Quote from: JimBobOzIf you choose to play in a group, then you are giving a promise that you'll interpret your character's traits in such a way as to keep them with the group. The GM is expected to help in this.

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, we explicitly inform players of this in our group. Many things are assumed by many people, you don't want to get nasty surprises where you find your assumptions are different.

When I'm GMing, I go on to say that, "Any player is free to play their character however they want. However, if you choose to play your character as leaving the rest of the party and the adventure, you won't get a greater share of the spotlight as a result. With the party, or without it, you'll get the same share. If you keep behaving as though you're in a different campaign, then that's okay, we'll give you a new campaign."

I explicitly say many things which are usually assumed, because I know there are a zillion ways to roleplay and game.

First of all, it's great that you do this.  However, would you at least agree that it's common for game groups to not do this?  The cases of conflict that I was talking about are where you don't have a group of players who all explicitly agree and extract a promise from a new player.  They're cases where you've got a few players who are into it, a few players who are unsure, and a few players who aren't.  

That said, though, could you elaborate what you mean by "leaving the adventure" or "behaving as though you're in a different campaign"?  Some hypothetical or real examples, perhaps?  

Those are the parts which would be different when, say, setting up a game with a group of immersive players who want to play that way.

I'm not really clear on where this thread is going.

There are few absolutes in RPGs. I have had games where the players have tried to kill each others' characters, and it was an absolute blast. I've run D&D games where the party split up, I put the two sub-groups into different rooms, and alternated between them. Again, we had a great time.

It's all about expectations. If I play in a game with four players, and we each get one hour of spotlight time while the other three PCs have nothing to do in the game, but we all have fun and we agreed that's how we wanted the game to function, what's the problem?

This might have been (partly) started over on Story Games where I posted about Immersive Story and RPGs.  John and I have an earlier discussion on the topic there.

I think Immersion is a very overlooked quality in RPGs -- and the strength of many RPGs that aren't adequately covered by the GNS model of games...

Here's my current thinking on Immersion:

Assuming two games with equally elegant rules and talented roleplayers, the experience would be most immersive in the game where you only control your own character/protagonist, rather than when you spend part of your time controlling your character and part of your time exerting a greater influence over the game world beyond your character's responses.

Deeper Character Immersion < - - - > Greater Narrative Control

Quote from: StuartI think Immersion is a very overlooked quality in RPGs -- and the strength of many RPGs that aren't adequately covered by the GNS model of games...

I also think it's a product of great gamemastering. That's an area where GNS-derived games have issues, IME. They leave little room for a skilled GM to practice his craft.

Are there different types of immersion? I rarely become immersed in what my character feels (as opposed to what he does*), but I enjoy a game where I am immersed in the world (I can imagine my guy's armor roasting him the desert heat; I can picture the bustling streets of Waterdeep; etc.)

Along those same lines, great observation about narrative control and immersion. I think that a lot of visceral objections to narrative control stem from that. The strength of simulation lies in its ability to create immersion.

*I like my characters to have a few, well-defined traits and goals. I don't find myself reacting on a visceral or emotional level in line with what my character feels. Rathere, there's more artifice to it than that, more orchestration than organic response. With that in mind, though, I vastly prefer games where people do more than simply play themselves.

Quote from: mearlsI'm not really clear on where this thread is going.

There are few absolutes in RPGs. I have had games where the players have tried to kill each others' characters, and it was an absolute blast. I've run D&D games where the party split up, I put the two sub-groups into different rooms, and alternated between them. Again, we had a great time.

Yeah, let's not jump to universal conclusions, but let's look at these examples. In the first case the PCs are working at cross-purposes, but the players are all engaged interactively.

[Hey, John K., what would you have done if Quint had tried to stay Torin's hand? Would it have been cool or not if the conflict had escalated to death, or at least enmity between the characters? Maybe a split into an AP thread would be useful?]

In the second case, you're at least talking about sub-groups so that when the GM isn't around, the group in the non-spotlight room can plot, kibbitz, and shoot the breeze without disrupting the spotlight group. If they'd been unable to talk, I'll bet it wouldn't have gone as well. And also, was there still a common sense of group purpose--a party goal, an expectation that they'd be reuinited?

