Deep Immersion

[Halzebier]

1. Absolute immersion is impossible
Yes, this seems to me accurate.  Barring some sort of trance-state, something I have never seen proposed on any side of this debate, pure immersion is quite impossible.  And certainly if you really wanted to achieve it, you would have to discard physical barriers such as dice, tables, pencils, rulebooks, and whatnot.

The closest I've heard about is having dreams from the point of view of a character. But this is really beside the point, as this is neither a gaming situation nor necessarily a privilege of immersionist players.

However, it brings me to another point:

The sub-techniques* of immersionism (e.g. leaving the room when the party splits up) are not effective or necessary for everyone.

[*Immersionism has been dubbed a technique, rather than a CA, so I have some trouble expressing myself here.]

I.e., in all likelihood, some people achieve the same 'depth' of immersion (close, visceral identification) without having to employ a given sub-technique.

I want to dispel the notion that immersion can only be achieved by specific sub-techniques.

Players craving immersion have had good experiences by taking the road of "avoiding metagame as much as possible", but some people are better at "getting into character" than others and may not understand what all the fuss is about.

Most likely, some people achieve immersion easily, without trying and without making it their primary goal. More power to them - but rather than look down upon those who need to avoid metagame as much as possible, shouldn't we look at why it's easy?

Regards,

Hal
--
P.S.: Sorry, for the rambling - I'm in a bit of a hurry.

[TonyLB]

I'd like to take a moment to thank Chris for (at least to my mind) nicely categorizing the things under discussion.  I will devote myself briefly to point #5.

It seems a bit strange to imply that vocal popular support is a sign of a flawed, rather than simply a popular, point of view.  

I'm torn.  I agree that I've met with people who seem emotionally vested in suppressing any non-immersionist roleplay.  And subjectively, hoo boy do they stick out in my memory.

But objectively, I don't know that I've seen a lot of these people.  I see many more who are advocating for immersion for the two reasons we all advocate for our own styles:  (1) They think other people will enjoy them, and (2) There is a practical benefit for them to having a group that consistently pursues and understands the same techniques.

[greyorm]

Grey, are you confused about why people would consciously pursue an unbounded goal? Or are you referring to something else?

No, no confusion here. I understand the value in pursuing an impossible goal, but only when the seeker realizes the goal is impossible, and his real reasons for heading that direction end up being the steps taken along the way. What I'm referring to above is pursuit of the goal for all the wrong reasons and in completely the wrong mindset.

Chris is right, I may have gotten too caught up in my own wordplay. So, before painting myself into a corner, let me restate the problem as I see it.

Most RP texts go to great lengths to paint immersion as good and metagame as bad. There are usually sections devoted to this idea, but what is generally missing from those sections is any suggestion that metagame is going to happen and how to deal with it in a play-enhancing manner rather than avoid it/cover it up/call it bad.

Why? Dealing with it as a factual and definitive event affecting play would immediately break the immersion:good / metagame:bad dichotomy previously established in both text and tradition. If suddenly you are dealing with metagame as a concrete thing that is going to happen, you can't call it "bad" anymore. It just "is."

Now, metagame might be undesirable, might be counter-productive to the player's goals, but it isn't inherently a bad thing anymore, just a curve in the road. And suddenly, it becomes acceptable, as well -- for the deeply indoctrinated, that's just not allowable. It is THE ENEMY! It is ALL BAD!

Current texts are schizophrenic in this regard, because metagame is painted as something that shouldn't happen, that it's bad no matter what, and players who engage in it are thus bad or wrong for doing so. Even though everyone recognizes upon reflection, and will admit that, no they really aren't.

It's like the twin cousin of TITBB.

This is where a lot of the garbage debate of "role-playing" versus "roll-playing" comes from. The standardized belief among gamers is that a session which includes "less dice-rolling" is a "good" session, or somehow a "better" session than one which includes more -- and along with that, a player who does a lot of "immersion/characterization" is a "better" role-player because he's doing the "good stuff" rather than the "bad."

