Over in the Creator or Fan? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16088.0) thread, an idea came up that was discussed (barely) regarding Immersion and whether or not it is healthy. I said something about the idea as a counterpoint to the one being espoused on RPGnet, when the above thread was brought up, but I've also been thinking about it in relation to some of the other ideas tossed around, and Clinton and John's hard-eyed stares over the same issue.
I'm quoting Clinton here, and the statement in contention was thus:
QuoteThe people who flip their pancake of reason every time theory or "meta-gaming" (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the bubble of immersion broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative.
Sooner or later, adulthood comes along. And what was childish games has to fall aside or be examined. Examination and then creation produces art, plain and simple.
Some folks are claiming that what is being said here is that immersion is just childish and stoooopid, and only practiced by goobs and idiots, and thus that the whole statement is insulting and indicative of One True Wayism. Whatever...that basically immersion is being painted as "bad" or "wrong" by this statement.
Now see, I didn't get that out of Clinton's statement at all. I can see how it might be read that way, but I don't think that's the point that was being made. If I read him right, Clinton's talking about examination, and the avoidance thereof, as being childish. Not that Immersives were a bunch of scardey children, but that those who failed to examine their own Immersive style as a style and understand it, because they are denying their own forward progress (not towards "less immersion" or a different style, but towards "deeper/better immersion" or "cognizant immersion"). First off, I'm checking to see if I'm right about my reading or not (Clinton?).
If the terms I'm using above don't parse well, try this example instead: Knowing what the notes you are playing, or knowing music theory, are does not ruin your ability to play spontaneously and unstructuredly. Claiming otherwise, claiming that knowing what you are doing will pull you out of that "free-for-all" state and make you unable to enjoy that sort of play, is untrue.
Avoiding examining and understanding how you play, because you like playing unstructured free jazz, is childish because it is untrue that the examination will cause you to be unable to play free jazz any longer or as well or as enjoyably. Eventually, you "grow up" and start noticing things about your play that help you improve, through understanding how you play. This is similar to what I mean by "cognizant immersion".
So, in my interpretation, Clinton is talking about rejection of that understanding and natural growth process, and I agree with that. I do think it is childish and immature to reject greater understanding of one's hobby, or any activity one is engaged in, and thus one's self...but I also want examine that idea further. Am I wrong in thinking that? Because I have to consider "Bob" here, the guy who plays D&D beer-and-pretzels every week and really doesn't care to advance his knowledge of play, even just to the point that he understands his preferences?
You see, I notice that John Kim wore in the same thread how Scandinavian LARP theorists are very aware of what it is they are doing (the theory and practice of it) and what they want to see happening as players, and yet they are hardcore Immersive players. They are aware of their reasons for Immersing, techniques to do such, and so forth, and it does not interefere with their ability to do so (it heightens it, in fact).
So another question would be, given that it can and is done without causing the indicated problems, why do other Immersives cross themselves upon even the suggestion of doing this, being that it doesn't cause problems? (I'm thinking specifically of John Morrow's statement to this effect; though I recognize he may not have meant it that way. I'm hoping he is reading this and can take the time to respond.)
Where do these ideas come from, what are they supported by, do they serve any useful purpose, how does one communicate the idea with someone opposed to the idea? For me, what are the benefits and pitfalls to not understanding one's play? And conversely, for those on the other side of this fence, what are the benefits and pitfalls of understanding one's play?
Quote from: greyorm on July 26, 2005, 07:23:28 PM
You see, I notice that John Kim wore in the same thread how Scandinavian LARP theorists are very aware of what it is they are doing (the theory and practice of it) and what they want to see happening as players, and yet they are hardcore Immersive players. They are aware of their reasons for Immersing, techniques to do such, and so forth, and it does not interefere with their ability to do so (it heightens it, in fact).
So another question would be, given that it can and is done without causing the indicated problems, why do other Immersives cross themselves upon even the suggestion of doing this, being that it doesn't cause problems? (I'm thinking specifically of John Morrow's statement to this effect; though I recognize he may not have meant it that way. I'm hoping he is reading this and can take the time to respond.)
Where do these ideas come from, what are they supported by, do they serve any useful purpose, how does one communicate the idea with someone opposed to the idea? For me, what are the benefits and pitfalls to not understanding one's play? And conversely, for those on the other side of this fence, what are the benefits and pitfalls of understanding one's play?
Well, first of all, I've spoken to John Morrow many times in the past, and I think you are misreading him. He is opposed to such discussion
as part of the game. That is, he doesn't like saying (for example), "I'd like this to be a character development scene to illustrate my Issue of narcotic addiction." as part of the game. But he is perfectly amenable to discussion over dinner about RPG structure and so forth.
On the other hand, there are people who aren't particularly interested in theory or deep examination of role-playing. I don't think there's anything immature about this. For example, I enjoy singing without studying music theory. I don't consider it a sign of immaturity for me to not study music theory. I also consider it perfectly mature behavior to watch films without studying film theory and read books without studying literary theory. So I guess I would say that I see no problem with these ideas.
Huh. I could be misreading it entirely, but my take is that it is essentially impossible to maintain immersion throughout the course of a session. Something will always happen in the game that will either cause you to break immersion to deal with it or to just ignore such things as they didn't happen.
Here's an example that a participant posted to the Burning Wheel boards a few weeks ago:
QuoteSample from an actual play. A character that our group of characters had met before (but not for long, he was still an outsider) took part in the bullying of a merchant. The goal was to intimidate him, but the character in question used lethal force, resulting in an unwanted situation for the group.
My character would naturally turn the other to the militia. As a player, I wouldn't want to break the game because my friend thought that stabbing repetedly someone was a good way to ensure his cooperation to follow us until he could be interrogated.
What should I have done?
This player was coming from the point of view that immersion is extremely important, and the goal of play. And yet, faced with these events in play, it became impossible for the player to maintain immersion. In fact, potentially, an attempt to stay immersed could lead to dysfunction, taking the game to a place NO ONE particularly wanted to go.
The only way to maintain immersion in that scene as he described it, was to turn the other guy's character in. Since that wasn't really an option, this player's immersion was gone anyway.
I responded to it this way:
QuoteMy first question, and my answer to the rest depends on this, is how did you, not your character, feel about what happened? Did you feel that the other player had taken the game into a place you didn't like? Or did you find it interesting but were unsure how to deal with it based on the character you were playing?
