Group player ownership of all PC's

[Callan S.]

Whoa, that got toasty.

Anyway, I'm going to go on with my questions, but first thanks for the first post Ralph, really solid answer. But wasn't there a typo in this quote? Or did I read it wrong?

Ownership in this context for me means "entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character as much as you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character, and vice versa".

[Valamir]

Whoa, that got toasty.

Anyway, I'm going to go on with my questions, but first thanks for the first post Ralph, really solid answer. But wasn't there a typo in this quote? Or did I read it wrong?

Ownership in this context for me means "entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character as much as you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character, and vice versa".

I don't think so, but it is rather grammatically cumbersome...

Lets see.
You're playing Fred, I'm playing Jim.

I am entitled to enjoy your play of Fred as much as you are entitled to enjoy your play of Fred.  You are entitled to enjoy my play of Jim as much as I am entitled to enjoy my play of Jim.

Of course, that is an ideal that is not always reliably obtained.

[pete_darby]

To get really egotistical, I'm going to quote myself from Tomas' thread:

Consider this: however much you may dislike it, all players around the table, are, by their presence, writer, actor and audience. To claim just one of these roles as the defining one, the important one for enjoying the game, is to deny the enjoyment that comes from the others.

That, to me, is the problem, the selfishness, and ultimately the price of deep immersion.

If I'm immersed, I'm denying my role as audience to the totality of play inside the SiS. I'm looking at everything through the lens of the PC. Considerations of the shape of the story, intertextual nuances, dramtic ironies, must be supressed to maintain immersion.

Now, sometimes, the advantages of identification & immersion, the emotional charge from them, outweighs that cost. Whether it outweighs the cost of the involvment of the other players in the drama of my PC is an intangible, but may be what decides whether deep immersion is acceptable in any given group.

And yes, I think it's selfish. But so is the traditional GM's role, especially in illusionist play ("I know something you don't know...."), and lord knows we've all had fun playing that way on both sides of the screen.

[John Kim]

I'm sorry if the use of the word "selfish" bothers you.  As I see it you have two choices
1) decide that my description of play behavior doesn't even apply to you so you therefor don't need to worry about being so labeled, or
2) if the shoe fits, wear it.
That's up to you.  

I'm not absolutely sure whether the shoe fits.  I've had complaints about sticking to my character at times -- I've also had people who said they really liked the depth of my characters.  

Let me simplify into two points.  (1) I enjoy what I consider a deeply immersive style of play which has a relatively low level of awareness of the meta-game, including other players' OOC reactions.  (2) I also enjoy the same style of play in other players.  Since they are adding to my enjoyment -- moreso than a more meta-game-heavy style -- I think calling their play "selfish" is not an accurate term.  Immersive styles are more focussed on individual inner experience of all players, but that is not the same thing as "selfish".  

I even say in my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/immersivestory.html">immersive story essay that the immersive model is "self-centered in a sense" -- but that is qualified because it is non-standard usage of the term.  I would use the analogy of two parties:  one is hopping with constant music and chatter and partygoers are expected to keep up and contribute to this; the other is quieter and more laid-back where partygoers are told to relax and just be themselves, and indeed someone might sit out on the porch for a while before coming back in to chat and drink some more.

[contracycle]

That, to me, is the problem, the selfishness, and ultimately the price of deep immersion.

If I'm immersed, I'm denying my role as audience to the totality of play inside the SiS. I'm looking at everything through the lens of the PC. Considerations of the shape of the story, intertextual nuances, dramtic ironies, must be supressed to maintain immersion.

I think this is ridiculous.  Even I, a proponent of the idea that there is an immerionist mode so deep that it constitutes a trance state, have never argued that this completely denies your ability to engage with your real material surroundings.  At worst, it merely requires some effort - but much more interestingly, I think the player has top be emotionally engaged with the game at a fundamental level to achieve that state in the first place.

To assert that the immeriosnism is INHERENTLY selfish is badly mistaken IMO.  I must still be aware enough of the real world to roll dice and annotate character sheets, even though I agree this too may take some effort in the extreme cases.

