Deep Immersion

[greyorm]

Hal, I'm not sure where you're misreading me, specifically, but it's obvious you're taking a couple of points and pinning them to me when I'm not advocating them. I'll go over a couple of these here in hopes of clearing this up.

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.

Note that the "polishing" quote was not mine, but Jack Spencer's, who made the same statement you just did, a statement which I was agreeing with. Hence, I cannot be dismissing the notion (out-of-hand or otherwise). Please, read what I am saying before accusing me of anything.

This is where I get the sense you're reading some very bizzare notions into what I'm saying. After all, I'm claiming the DI advocates are the ones who claim metagame intereferes with immersion, have called that claim ridiculous, and thus I'm can't be advocating that viewpoint.

I do realize, as well, that for some people metagame does interefere, and for those folks, the less the better (something I pointed out earlier, as well). However, what I also pointed out there was that it is ultimately unavoidable -- that attempts to reduce it hinging on removing it entirely (and behaving as though that is a possible and commonly achieved goal) are doomed to failure.

It seems to me like much of the "reaction" to what I'm saying is just that, a reaction. Specifically to the terminology, rather than the idea (ie: "Deep Immersion? Oh, horrors! How dare you besmirch the name of Immersion!")

For example:

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?

I'm not talking about "Immersionists" or Immersion as a technique. We're talking about Deep Immersion. The term being discussed is not "Immersion," it is "Deep Immersion." The former has an entirely different meaning than the later. I will discuss the latter, not the former. Second, the term is Ralph's. I will not defend or attack it. I'm just using it.

This is where I strongly get the idea you aren't reading what I've said are the problems of Deep Immersion (to emphasize: NOT IMMERSION) and its supporting mythology. There's a terminological standard of discussion on the Forge I feel is being failed in this regard, about responding to the definition of a thing rather than the name of it.

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.

It does exactly what I've described DI-supportive text as doing, and I quote, "This [ed: knowledge of or thinking about game processes] should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief."

It isn't talking about a style or method, or "just one valid way to play;" as you note:

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

It doesn't just "ring" with it, it outright states in black-and-white ink that "real roleplaying" is disrupted by any sort of metagame intrusion. Precisely the problem I detailed in previous posts regarding DI-supportive texts and their schizophrenic party-lines about acceptable and not-acceptable behavior.

Now contrast this with your later defense of it:

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).

But...I see no section before or after about how the discussion of metagame is only a "suggestion for a particular style" so I'm not sure on what you base your defense of the text as "simply describing a valid style"?

Yes, it is a valid concern for some groups and supporting their way of play (according to the text, the only correct way of play); yes it does suggest how to approach that way of play and deal with the concern (if by "suggest" you mean "explains how metagame is a filthy abomination that destroys 'real roleplaying' and can only interfere with immersion in the game world").

In fact, rather than defending this text in the DMG, I suggest you turn the guns you've aimed at me regarding metagame not being an interference with immersion directly back at the text, since it is saying precisely what you've accused me of dismissing out of hand. It is claiming straight out with no wiggle-room that metagame interferes with immersion, when you and I both full-well know that that is not always or even usually the case.

Perhaps then you would see where I am coming from? Since you and I are quite obviously on the same side of the issue.

Are you sure you are not channeling CRPGs here?

I don't play CRPGs -- or MMORPGs, which is where I believe the behaviors you referenced must be common? So, yes, I'm 100% certain I'm not channeling CRPGs here.

So, I don't know, Hal. I'd suggest taking some deep, cleansing breaths, and then go back and reread what I've been talking about in my previous posts.

But note, this will be my one and only post about this. I will not spend time in the otherwise futile exercise of defending myself from what anyone thinks or claims I'm saying, since that leads nowhere but endless circles.

Thanks for your input, though! I hope this clears up for you the source and meaning of many of my prior points.

[Halzebier]

Note that the "polishing" quote was not mine, but Jack Spencer's[.]

My apologies.

*-*-*

As we are starting to snip each others' posts into ever smaller pieces and arguing each other's use or misuse of terminology, the discussion (at least between us - it's Tony's thread) should probably end.

We haven't reached a point where we agree (or agree to disagree), but it was still an interesting discussion - I got something out of it.

Regards,

Hal

[greyorm]

Good deal, me too.

I do agree we should stop before we're at each other's throats then, and Dav Harnish starts taking bets on who bleeds the most! Heh.

Regardless, I can't continue the discussion at large, as I will shortly be out of town for a week. I think I've said everything I wanted to on the subject anyways, and if anyone has any questions about my views on DI, they can PM me and I'll get in touch after I get back.