This is a very important distinction. If it was the former, this is not something you could solve in the context of the game. Having your character turn his character in would not fix the situation.
If it were the latter, and I wasn't sure what to do, I think I would have asked to pause the game and raised the issue with everyone else. "In this situation, I feel like my character would do this, but I think that could ruin the game. What do you guys think?"
It seems really weird to someone who's never done it before, I know. But doing this is OK. Gaming is a shared imagined activity. It requires everyone at the table to work together to shape it. Sometimes, in order to keep it going, you have to step outside of it and help each other patch up the illusion so that you remain on the same page.
Kublai's suggestion may be the right approach. The GM might also be helpful and provide evidence right there and then that the merchant was a Bad GuyTM.
But my point is that doing something destructive to the game in order to preserve the fidelity of the character isn't going to make the game more fun for anyone. So work together and find some way around it.
In my opinion, stopping and examining the play, figuring out what people want, would be the only way to save this game. And after doing so, the players could re-immerse if they choose. Without doing that, this is likely to become a game-breaking event.
Quote from: greyorm on July 26, 2005, 07:23:28 PM
Now see, I didn't get that out of Clinton's statement at all. I can see how it might be read that way, but I don't think that's the point that was being made. If I read him right, Clinton's talking about examination, and the avoidance thereof, as being childish. Not that Immersives were a bunch of scardey children, but that those who failed to examine their own Immersive style as a style and understand it, because they are denying their own forward progress (not towards "less immersion" or a different style, but towards "deeper/better immersion" or "cognizant immersion"). First off, I'm checking to see if I'm right about my reading or not (Clinton?).
You got me right on the dot there, Raven. That's exactly what I meant.
John Kim, you've off target - I'm in no way endorsing knowing the theory of a subject in order to enjoy that subject. I'm endorsing examination of a subject. To use other media as examples, I'm a ukulele player. I know only a little music theory. But I don't just play the same songs over and over from memory: I think about why I play certain songs, what goes well together, and so on.
Much like that, examination of the RPG process is necessary to it being a fulfilling and wholesome activity for adults. I can't believe I'm saying this, but, yeah, I think unexamined play of RPGs is an unwholesome activity. If you're getting together and doing it
just for the sake of doing it, then you've got a big problem on your hands.
And that's the problem I see with some people who get all up in arms about their immersion. It seems they're playing that way just to play that way. There's no other point to it. (Or, better said, there is a point, and they refuse to examine it.) I would love rebuttal, but I know I'm going to get "I don't do that; I immerse because X," which is awesome for you, but not the 20 people who don't know why they do.
Any unexamined activity repeated can become an immature and possibly unhealthy activity. That was my point.
Clinton,
Nope, I don't see it, certainly not in the general case. Maybe it depends on the type of activity or the amount. If friends get together to play basketball or ultimate on a regular basis, how could that be "unexamined and therefore unwholesome" or "examined and wholesome"? I'm trying to read your comments charitably but "unwholesome" and "you've got a big problem on your hands" are getting in the way.
I think I get what Clinton is getting at. It is a tricky thing to get across.
Unexamined play is icky because it's just habitual, ritualized repetition of a familiar pattern to get the same reward the same way every time. The monkey has learned that if it pushes the lever, it gets the cookie. So it sits there pushing the lever, over and over and over and over. Eventually, the monkey will push the lever even without the cookie.
Is that the point you're pushing at, Clinton?
Hiya,
Elliott, I suggest that your basketball players are examining their play in the sense that Clinton is describing. They might be doing so in terms of how to play better, in terms of whether they (individually) are enjoying themselves, in some other terms, or any combination.
Or rather, more accurately, I'm presenting as my world-view that many real people who do play pickup basketball are really doing this.
Best,
Ron
I suggest that there is a major difference between "examination", as proposed by Clinton, and "deep analysis". If you are really into the theory and analysis of a subject, it might well get in the way of "simply enjoying". Like the script author who can't watch a movie without unwillingly paying attention to the techniques the script uses, and how well or badly they are applied. He might still be amazed by a good movie, maybe even more amazed than he would have been without his theoretical knowledge and analytic skill, but he just sees it with different eyes.
Please don't tell me I'm the only one who sees his games with different eyes. Since I have started to dig into RPG theory, I can't help consciously analizing my play. That doesn't mean I don't have fun any more when gaming. I have had some great sessions thanks to getting into RPG theory. But yeah, I guess it means that the "deep character immersion" type of play gets harder, because I can't help looking beyond the SIS at the stuff going on there.
Why do I say that? Because I think it partly validates the point that theory might break the bubble of immersion.
- Frank
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on July 27, 2005, 10:45:49 AM
Much like that, examination of the RPG process is necessary to it being a fulfilling and wholesome activity for adults. I can't believe I'm saying this, but, yeah, I think unexamined play of RPGs is an unwholesome activity. If you're getting together and doing it just for the sake of doing it, then you've got a big problem on your hands.
I'm not sure I can believe you're saying it either. It's clear that strong immersionists know what they like, John Morrow has never said otherwise (he's real clear about what he likes in a game). Who are these people who you are responding to?
Quote
And that's the problem I see with some people who get all up in arms about their immersion. It seems they're playing that way just to play that way. There's no other point to it. (Or, better said, there is a point, and they refuse to examine it.)
I think the idea that (presumably) large numbers of people involved in a hobby are engaging in self-deception violates Occam's Razor. I think a far more likely situation is that people who enjoy immersion are, in fact, playing that way because they enjoy it and setting oneself up as a judge of them by saying "they refuse to examine it" seems illogical and the phrasing is arrogant.
-Marco
Ron, that may be--the basketball players may be examining their play. But I find it easier to imagine that even if they don't examine their play, the whole thing is perfectly wholesome because playing basketball is purely recreational for them--it isn't the main point of their lives.
Now roleplaying is different from basketball, so that might not be all that's going on. But then I think that difference is worth examining.
Hey, Marco,
I think one thing that needs to be separated here is "people who are opposed to critical examination during the activity because it upsets immersion" and "people who are opposed to critical examination at any time". I'm pretty sure Clinton has restricted his judgment to the latter, not that I entirely agree with what he's said.
Hi,
About a month or so ago, the idea struck me, what if people looked at immersiveness the same way they tend to look at rules- as a tool to be used or abandoned according to what is fun? I think the big issue we look at when it comes to immersiveness is that it has been often touted as the end-goal of play, when in fact it is just one technique we can use or drop according to the game and taste.