QuoteIt's all about expectations. If I play in a game with four players, and we each get one hour of spotlight time while the other three PCs have nothing to do in the game, but we all have fun and we agreed that's how we wanted the game to function, what's the problem?

As long as everyone has fun, no problem. I'm starting to be convinced that having fun under this paradigm is harder than if the PCs stick together, or at least have a common focus. Now, if you go to a more nontraditional setup it's another matter. Then the key can be player engagement, not character focus. E.g., if Player A's character is wandering in isolation, Players B C & D could still be engaged if they have ways to contribute--like playing cards to aid/hinder/alter the situation. But I also agree with Stuart that those sorts of mechanics also tend to make immersion harder.

QuoteAre there different types of immersion? I rarely become immersed in what my character feels (as opposed to what he does*), but I enjoy a game where I am immersed in the world (I can imagine my guy's armor roasting him the desert heat; I can picture the bustling streets of Waterdeep; etc.)

You can be immersed in a boardgame or wargame, and imagine the units moving across the battlefield, but in an RPG there is a greater potential for immersion in the same manner that you experience in a book or film.  Having your character enter a darkened building by themself in a horror themed RPG can be a much more intense experience than you might find in an otherwise excellent boardgame of a similar theme (eg. Shadow of Dracula), or in a game where you have control over the narrative itself.  The unknown inherant in not being able to control the narrative beyond your character's reaction to it is what creates the intensity.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHey, John K., what would you have done if Quint had tried to stay Torin's hand? Would it have been cool or not if the conflict had escalated to death, or at least enmity between the characters? Maybe a split into an AP thread would be useful?

It's hard to tell whether it would have been cool or not in general -- but I wouldn't have had any metagame objections, no.  Torin would have deferred to Embran regarding what was to be done.  (To others -- Torin had formerly been of the peaceful Peonian religion, but had converted to militant Laranianism by the priest Embran.  After he was nearly killed in a climactic struggle, he discovered a possessed body and killed the possessor.)  

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn the second case, you're at least talking about sub-groups so that when the GM isn't around, the group in the non-spotlight room can plot, kibbitz, and shoot the breeze without disrupting the spotlight group. If they'd been unable to talk, I'll bet it wouldn't have gone as well. And also, was there still a common sense of group purpose--a party goal, an expectation that they'd be reuinited?

I'm lost.  Which is the second case you're talking about here?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm starting to be convinced that having fun under this paradigm is harder than if the PCs stick together, or at least have a common focus. Now, if you go to a more nontraditional setup it's another matter. Then the key can be player engagement, not character focus. E.g., if Player A's character is wandering in isolation, Players B C & D could still be engaged if they have ways to contribute--like playing cards to aid/hinder/alter the situation.

Yes, I'd agree to that.  The key is setting things up to keep the PC interacting -- either directly or indirectly.  The problem occurs when it is in-game logical for the PCs to leave physical proximity of each other, but some players want to force that away, by asking people to play their characters differently.  

In general, I think it's much better to have built in outside forces (physical, social, or otherwise) which keep the characters together -- rather than trying to make it a duty of the players to find excuses within their characters.

Hey, John. The "second case" is Mike's reference to splitting a party into groups in separate rooms. I can see how that would work fine, in fact I think it probably has in my experience, too.

The extreme which that avoids, and which I think is problematic, is where the game turns into the analog equivalent of a MMORPG, the only point of intersection between the groups is the "server/GM", and they might as well be playing separate games in the same setting. Again, I'm thinking this is a bit of a problem with the Burning Sands game I've been playing--it's not quite to that extreme, but it has that tendency (partly my fault for encouraging it, I might add).

JimBobOz has been making a lot of assumptions about what's expected in games in general that don't hold true in my campaigns.

1.  Most real people don't spend every waking moment with each other.  I'm not interested either in playing, or watching, characters who don't behave anything like real people.