Thanks for the discussion, Hal!

[John Kim]

OK, I've basically missed this thread.  I wanted to add in a few comments about immersion in published works.  It seems to me that published works vary quite a bit in terms of what sort of meta-game behavior they encourage or discourage.  For example, many games have meta-game mechanics like Torg's Drama Deck or Buffy's Drama Points.  Now, these are still on the immersive side of things compared to Universalis -- but I don't feel that there is a unified "party line" which all games subscribe to.  

As for D&D, it's true that it doesn't have any explicit metagame mechanics, and it tends towards the more immersive.  Here is the advice which it gives in the DMG (page 13),

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 character's action 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 role-playing and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking.  Suppose there is a lever on the other side of the pit, for example, but it's rusted and useless.  Keep your players on their toes, and don't let them second-guess you.  Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM.  

However, within the context of the session, I do not think that this is advocating "deep immersion" in the sense of totally ignoring all meta-game information.  That section of the DMG is actually thick with meta-game advice about discussion.  That section is simply saying that character actions shouldn't be based directly on metagame logic.  On the other hand, it definitely does advocate paying attention to meta-game issues.  For example, here are some other quotes from that section of the DMG:

Jokes and Off-Topic Discussion:  There are always funny things to be said, movie quotes, good gossip, and other conversation that crop up during the game, whether they're inspired by what's going on in the session or completely extraneous.  Decide for yourself (and as a group) how much is too much.  Remember that this is a game and people are there to have fun, yet at the same time keep the focus on the actions of the characters so the whole playing session doesn't pass in idle chat.

The Players' Likes and Dislikes:  Some groups hate political intrigue and avoid or ignore it in favor of going down into the dungeon.  Other groups are more likely to run from a serious combat challenge.  Some groups like adventures with mind flayers and psionics.  Some don't.  Because of this, you're the best judge, if you're aware of what the group likes and what entices them, whether they will like and partake in a particular encounter or adventure.

I think RPGs which truly advocate "deep immersion" (i.e. extremes beyond functional immersive play) are pretty rare.  One which springs to mind is Puppetland, which pretty much fits your characterization of the horrors of deep immersion.  Players aren't allowed to speak out of character at all.  So if stones are going to be thrown, I think Puppetland should be a prime test case of the problems.

[Valamir]

I'm not sure John.

Those second two quotes from the DMG don't sound very convincing to me.  The first one does at least suggest that some break from immersion might be ok, but commenting on regulating the level of jokes and banter at the table hardly qualifies as metagame promoting.  In fact, its exactly that sort of metagame that most immersionists I know hate the most.  I don't find it encouraging that the one example you put forward from the book that involves non immersed elements, is something that is often disparaged by immersionists and non immersionist alike.  At worst its reinforcing a bad stereotype of what non immersed play looks like.

The last quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with immersion or metagame at all.  Its simply instructions to the GM to take into account player likes and dislikes when designing a scenario.  Not sure how you feel this applies to actual play.


As for Puppetland...I don't know that that's a fair comparison at all really.  talking in character may be correlated with deeply immersive play but it is hardly causal or symptomatic.  One can talk in first person with almost 0 immersion.  And one can be fairly deeply immersed and speak in the third person.  So I don't see where one can say that Puppetland promotes deep immersion just because it requires speaking in the first person.  That seems more like a mechanical gimmick than anything else to me.  

Now that said, I've read, but not played Puppetland, so I can't really say what sort of play is actually promoted.

[John Kim]

Those second two quotes from the DMG don't sound very convincing to me.  The first one does at least suggest that some break from immersion might be ok, but commenting on regulating the level of jokes and banter at the table hardly qualifies as metagame promoting.  In fact, its exactly that sort of metagame that most immersionists I know hate the most.  

So, this is suggesting that something which immersionists hate the most (i.e. banter) is OK.  

The thing is, this isn't an example I chose.  This is the one book which you cited as promoting not just moderate, functional immersive play -- but rather the extreme of "deep immersion" which is horrendously virulent and harmful to those who read it.  You have continuously chided me that I'm mistaking you for attacking "immersion" when you are really only attacking "deep immersion".  

So -- this is it??  The kind of play that D&D promotes is "deep immersion"?  My experience matches my reading of the text here -- that it's just not that deep.  

As for Puppetland...I don't know that that's a fair comparison at all really.  talking in character may be correlated with deeply immersive play but it is hardly causal or symptomatic.  One can talk in first person with almost 0 immersion.  And one can be fairly deeply immersed and speak in the third person.  So I don't see where one can say that Puppetland promotes deep immersion just because it requires speaking in the first person.  