Chris
Hello,
I will start by saying that "wholesome" is not a term I tend to use much, or to think about except in terms of its extreme opposite. I'm skeptical that anything we discuss can ever be settled as wholesome or unwholesome close to the border between them.
I can, however, speak to whether how one participates in an activity (a) contributes to peace of mind and (b) leads others to continue to invite the person.
And I think, in those terms, that the (for instance) basketball or ultimate player who fails to examine his or her play in the sense that Clinton is talking about, is very likely to fail at (a) or (b) or at both.
Elliott, probably without intending to, you're pulling an argument fast-one when you state,
Quoteeven if they don't examine their play, the whole thing is perfectly wholesome because playing basketball is purely recreational for them--it isn't the main point of their lives
That's switching the issue. The "main point" of someone's life, and whether this activity is "it" or not, is irrelevant to anything being said here. In fact, I suggest that we stay focused on hobbies and social leisure stuff, period, which are typically not so central. Similarly, the term "purely recreational" is also irrelevant - all that it means is that the person is enjoying it and probably not getting paid for it. That has nothing to do with self-examining or not self-examining.
To be absolutely clear, I think that one can enjoy an activity, not get paid for it, and it's not the main point of his or her life - that fulfills all your criteria - and that in such a case, my points about (a) and (b) above may be relied upon very often.
Perhaps your mental image of someone who is enjoying something "recreationally" and my image are very different. Perhaps our images of what "examination" is are different. In my case, I'm imagining someone who is not behaving in any way specially different from (a) doing the thing, (b) talking about or mulling over the thing in any terms they like (often critical, although not technical), and (c) enjoying the thing.
I anticipate an argument emerging, soon, that such an observation is trivial. Of
course people do this, and most of the time if they don't, their participation becomes halting and inflexible, and they either stop because they don't like it or because others don't like participating with them.
... Except that it's not trivial, for us. In the hobby of role-playing, such a behavior is often held up as an ideal. And Clinton thinks it stinks, and I agree with him.
Does everyone "into immersion" fit this profile. Hell, I don't know. A lot of them do; probably a lot don't. Last year, at GenCon, Ben Lehman was unsettled by critical comments I made about the social maladjustments of many participants. He thought I was "picking on the geeks." Later, he contacted me to say that he'd realized what I meant - that folks who were enthusiastic but awkward were fantastic people, and playing with them is fun (and similarly, that someone who suffers from clinical obesity is perfectly reasonably inclined toward sedentary and imaginative hobbies). But that folks who stuck with the hobby out of a hamster-wheel like obsession with their own adolescence (including college in many cases) were plain fucked in terms of (a) and (b) - they were unhappy and unsuccessful with their participation despite their intensity, and it showed in every body movement, in tone of voice, and in every victimized signal they gave off with every sentence.
Best,
Ron
Big effin' ups to Ron's last post.
Others are reading me wrong, so I'm going to re-state clearly.
First of all, let me define "wholesome." Unlike Ron, I do use this term a lot. I tend to judge things in moral terms.
An activity is wholesome if it has a purpose that positively contributes. (Contributes to what? Mainly, your own life. But it could positively contribute to anything.)
So, a group of people who sit down and play a RPG each week where they kill kobolds and get stress relief and relaxation out of that, and know that they do - that's awesome. Good. Wholesome.
People who sit down each week and play an RPG and never once know - as a group, mind you - why they get together - that's not wholesome.
We clear on the definition? I hope so, because it seems self-evident to me.
Most activities I can think of, the participants know why they do them. Role-playing seems to me to have this problem where many participants don't know why they do it. Argue all you like, but we've got a lot of social dysfunction in our hobby. Find me at a convention sometime and I can point it out. I believe we've all seen it. That dysfunction comes from somewhere. I'm perfectly willing to discuss where it comes from, and maybe I'm wrong on it, but right now, I'm the one trying to figure it out.
So, my thought is this. If you cannot answer the following questions, and your current role-playing group cannot, your activity is reaching a level of unwholesomeness.
- Why do I play role-playing games?
- Why am I playing the one I am currently?
- Why did I choose these people to play with?
- How do we, as a group, realize this reason we're playing? ("Realize," as in "how do we make it happen?)
Ron, I appreciate the clarification, which knocks off a whole chunk of obvious unwholesomeness, leaving the interesting stuff for examination.
But now I am wondering if Clinton hasn't defined the problem out of existence. Is any answer to "why do I play RPGs" okay, as long as the question is asked? And what if criticial examination never gets beyond the basics of the four questions?
Quote from: ewilen on July 27, 2005, 02:28:35 PM
But now I am wondering if Clinton hasn't defined the problem out of existence. Is any answer to "why do I play RPGs" okay, as long as the question is asked? And what if criticial examination never gets beyond the basics of the four questions?
Gods, no. I'm touching the tip of the iceberg. But if you can't answer the above, you can't even get started.
Hey Elliott,
Hell, man, I don't know. Those are what you might call Kozmik Kwestions that any thinking adult has to consider about what he or she does. Kind of beyond the scope of the Forge.
I do know I enjoyed this thread very much and greatly appreciate the effort everyone's made to understand one another.
Best,
Ron
cross-posted with Clinton
A few quick thoughts on the whole thing:
1) When analyzing both pro- and contra-immersionist critique, it is best to realize that both sides are normally utterly unable to conceive the other side's viewpoints. Think atheist vs. people who claim to have had religious experiences. The immersive state is essentially nondescibable. You either have experienced what amounts to a (perceived) loss of "self" or the sense of self for a finite duration.
2) Add to this that both sides of the split (I personally also really think it's an either/or situation) have plenty of people who are not very mature, i.e. are playing for the retained-adolescent-attitude reasons mentioned before.
3) Furthermore, like John said, there exists a vocal group of gamers who oppose all deeper examination of their hobby, whether it's personal (immersive) exploration or academic research to it. Some of them are immature (the loudest persons usually are), others want to preserve the sense of wonder they see essential to the role-playing experience.
4) Add to this the creative-agenda -like desires of other players, and their potential tendency to hold on them as fanatically. (I've seen narrativists and gamists who are so intense they'll make any Turku-school fanatic seem easy by comparison.)
Therefore, the biggest problem is really in the fact that too many playing groups have attendees who represent more than one perspective /and/ are unable to make those views co-exist. And when moved to any public forum, the problem expands exponentially.