Which ties back into the amusing thing causing all this: due to the dichotomy, anything game related and not immersion related becomes identified with being bad and wrong (after all, how do you seperate metagame from mechanics?). So the entire game, the entire mechanical support of play, is downplayed as less essential, or more "corrupt" than the acting going on -- all of which seems patently self-delusional to me, given that it is a game, and the mechanics are the foundation of play.

That's the mistake of the design -- ignoring the cliff, trying to hide it, rather than discussing it and dealing with it directly as a part of the design.

Now, I'm not talking about celebrating the metagame just because its unavoidable. Just dealing with it directly and honestly, rather than trying to ignore it as though it really can be completely avoided, and setting up expectations and play judgements in deference to that unattainable goal.

It's like being in favor of world peace, and actually putting money and time on the line for it.  Sure, you know there will never be world peace, but does that mean what you're doing is worthless or silly?  This is an exaggerated argument.

While I otherwise agree that pursuit of an idealistic goal may be worthwhile, I agree only in that pursuit of the unattainable goal produces its own lesser rewards, and only if the person engaged understands the goal is impossible, and is thus engaged for the other rewards.

For example, what do you do to achieve world peace? You find places to put money to achieve realistic goals of peace...but wait, since that didn't achieve world peace, you've failed.

The latter is the attitude I speak of above, which occurs frequently in gaming text, and gaming tradition. If you don't immerse, you've failed, or rather, if any metagame influences creep into your play, you've failed. It holds out as "real" the standard that it really can be achieved, and needs to be strived for as the pinnacle of play, dragging a host of expectations and judgements along for the ride.

So, what's the problem?
The rules cannot create an impossible scenario.
There is no rule that can be written to allow or force the metagame to be completely avoided. Yet these are the explicit goals of many such rules and verbal commandments within the text -- rules which fail, which set up expectations and fail, which set up broken judgement criteria...and most gamers figure it must be their play, rather than the rule that is broken or inadequate.

The rules have to be written to achieve or allow goals which are actually possible.

You can minimize metagame.
You can enhance characterization.
You can't avoid metagame.
So why do so many rules try to do the last one, rather than the first two? It's incoherent design.

[Halzebier]

You can minimize metagame.
You can enhance characterization.
You can't avoid metagame.
So why do so many rules try to do the last one, rather than the first two? It's incoherent design.

While your first three points are true, I don't really see any RPGs advocating that one should avoid metagame in general.

(Could you give examples? It's certainly possible that I have big holes in my collection or a spotty memory, especially regarding a notion which I would dismiss anyway.)

Describing some of a character's actions in third person mode, asking the GM to describe a part of the scenery in more detail and so on are all necessary metagaming activities. I doubt this is refuted by anyone.

Some RPGs merely condemn metagaming of the sort which can, in fact, be avoided (e.g. acting on OOC knowledge, whether to your character's advantage or to 'improve' the overall ~story).

These RPGs may be at fault for claiming theirs is the One True Way (TM), but they are not automatically incoherent.

(Incoherence might well stem from other problems, most likely the old Sim dilemma of wanting an exciting ~story but refusing to do anything to help it along. But that's a separate issue.)

Regards,

Hal

[greyorm]

(Could you give examples? It's certainly possible that I have big holes in my collection or a spotty memory, especially regarding a notion which I would dismiss anyway.)

Off the top of my head, D&D 3rd Edition comes to mind, which has a section devoted to "metagame thinking" and why it's the devil's spawn. Something I find vastly ironic, given how bloody Gamist D&D is, and how it encourages a Pawn stance otherwise.

However, in most of the texts, it isn't what they say, it's what they don't say that's the problem. Spelled out like I've done above, yeah, it's a looney notion you'd dismiss out-of-hand upon reading; but it isn't that simple: there's no text that proclaims what I've written above. It's "proclaimed" by what the text leaves out, what it doesn't say, and by what it rewards and encourages.

As to other books and specific texts, I'd have to peruse my library to present more examples. However, consider that oral tradition plays a very large role in spreading the idea as well.

