Group player ownership of all PC's

[Valamir]

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.

The "Immersion is Catatonia" arguement has never been a part of anything I've said.  I don't know where you're drawing it from, if your misinterpreting, or if you invented it for the purpose of debunking it; but I'll take no ownership of it Your debunking of it is quite correct as its completely false.  Since it is not now, nor ever has been part of any point I've ever made, its debunking does not in anyway compromise anything I've said here.

Not once have I ever said that there is nothing visible going on when someone is Immersed (if you can find a link where I've said, then I'll happily retract it).


What I have said is that there are often important invisible things that are going on, that would be valuable to reveal that cannot (or typically are not) revealable strictly through in character play.  That is a very different thing.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, theater has long acknowledged the truth of this and the necessity of sometimes being willing to break character to convey important information using soliloquy.  In movies you often have flash back sequences and voiced over narration to perform similiar functions.  Another common tactic is to have two bit-characters discussing the main character amongst themselves and in so doing reveal important aspects of the main character that the main character would never reveal himself (or at least not at that time when the playwrite judged it valuable for the audience to know).


In roleplaying there are similiar occassions where the conveying of such information to the audience is valuable.  Often times it cannot be conveyed solely through in character portrayal.  Often times it cannot simply wait until discussion after the scenario.

Play in character can reveal ALOT about your character.  It can reveal alot about your character's desires and personality.  It can reveal all manner of important information and can be well appreciated for the skill with which its accomplished.

But it cannot accomplish everything.  On occassion, there are other techniques that can accomplish things better.  Using those techniques well takes practice to get it right.  Those techniques are not a magic bullet that will solve all problems.  Using them in appropriately can be detrimental.  None of that is in question.  

But refusing to use those techniques ever.  Refusing to allow them to be used at the table by anyone.  Refusing to even consider their use during play.  That is selfish behavior, because the only thing that is served by such refusal is the preservation of ones own personal preference.



I would bet good money John that you are fully capable of using and appreciating the use of those other techniques when they're called for.  I would bet good money that you do so regularly and that you fully expect the players in your games to do so regularly.  I would bet good money that you are not in the habit of cracking down on players who dare to come out from under their immersion during play to use them.  I would bet good money that you routinely use immersion as an effective technique in exactly the manner that I've described using it above.  I would bet good money that none of the wonderful actual play examples that you frequently comment on here (vinland and water uphill being the foremost ones I remember) were accomplished through 100% immersion 100% of the time by 100% of the players.  I would be very surprised to hear I'm wrong in this.

[John Kim]

Play in character can reveal ALOT about your character.  It can reveal alot about your character's desires and personality.  It can reveal all manner of important information and can be well appreciated for the skill with which its accomplished.

But it cannot accomplish everything.  On occassion, there are other techniques that can accomplish things better.  Using those techniques well takes practice to get it right.  Those techniques are not a magic bullet that will solve all problems.  Using them inappropriately can be detrimental.  None of that is in question.  

OK, this is a statement which I can agree with.  Yes, I agree that there are techniques not available for immersion -- and those techniques can be enjoyed, depending of course on the group and the circumstances.  However, like everything else this is a trade-off.  There is no absolute standard for "right" and "appropriate" and "inappropriate" and "detrimental".  The same game which one person enjoys might be disliked by another.  

By comparison, I think that dice rolls are a technique which can be enjoyed.  With practice and appropriate use, they can be very enjoyable.  But this doesn't mean that diceless play is bad or selfish for excluding dice-using techniques.  

But refusing to use those techniques ever.  Refusing to allow them to be used at the table by anyone.  Refusing to even consider their use during play.  That is selfish behavior, because the only thing that is served by such refusal is the preservation of ones own personal preference.  

Well, I completely agree that there is no such thing as the "one true way".  So refusing to even consider their use is bad -- and texts which say that it is inherent in role-playing are wrong.  However, choosing upon consideration to have a game which is deeply immersive (i.e. lacking those techniques) is reasonable and not inherently selfish.  I would say: everything in moderation, especially moderation.  