However, I would say this to John:

I've had complaints about sticking to my character at times -- I've also had people who said they really liked the depth of my characters.

If people appreciate the depth of yopur characters, then they at some point must have become aware of this depth.  For them to be aware of it, fore you to value this perception on their part, strongly implies that you had to communicate it to them, and they have communicated to you their approval - or otherwise.  Theres no way around this - if the story and interpretation are going on in your head, how else could they possiby appreciate it?

[John Kim]

I've had complaints about sticking to my character at times -- I've also had people who said they really liked the depth of my characters.

If people appreciate the depth of yopur characters, then they at some point must have become aware of this depth.  For them to be aware of it, fore you to value this perception on their part, strongly implies that you had to communicate it to them, and they have communicated to you their approval - or otherwise.  Theres no way around this - if the story and interpretation are going on in your head, how else could they possiby appreciate it?

Through action, because character is action.  That is, depth of character is visible to other players through watching my PC's actions and through in-character conversation with me.  This is not incompatible with immersive play.  For example, my PC might have a long emotional talk with her lover (another PC).  On a purely physical level, this is verbal communication with the other player -- i.e. in the real world, the players are speaking with each other.  However, it is also possible without any breaking from the in-character point of view -- because the player is speaking as the character.  I as a player am communicating about my character in the real world, because in the game-world my character is communicating about herself.  

Furthermore character-immersion is not continuous.  For example, I might talk to another player out-of-character after the game, when they say they like my character.  This again is real communication between the players, and it is fully compatible with any degree of immersive play during the game.  

Now, one can make many reasonable arguments about problems with immersive play.  However, this "immersion is catatonia" argument is nonsense.  Even in the most extreme immersive play, the player is engaging in dialogue with other players or the GM; and acting out actions either through verbal narration (in tabletop play) or safe, by-the-rules physical action (in LARP).

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, I'm with John. Ralph's entire argument relies on the idea that the players in question want to apprieciate the characters of other players. I mean, if I'm not denying anyone any pleasure, because they don't care to appreciate my character, then how am I doing anyone a disservice? By definition, the immersionist doesn't want to step out of character to consider the other characters, and only does so at all through the lense of his character. So, in fact, addressing premise in a metagame way would be a violation of the CA because it forces me to note you creating story in an OOC manner - exactly what the immersionist does not want.

John's example is perfectly valid reasoning. What your rebuttal points out is only that incoherence is bad - which we all know. That if there's someone in the group who does want to appreciate the other player's characters, that they aren't getting what they want. But if you have an entire group coherently committed to playing in Immersionist methods, then everybody is supporting everybody else the best they can, and you wouldn't want anything else. It would be selfish for any of them to step outside of that CA and interfere with the other's enjoyment by doing so.

Now whether such groups actually exist or not is a different matter; if you want to attack it then attack it from the POV that nobody constantly immerses, or has the "perfectly immersionist" need. But aside from that, all you've said, Ralph, is that you no longer like the Immersionist CA. Which is a statement of preference, and which holds no meaning beyond that.

Mike

[Valamir]

Yes Mike, You've made this exact statement before, and it makes as little sense now as it did then.

Ralph's entire argument relies on the idea that the players in question want to apprieciate the characters of other players.

Ummm right.  That is a fundamental assumption.  Because its a fundamental assumption of all roleplaying.  Its a given.

If you aren't at the table with the intention of appreciating the actions of the other players, then you might as well be playing by yourself.

What's the alternative?  If you're not there to appreciate what I'm doing, what are you there for?  To appreciate only what you're doing?  So you go to a social event for the purpose of being entirely uninterested in what I'm doing and interested only in what you're doing?  Sounds like a veritable definition of selfish behavior no matter what the social event is.

If that's not the case...if you are there to appreciate what I'm doing, then you must acknowledge that I have equal right to appreciate what you're doing.  If that's the case then we both must be prepared to adapt and accomodate each other if we are both to enjoy our interaction with each other.