Despite what Frank suspected above, I think that immersionism has no correlation whatsoever to things such as willingness to accept role-playing analysis. All my experiences as a gamer and all the academic field research I've done seems to point towards the following: immersion is just an enjoyment method like all the others. It's simply more character-centric, more intense, and thus more unpredictable from a group-benefit viewpoint. The big problems come from players whose opposition to compromise /masquerades behind/ immersion, anti-immersion, gamism or anti-intellectualism, etc. Those are the people who are actually IMO doing the complaining.
-Jiituomas
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 27, 2005, 01:11:15 PM
In the hobby of role-playing, such a behavior is often held up as an ideal. And Clinton thinks it stinks, and I agree with him.
Does everyone "into immersion" fit this profile. Hell, I don't know. A lot of them do; probably a lot don't. Last year, at GenCon, Ben Lehman was unsettled by critical comments I made about the social maladjustments of many participants. He thought I was "picking on the geeks." Later, he contacted me to say that he'd realized what I meant - that folks who were enthusiastic but awkward were fantastic people, and playing with them is fun (and similarly, that someone who suffers from clinical obesity is perfectly reasonably inclined toward sedentary and imaginative hobbies). But that folks who stuck with the hobby out of a hamster-wheel like obsession with their own adolescence (including college in many cases) were plain fucked in terms of (a) and (b) - they were unhappy and unsuccessful with their participation despite their intensity, and it showed in every body movement, in tone of voice, and in every victimized signal they gave off with every sentence.
Is there a way to proceed on this? I, too, have observed unhappy people among gamers -- this includes both immersives and non-immersives. Personally, I haven't seen a correlation. That is, non-immersive players like boardgamers, collectible card gamers, and hack-and-slash D&D players do not seem any happier than the more immersive players like larpers or "atmospheric" tabletop players.
The person whom Clinton cited as an example was John Morrow, which I disagree with. I don't expect naming names will work very well, though it may be worth trying. But without some indication of common experience, it seems hard to discuss. Perhaps we could discuss examples of text which demonstrates the dysfunctional ideal which you're talking about?
Quote from: John Kim on July 27, 2005, 04:17:19 PM
The person whom Clinton cited as an example was John Morrow, which I disagree with. I don't expect naming names will work very well, though it may be worth trying. But without some indication of common experience, it seems hard to discuss. Perhaps we could discuss examples of text which demonstrates the dysfunctional ideal which you're talking about?
John,
If we're going to avoid naming names, please do not put words in my mouth. This sort of statement is almost Orwellian in its ability to affect the truth. I never mentioned anyone, and never called immersives immature. John assumed I did and posted nothing more than "you're wrong" wordily.
If you say I did this, someone else will believe it, and then we'll have a holy war on our hands. Please don't. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify, but I can't really demand that.
EDIT: Original post for reference purposes:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16088.msg171511#msg171511
NOTE: Edited to correct reference to Clinton which was actually by greyormSorry if I'm misrepresented. Really, I'd be happier with naming names in this regard, because otherwise I can't tell if we're comparing apples and oranges. Anyhow, what I was thinking of was:
Quote from: greyorm on July 26, 2005, 07:23:28 PM
So another question would be, given that it can and is done without causing the indicated problems, why do other Immersives cross themselves upon even the suggestion of doing this, being that it doesn't cause problems? (I'm thinking specifically of John Morrow's statement to this effect; though I recognize he may not have meant it that way. I'm hoping he is reading this and can take the time to respond.)
I think this was fairly polite and useful to cite John Morrow here. Without some cited examples (or at the very least clear identifying characteristics) of this supposed behavior, it is extremely hard to discuss. As far as I have seen, immersive players are perfectly willing to discuss theory as much as any other group of players.
Hi,
I've observed before how many gamers share patterns with abuse victims. At first I had thought this was simply a side-effect of "geek culture" or something of the sort, but here's some things worth thinking about:
You have an activity which (many games):
- discourage person to person discussion of the activity itself
- discourage communication amongst each the participants
- throws judgementalism on that ("Talking about it is bad")
- expects you to be able to perform coordinated activities without communication
- throws judgementalism on that as well ("You're not following my leads!")
- expects long-term, even life-time commitments
- puts all the power into one person's hands
If you've known anyone who's grown up in a shame based culture, has been raised by judgemental parents, been drawn into a cult, been in a codependent relationship or a domestic violence situation- a lot of the gamer tendencies make perfect sense (passive agressive, fear of doing the "wrong thing", turtling).
Honestly, we can play immersionist, non-immersionist, 1 GM, GM-ful, short term or long term, provided we are:
- honest about what we feel about the activity (Clinton's questions)
- communicate with each other about that ("Meta")
- Nix the judgementalism of "good/bad" roleplaying.
What we have seen, is traditionally the marriage of obsession with Immersion, injunctions against discussion or feedback amongst the group, control, fear, & power issues as a central concept ("Chicken Littling"), and a whole lot of judgemental bullying of other people.
Immersion itself isn't the problem- it's obssession with Immersion plus all the other unhealthy crapola that has been promoted as the standard of play under its guise.
Chris
Hiya,
I'm seeing a great deal to learn from everyone's input although I don't have time right now to list all the connections I see among them. Only time for a response posted to me directly.
John, I don't see a 1:1 correlation between all these negative things and immersion either. However, I do see a connection that we might do well to pay attention to. When these negative things are exhibited, then immersion is a common candidate to be utilized as a cover (just as Jiituomas described).
I stated that as carefully as I could, in order to make sure that I'm not stating the converse - I'm not stating that when immersion is valued, that such negative things must be hiding under it. The commonality of the negative case, though, is at least my perception. Others' perceptions may certainly differ. Perhaps I am idealizing the hack-and-slashers when I think of (or perceive) them as often rather satisfied, by comparison.
To change the subject slightly, I'm distancing myself from the parent John Morrow thread at RPG.net entirely. I'm only interested in the topic as raised by Raven, here and now in this thread. And in general, I agree with you that naming names (which sort of translates in my mind to pointing fingers, really) isn't too useful.
So where do we go from here? Me, I'd like to see as much honest and reflective posting in Actual Play as possible. I'd like to see accounts from many years ago, from "my last game before I quit," and from last night, and everything in between. I'd like to see some local, thread-specific definitions for what's meant by "immersion" so we can stay on track for each thread.