Describing some of a character's actions in third person mode, asking the GM to describe a part of the scenery in more detail and so on are all necessary metagaming activities. I doubt this is refuted by anyone.

Then you'd be surprised at the number of groups where such behaviors are considered out-of-place, even to the point where players who desire more information about the environment are forced to ask or describe in first person ("I examine the rosebeds, blah, blah, blah") or be considered to have "failed" the group dynamic. This isn't mainstream, perhaps, but it isn't that far off the main course, either -- not enough that it can be considered "fringe" or "weird" if a group does have rules of interaction in place of that sort.

Some RPGs merely condemn metagaming of the sort which can, in fact, be avoided (e.g. acting on OOC knowledge, whether to your character's advantage or to 'improve' the overall ~story).

I'm sorry, how is that any better than anything I've described? It relies on the same underlying tradition and unachievable goal presented as achievable. "Metagaming is dirty and foul, don't do it!" is the picture painted by texts, because these leave out everything else that needs to be said, as I mention above. It's what they don't say that is the problem, and expectations set up by the statements.

For example, can you really avoid acting on OOC knowledge? Not really. You can limit yourself, but OOC knowledge is going to creep in. That such an event is commonly considered by tradition to be a cardinal sin highlights the very problem I'm talking about.

These RPGs may be at fault for claiming theirs is the One True Way (TM), but they are not automatically incoherent.

I think you're confusing my little "i" incoherent with the big "I" incoherent. Nonetheless, I could easily make a case that this sort of design does produce big-"I"ncoherence because it sets ups expectations and value judgements based on an impossible end to be compared against, thus causing problems in play regarding

Having experienced these problems myself on occasion in days long past, and even written rules to attempt to "correct" the problem, I'm fairly confident of the situation's existance.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I've been sort of following this conversation sorta kinda and I'm a little puzzled by the whole thing.

I'd experienced really deep immersion when watching movies or reading books and ha completely failed to immerse at all with RPG characters I had created. However metagame may or may not break immersion, I cannot think that it is anything more that the experience I had mentioned where I am a passive obverer outside of the character with absolutely no control since they aren't even roleplaying.

This makes me think there's something else going on here and that worrying about metagame and its effect on immersion is polishing the brass on the Titanic as it goes down.

Is there an effect? Possibly, but I think metagame elements are less detrimental to immersion than other things. But that might be just my experience.

[Peter Hollinghurst]

I dont see why awareness of metagame aspects should get in the way of truely deep immersion in character-my own experience has been that the two are by no means mutually exclusive.
The best example of immersion in character I have experienced was when I was a player in a game of Call of Cthulhu where I had previously GMd the very same adventure for someone else a year previous. I knew all the secrets that needed to be uncovered, the nature of the threat involved, the course of events as they would unfold, character motivations of NPCs etc and yet had the most immersive experience in rpg of my life-the character seemed to 'come alive' for me, and I found myself acting in ways I would never have expected. It changed the course of that characters development from then on, and it became the fullest and most rewarding character I have ever played.
My own experience with acting (and most importantly improvisation and mask work) suggests that it is actually often more powerfull for character immersion to know the general direction everything is going in the game. I would agree with neelk's comments earlier regarding his game of Aquinan angels that such an understanding of plot can help immersion rather than hinder it.
I suspect that gamers often confuse immersion with mystery, and that their goals are actually not to explore the character or enable it to come alive, but to explore the narrative from a viewpoint of 'discovering' its direction much like reading a book for the first time.  They believe that taking an actor stance will heighten this and is 'good play' without actually understanding it. Of course such play is logical in that most people are 'readers' not 'writers' and thats the paradigm they usually come from, but they also forget that re-reading a book is often just as enjoyable-their reader stance has changed from one of seeing a mystery unfold to one of focusing on deeper aspects of the text. I suspect the same dynamics can work very nicely in rpgs-as neelk suggested, metagame knowledge 'frees' the player to immerse themselves instead of obstructing it.
Most of what I have seen as 'immersive' character based play is not that at all-rather it is a weak attempt at 'acting' with very little understanding of what this actually entails-it becomes a forced, concious effort and in the end the reverse of what was intended. A similar dynamic happens when inexperienced actors attempt to take on board Stanislavsky's techniques-they spend a lot of energy trying to 'force' a character, defining its shape in advance of performance to an extreme degree and in doing so loose the essential spirit of the character, which if they opened themselves up to it they would find transforming in their performance. The 'trick' is NOT to plan it all out rationally, but to let the subconcious discover the archetyepal level of identification needed to allow the character to become a 'mask' that almost seems to 'possess' the actor. A sad scene would then make the actor cry not because they have rationalised that they must make themselves do so then, but because they have identified with the scenes sadness deeply.
Perhaps in the end the 'mystery' approach is so ingrained in players used to the old gm-player relationship where the gm has all the information and they then uncover it that for many it may not be possible to step outside of the paradigm and see that many of the goals they expouse in playing may be better achieved by actually knowing many of the metagame elements in advance, or by breaking down the old gm-player relationship entirely and playing gmless games.
So far I have found few players willing to move into gmless styles with advance metagame knowledge, so I would be very interested to know if anyone has found such games to be more or less immersive that the old style.