In my campaigns it is not considered proof of a player's moral inferiority, of their being a selfish attention hog, if they make characters who go off and do such bizarre things as hold private conversations or undertake separate missions, whether they're developing a relationship, engaged in intrigue, or following a division of labor in a military endeavor.  I'm not about to try to build a world where these things don't happen and aren't rational and common behavior: I wouldn't believe it.  Thus, side sessions are common.

2.  In my games, we get together to enjoy each other's play as well our own.  Players who might fit into my campaigns are interested in watching the whole thing unfold -- other people's play, not just their own character's -- and generally either watch side sessions they're not playing in, or read the logs.

Someone who is incapable of taking interest in any actions but his own needs to find another campaign, because I don't have any interest whatsoever in catering to a player who feels that nothing that anyone else does has any value to him, that he has to be on stage all the time.

3.  "How dare she play her character as doing something that doesn't fit into my plans for every scene!  I don't get to control her character and mine too!  How selfish she is!"  Forge-style accusations of My Guyism are unwelcome in my campaigns, and would be viewed as control-freaking.  For one player to do it to another would, furthermore, be an infringement on the GM's turf.

A player who showed up with the idea that his satisfaction in play was more important than anyone else's, that conforming to his preferred style was somehow Standard, the Right Way, and that we ought to adapt a style in which the immersive players sacrificed their pleasure in playing in character as they see the characters, in order to make their characters take actions that please him, would be severely out of line.

The agreement in my group is not to intentionally make jerk characters, or characters who can't work with the other PCs (unless we're intentionally constructing an adversarial scenario).  However, seeing what the characters choose to do, how they react to the world, how they develop, is the adventure.  Conforming to a particular plot, whether it's the GM's or merely the desires of some other player who's decided he's in charge, is not.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's what in-character discussion, persuasion, threats and so on are for.

Yes, but can a particular group of friends convince you to go along with everything they want you to do simpy through discussion, persuasion, threats, and so on?

Quote from: JimBobOzBecause characters are not real people.

That's where I think you are missing the objective of immersion.  While that's strictly true, the objective of immersion is to think in character and even feel emotions in character so that the character is as real as possible.  As such, immersed characters can behave exactly like real people.

Quote from: JimBobOzCharacters are an imaginary representation of a real person, played by a player in a group. By joining a game group, you are giving your implicit agreement to the idea that you will contribute to the fun of the group as a whole, along with your own. If that means setting aside "what my character would do," then so be it.

If the reason why you are at the table, and the reason why other people are at the table, is to experience the characters like real people, then setting aside "what my character would do" is setting aside the entire reason for being there.  Further, if I'm playing in a game with you and you aren't having your character just do "what your character would do", you can spoil my fun (either as GM or player) because that's what I enjoy having everyone at the table do.

That said, there are ways that an immersive player can help ensure the fun of the group, if they have different or mixed priorities, by avoiding things that ruin the game for other players.  They've been suggested above:

1) Create characters that have goals that match the goals of the othe players.

2) Avoid loner and anti-social personalities.

3) Learn to recognize when situations develop that will lead your character toward decisions the other players won't find fun and deal with them early.

4) Learn how to nudge your character away from game-destroying lines of thinking.

All of these allow the immersive player to enjoy immersive play in a game with players with other goals without anyone having to sacrifice their fun.  

Simply suggesting, "Don't do that," or "Just make your character do something else," don't only not work immersively but can destroy immersion for a character.  Further, while a player is thinking in character, they simply aren't aware of game issues because the character is not aware of the group activity that the player is engaged in.  The solution is to use techniques that work with immersion, not techniques that pretend it doesn't exist.

Quote from: JimBobOzLet us suppose you have a character who is subject to violent rages, and who is also lustful. It may come about that one day, "what my character would do," is to rape and murder another player's character. Most game groups would agree this is no fun, and should not happen.

(For the record, I think most well-adjusted groups would find it not fun if another PC were off raping and murdering NPCs, too.)

That's why immersive players (and probably lots of other types of players) shouldn't create violent, uncontrolled, and lustful characters.  One would anticipate that rape and murder could be "in character" for such a character.  And wouldn't a player that forced such a character to avoid such actions essentially even though they made sense in character be playing out of character?