Texts which declare deep immersion the "one true way" are wrong, but that doesn't mean that the style, when freely and thoughtfully chosen, is wrong.  

I would bet good money John that you are fully capable of using and appreciating the use of those other techniques when they're called for.  
...
I would bet good money that none of the wonderful actual play examples that you frequently comment on here (vinland and water uphill being the foremost ones I remember) were accomplished through 100% immersion 100% of the time by 100% of the players.  I would be very surprised to hear I'm wrong in this.  

Well, you're absolutely right about Vinland.  It definitely has a fair amount of meta-game awareness, notably the use of Whimsy Cards but also in other aspects of play.  So there's lots of non-immersive technique and it's fun.  

However, Water-Uphill-World was at least pretty close to strict immersive play.  It was an experimental game in terms of being nearly-pure Threefold Simulationist, no Out-of-Character knowledge.  And to be fair, I enjoy how Vinland turned out a lot more.  However, I don't at all consider Water-Uphill-World a mistake or a failure.  It was trying out a different approach, and it worked pretty well and I learned some interesting things by trying it that way.

[contracycle]

OK, this is a statement which I can agree with.  Yes, I agree that there are techniques not available for immersion -- and those techniques can be enjoyed, depending of course on the group and the circumstances.  However, like everything else this is a trade-off.  There is no absolute standard for "right" and "appropriate" and "inappropriate" and "detrimental".  The same game which one person enjoys might be disliked by another.  

I disagree that there is an important trade-off; I do not think that engaging in character exposition entails a significant diminution of the immersed experience.  This is necessarily the case if everyone has agreed that immersionism is not catatonia.

And thats the crux of the matter: the immersionist player in Johns model is NOT denied the opportunity to use these techniques by their preference or anyone elses; they are not unaware of the presence of other players; they are not unaware of the momentum of story, such as it is.

And BECAUSE they are necessarily aware of these things, it is indeed selfish to sit there and think "I CHOOSE not to express my character".

As you said, players can convey a lot through character action - but to my mind this requires awareness of the necessity of such portrayal.  Such activity will necessarily NOT include thiose aspects of the character that the character is not willingly to openly discuss.  It also imits comuunication to the verbal.  My only argument is that there is a lot else that people communicate through body language and other means, and that these too require - and I do say require - explicit portrayal.  Not to do so is a conscious choice, IMO, and one of which I disaprove.  Immersionism is not inherently like catatonia, but an immerionist favouring player who turns down every opportunity to express themselves EXCEPT when their characters lips are moving is effectively reproducing that.  I say if you want to play a shared game, you have an obligation to cooperate with your fellow players and communicate with them.  A player who elects not to do so does not seem to be worth playing with, IMO.

[beingfrank]

OK, this is a statement which I can agree with.  Yes, I agree that there are techniques not available for immersion -- and those techniques can be enjoyed, depending of course on the group and the circumstances.  However, like everything else this is a trade-off.  There is no absolute standard for "right" and "appropriate" and "inappropriate" and "detrimental".  The same game which one person enjoys might be disliked by another.  

I disagree that there is an important trade-off; I do not think that engaging in character exposition entails a significant diminution of the immersed experience.  This is necessarily the case if everyone has agreed that immersionism is not catatonia.

Well, I think you need to recognise that there are degrees.  All character exposition, all the time, would be a significant diminution of the immersed experience.  No character exposition, ever, would, as you say below, be annoying to me, but I'm not sure it happens.  How much exposition is going to be a matter of personal, and group, perference.  Like how often to take smoking breaks, or any other of a million aspects of roleplaying.

How does that sound?

And thats the crux of the matter: the immersionist player in Johns model is NOT denied the opportunity to use these techniques by their preference or anyone elses; they are not unaware of the presence of other players; they are not unaware of the momentum of story, such as it is.