I'm pretty confident we can get somewhere after a little while of such an effort. Perhaps people can read this thread and be confident that there are a number of minds, right here, who are very interested in this topic and who are also committed to understanding one another about it as we go. That confidence will prompt better reflection and description, and with any luck a positive cycle of communication and insight can develop.
Best,
Ron
Well, I'm happy to stand up and be counted as someone who enjoys the immersionist experience. I have been trying to post about my experiences in this regard at Origins but it's very difficult to articulate. The situation was that 6 of us were playing Call of Cthulhu with 4 GMs. Very early in the game we started acting our parts, by which I mean moving around, only talking in character and expressiing emotions (or at least the simulacra thereof) directly.
I think it would be interesting to talk to the players again about their experiences in that game as I'm pretty sure not everyone got into it as much as I did. In fact by playing this way, I'm sure that at least one player was disadvantaged. He had a WTF expression for at least some of the game. On the other hand, nine others seemed to have the times of their lives. So, I'll try to collect some evidence and I'll report back here when I have.
This is all interesting and sensible stuff. However, I don't really see how it relates to the initial quote:
QuoteThe people who flip their pancake of reason every time theory or "meta-gaming" (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the bubble of immersion broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative.
Sooner or later, adulthood comes along. And what was childish games has to fall aside or be examined. Examination and then creation produces art, plain and simple.
There is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?
- Frank
In defence of immersion, you might say:
"The people who flip their pancake of reason every time immersion (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the pipe-dream of theory broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative."
Flippant perhaps, but I think that until immersion is given some value, or some effort is made into understanding what that value is, you're not going to get very far in weighing it up against theory.
To a certain extent, I think the battle might be some kind of debate over what is public and what is private. Narrative gaming and its theory seems to be a public exposition of what goes on privately in immersion, addressing premise and all that stuff.
If roleplaying is to be a social game then no, you can't just keep it to yourself but I don't think that's what immersionists are after. The hope is that, well for me at least, that meaning can be conveyed through showing (acting it might be called) rather than telling (the "what's at stake" in Dogs for example). It's a less direct method and fraught with all the usual problems of human communication but that's in some way what makes it interesting.
I do object to the use of "childish" in general reference to immersion but I think it's in the spirit of debate so I'm happy to talk around it. As for Actual Play examples, there might be one here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16154.0;topicseen).
Quote from: Frank T on July 28, 2005, 05:31:41 AMThere is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?
It is and is not off-track. As far as being disrupted during play goes, they are equally problematic for egocentric players, and essentially amount to the same thing for him/her. (Immersion, being the most personal gaming method, is thus the most likely to suffer from breaks, but I know HC-gamist guys who hate breaks at least as strongly.) Theory-resistance is an extension of this: a player who hates analysis and examination during play tends to extend that attitude into all forms of it, fearing that it will rebound to intrude on his/her playing.
The trick, I presume, is really this: there are roughly equal numbers of egocentric players in all camps, but some approaches correlate better with that attitude than others. Immersive and gamist tendencies are the most obvious areas where a selfish attitude shines through, and thus that's where most of the complaints come from. A narrative-interested selfish player simply directs stories, and thus basically hides in a crowd. When they complain, it comes out as smug superiority about the quality of the games they play in, and is thus externally indistinguishable from "healthy" pride about good games.
So pro-immersion and anti-immersion complaints are just
manifestation forms of the actual problems, not root causes. Tht's why the viewpoints tend to be so weakly defended, and the arguments seem weird.
-Jiituomas
Quote from: Frank T on July 28, 2005, 05:31:41 AM
This is all interesting and sensible stuff. However, I don't really see how it relates to the initial quote:
QuoteThe people who flip their pancake of reason every time theory or "meta-gaming" (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the bubble of immersion broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative.
Sooner or later, adulthood comes along. And what was childish games has to fall aside or be examined. Examination and then creation produces art, plain and simple.
There is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?
Frank,
That's a quote by me, which would have been fine if people had a bit thicker skins. It's personal opinion, only, though.
Anyway, the topic drifted into much more fruitful territory. Let's keep it there.
I am new here and a bit nervous about contributing to the discussion, but this thread touches on something that is a central concern of mine now that I have embarked on serious analysis of RPG theory.
I consider myself a strongly immersive player, so much so that in order to feel 'fulfilled' as a person, I must be in some way engaged in a game which caters to this need. I am certainly not without a 'life' outside the game, but an immersive gaming experience is a component of my happiness. I could make a few suggestions as to why this might be, but I don't know why conclusively.
There are things -- important things -- that certain rituals do for the psyche which lose their power when they are exhaustively scrutinized and explained. When, for instance, we fully comprehend that funerals are actually for ourselves and not the dead (since the dead can clearly no longer appreciate it) there is something lost in the process which causes grief to stick.
I am extremely ambivalent about this. Clearly, it should not mean quashing analysis of this, or any, subject; yet I am afraid of coming away with *less* than I had to begin with. Dorothy's position is strengthened when she reveals the man behind the curtain. I am not certain that this is universally the case.
Hello, and welcome!!
That's another one of those Great Questions, isn't it, Froglar?
And which no one can answer for you. Your example about funerals, for instance, will carry no argumentative weight for someone who does understand funerals analytically, yet also grieves at funerals and benefits from them. To you, his grief/catharsis "must" be weakened or diminished in some way ... but that's your perception alone.
And yet, no one can turn around and deny you your particular need or wish to leave the curtain up, either. I'd be surprised if anyone in this thread, even Clinton, is telling anyone else how they must start playing, right now. We're sharing some rather spiky viewpoints, and I think some of us are benefiting only because we can understand what is being said, not because we expect to come to a consensus. Your view is certainly welcome in the mix.
I invite you to include your real name, either as a signature, or a "sig" in the internet sense, or by changing your username, if you'd like.
Best,
Ron
Welcome Froglar,
Quote from: FroglarTBGE on July 28, 2005, 01:45:08 PMThere are things -- important things -- that certain rituals do for the psyche which lose their power when they are exhaustively scrutinized and explained. When, for instance, we fully comprehend that funerals are actually for ourselves and not the dead (since the dead can clearly no longer appreciate it) there is something lost in the process which causes grief to stick.
I just posted about something related to this by opening this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16162.0").
In short, I think the loss comes about when the initial mystique is replaced with understanding of how things work--but something bigger and better can be gained if you follow through to the application of the newly discovered knowledge.