This is simple basic fundamental socialization skills.  Why should an RPG be any different?  In an RPG you get to throw basic socialization out the window because of what...years of tradition saying that immersion is the right way to roleplay?  Self Absorbtion is not a desireable trait in other forms of socialization.  Yet some folks seem more than willing to give such self absorbed behavior a free pass when it occurs around the roleplaying table.

I'm not.


Its a simple conclusion really:

You are either interested in appreciating the actions of the other players at the table or you are not.

If you are not, if you are only interested in appreciating your own actions at the table, then this is selfish behavior.


If you are interested in appreciating the actions of the other players, then you must be equally willing to allow them to appreciate your actions.

If you are not, then this is selfish behavior.


If you are interested in allowing the other players to appreciate your actions, then you have to give them something to appreciate.  This means you must be willing to make the effort to engage with them as human beings at the meta level.  This means that from time to time you have to be willing to set aside your own personal desire for immersion.

If you are not willing to set aside your own personal desire for immersion, because doing so would have a negative impact on your own personal enjoyment, then you are putting your welfare above that of others and this is selfish behavior.


There really isn't any wriggle room here.

What your rebuttal points out is only that incoherence is bad - which we all know. That if there's someone in the group who does want to appreciate the other player's characters, that they aren't getting what they want.

No, you're missing a very key specific element.

How is what I'm saying different from simple "incoherence is bad"?  Because deep immersion play is not something that simply happens when a few people get to together with incompatable goals.


1) Deep Immersion is a technique that is 100% incompatable with any other technique but itself.
2) It has been and in some circles continues to be actively promoted as the right way to play.
3) Groups promoting this style are among the most aggressive at indoctrinating other players to the technique
4) This technique requires and encourages the systematic purging and thwarting of all other techniques from the play group.  It is a particularly virulent "preference".

So yes.  I am specifically calling out Deep Immersive play as being a key source of this dysfunction.  It is more than simply allowing that incoherence is bad.  I am purposefully and willfully pointing my finger at a specific culprit and saying in no uncertain terms "this behavior is selfish"

But if you have an entire group coherently committed to playing in Immersionist methods, then everybody is supporting everybody else the best they can, and you wouldn't want anything else.

And I have repeatedly said that is is the only way for this play to be functional.  So yes, get together with a bunch of like minded folks and be happy.

Of course this isn't really how it happens.  Typically its one or two like minded folks and a couple of innocent bystanders who just "want to play" who are then shoved into the mold for the benefit of the other players.  This is why Deep Immersion deserves to be specifically singled out.

Ralph, is that you no longer like the Immersionist CA. Which is a statement of preference, and which holds no meaning beyond that.

No, that's not what I've said.

I've repeatedly said (multiple times in this thread alone) that I am NOT attacking immersion.  How many times does this need to be repeated before the straw man dies?

Immersion does not require tunnel vision.  Immersion does not require fanatical adherence to staying in character 100% at all times during play.  Immersion does not require the 100% exclusion of all metagame interests.  These are features that I've labeled as Deep Immersion, and it is Deep Immersion that I have labeled as selfish.

Immersion itself is just a technique.  And like most any technique can be used in near infinite combination with other techniques.

Immerse, come up for air, look around, make a concious effort to adjust your character's priorities based on meta game issues for the group, go back under and immerse again.  Immerse all you want.  Not selfish.

Its when you absolutely, positively, refuse to do anything else at the table but Immerse...100% Immersion, 100% of the time, that Immersion becomes what I've called Deep Immersion.  Now its selfish.  This has nothing to do with preference.



Oh and for the record.  Immersion is NOT a Creative Agenda.  Any attempt to treat it as a Creative Agenda (as you have attempted to label it above) is summarily dismissed by me.  Immersion is a Technique, and must be discussed in the language of Techniques.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I'm aggreeing with Ralph about Deep Immersion. It's frequently called Immersionism (or Turku school, as the case may be) here in Finland, mainly because just plain immersion has a Finnish word (eläytyminen) and is anyway something all people participating in literary works do all the time. Deep Immersion is a technique, and quite sensibly it's one that really accomodates only a) other immersionists, b) an auteur GM using strong force to keep the immersing players in the drama and c) passive players accepting the GM for other reasons. I have a somewhat personal relationship with the style (as you might have noticed) because it's in the Finnish blood right now and I confront it every time I start playing with anyone not a D&D player.