And BECAUSE they are necessarily aware of these things, it is indeed selfish to sit there and think "I CHOOSE not to express my character".

As you said, players can convey a lot through character action - but to my mind this requires awareness of the necessity of such portrayal.  Such activity will necessarily NOT include thiose aspects of the character that the character is not willingly to openly discuss.  It also imits comuunication to the verbal.  My only argument is that there is a lot else that people communicate through body language and other means, and that these too require - and I do say require - explicit portrayal.  Not to do so is a conscious choice, IMO, and one of which I disaprove.  Immersionism is not inherently like catatonia, but an immerionist favouring player who turns down every opportunity to express themselves EXCEPT when their characters lips are moving is effectively reproducing that.

Are they players who do this?  Who express nothing except the verbal actions of their character?  Who portray no body language, tone of voice, facial expression or anything?

Ok, so my actual experience of different roleplayers is limited, but I do know a number who self-identify as highly immersonist, and I've never seen anyone play like that.  Of course they wouldn't be fun to play with much of the time, but do they really exist?

[Callan S.]

Ralph has gotten his point across to me and I think it's a valid tag, though if everyone is in deep immersion its probably more self-ist rather than self-ish, if that makes any sense (the latter being something seen as negative, while the former means they've gotten around atleast the negative connatation)

So I'll ask Ralph now, do you think GM's can do this as well? Not so much deep immmersion into any particular NPC, but into the world as a whole (with NPC's part of that whole).

Perhaps like the GM in this link from actual play http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10782

[contracycle]

Well, I think you need to recognise that there are degrees. All character exposition, all the time, would be a significant diminution of the immersed experience. No character exposition, ever, would, as you say below, be annoying to me, but I'm not sure it happens. How much exposition is going to be a matter of personal, and group, perference. Like how often to take smoking breaks, or any other of a million aspects of roleplaying. quote]

Sure; I would say, rather, that I feel it is an under-utilised technique IMO, partly because of the strict IC doctrine in extant RPG texts.  I think many games would benefit from constructing mechanistic scenes which require character exposition as part of their structure.

Ok, so my actual experience of different roleplayers is limited, but I do know a number who self-identify as highly immersonist, and I've never seen anyone play like that.  Of course they wouldn't be fun to play with much of the time, but do they really exist?

Lets say, I'm not entirely sure.  I can say I have seen players with such a strong commitment to their private agendas that they appeared to resent having to discuss them with the GM.  But more specifically for this thread, I suspect we may be talking at cross purposes.

As I read Johns argument, conscious portrayal is anthema to immersion, and any character exposition is an emergent property of character action.

My own position, and Valamirs I believe, is that this is not wholly adequate and it is probable that in the case of Johns game, some non-verbal, non-explicit character expostion was indeed carried out - I feel this is implied if other players can recognise the depth of the character in this immersed mode.

[contracycle]

Perhaps like the GM in this link from actual play http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10782

My response would be "yes".  You see, I think that in our commitment to the IC perspective, we lose sight of the real communication between the participants and subordinate it to the IC communication among characters.  I think that explicit techniques for exposition - in this case plot exposition - go a long way to serving that role.  I am calling for MORE use of dramatic techniques.

[Valamir]

So I'll ask Ralph now, do you think GM's can do this as well? Not so much deep immmersion into any particular NPC, but into the world as a whole (with NPC's part of that whole).

Well, yes.  But I think that its a significantly different phenomenon.

I would think that such behavior on the part of the GM would be more universally recognized as bad GMing, even among groups that encourage the deepest of immersion.  

Being the GM carries with it built in metagame obligation.  So over immersing as a GM (whether into an NPC or into the "world") I think represents a different impulse than that which leads to deep immersion in players.

[Mike Holmes]

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.

You're correct. But what I mean to say is that the assumption isn't always that the players want to appreciate the metagame play of the other players. Which seems to be your assumption. Again, nobody is saying that the players don't have metagame goals or rationales, just that they involve enjoying staying in character, and affecting the game only via avatars, and not at all in the metagame.