If I make this realization about funerals, I also come to know my grief; i.e., the fact that I am not sad for this other person, but for my own loss, enables me to deal with it more purposefully. I realize that the funeral also brings the family together for mutual support and I make the most of it.
To bring it back to roleplaying games, the mystique that gets lost when individual awareness of play comes about can be replaced by the power of the whole group playing with a purpose, aware of where they're going and how to get there.
First off, excuse me for starting the thread and then not contributing to it, I spend most of yesterday fighting The Head Cold That Would Not DieTM and was thus both preoccupied and incoherent. I do want to say that this discussion thus far is incredible, and want to thank everyone for participating.
Froglar asked the very question I was, perhaps better than I did as well. The question, I think that relates back to both Frank's comments about validating "the point that theory might break the bubble of immersion" and "being more amazed...without his theoretical knowledge" that I simply could not agree with on a logical or experiential level, and then Jiituomas' considerations about gamers who "...oppose all deeper examination of their hobby...[because they] want to preserve the sense of wonder they see essential to the role-playing experience." Jiituomas is correct in that there are people who feel this way about these things, but I could not agree with Frank's assertions about why that is.
Christian, I think, has just nailed the problem for me, the "Why doesn't it always pan out? Why isn't it always bigger and better?" question that has been dragging me along for this ride.
Follow-through. Or rather, what you are able to do with the understanding.
Having understanding is one thing, being able to utilize it to your advantage is another. I humbly submit that gaining the former does not automatically beget the latter. Even with understanding, one may be trapped by not knowing what to do with that understanding, by not knowing how to apply it purposefully.
So, when we say theory or understanding is helpful because it allows one to examine the issue more deeply, from a broader perspective, that is only half the picture. If you don't know how to make use of that broader material, then there arises a problem. You see all these new facts that do not fit into the pre-existing worldview, which deny or make problematic the former view, and you have nowhere to put them that will make the new view as usable as the old. There is a clash between what was working for you, and the knowledge that it cannot work for you in that form any longer because of the shifted perspective.
How do you move from "I want to grieve", to understanding why you are grieving and using that knowledge to make the grieving process work for you? To the invisible second step of understanding.
With Immersion: how do you Deep Immerse and yet retain the ability to utilize learned Immersion techniques or game theory? We know it can be done, so what are the tools that allow one to do that, rather than the understanding of the situation breaking the Immersive bubble?
What tools can we produce that will allow someone to make that step, from understanding to using that understanding?
Ummm ...
But Raven, is there any obligation to "make" anyone do that?
Whoops. I just realized you didn't say that, you said "permit" to "make that step."
All done then.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: xenopulse on July 28, 2005, 08:02:02 PM
Welcome Froglar,
Quote from: FroglarTBGE on July 28, 2005, 01:45:08 PMThere are things -- important things -- that certain rituals do for the psyche which lose their power when they are exhaustively scrutinized and explained. When, for instance, we fully comprehend that funerals are actually for ourselves and not the dead (since the dead can clearly no longer appreciate it) there is something lost in the process which causes grief to stick.
I just posted about something related to this by opening this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16162.0").
In short, I think the loss comes about when the initial mystique is replaced with understanding of how things work--but something bigger and better can be gained if you follow through to the application of the newly discovered knowledge.
If I make this realization about funerals, I also come to know my grief; i.e., the fact that I am not sad for this other person, but for my own loss, enables me to deal with it more purposefully. I realize that the funeral also brings the family together for mutual support and I make the most of it.
To bring it back to roleplaying games, the mystique that gets lost when individual awareness of play comes about can be replaced by the power of the whole group playing with a purpose, aware of where they're going and how to get there.
I have to say, about this part of the discussion, that I disagree with the premise. But maybe that's one way to deal with the paradox. You see, I can't fully agree that funerals are purely for the mourners (and I'm not a religious person). I think there are many mysteries which, far from being dispelled through critical examination, are instead sharpened. Death is one of them. Maybe immersion is another.
When I was a kid we used to go and play the coin-ops at the corner store. One of my buddies was very very good at these and would 'clock' them routinely. But it was impoossible to speak to him while he was playing. I mean really, really impossible, to the point that if you really needed to interrupt he would have to be bodily removed before you would appear on his radar.
To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment. At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task. Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.
And that, IME, is why immersion and analyticaly techniques cannot co-exist in actual play. I don't think there will be any problem using them at some point in a session of play overall, but certainly IME, being asked to break immersion in order to do certain things, particularly analytical things, would be just like someone interrupting you as you read a book. Or someone watching a film with you who keeps asking you to explain what is going on.
Quote from: contracycle on August 01, 2005, 06:28:02 AM
To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment. At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task. Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.
This may actually be a completely separate phenomenon. Within several game analysis circles, there is constant debate on whether the autotelic "flow" aspect of certain activities (as codified by Csikszentmihalyi) your buddy experienced and game immersion are the same phenomenon, somehow related to one another, tangential, or completely different phenomena.
The effect of both on analytic and/or meta-discourse breaks may nevertheless be similar, though.
-Jiituomas
This is a great topic and I hope me commenting 3 days later is not going to open what might be considered a dead subject? First I wanted to address contracycle's comments here:
Quote from: contracycle on August 01, 2005, 06:28:02 AM
When I was a kid we used to go and play the coin-ops at the corner store. One of my buddies was very very good at these and would 'clock' them routinely. But it was impoossible to speak to him while he was playing. I mean really, really impossible, to the point that if you really needed to interrupt he would have to be bodily removed before you would appear on his radar.
To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment. At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task. Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.
And that, IME, is why immersion and analyticaly techniques cannot co-exist in actual play. I don't think there will be any problem using them at some point in a session of play overall, but certainly IME, being asked to break immersion in order to do certain things, particularly analytical things, would be just like someone interrupting you as you read a book. Or someone watching a film with you who keeps asking you to explain what is going on.
I do not think you can quite compare a solo video game, reading a book, or watching a movie to Role Playing in this regard. The actions as you describe them are solitary (for the most part) activities. You red the book or watch the movie or play the game alone because you do not want someone intruding on your private space. Even in a huge theatre full of people, watching the movie is essentially a solitary activity. Reading a book, unless you are doing so out loud to someone, is as well. So someone outside of this breaking into your space is considered rude.
Now looking at Role Playing, if someone outside of the group who is playing, i.e. a Kibitzer, intrudes on the Play and makes comments then certainly that is incorrect behavior unless the person was invited to do so.