Quote from: JimBobOzSo there exist lines which people do not cross, because crossing them will hurt the fun of the group as a whole. Most gamers agree that those boundaries exist; they only argue about where they should be set, do they include abandoning the party and the adventure?

Why do you think it makes more sense to let players create characters who are all but guaranteed to cross the lines of fun for the group and then wrestle the character away from such activities in play rather than simply creating characters who are very unlikely to cross such lines so they won't cross the lines just playing them "in character"?

As for abandoning the party and adventure, two things.

First, it's not a problem in my group.  If a character nees to leave the party or the adventure, then they leave the party and the adventure and the player either checks out for a few sessions or creates and runs a new character.  In fact, my character abandoned the party in the other game that I'm playing in and it wasn't really a problem there, either (I did offer to change that course of action, if that's what the other players wanted).  Heck, I've purposely pulled characters that don't fit myself, after consultation with the GM and other players.  So have other people in my group.  It's not really that different than having a character die, or do you think PCs shouldn't die, either?

Second, I'd rather a player remove their character from the game if it makes sense in character than force them to stick with the game.  Why?  Because if I also have a good sense of their character after playing a few sessions, then it's likely I (through my character) will have picked up that it makes sense, too.  It's like having a friend who meets a romantic interest and then talks about dropping that romantic interest because they don't want to not see their friends.  If the romantic interest seems right for the friend and it seems like the friend has a future with that person, real friends will tell them to stop being stupid and follow their heart.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnother boundary is the game's setting. You do not, for example, demand to play a cyberninja in a game set in medieval Europe. "But my character is a cyberninja... it's what he would do, to be a cyberninja!" You adjust your character concept to fit the setting, because this contributes to the fun of the group as a whole.

Correct.  So what is wrong with my suggestion that an immersive player simply create a character likely to answer the call to adventure and work well with groups?  You said, "It's not a matter of picking character personality traits that do or don't conflict with each-other."  Yeah, actually it is.  Creating a character that's drawn to adventure and problem-solving, works well with groups, trusts other people, and shares interests with the other PCs goes a long way toward making sure that "what the character would do" isn't abandon the party and adventure.  

You are trying to stop the asteroid from hitting the Earth when the asteroid is hovering above the surface and it's inevitable that it's going to hit.  I want to stop the asteroid before it even starts on a trajectory toward Earth.  You don't create a cyberninja for a Medieval game because it doesn't fit what the group wants (a Medieval game).  You don't create a character who thinks like a murderous rapist if your group doesn't want to play through rape-murders by a PC.  You don't create loners who don't answer the call to adventure and don't work well in groups if your group has more fun if the party sticks together and goes along with the adventure.  It's the same thing as not throwing a rock at a window if you don't want to break the window.  Don't set something in motion if you aren't willing to live with the results.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, most gamers agree that we adjust character behaviour so as not to cross social boundaries (characters doing things players would find intolerably offensive), and so as not to cross setting boundaries (breaking the setting).

Not creating a cyberninja is not "adjusting character behavior" not to cross setting boundaries.  It's not creating a character that will inevitably cross setting boundaries in the first place.  What you are saying on the social side, if you tell players to go ahead and create the violent and lusty character but censor their actions if they cross social boundaries, is akin to saying, "Go ahead and create your cyberninja for the Medieval game but don't do anything that conflicts with the setting."

If you create a character that fits within the setting, then you don't have to worry about forcing them to comply with setting boundaries.  They just fit.  If you create a character that fits within the social boundaries of the group, then you don't have to worry about them complying with those social boundaries.  "Just doing what the character would do," will automatically fit.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat remains is the "group fun" boundary. That people do not object to the other boundaries, but object to this one, speaks to me not of "immersion", but of Attention Junkie behaviour.

The Internet.  Where anyone who can type feels qualified to psychoanalyze people they've never met.  I should turn that into an inspirational poster for the RPGnet thread.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd again, we come to the issue of group fun, and the (usually unspoken) agreement that we join a game group not to have fun by ourselves, but to have fun in a group, so that we can help others have fun, too.

