I lose an argument with someone, I don't get to decide whether or not my character shrugs it off or whether he's shaken to the core: the fallout makes that decision instead. Fuck you, fallout, I won't do what you tell me!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenTo me, that means I'm getting closer to a fairly accurate and potentially useful theory of gaming, even if I'm still fucking about with silly-sounding words.

You really need something about the enjoyment of simply getting caught up in the setting, characters, and events of the game (broadly called "immersion" of various sorts).  Catharsis, Contentment, Empowerment, and Kairosis don't really capture it, in my opinion.

I think that Immersion and Challenge are the two most important elements of an RPG.

Quote from: John MorrowYou really need something about the enjoyment of simply getting caught up in the setting, characters, and events of the game (broadly called "immersion" of various sorts).  Catharsis, Contentment, Empowerment, and Kairosis don't really capture it, in my opinion.

Ayup.

At the very least, Empowerment needs to be split down into "The intellectual joy of experiencing another person / existence" and "Power thrills" and "Venting real-life stress".

Also, there needs to be a "I love watching the fiction come together into a kind of order that nobody expected" one.

Not sure if those'll cover most of the missing bits or not, but I think it's closer.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAt the very least, Empowerment needs to be split down into "The intellectual joy of experiencing another person / existence" and "Power thrills" and "Venting real-life stress".

I would be careful about qualifying it to tightly.  "Intellectual joy" is not quite how I'd describe the enjoyment I get out of immersion.  You should look over Robin Laws' play styles and make sure that you can fit all of them in there somewhere.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNot sure if those'll cover most of the missing bits or not, but I think it's closer.

Sure.  Just don't make the mistake of dumping things into a category that you already have because you don't see a difference when other people see an important difference.  That's where a lot of other models go wrong.