At the same time I'd like to note that there are other techniques just as narrow. Take hardcore gamism, for example. It will similarly only accomodate other players of the same ilk. Deep immersion is one ideal of play, and I would think that as long as it's recognized it's no worse than others. Just harder to execute to satisfaction. Whatever proselytizing the adherents of the style might do (and indeed do frequently in Finland) is a separate social problem.

In closing I suggest that you all should read the thread once more before continuing. I'm not seeing that much difference in the opinions, just some different emphasis and word use. The best you'll come up with is that Deep Immersion is hard and extreme and that some don't like it.

[Valamir]

At the same time I'd like to note that there are other techniques just as narrow. Take hardcore gamism, for example. It will similarly only accomodate other players of the same ilk.

Absolutely true.  

There is very little difference between a deep immersionist and a hardcore power gamer save the specific technique they're being selfish about.  

Of interest, however, to me.  Is that hardcore power gamers often attempt to deny that they are hardcore power gamers, while deep immersionists generally not only acknowledge that they are but actively encourage others to be.

An interesting example of the spin control that has gone on in the hobby historically to establish "right" and "wrong" behavior.

[Jonathan Walton]

I feel like you guys are getting into an ideological debate here, about personal preferences, with only some tangential connection to the "facts," whatever those are.

So there's always been this tension in roleplaying, between Personal Experience and Personal Expression, between You and the Group, between Immersion and Constructing Narrative.  This some of what John gets at in his "Beyond Role and Play" article, actually.

Super-heavy Immersion junkies (like Juhana Pettersson), claim that the degree of removal required for creating a cohesive narrative is unnecessary and barking up the wrong tree.  Juhana has claimed (in his "Battle Against Primitivism" article in the same book) that many valuable roleplaying sessions don't make good stories, because it's the individual experiences that are ultimately valuable, not the resulting narrative.  He even goes so far that we should move away from "creating stories" in roleplaying, towards creating experiences that are valued for completely different, non-literary reasons.

On the other hand, all the Narrativist junkies (including the bulk of American roleplayers, raised on heavy Sim/Nar hybrids with a focus on "telling stories") think this sounds ridiculous.  You want to be able to look back on a session and see how the narrative emerged from the collaborative interaction of the participants.  It's not about individual experience, it's about the group's experience as a whole.  This inevitably involves stepping out from heavy immersion, to consider things from a distance and make choices based on what's good for the group.

Now, beyond the extremists on both sides, most of us fall somewhere in the middle.  We like to be able to personally enjoy what's going on, but we recognise that roleplaying involves being part of a group.  I think it is indeed the tension between selfish and selfless impulses, but it does the group no good if everyone is selflessly trying to assist in someone else's experience, because then there would be no direction.  People have to alter their play and behavior to be selfish about the things they really care about, but be willing to bend and compromise about the things that others really care about.  This is exactly why the Universalis and Nobilis mechanics work so well, because they assign authority based on how much you care about a given thing.

Actually, I'm planning to discuss this topic in my RPGnet column next week, since I'm covering a few articles from the "BRaP" book, including John's.  This thread will be a great resource.

[John Kim]

If you are interested in allowing the other players to appreciate your actions, then you have to give them something to appreciate.  This means you must be willing to make the effort to engage with them as human beings at the meta level.  This means that from time to time you have to be willing to set aside your own personal desire for immersion.

If you are not willing to set aside your own personal desire for immersion, because doing so would have a negative impact on your own personal enjoyment, then you are putting your welfare above that of others and this is selfish behavior.  

OK, here we have the central assumption of the "Immersion is catatonia" argument.  The argument here is that if a person is immersed, then there is absolutely nothing visible happening for the other players to appreciate.  Any visibility of character to other players requires breaking of immersion -- so therefore immersion must mean a sort of catatonic state.  