The biggest thing the GM and other players can do to help me have fun is to play all of the characters  in the game (including NPCs) with the philosophy that the chraracter does whatever they would do if they were a real person.  If that means having another PC murder my character, I'd rather they do that that turn the setting into cardboard by having their PC behave out of character.  In other words, if everyone at the table is on board with immersive priorities, the behavior you consider so harmful isn't only not harmful but can be desirable.

Quote from: JimBobOzYour example of "immersive" play leading to out-of-game feelings of "immersion" is a significant one - it came from years of one-on-one roleplaying. They could not, or would not, have that sort of play with a larger group. It's not being an Attention Junkie if you're the only player, who else could get the attention anyway?

Uh, no.  Plenty of people have immersive experiences with groups.  In fact, I don't really like one-on-one games as a immersive player because the NPCs run by a GM will never have the variety and depth of different PCs run by different players.

Quote from: JimBobOzIn a roleplaying game session, what an intelligent GM would do is to roleplay out the character's date, do that briefly, switching to the other characters' actions every now and then.

Correct.  If sounds like you understand how to handle split-party situations. So why do you consider this such a big problem?

Quote from: JimBobOzA roleplaying game, like any other kind of story, has to choose what to focus on. The story focuses on the things that the most people are going to be interested in, and glosses over the stuff that the most people are going to be bored by.

To make it absolutely clear, I don't role-play for story and I hate glossing over things.  To me, role-playing is like a vacation.  I'm there for the experience and to enjoy the scenery -- even the little things (I used to just walk around Tokyo to see what was out there when I lived there).  

A focussed adventure, to me, is like being on a planned tour that gives you 30 minutes to see the Lincoln memorial, 2 hours to walk around Mount Vernon, an hour at the Smithsonian, etc.  I'd rather just spend a week in Washington, DC and spend however long it takes to see what I want to see at, say, the Smithsonian without having someone tell me that I need to be back on the bus in 15 minutes to see the next focus of the tour so I can fill out a checklist of things I've briefly seen so I can say, "Yeah, i saw that sight."

And what's important to understand about this analogy is vacations aren't stories.  In fact, there are few things more boring than listening to someone else talk about their vacation if you've never been there.  Why?  Because what makes a vacation fun is the experience.  You can't convey the experience with pictures and words except to someone else who has been there.  It's not a story.  It doesn't have a plot or theme.  It's an experience, the value of which lies in doing it personally.  And as such, I really don't like rushing through it any more than I like rushing through a vacation.

Quote from: JimBobOzRoleplaying isn't a hobby where you get to tell everyone else to go to hell and just roleplay your one character by themselves - unless it's a one-on-one game.

It's also not a hobby where you ignore your own needs and grimly play to make your friends happy with no concern for your own preferences.  You need to balance the needs of the player against the needs of the group.  It's a recreational hobby that people do for fun, which means that everyone at the table needs to figure out how to have fun together.

And while the Forge theory of "coherence" seems to stress emphasizing one agenda at the expense of all others, that's not the only way such play style categories can be used.  The focus of Robin Laws' Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering is helping everyone at the table have fun, even if they have different priorities.  And that's my preference.  So I agree that it's important to think about the group but that doesn't mean that the immersive player should sit down, shut up, and eat their peas for the group because that's what the group wants.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's a hobby where we are social in a group. That doesn't mean that our characters can't do things outside the group, it just means that those outside-group things will be dealt with in less detail than the inside-group things.

It only means that if the rest of the group can't tolerate waiting for the game getting back to them.  That makes your accusations that only the immersive players are "attention junkies" rather ironic.  It sounds like you are describing a table of attention junkies because my group manages to wait for players to finish their side activities in quite a bit of detail without whining about the lack of attention they are getting from the GM.  

Quote from: JimBobOzAll rolepalying has constraints, as I said. Some are constraints of the comfort of the other players, some are constraints of setting, some are constraints of in and out-of-character knowledge. Few seem to object to those, and indeed some of them are held to support "immersion". The only constraint consistently complained about is the constraint of the activities of the group getting more screentime than the activities of individuals who decide to walk away from the group, and this is held to be bad for "immersion."