I want to make a small point about immersion as well. Take this as it were and remember I am not totally well read in all of the theories here (well heck any of them) and am simply making my own observation.
Whenever you pick up the dice, make a roll, do rock paper scissors, or take a drink of water even if you are thirsty and your character isn't, that is in a sense breaking the bubble of immersion. You accept that some activities are acceptable in the course of the game / session even though they are not technically inside of the bubble. I would assume, that if someone needed a rules clarification, that he or she could also take a moment to ask a question? If that is the case and these are acceptable behaviors for an immersionist, then I see no reason why stopping for a moment and asking "hmm what's going on here" would be any more lethal to immersion then a bathroom break. If someone is not on board with what's going on then it only makes sense to stop and examine it for a moment and make sure everyone gets on board.
As for analyzing Play and engaging in theory discussion post game, I think this needs to be conscious but not necessarily deep. It could be as simple as "Did you enjoy yourself? No? Why not?" That is analyzing play. Where trouble and dysfunction arise is when people get up from the game, go home or go play on the Xbox, and then come back next week whether they had a good time or not. Now this can happen outside of immersion play just as easily. (I realize there are degrees here and it is not simply an either or situation). So it is not a situation that exists solely with regard to immersion play.
I also would contend that people give knee jerk reactions to the words Theory & Analyze. They are big words in a sense and possibly intimidating to some people. We tend to use them here at the Forge because we are used to accepting them as part of our discussions. Theory & Analyze were not a part of my RPG vocabulary prior to my own self examination and then spending some time on RPG.net. I did not mean I was a stupid chode (some people may disagree but that's ok) it just means it was not part of my vocabulary. Yet words tend to upset people more then the ideas behind them. People will talk about the game, but they say that they are not analyzing the game. Uhm yes that is what they are doing. To a small extent and in a limited mode perhaps, but it is analysis.
Animals piss on a bush to mark their territory. They never really go beyond that instinct. Role Playing is in my opinion a very counter-instinctual exercise. Almost by definition it forces you to make conscious choices about what you are going to do, even in immersive play. Possibly especially in immersive play where you need to act like Joe instead of yourself. You need to take on Joe's instincts as it were, which is a conscious act.
Therefore how can it be healthy to then get up from the table and not talk at least address something about the game? That's what animals do. "How did you like pissing on the rose bush? Dude! Your messing with my head and ruining my pee experience!" Now as bad as I just made that sound I also want to point out that this is an EXTREME example. I for one think most people do examine / analyze their Play to some extent and this is a good thing. It does not have to be anything deep. It just has to exist as more then an instinctual activity.
I have witnessed I think almost every extreme RPG related behavior at this point. I have seen people adamantly refuse to talk about the game or their character for fear of ruining their experience. This is an extreme behavior though and I believe there are plenty more people who do analyze their play without calling it analyzing, then there are those who refuse to analyze in any manner.
I can provide RPGA and non-RPGA examples in Actual Play, as Ron hinted, if people are interested. There is one very good example that comes to mind in fact.
I did want address one more thing though before I end this. One is over-analysis. I think you can rightly make an argument that over-analysis is as detrimental as under analysis. I am a firm believer that too much talk does indeed spoil the experience. Obviously everyone will have a different level of "too much" but sometimes you should let the game / situation play out before going into analyze mode. So I can see where some people would worry that over-analysis could break the rhythm of the game.
Sean
Quote from: ADGBoss on August 04, 2005, 11:46:45 AM
Whenever you pick up the dice, make a roll, do rock paper scissors, or take a drink of water even if you are thirsty and your character isn't, that is in a sense breaking the bubble of immersion. You accept that some activities are acceptable in the course of the game / session even though they are not technically inside of the bubble. I would assume, that if someone needed a rules clarification, that he or she could also take a moment to ask a question? If that is the case and these are acceptable behaviors for an immersionist, then I see no reason why stopping for a moment and asking "hmm what's going on here" would be any more lethal to immersion then a bathroom break. If someone is not on board with what's going on then it only makes sense to stop and examine it for a moment and make sure everyone gets on board.
I agree with this argument except I ceom to the opposite conclusion. Yes, all of those are similar; yes all of them occur. But nevertheless, all of them are an interruption of the state of immersion. And that is why there is a desire to miminise these intrusions, to streamline them so that they do not demand so much attention.
Perhaps an aexception is the rules clarification. If I have to roll dice while immersed, it can be handled in a manner similar to grooping for renegade popcorn at the bottom of the box; you don't need to direct your full attention to the problem, you can do it on autopilot while your real attention is still fixed on the screen. If the GM only wants you to physically move the dice and does most of the interpretation for you, so much the better.
Just becuase something happens doesn''t mean it is "acceptable" in the sense that approval is given; it may only be acceptabel on the basis of necessity.
I'm not sure that rolling the dice does necessarily "break the bubble of immersion".
For a start, I don't see immersion as such a selfish thing as a bubble. Roleplaying is still a group activity and I don't think that you can easily immerse on your own. You need something to play against and if everyone else staunchly talks out of character, in the third person, or just refuses to engage with your in character personalisation then you're pretty much stuffed as far immersion goes. Immersion seems to me to be a group activity not that of one person.
But once you are using immersive play techniques, in a group that accepts and uses them, I've not found it so hard to step in and out of character to do things such as roll dice or go to the toilet.
One of the reasons is that if everyone else is immersing then the immersive environment persists if some people drop out of character. This is pretty common in LARPs where asides to the ref are OOC. The fact that the majority, or at least a quorum, of players stay in character is enough to give you a reference point to rejoin the game in character. The important thing to remember here, for immersive gamers, is to keep your OOC comments directed at the ref rather than other players.
Another reason is that the "bubble" doesn't burst that quickly. You can maintain the emotional state of your character whilst doing something else. It's like when you get a phone call whilst with friends. You can talk quite seriously on the phone whist still maintaining the jokey friendly atmosphere with your friends.
I'm still not sure what makes theory and immersion incompatible. How does one theorise whilst playing?
Quote from: GB Steve on August 05, 2005, 06:44:45 AM
I'm still not sure what makes theory and immersion incompatible. How does one theorise whilst playing?