This makes no sense to me.  I will cite again the case of an in-character conversation.  Here an immersive player (me, for example) is talking with another player, but both of them are speaking exclusively as their characters.  Now, by speaking, I have commited a visible real-world action which other players can potentially appreciate.  However, I am also immersed in character to an arbitrary degree.  These two things are not exclusive.

[John Kim]

Super-heavy Immersion junkies (like Juhana Pettersson), claim that the degree of removal required for creating a cohesive narrative is unnecessary and barking up the wrong tree.  Juhana has claimed (in his "Battle Against Primitivism" article in the same book) that many valuable roleplaying sessions don't make good stories, because it's the individual experiences that are ultimately valuable, not the resulting narrative.  He even goes so far that we should move away from "creating stories" in roleplaying, towards creating experiences that are valued for completely different, non-literary reasons.

On the other hand, all the Narrativist junkies (including the bulk of American roleplayers, raised on heavy Sim/Nar hybrids with a focus on "telling stories") think this sounds ridiculous.  You want to be able to look back on a session and see how the narrative emerged from the collaborative interaction of the participants.  It's not about individual experience, it's about the group's experience as a whole.  This inevitably involves stepping out from heavy immersion, to consider things from a distance and make choices based on what's good for the group.  

It's a very good point.  I would note that the typical format of play probably has a lot to do with this.  I think it is no coincidence that many of the Immersion junkies are from a tradition of live-action games.  In a LARP with 20 or more people, it is literally impossible to appreciate the "group's experience as a whole", because no one sees it.  You can try to project to the people immediately around you, but since you don't know what they've seen or what is going on with them this is a tricky proposition.  The storytelling sort of unified focus on the whole is only possible in a smaller environment like tabletop play where there are typically 3 to 5 players.  

By the way, you use the label "Narrativist" for the performative/storytelling paradigm, but I think that's confusing.  I actually agree with Ralph (shockingly :-) that immersion vs storytelling are in GNS terms Techniques, not Creative Agendas.

[C. Edwards]

Hey John,

I (and all the other people reading this thread and gritting our teeth) would appreciate if you'd stop quoting out of context.

Ralph also said this in that very same post:

Immersion does not require tunnel vision. Immersion does not require fanatical adherence to staying in character 100% at all times during play. Immersion does not require the 100% exclusion of all metagame interests. These are features that I've labeled as Deep Immersion, and it is Deep Immersion that I have labeled as selfish.

He's been talking about a very specific type of immersion, and that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle.

I know this is an issue near and dear to some of you guys, but please, some listening has to go on between rebuttals.

Thanks much,

-Chris

[Jonathan Walton]

By the way, you use the label "Narrativist" for the performative/storytelling paradigm, but I think that's confusing.  I actually agree with Ralph (shockingly :-) that immersion vs storytelling are in GNS terms Techniques, not Creative Agendas.

Granted.  Ron just gets annoyed with me if I try to talk about narrative and don't mean "Narrativism."  Of course, he also dislikes the use of "story" as a term, so it's hard to know what to go with here.  I guess I'll stick to the "immersion vs. storytelling" language, even though the latter term's been corrupted by White Wolf, to a certain extent.

Just to set out my thoughts more clearly, while I agree that heavy immersion, without setting it up with the group beforehand, can be selfish (with the negative/destructive connotation that word often has), but that trying for heavy immersion within a supportive environment, where creating story/narrative isn't the intended goal, should be fine.  It might still be selfish (no negative connotation) or self-indulgant, but there's nothing wrong with that.  If people want to assist you in your immersive experience, more power to you.

After all, despite what John says in his article, one's haracter isn't necessarily the main source of "experience" or value in roleplaying.  I don't know how many times I've enjoyed watching Michael Babbitt play (the GM of this Vampire game I was in, who's a professional actor and director) and experiencing the game through him and his characters, to the neglect of my own.  There's no reason that one player can't take the role of Hamlet and another be Horatio, with all that implies, "best supporting actor" and whatnot.  Sure, this isn't a balanced, everyone-has-the-same-degree-of-investment game that's held up as a Holy Grail, but that's not necessarily what we want.