In all honestly, doesn't that go both ways?  Shouldn't the amount of screentime that is given to a particular character or player be determined on the needs of the setting and what's going on in the game rather than the needs of the players for periodic attention from the GM?  Doesn't that suggest impatient players who can't stand waiting or not getting attention all around?

Quote from: JimBobOzThe reason can only be Attention Junkie behaviour.

Given the way you are framing the problem, it's a need for attention all around.  The reason my group doesn't have the same problem, at least to the same degree, is that we assess the need for screentime based on the needs of the setting and situation, not based on our own personal need for GM attention to be tossed our way.  The reason why you see this as an attention issue is that your group has a junkie-like need for attention all around.  Yes, you can claim that it's more egalitarian when the attention is given to the group, collectively, but that's because you see GM attention in terms of something the players are competing for and because all of the players, all around, have an impatient need for GM attention.

Quote from: JimBobOzJohn Lennon was able to leave the group and live his life with Yoko Ono. But that was the end of the Beatles, they played no more songs. In the same way, a player can have their character leave the party, and live a fine life; but the group will not be a group anymore.

And what happens if a character dies?  Do you end games when a PC dies or simply not allow PC death?

Please note that I'm not suggesting that the GM keep running a single character if their life takes them away from the main group, unless the GM wants to run a separate side-game with that character.  The character just leaves the game, like a character who has died or an NPC that leaves.  My objection is to the idea that characters shouldn't have the freedom to leave if it makes sense in character.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you choose to play in a group, then you are giving a promise that you'll interpret your character's traits in such a way as to keep them with the group.

You are assuming that every group values the need for every PC to stay with the group.  That's like assuming that every group plays to beat the GM (some groups do, other's don't) or plays to listen the the GM walk them through a story (some groups do, others don't) or so on.  Different groups play for very different reasons.  Your obligation is to try to find the middle-ground where everyone can have fun.  The group is under no obligation to ruin their fun to make one player happen, but no player should be forced to sacrifice all of their fun for the group.  And if you can't find a happy middle ground where everyone can be happy, you shouldn't be role-paying together.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe GM is expected to help in this. My own players, for example, when the party was split because they were thrown into prison, quite rightly told me it was my fault they were split, not theirs; it was I as GM who put the prison walls there, I could as easily have put them in the same cell, or in cells with bars they could call through, and so on. My mistake hurt the fun of the group. Because separating prisoners you want to interrogate is a real police technique, their separation was more "immersionist"; but this hurt the fun of the group.

So you are willing to remove all of the solitary jail cells in your setting and change police procedures because your players are too impatient to not have the GM's attention focussed on them for more than a short period of time?  I'm beginning to understand why you see everything in the context of a need for attention.  It sounds like you play with a very needy group of players if they can't tolerate being split up for a single session like that.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you put anything before the fun of the group as a whole, then you're failing at the main purpose of a social hobby. Roleplaying is not about you being a star and navel-gazing, it's about the group having fun together.

And different groups find different things fun.  Frankly, I'd hate playing with a group of players who started fidgeting whenever the PCs weren't together because they can't wait for the game to get back around to them.  If it works for you and your group, and everyone is having fun, keep doing what you are doing.  But don't assume that every group has the same priorities.  They don't.

One other final suggestion.  Despite our willingness to wait for others, it's clearly better to play than to wait and there is a very simple solution that lets a group avoid waiting for split-party actions to be resolved that my group has used several times -- dual GMs.  There reason why there is an attention problem is because of the limited abilities of the GM to manage multiple contexts at once.  The solution is to increase the number of GMs, just like adding additional processors to a computer lets it do more things at once.  There is no reason why, if you have a waiting and attention problem, that a game needs to be limited to a single GM.  In fact, my preference is 1 GM for 2 to 5 players and 2 GMs for 4 to 8 players.  Of course the other way to limit the problem is to limit the number of players, too.