[greyorm]

Jack and Peter are both correct. Metagame doesn't really affect Immersion...worrying about it really is polishing the brass on a sinking ship.

This is a big part of the problem with the Deep Immersionist party line; the party-line says that metagame is a monstrosity, and any use of or reference to it in play is "cheating" of the highest order, a blasphemous sin, and it must be purged from rules and player alike.

(This is exactly what Ralph is talking about in his post, in fact.)

Yet we know through experience and logic that the DI claims, and the worries and problems they are ultimately based upon, are foundless.

I don't really have much more to add.

[TonyLB]

If that's the case then I think you might want to figure out a way of describing that party line as something other than "Deep Immersion".

After all, it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with Immersion, deep or otherwise.  It has to do with an attitude toward metagaming.  The fact that you have encountered this attitude in people who also happen to practice the technique of Immersion is only confusing the issue for everyone.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

After all, it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with Immersion, deep or otherwise.  It has to do with an attitude toward metagaming.  The fact that you have encountered this attitude in people who also happen to practice the technique of Immersion is only confusing the issue for everyone.

But therein lies the problem. Person who claim to practice immersion who's techniques are little more than an attitude towards, and apparently against, metagame.

[TonyLB]

So why not criticize the people instead of the entirely innocent technique whose name they are besmirching?

[Halzebier]

Metagame doesn't really affect Immersion...worrying about it really is polishing the brass on a sinking ship.

Not everyone may have to avoid metagame to get immersed (I pointed out as much earlier), but it is a concern for some.

Please do not dismiss the notion out of hand.

Regards,

Hal

[Halzebier]

Off the top of my head, D&D 3rd Edition comes to mind, which has a section devoted to "metagame thinking" and why it's the devil's spawn. Something I find vastly ironic, given how bloody Gamist D&D is, and how it encourages a Pawn stance otherwise.

Okay, let's look at the relevant section:

Metagame Thinking
"I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,' a player says to the others, "because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn't deactivate somehow." That's an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters' actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game, they're using metagame thinking. This should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Two observations:

(a) This section does not condem metagaming as you seem to use it. Instead, it defines the term in a much narrower sense and gives an example to illustrate what is meant.

(b) The section's tone rings of the One True Way.

That said, I think that the concern raised here is entirely valid. It's not a concern for everyone or every game, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand: The behaviour described interferes with a valid style of play and the rules suggest how to approach it (though 'discourage' is not very specific).

However, in most of the texts, it isn't what they say, it's what they don't say that's the problem. Spelled out like I've done above, yeah, it's a looney notion you'd dismiss out-of-hand upon reading; but it isn't that simple: there's no text that proclaims what I've written above. It's "proclaimed" by what the text leaves out, what it doesn't say, and by what it rewards and encourages.

I'm sorry, but this sounds rather too much like handwaving. You obviously have had bad experiences with immersionists, but couldn't it be the fault of the people involved, rather than that of the technique itself?