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.

This is a gross mischaracterization. Nobody is saying that socialization isn't occuring. The players are socializing, and rewarding each other in a metagame sense. The only "violation" in Immersion is mixing the metagame with the in-game. You do appreciate the other players play, but what you appriciate is them not crossing that line.

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.

Total non-sequitur. If we assume that the players all prefer Immersion, then they're appreciating that the other players don't cross the line. You do engage with them on the meta level, saying things like, "Wow, you're really portraying that character well, I appreciate your ability to stay in character."

1) Deep Immersion is a technique that is 100% incompatable with any other technique but itself.

That's no more true than saying that Author stance is 100% incompatible with anything but itself. As we know, play can manage to be somewhere between totally incoherent, and totally coherent. Immersion may have some greater requirement or not, but it's really a moot point. The assumption is, again, a group of 100% immersionists. Or, rather a group with a CA that's immersionist.

2) It has been and in some circles continues to be actively promoted as the right way to play.

Because they prefer it, presumably.

3) Groups promoting this style are among the most aggressive at indoctrinating other players to the technique

More power to them. Whether or not this is "natural" or not is for another debate - there is no mandate to play "naturally." If a group wants to go to extremes to have play be the way they want it, then good for them.

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".

Again with the inflamatory language. "Virulent"? How about artistic? I'm not going to make an aesthetic judegement on it, but obviously you've taken that extra step. You're painting the CA as somehow automatically socially dysfunctional, when people do it funcitonally all the time.

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.

Again, this is just an argument against incoherence, which nobody disagrees with, AFAICT. Your argument seems to be that there are so few people that "really" like Immersionist play that there can't possibly be entire groups who want this. Well, that's going to be hard to prove. Why can't we just stick with the principle of coherence, and leave it at that? Why must Immersionism be singled out as more often incoherent? That's a subjective opinion, and doesn't mean that any specific individual is being selfish.

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.

Wait, wait. You're saying that we're making up a straw man? I think it is you who is making up a straw man. My confusion was that, at first, you seemed to use Deep Immersion and Immersion interchangably. But if you're saying that there are Immersionists who don't socialize at all, then I'm saying that these people don't actually exist. There are no "Deep Immersionists" as you're labling them. I mean, sure there are those who don't break character during play, but they socialize before and after. It's like you're saying that being in a theatre group isn't social beause they never stop in the middle of a performance to explain OOC why their character is doing something. Isn't there appluse at the end, a social apprieciation of the actors staying so well in character? Yes, yes, theatre isn't roleplaying, but can't you see a mode of play in which immersion was valued enough that the social reinforcement only happened during down time?

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.

Immersion is a technique that supports a very specific form of Simulationism, moreso when it's used as the sole form of interaction. It's that CA to which I refer. If the group has that CA, then use of the Immersion technique, and only the Immersion technique as a method for player interaction with the SIS, is not only not selfish, it's what the group has mandated; in which case stepping OOC to do something would be the selfish thing to do.

Is that a more cogent use of the dialectic?

Mike

[contracycle]

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.

You're correct. But what I mean to say is that the assumption isn't always that the players want to appreciate the metagame play of the other players. Which seems to be your assumption. Again, nobody is saying that the players don't have metagame goals or rationales, just that they involve enjoying staying in character, and affecting the game only via avatars, and not at all in the metagame.

BUT: appreciating other players does not require any effect on the game via avatars or in any other manner - because it is not an action.  Its an observation.  Now my argument is that when I am in Audience stance as a non-spotlight player, I DO want to see the other player being expressive via their avatar.

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.

This is a gross mischaracterization. Nobody is saying that socialization isn't occuring. The players are socializing, and rewarding each other in a metagame sense. The only "violation" in Immersion is mixing the metagame with the in-game. You do appreciate the other players play, but what you appriciate is them not crossing that line.

Total non-sequitur. If we assume that the players all prefer Immersion, then they're appreciating that the other players don't cross the line.