Let's be clear here -- first person rather than third person is irrelevant.  The issue is that Puppetland doesn't allow any Out-of-Character talk at all.  Players are not allowed to talk to each other OOC.  The rule is: if you say it, your character says it.  So it has a complete ban on any meta-game communication by players.  This seems much more significant than the DMG's advise against metagame thinking.

[Valamir]

The thing is, this isn't an example I chose.  This is the one book which you cited

I cited?

Do tell...

So, this is suggesting that something which immersionists hate the most (i.e. banter) is OK.  

Wow, are you really going to make me spell it out for you?  I thought I was pretty clear.

First it doesn't really say its OK does it?  At most it reads as a very guarded "if you must, and the other players don't mind, then go ahead, but don't do too much of it".  Its a warning against allowing too much ooc banter distract you from focusing on the character.

Second, where are the positive examples?  Where are the demonstrations of effective use of metagame techniques to enhance the game?  Where is the acknowledgement that the game can be made BETTER by engageing at the metagame level as well as at the immersed level?

Hmmm, not really there is it.  Instead the only example you can find to show that D&D supports metagame is a passage that warns against the dangers of too much joking around.  Joking around.  Not even a real productive metagame technique.  So what the passage actually does is take the most superficial non productive metagame activities the authors could think of and hold it up as an example of what metagame is while issueing a warning against doing too much of it, lest you be distracted by idle chat.

Right...that's kind of like a back handed complement.  You know, the kind when you've just been given one but you know its actually an insult.  Using Joking around as an example is just waving a red flag in front of a bull.

It hardly serves as an effective example of "thick with meta-game advice".

But at any rate, I wasn't the one pointing to D&D text as being deeply immersive.  I was just demonstrating that your statements on the subject weren't particularly compelling.

Let's be clear here -- first person rather than third person is irrelevant.  The issue is that Puppetland doesn't allow any Out-of-Character talk at all.  Players are not allowed to talk to each other OOC.  The rule is: if you say it, your character says it.  So it has a complete ban on any meta-game communication by players.  This seems much more significant than the DMG's advise against metagame thinking.

Significant in what way?

Significant as a unique and game experience shaping rule?  Absolutely.

Significant as evidence of encouraging immersion...doesn't seem like that at all to me.

It seems to me to be encouraging creating the atmosphere of a puppet show, like the one from Mr Rogers Neigbhorhood with King Friday and the rest.  In a puppet show the animation of what the puppet is actually doing can be hard to determine.

Is the rock floating? No, we know the boy picked it up.  It just looks like its floating because the puppet can't really grab it, so it has to be lifted on its own string.  How do we know the boy picked it up?  Because the boy said "hey, look at this rock.  I'm going to pick it up".

This sounds like a highly effective way to bring puppet-esque color to the game.  But it says nothing whatsoever about the immersed or not immersed mind set of the player playing the puppet.

[GreatWolf]

Since Puppetland is one of my favorite RPGs and one that I have run several times, I believe that I can speak to this issue somewhat.  From my experience, Ralph is correct.  The prohibition on OOC communication does not necessarily require immersion.  In fact, the rules pretty much expect Author Stance from the players.  Remember Rule #3:  "The tale grows in the telling and is told to one not present."  The players are supposed to be playing to an imaginary audience (which, I think we all acknowledge, is actually themselves).  In fact, the tricky part of Puppetland is the ability to do this without overt OOC communication.  (Aside: this is why the one-hour time limit is such a blessing.  Puppetland can be hard work.)

So I don't think that Puppetland can truly be cited as an RPG that demands Deep Immersion, as the text itself requires player engagement on the Authorial level.

[John Kim]

OK, we seem to be miscommunicating.  Here is what greyorm wrote concerning D&D:

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.)

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.

OK, so here the suggestion is that D&D3 is not merely proposing to minimize metagame -- but to completely eliminate it.  I disagree with this.  D&D3 is not advocating complete elimination of metagame.  In fact, no game does this.  

The example of Puppetland shows the double standard.  i.e. The DMG has a passage that character actions should not be based on metagame logic.  From this, greyorm points to it as proof that it considers any existance of metagame to be the "devil's spawn".  Conversely, when Puppetland outlaws any out-of-character communication, he flips around and says that this isn't sufficient to constitute "deep immersion".  

In short, "deep immersion" is a straw man.  Even the most extreme games which eliminate all OOC speech doesn't advocate deep immersion.  No game does.