Describing some of a character's actions in third person mode, asking the GM to describe a part of the scenery in more detail and so on are all necessary metagaming activities. I doubt this is refuted by anyone.

Then you'd be surprised at the number of groups where such behaviors are considered out-of-place, even to the point where players who desire more information about the environment are forced to ask or describe in first person ("I examine the rosebeds, blah, blah, blah") or be considered to have "failed" the group dynamic.

Are you sure you are not channeling CRPGs here? Using first-person mode where dialogue is concerned is a widespread notion (and taken too far in some cases), sure, but the notion of maintaining a continuous monologue to describe what the character is doing?

(In any case, many immersionists would scoff at this idea, as it is extremely unrealistic to speak or even think like that - and ~realism is of some concern here.)

For example, can you really avoid acting on OOC knowledge? Not really. You can limit yourself, but OOC knowledge is going to creep in. That such an event is commonly considered by tradition to be a cardinal sin highlights the very problem I'm talking about.

Well, that's where sub-techniques such as leaving the room, passing notes and so on come in.

Let's look at one example in particular: Leaving the room to avoid overhearing information your character is not privy to (e.g., the other PC is an alcoholic).

The drawbacks:

(1) This deprives you of the enjoyment of audience stance (i.e., the other player's portrayal of an alcoholic would be interesting to watch).

(2) This deprives you of a chance to make the game more interesting for the other player and the group (e.g. by having your PC choose a bottle of liquor over a box of chocolates as a birthday present to the other PC).

The advantages (for the immersionist?):

(1) This allows you to maintain the purity of the character model.

(This is primarily an aesthetic concern, but no less valid for all that.)

Rather than having to firewall OOC knowledge - the success of which is doubtful and impossible to gauge - you avoid it in the first place, thereby preventing unquantifiable, external influence on the model.

(2) This allows you to enjoy a sense of 'mystery' (as another poster has called it).

(This concern may not be exclusive to non-immersionists, BTW.)

If you don't know about it, the in-game revelation (when it does happen) will be surprising not just to your character, but also to you. This (a) intensifies the emotional impact of the revelation on the player in a visceral sense and (b) prevents a disjunction from your character (e.g., the character is surprised and you are not).

Regards,

Hal

[Peter Hollinghurst]

Halzebier wrote:

If you don't know about it, the in-game revelation (when it does happen) will be surprising not just to your character, but also to you. This (a) intensifies the emotional impact of the revelation on the player in a visceral sense and (b) prevents a disjunction from your character (e.g., the character is surprised and you are not).

Though this sounds perfectly logical, my own experience suggests that the inverse-that if you DO know about it (have metagame knowledge) you will not or cannot be 'suprised' by an in-game revelation is a fallacy. Back to my example while playing Cthulhu-the antagonist was a ghost horse (anyone who has ever played the scenario 'horse of the invisible' in an old white dwarf mag should recognise it). I knew it was there-I knew what it was, I could even remember most of its stats. Having warned the GM of this when we started play, I decided that my best recourse to the metagame knowledge was to play with the asumption that my character simply did not believe in ghosts. When the ghost attacked, I had spent so long thinking of great explanations as to why it couldnt exist (and demonstrating them, with proofs, to the party), that I was genuinely suprised. I had become so immersed in my character that my own metagame knowledge had become irrelevent compared to the characters belief. After many years of reflection I have come to the conclusion that my metagame knowledge actually helped to formulate this suprise.
Heres why:
I rarely act as a player in games-generally I GM. My greatest love is getting 'under the skin' of the NPCs and bringing them to life-to do so I have to identify briefly with each one (to let each become a 'mask' and to listen to its inner voice, rather than to impose my own thinking on the character-I can expand on this technique if people are interested). When the scenario occured I was already very practiced at this. The key feature of the scenario for me was that due to my metagame knowledge I approached it like I would as a GM, not as a player. Rather than constantly thinking about what I could 'get' for my character and acting defensively to protect him, I let the character speak to me-asking the simple question, would he (an irish housebreaker) believe in ghosts? It seemed apparent he could not if I was to play with my metagame knowledge. If I had no metagme knowledge I would probably have done what most of us do-just assumed he did because it was the logical belief of an investigator wanting to stay alive. Instead I moved into my GM mode, treated the character as a mask rather than a possession of my own, and the game became magical.