But that appears to be all they would be able to appreciate without some degree of portrayal - adherence ot the social contract.  They would not, it seems to me, be able to appreciate the depth of a character.  And that does not seem at all plausible to me.

Wait, wait. You're saying that we're making up a straw man? I think it is you who is making up a straw man. My confusion was that, at first, you seemed to use Deep Immersion and Immersion interchangably. But if you're saying that there are Immersionists who don't socialize at all, then I'm saying that these people don't actually exist. There are no "Deep Immersionists" as you're labling them.

This distinction has been introduced to try to circumvent one of John Kim's defences.  JK says that in the immersivist story model, appreciation of the characters identity oustide of passive observation of character action is unimportant and possibly counterproductive.  I have suggested that this is not enough and that I as another player expect that player to invest some effort in communicating with me directly, not with my character.  This isnnot to say that I think such players are catatonic and that this is an inherent mode of immersionism - the distinction Valamir is trying to make.  Rather I object to the CLAIM that this is unnecessary, as this this seems to advocate catatonia-like play.

I mean, sure there are those who don't break character during play, but they socialize before and after. It's like you're saying that being in a theatre group isn't social beause they never stop in the middle of a performance to explain OOC why their character is doing something.

OOC has nothing to do with it.  acting is communication, through word and tone and gesture.  John has argued that attention to this is uncessary or counterproductive.  This analogy isn't; the problem does not arise in theatre because the trope of character veracity is couteracted by the convention and necessity of communicating with the audience.  I think we need to do more of that sort of thing.

Isn't there appluse at the end, a social apprieciation of the actors staying so well in character? Yes, yes, theatre isn't roleplaying, but can't you see a mode of play in which immersion was valued enough that the social reinforcement only happened during down time?

Yes, but a character on stage who never communicates anything to the audience, never enagges the audience, and merely expects the audience to deduce their mental state from first principles and limited observation is not likely to get any applause.

[Halzebier]

Isn't there appluse at the end, a social apprieciation of the actors staying so well in character? Yes, yes, theatre isn't roleplaying, but can't you see a mode of play in which immersion was valued enough that the social reinforcement only happened during down time?

Yes, but a character on stage who never communicates anything to the audience, never enagges the audience, and merely expects the audience to deduce their mental state from first principles and limited observation is not likely to get any applause.

If the immersionist player conveys to the other players - afterwards - how deeply he was affected by the experience or *even if the others take his word for that*, then there is an achievement worth applauding and rejoicing about.

The other players will likely feel that they have contributed to the immersionist player's personal epiphany by not breaking character themselves.

And helping someone else to achieve something is a reward in itself, the moreso if the feeling is reciprocal (in the case of a group entirely composed of immersionist players).

Regards,

Hal

[John Kim]

I should clarify my position here.  I am not touting immersion as a superior form of play.  I do want to dispel the idea that it is inherently selfish -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't equally interesting possibilities in non-immersive play.  Obviously, if the others in the group don't like immersion, it is selfish to engage in it.  But if the others in the group do appreciate it (which they may), then it is not selfish.  

This distinction has been introduced to try to circumvent one of John Kim's defences.  JK says that in the immersivist story model, appreciation of the characters identity oustide of passive observation of character action is unimportant and possibly counterproductive.  I have suggested that this is not enough and that I as another player expect that player to invest some effort in communicating with me directly, not with my character.  This is not to say that I think such players are catatonic and that this is an inherent mode of immersionism - the distinction Valamir is trying to make.  Rather I object to the CLAIM that this is unnecessary, as this this seems to advocate catatonia-like play.

It is perfectly reasonable for you to say that you don't like immersive play because immersive play doesn't give you "enough" of what you want -- and you prefer more meta-game, out-of-character communication.  However, it is not reasonable to say that lack of that kind of communication is catatonia.  Both in-character and out-of-character speech are communication between real players.  Both can be interesting to see and participate in.  