[talysman]

two quick comments, here:

1. John, you realize that Ralph and Raven are two different people, right? I'm not trying to be snarky, but you're saying Ralph is hypocritical for not applying what Raven said about D&D3e to Puppetland.

2. I've only read Puppetland, never played it, but I didn't recall the rule being cited, so I went back to look. you *can* speak OOC, in two circumstances:

A. when you stand up, which signals you are not speaking as an actor but as just one of the people in the room. these OOC comments are not part of the events of play.

B. when you stand up and take the Puppet Master aside for a whispered conversation. none of this conversation becomes a part of play until you sit back down and speak in character.

looking at the Puppetland rules again, it seems to me that the rules about speaking are meant less as a tool for immersion and more as a mechanic for determining what happens. in other words, the point is not that you are talking like a puppet, but that you can't make your puppet do things except by speaking as the puppet. you can't say "I open the door", you must say "This doorknob feels cold, but at least the door is unlocked and swinging open easily!"

the text f the game makes it very clear that the players are "immersing" in the story as a whole, not as individual characters:

To help this process work, imagine that somewhere, someone is "reading" everything that the actors and the puppet master say, verbatim. This someone is expecting to read a story, told like a story, with appropriate dialogue and description. As a rule of the game, you must endeavor to make every spoken word sound like part of a story rather than an out-of-game conversation between a bunch of people at a table.

see? not one mention of thinking like a puppet or imagining what a puppet would do.

this seems to set Puppetland outside of the "Deep Immersion" category, as defined by Ralph.

[Maarzan]

What would be these metagame mechanics that get so badly treated and wrongfully accused to hurt immersion?

I would especially ask for those to be used during play, because some meta talk is surely needed to start a game and to bring everyone on the same page to start the game.

The only mechanic I can think of and use is a fatepoint system to compensate for the increased lethality in my games to what the players are used to:
The gamists for more deadly resolutions, the sims due to a higher density of potentially dangerous scenes.

Then there is to recognize that there have to be some compromises to reflect that roleplaying is a social group event. A little bit less extreme characters on one side and a little bit more tolerance on the other keeps the group together and every one involved.

What are your examples?

[John Kim]

this seems to set Puppetland outside of the "Deep Immersion" category, as defined by Ralph.

OK, I think I've made my point badly, because you say this as if you're disagreeing with me.  

Let me try again.  Puppetland is not in the "Deep Immersion" category, as defined by Ralph.  As far as I can tell, no game is in the "Deep Immersion" as defined by Ralph.  For a game to actually do that, it would have to go beyond trying to minimize metagame, but actually proposing to eliminate it.  At a minimum, such a game would have a rule against OOC talk.  

So rather than my examples, let's go back to the claim.  Ralph, what are games inside the "Deep Immersion" category?

[Valamir]

So rather than my examples, let's go back to the claim. Ralph, what are games inside the "Deep Immersion" category?

Deep Immersion is a play technique not a category of games.

It is a play technique that is reinforced on many different levels in many different ways as I've said before.  It is reinforced through actual play with people who promote the technique.  It is reinforced through reading Dragon Magazine articles on subjects completely unrelated to immersion itself, but which are written with the built in assumption that immersion is what you are doing when you play.  And its reinforced with text in game books that suggest metagame is bad, something to be avoided, will distract from real roleplay, etc.

It is such a fundamental built in assumption to the hobby for years that you'd have an easier time listing the games not influenced by it.

[John Kim]

I am seeing two positions in this debate.  

On the one hand, I have at times talked about "immersive play" as a functional style.  In these cases, you are quick to contradict me that you aren't talking about just immersion but rather about "Deep Immersion" which is a special and extreme case.  

On the other hand, when I ask for examples of this, you say that Deep Immersion is a pervasive technique which is assumed throughout nearly all published games.  

So if by "Deep Immersion" you mean the sort of immersion which is common throughout the hobby, then I understand what it is -- but I disagree that it is inherently selfish and/or dysfunctional.  Now, I whole-hearted agree that it is not the "One True Way", and I encourage games which try new approaches.  I also agree that it will mean that the Shared Play is not as well-structured or satisfying when regarded as a story.  But that isn't the be-all, end-all of play.  i.e. The role-playing session which is the most fun isn't necessarily the one whose Shared Play makes the best story.

[TonyLB]

If Deep Immersion is a technique then surely it can be described in terms of what you do in order to use it, not what you have to think.

Is it a technique, or an attitude?

And please don't say "both".  Even if you're railing against the combination of a technique and an attitude, and how they reinforce each other, let's give them separate names to clarify the discussion.