Quote from: mearlsI've run D&D games where the party split up, I put the two sub-groups into different rooms, and alternated between them. Again, we had a great time.

In my main playtest campaign for Fly From Evil, I don't think we had a single game session where the PCs weren't split for at least a large chunk of the action ... following up on personal matters, interviewing [witness A] while someone else spied on [unfaithful husband B] and someone else went to shake down the Assistant DA's bookie, etc. It's just the nature of small-ensemble mystery gaming that the party doesn't travel in a huddle. Half the time when the PCs talked with each other, it was via telephone (often with a desperate "you'd better get over here quick; bring guns.")

As a GM, I've always been comfy with split-screening ... I cut my teeth on it in D&D when I went through a "trap-heavy dungeon" phase, where you'd often have the party broken up by a sliding wall or whatnot The players loved it ... there was a great sense of desperate tension as they'd work to find each other, tapping on the walls, shouting into dark holes in the ceiling, and cursing themselves when it woke something up .... Great times.

(FFE devotes a fair chunk of GMing advice to split-screen techniques that keep the whole party constantly engaged, natch ...)

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe extreme which that avoids, and which I think is problematic, is where the game turns into the analog equivalent of a MMORPG, the only point of intersection between the groups is the "server/GM", and they might as well be playing separate games in the same setting. Again, I'm thinking this is a bit of a problem with the Burning Sands game I've been playing--it's not quite to that extreme, but it has that tendency (partly my fault for encouraging it, I might add).

One of the GMs in my group ran a game where all of the PCs attracted groups of NPCs that catered to their particular interested and the game turned out pretty much as you describe, with very little intersection between the PCs.  We all found that an unpleasant enough experience that we went through a "no NPCs" phase.  Not no NPCs at all but no NPCs as game regulars and character sidekicks.  So while I'm not against splitting the party, I do want my character to interact with other PCs and not simply a band of NPCs.

Quote from: jhkimIn general, I think it's much better to have built in outside forces (physical, social, or otherwise) which keep the characters together -- rather than trying to make it a duty of the players to find excuses within their characters.

The third alternative, which can also be used with either of the other two, is to create excuses for the character to stick with the other characters as part of the creation of the character.  If the character has a personality or past that makes them inclined to stick around with the other characters and do things as part of a group, it won't require constant groping for excuses during play to keep the characters together and won't require the GM to create (often artificial-feeling, in my experience) guardrails in the setting to force the party to stay together.

Quote from: S. John RossIn my main playtest campaign for Fly From Evil, I don't think we had a single game session where the PCs weren't split for at least a large chunk of the action ... following up on personal matters, interviewing [witness A] while someone else spied on [unfaithful husband B] and someone else went to shake down the Assistant DA's bookie, etc. It's just the nature of small-ensemble mystery gaming that the party doesn't travel in a huddle. Half the time when the PCs talked with each other, it was via telephone (often with a desperate "you'd better get over here quick; bring guns.")

That pretty much describes the way a lot of my campaigns have worked: we don't need, or want, every PC trying to take part in every scene and perform every function, even the ones they're not suited to.  So there tends to be some sort of common purpose or interest for the PCs, but the characters' stories weave in and out of each other as sense and circumstance dictate.

I like being on stage and actively playing, but I frequently regard watching other players' subplots unfold as being a lot of fun, too -- it's as least as much fun as reading most fiction, with a good group, as long as the PCs are connected to and engaged with each other.

Quote from: mearlsAre there different types of immersion? I rarely become immersed in what my character feels (as opposed to what he does*), but I enjoy a game where I am immersed in the world (I can imagine my guy's armor roasting him the desert heat; I can picture the bustling streets of Waterdeep; etc.)

There seem to be.  We were talking about character immersion in rgfa, and I think a good many of us -- me, anyway -- tended to assume immersion in the setting at the same time and as part of the same phenomenon, without splitting them out.  But several people have talked about immersion in the setting without immersion in the character in my hearing, so I take it that they're separable.

I see them as separate in my own practice under such limited circumstances that I didn't notice the distinction.