Maybe it would help to distinguish different types of things which are being called "immersion" --

1) Catatonia
The player is totally wrapped up in her own thoughts and does not interact with the other players.  She is perhaps thinking in-character, but does not display any outward signs of character.  Obviously, no one advocates this or plays this way in real games.  

2) Multiple Personality Disorder
The player wholly believes he is the character, acting and thinking in real time as the character without any awareness that he is in a game.  He will, say, attack other players if his character would attack them.  Again, this doesn't exist as a real play style.  However, note that even in this non-existant extreme, the person is still engaging in deliberate person-to-person communication -- and I posit that it could be interesting (but scary) to watch.  

3) Bodily Channeling
The player is aware that it is a game and will process signs and so forth (i.e. engage in mock combat rather than real combat), but is otherwise wholly acting as the character.  i.e. During the game she goes through time 1-to-1 as her character.  While this is vaguely functionally possible, it is the rare case only possible in some LARPs, and not what is generally meant by "immersive play".

4) Close Identification
The player consistently and more-or-less continuously emotionally identifies with his PC.  However, he is active in meta-game activities such as describing what his character does, responding to changes in scene, passing the chips, consulting rules, and so forth -- which is required for tabletop play.  The player is thus frequently verbally communicating in the meta-game about the character, as opposed to purely in-character voice.  However, his emotional interest is focussed on his character -- so he will tend to be interested in surrounding events based on how they impact his character, rather than as independent stories.  In tabletop play, he is not in 1-to-1 time with the character, and thus will select times of interest to focus on.  

acting is communication, through word and tone and gesture.  John has argued that attention to this is uncessary or counterproductive.  This analogy isn't; the problem does not arise in theatre because the trope of character veracity is couteracted by the convention and necessity of communicating with the audience.  I think we need to do more of that sort of thing.  

I would say the argument here is over types of communication.  The "immersion is catatonia" argument relies on the idea that a player who is immersed isn't communicating.  I'm saying that isn't true.  Communication occurs in a different stance, but it is still real information communicated between real people.  

Now, as far as the analogy with theater goes, I would agree with you.  The immersive story model that I outline wouldn't work well for the stage.  A passive audience wouldn't see a protagonist.  i.e. There would be no central figure to identify with, and the on-stage events wouldn't come across as a coherent story.  To be interesting, immersive play requires that you have a character who is an active part of the events.  This character becomes the protagonist for you.

[Halzebier]

I am not touting immersion as a superior form of play.  I do want to dispel the idea that it is inherently selfish -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't equally interesting possibilities in non-immersive play.  Obviously, if the others in the group don't like immersion, it is selfish to engage in it.  But if the others in the group do appreciate it (which they may), then it is not selfish.

Amen to that.

I feel that the insistence on using a negative word ('selfish') to describe the style equates to not accepting it as fully valid.

I find this aggravating and an obstacle to discussion -- I'd rather see people move on to talking about the ramifications of immersionist play (e.g. I posit that it entails an increased danger of assumption clash and I wonder if/how that could be alleviated).

4) Close Identification
The player consistently and more-or-less continuously emotionally identifies with his PC.  However, he is active in meta-game activities such as describing what his character does, responding to changes in scene, passing the chips, consulting rules, and so forth -- which is required for tabletop play.  The player is thus frequently verbally communicating in the meta-game about the character, as opposed to purely in-character voice.

Yes. I'd like to stress that he does not explain his character's motives or voice opinions about his or any other character's actions or the story.

Post-game analysis & evaluation are purely optional.

*-*-*

Incidentally, I think that compromises between immersionists and non-immersionists are possible (and I read John that way).

For instance, having a single immersionist player in a non-immersionist group is probably acceptable, if both sides relax their standards: the immersionist will be exposed to metagame commentary and the non-immersionists will have one player in their midst who makes less of a contribution.

Regards,

Hal

[Valamir]

I should clarify my position here. I am not touting immersion as a superior form of play. I do want to dispel the idea that it is inherently selfish -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't equally interesting possibilities in non-immersive play.