My point is this-even when people claim they are playing deep immersion they are generally not. They are taking on an enforced 'actor stance' in a very considered manner where they control the character according to a pre-defined set of goals and stats. This is a conscious manipulation. To be consciously manipulating/considering what your character would or would not do is not immersive at all. To make matters worse for immersion claims, most of this activity centers around the continued survival of the character for the majority of players so assumptions that will serve to achieve this are subtly incorporated into the character they play (generally when they create it). To play in this way requires metagame knowledge, but knowledge that is denied and hidden-having a character sheet is metagame, adopting an actor stance is metagame. The only real immersive play happens in moments when you forget about character sheets, stats 'how your character would act' and the like and play subconciously not consciously. Players sometimes get brief flashes of this experience they rememeber fondly but have no idea how or why it happened.
Anyway-my point is this-any play should acknowledge metagame knowledge for two reasons: you cannot usually play without at least some element of metagame knowledge and denying it leads to the perpetration of myths like the immersion vs metaknowledge one, and because some metaknowledge is actually essential to really deep immersive play. My own belief is that if we start thinking 'backwards' with our characters (we know what will probably happen, its how we feel as we get there thats the issue) and ditch a need for 'mystery', we will actually discover that the sense of mystery deepens, suspense becomes more suspensful and characters 'come alive'. Players need to move into a 'GM' stance with their characters and play styles for this to occur-and that requires metaknowledge. This is why I think Neelk's 'Aquinan angels' game was such a brilliant concept.
Im sure this theory will spark a lot of disagreement-it attacks a lot of 'sacred cows' both in gaming and in acting/theater-Im also aware that its actually bigger as a theory than this brief exposistion allows (maybe I should write an essay on it) because it goes deeply into mask work and impro techniques and contains a lot of active assumptions about how we recognise and understand 'character' in everyday life. If anyone is interested I will see what i can thrash out on it ;)

[Halzebier]

Halzebier wrote:

If you don't know about it, the in-game revelation (when it does happen) will be surprising not just to your character, but also to you. This (a) intensifies the emotional impact of the revelation on the player in a visceral sense and (b) prevents a disjunction from your character (e.g., the character is surprised and you are not).

Though this sounds perfectly logical, my own experience suggests that the inverse-that if you DO know about it (have metagame knowledge) you will not or cannot be 'suprised' by an in-game revelation is a fallacy.

Agreed.

There are many roads to Rome. Both knowledge and uncertainty of what is to come can increase its emotional impact.

Minimising metagame distractions has no monopoly on improving one's chances for immersion and may even be counter-productive under certain circumstances (see below). But it does help some players.

My point is this-even when people claim they are playing deep immersion they are generally not. They are taking on an enforced 'actor stance' in a very considered manner where they control the character according to a pre-defined set of goals and stats.

That's certainly possible, though I think "generally not" is perhaps overstating your case.

To make matters worse for immersion claims, most of this activity centers around the continued survival of the character for the majority of players so assumptions that will serve to achieve this are subtly incorporated into the character they play (generally when they create it).

An immersionist on RGFA has reported that she requires script-immunity for her characters (which then creates all sorts of other problems), i.e. certainty - not uncertainty - regarding her characters' continued well-being.

A reason for such a preference might be that the close identification achieved by immersion makes some players extremely loath to lose their character.

If acted upon, the desire to keep the character alive and well diminishes the range of viable character concepts (i.e., you may be left with paranoid survivalists given to turtling) and may require metagaming...which, of course, damages immersion for some.

(Script-immunity is a solution here as one no longer has to worry about survival, but it creates a new problem for immersionists trying to minimise metagame: one has to firewall a big, fat piece of metagame knowledge.)

Regards,

Hal