Correct me if I am wrong (and I may be) but isn't that the very point of this thread? That Immersionist play or Immersion is compatible with Theory/Theorizing/Analyzing just like every other kind of Play? My perception of it at least is that there is a group, albeit small, of Immersionist players who disdain any such kind of thinking in regards to the playing of an RPG? Although I would submit that the sort of intranscience one sees in that group is not solely attributable to Immersionist players, they just happen to be the Players of the current topic. If we bring in GNS for a moment, I think you could say that for example, someone who is a strict (if such a thing exists) Narrativist Player is not necessrily someone who is open minded and self or group analystical. He or she could be just as intransient as an Immersionist if they refuse to look beyond their own soup bowl. The same with Gamist and Sim players or however you chose to catagorize people.
As far as theorizing while playing, it can be as simple as keeping one column of notes for IC and one column of notes for OOC. A Things that could be better list or a things that could be discussed list. I often keep a small notepad and jot down events in game and how they might be handled in a Forum like the Forge, though most of them never make into open discussion here or anywhere, for various reasons. Yet some have. So it does not have to be anything deep and Byronesque.
Sean
So the theorising doesn't actually take place whilst gaming but afterwards?
For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance, and possibly much less to do with game structure. Are we talking at cross purposes, after all none of the three GNS chimneys has much to say explicitly about performance.
Can one be a gamist, narrativist or simulationist immersionist?
Huh?
Quote from: GB Steve on August 05, 2005, 09:39:35 AM
For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance...
Thats totally not what I guess immersion was about - it's not about "did I represent the character right" but it is about "Did I feel and think *as* the character" (paraphrasing John Morrow on RPG.Net forums)
As such, there is no theorising "Did I get it right" because if you immerse, you have got it right.
And as immersion appears to be a perception thing, then only you will know.
Quote from: Simon Marks on August 05, 2005, 10:38:12 AM
Huh?
Quote from: GB Steve on August 05, 2005, 09:39:35 AM
For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance...
Thats totally not what I guess immersion was about - it's not about "did I represent the character right" but it is about "Did I feel and think *as* the character" (paraphrasing John Morrow on RPG.Net forums)
As such, there is no theorising "Did I get it right" because if you immerse, you have got it right.
And as immersion appears to be a perception thing, then only you will know.
I am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing. Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way? This may be sidetracking the deiscussion a bit but I would think that any excersie worth doing is worth leveling a critical eye at, either during or after the activity is over.
Sean
Quote from: ADGBoss on August 05, 2005, 11:08:47 AM
I am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing. Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way?
The "normative" (i.e. the one most people agree upon) idea of what role-playing (character) immersion is can be formulated roughly as "identifying so strongly with your character that a temporary loss of the self (or the sense of self) happens and the character becomes the player's primary self (not just identity, but self) for the duration of the game." Note that this is just the most popular interpretation. Others include multiple layers of immersion, say it's just empathy, say it's all a delusion, etc. Things like acting, improving or being "more in character" are basically just faking it, according to hard-line immersionists (who are again just a minority, but a very vocal one).
In such immersive circumstances, for some players it is impossible to maintain that state when bombarded by outside stimuli, such as analysis, theory, inconsistencies - or even the game's rules. The great majority of players who think of themselves as immersionists, however, are able to exist on a dual level and thus can process metainformation.
-Jiituomas
Quote from: ADGBoss on August 05, 2005, 11:08:47 AMI am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing. Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way? This may be sidetracking the deiscussion a bit but I would think that any excersie worth doing is worth leveling a critical eye at, either during or after the activity is over.
Sean, I think it would be more accurate (although not absolutely correspondent) to relate immersionism to
method acting. That sort of acting assumes that if I feel what the character feels, I'll portray the character accurately. From the perspective of traditional representational acting, that's silly--just figure out what a character who feels that would look like, and portray that. From an opposite perspective, it is not at all clear that anyone who feels a particular way will portray it correctly through a fictional character. We're all masters at masking our true feelings, I think, and do it so naturally that we are unaware we are doing it.
I agree, though, that a player could improve his ability to empathize with the character, quite apart from improving his ability to express the desired emotion.
--M. J. Young
Quote from: GB Steve on August 05, 2005, 06:44:45 AM
I'm not sure that rolling the dice does necessarily "break the bubble of immersion".
Right -- there are certain activities that practice or training permit you to do at the same time, where one of them just fades into a background, even though you're making decisions and interpreting data to do so -- driving a car, for instance. Contra's example of eating popcorn: it's obviously external to the movie-watching experience, but it doesn't distract you because it's sort of automatic.
Question then becomes: are certain kinds of thinking about play the kind of activity you can background? Is this true for all immersive play? Is it just that people, unfamiliar with thinking about gaming a certain way, have a hard time keeping it out of the foreground and will find it gets easier with practice? I've heard immersion described as requiring double-think: one part of the brain processes the character's emotional state, the other handles the game-table stimuli. Difficult or unfamiliar things happening at the game table may force a shift.
The only time I've felt immersed is in LARPs -- it's just much easier for me. But even in my most memorable immersive experience, when I was shaking with rage and fear, there was a part of my brain running along, going "I know, I'll wait to blow up until we get to the church, that'll make a cool setting for this scene..." I wasn't concentrating on it, but it was there, all right.
Quote from: James Holloway on August 11, 2005, 06:01:56 PMQuestion then becomes: are certain kinds of thinking about play the kind of activity you can background? Is this true for all immersive play? Is it just that people, unfamiliar with thinking about gaming a certain way, have a hard time keeping it out of the foreground and will find it gets easier with practice? I've heard immersion described as requiring double-think: one part of the brain processes the character's emotional state, the other handles the game-table stimuli. Difficult or unfamiliar things happening at the game table may force a shift.
I'd guess it varies from player to player. I'm under the impression that some players are capable of processing something when they are immersed in their characters whereas others - like me - are not. Double-thinking tends to ruin the experience for me - if I have to calculate the odds for task resolution, or even think about the resolution mechanism while playing, it gets harder and harder to be in a character. After all, the character shouldn't have to think about resolution mechanics - such things don't exist in the reality of the character. I'd guess that this is one of the main reasons why immersion-heavy games tend to have light or no rules.
There are differences between tabletop playing and live-action playing when it comes to immersion - I can only base this on personal experience, but tabletop gives more room for double-thinking. I don't know if it's a learned process (we've been using resolution mechanics with dices or other randomizers for a long time; rolling dice does not break immersion. Multiple rolls might, though) or the fact that there's always some out of character -factors involved in tabletop gaming.