You know I am finding it increasingly and exceedingly aggrevating that while I've been quite clear in differentiating Immersion (a fine technique) from Deep Immersion (an inherently selfish technique) that others chose to willfully continue to confound the two.

I find it entirely compelling and conclusive that the only two counter arguements that are even being attempted against my position both involve redefining the term Deep Immersion and then disagreeing with the redefinition.

Arguement 1) is to keep swinging the discussion back to regular old plain jane, identify with character play.  By using the term "immersion" to describe completely ordinary every day roleplaying, you attempt to demonstrate how immersion is not selfish play at all.  Of course it isn't.  Which is why I've been very clear about the sort of play I am describing as DEEP IMMERSION.  I am getting beyond irritated, at the tactic which keeps "forgetting that" and seeks to prove that regular immersion is not selfish.  A point I've agreed with since the beginning and which has no bearing on my position at all.  

or
2) taking my points about Deep Immersionist play to extreme lengths of absurdity so you can then say "but that style of play doesn't exist".  Of course not again.  When you exaggerate the characteristics to the point of absurdity it certainly doesn't exist, at least not in any numbers worth being concerned about.  But the sort of play I've described, not redefined, very much does exist, very much is still held out as the "one true way to play" by many roleplayers (largely because many of them have never encountered functional alternatives and so simply don't know any better), and does attempt to aggressively indoctrinate new players into the style.  


Apparently the only way opponents of my position that Deep Immersionist play is inherently selfish are able to disagree with it, is by completely redefining the term so they can counter their redefinition.  I've yet to see one arguement against it that is addressed the actual definition which I've painstakingly outlined multiple times already.  This is why, every single response I've had to make in this thread has been about correcting those misleading statements rather than actually discussing the points I've made.

Given that, I'm quite satisfied that my point stands and that continued disagreement is simply the result of people uncomfortable with having a style they have sympathy for being criticised and feeling the need to leap to its defense, even if their arguements in defense of it are entirely falicious (and entirely unnecessary since what they are apparently defending is not something that's being criticised)


Therefor, given, that this was Callan's thread where he requested clarification of my position, and I have done so apparently to his satisfaction, I am done here.  Any further discussion on validity of my position can be taken to a new thread, and I'll be happy to respond there provided the dissenter wants to argue a point that I actually said.

[Callan S.]

Thanks Ralph, you did satisfy my curiosity on the original question. But I'd like to ask a suplemental question. It's not questioning the validity of the idea, just asking for more info, so I'm asking here rather than in that new thread. I'll understand if your worn out on the topic and can't get to me though.

Okay, is deep immersion something that is also relative to other players immersion. For example, everyone agrees to a certain amount of immersion (ie, the immerse, then come up for air, look around and immerse again in a certain proportion). I'll give an arbitrary number and say they immerse 50% of the time and that's what they agree to. Now, what if someone there begins immersing 70% of the time. Not so much deep immersion but deeper (than everyone else) immersion.

With the 50% mark, you'll probably miss some tells and things from other players, and some techniques might be closed to you. But you'll still pick up a lot of tells and still be able to use a lot of techniques. But someone who's at 70% or whatever, will have more tells and techniques locked off from them. If the social contract says it should be around the 50% mark but one person takes it to 70%, thus missing more of the happy/unhappy with the game tells from other people and not employing all the techniques others are using, is this the selfish behavior? And is it produced by a relatively deeper immersion than others at the table?

Certainly some of your examples sound sort of like this, where two people for example at the table push hard for deep immersion and the rest of the players are dragged along. But is it possible that true deep immersionists are rare and in such examples those guys are probably pushing a high percentage (perhaps in the ninties or such), while everyone else wants something in the twenties or such.

Or is this a seperate issue? Certainly it ties in with selfishness...these guys are ignoring tells that it's been agreed should be noted, and they are excluding techniques others are using in good faith. But perhaps it's just related. What do you think?