Deep Immersion

[Valamir]

Well Tony, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you, because it very much is both.

Immersion is a play technique, I think at this point we all have a reasonable grasp on the sorts of in game activities immersion involves.

The "Deep" part is very much an attitude.  That attitude being that Immersion is THE technique.  That it is the superior and preferred technique.  That it represents "real" roleplaying and that all players should endeavor to remain immersed as much as possible because not being immersed is bad.

Metagame enters into the equation because of the common (and IMO erroneous) assumption that metagame interferes with ones ability to immerse.  

For a Deep Immersionist anything that interferes (or is percieved to potentially interfere) with immersion is to be avoided.



Now John, I know you'd very much like to see a mainstream example of a Deep Immersionist manifesto, and in the absence of such are inclined to dismiss Deep Immersion as being a non existant straw man.  But such a manifesto is not necessary.

All that is necessary is to show two things:

1) The sentiment that being immersed is better than not being immersed.
2) The sentiment that metagame interferes with immersion and thus should be avoided.

You don't need wild eyed fanatical manifestos in order to arrive at the Oz-like destination of Deep Immersion from there.  You merely have to follow the yellow brick road of the above two sentiments and you'll be on your way to Emerald City.

If we accept that #1 is true than the "best" way to play is to maximize immersion and minimize non immersion.

If we accept that #2 is true than the "best" way to minimize non immersion is to minimize metagame.

There may not be a plethora of mainstream Deep Immersion manifestos out there, but the above 2 sentiments are routinely encountered all over the place.


And once you are on the yellow brick road (I could add here: accompanied by the heartless, the brainless, and the cowardly, but that might be pushing the metaphor a bit far) you will find it increasingly difficult to stray from the road.

Unfortuneately the Emerald City ain't really emerald, the Great and Powerful Oz is niether great nor powerful, and the whole Deep Immersionist shebang is just a grand hoax.

Hopefully, you've brought along a pair of ruby/silver slippers.

[Sean]

I don't like the terminology being used here at all, although I think I pretty well understand both sides of the discussion.

What's the difference between 'playing in character' and 'immersion'? Between 'immersion' and 'deep immersion'? Well, some have offered varying definitions of these terms, and according to the definition Raven and Ralph have used, I would tend to agree with their assessment of the overall situation. Except that I don't think they're talking about a technique per se at all, but the abuse of a technique in service of a personality dysfunction.

I have had a fair number of acquaintances, some who played RPGs and some who didn't, who were essentially total narcissists. All they really wanted to talk about was themselves, ever, 24/7. Some would 'listen' to you talk, but all that really ever was was a kind of quid pro quo, a pause for you to (in their estimation, anyway) talk about yourself for a while before they started talking about themselves again.

Such people are borderline sociopaths, in my opinion, and I have exiled every single one from my community of friends given time to determine that they weren't interested in breaking out of this pattern. These people are parasites. Your mileage may vary and all that.

In my opinion, what's going on with Ralph's and Raven's 'deep immersionist' is actually this. A person who is, basically, one of these sociopathic losers has discovered that, within the land of playing RPGs, there is a weasely theoretical justification for them to do whatever they want to do with no responsibility to the other people in their group. They call it 'playing in character' or whatever, but in reality it's all about holding you hostage to their banal, endless rehearsing of their little psychodrama. These people inflict themselves on the rest of us and then loftily withdraw to the jejune 'theory' which allows them to tell you you should politely put up with their nonsense.

Well, Ralph and Raven are right to call foul on this kind of behavior, but - assuming I'm not just radically misreading the two of you here - it's a standard social foul in my book, not a somehow dysfunctional RPG technique. Because AFAICT you can be pretty deeply and fundamentally immersed in your character, as 'deep' as you want to go (and I know this isn't how you're using the term, but that's partly what I'm complaining about), and still be aware enough of what's going on around you to reinforce what others are doing and respect their limits.

Hell, bondage enthusiasts and fetishists of all varieties do 'deep immersion' role-playing all the time, better than most RPGers do, with their actual private parts hangin' out there and involved in the show, out on the edge of a certain kind of really intense something, and they manage to snap out of it when they violate or come close to violating each others' boundaries a hell of a lot more often than the kind of person we're talking about does.

But that's sort of my point here.  The language is generating the fight. The way I'd go instead would be this. There's a technique, of variable intensity, of playing in character; call this immersion. When you're really heavily into it, call that deep immersion. You can get as heavy as you want as long as you don't become a self-indulgent narcissistic jerk, but that's a social and personality flaw, not a flaw with the technique proper.

The other way is to use 'deep immersion' to mean 'immersion plus this social flaw', but I think that's turning the ambiguity the wrong way, because 'deep immersion' sounds like the name of a technique, not a pathology.


(Edited to tone down language a little.)

[TonyLB]

Sean said it more completely than I will try to replicate.  I'll just agree:  Really bad terminology is obscuring whatever message Ralph is trying to get across.

Unlike Sean I don't think I know what Ralph is saying.

Ralph said that the phenomenon he was thinking of was a technique and an attitude.  I'm labelling the technique (as he does) Immersion.  The attitude I'm labelling "Technique Obsession", until somebody gives me a clearer term.

Ralph, what would you think (hypothetically) of somebody Technique-Obsessed with, say, No-Myth roleplay?  To the point, say, that they argued against Aggressive Scene Framing as a spawn of beelzebubba, because it leads to "railroading".

I'm just trying to get a grip on whether you think that only Immersion could possibly foster this sort of rabid and troublesome mentality, or whether it's possible with many techniques.

[Valamir]

Except that I don't think they're talking about a technique per se at all, but the abuse of a technique in service of a personality dysfunction.

An abuse of a technique, yes.  But with one big caveat.  Its an abuse of a technique that isn't recognized as an abuse.  Its instead accepted as normal.

It is dysfunctional behavior that has been popularised to the point of being accepted as the way you're supposed to play.

Well, Ralph and Raven are right to call foul on this kind of behavior, but - assuming I'm not just radically misreading the two of you here - it's a standard social foul in my book, not a somehow dysfunctional RPG technique.

Which is exactly what I've said in another recent thread.  You wouldn't tolerate this sort of self absorbed behavior in a regular social setting, why the hell should it be tolerated around the gaming table.  I've said those exact words.

And the answer is:  Because we've been trained to accept it at the gaming table.  Because for years the hobby has been identifying this behavior not only as acceptable but preferred.  Acting in this dysfunctional fashion is what we're SUPPOSED to be doing.

But that's sort of my point here.  The language is generating the fight. The way I'd go instead would be this. There's a technique, of variable intensity, of playing in character; call this immersion. When you're really heavily into it, call that deep immersion. You can get as heavy as you want as long as you don't become a self-indulgent narcissistic jerk, but that's a social and personality flaw, not a flaw with the technique proper.

Sure, except for two very important caveats.

First, you are painting far too extreme a case.  You are taking something which is a pervasive issue throughout the hobby, and identifying it with only the most extreme examples of the problem.  As I've said before its not the extreme practitioners who are the problem.  Its the "inadvertant" and "naive" types whose numbers are not just a handful of wackos but make up a significant base line of players in the hobby who play in this manner out of habit or misguided notions that its the "right" way to play.

I don't give a rats butt about the narcissistic jerks you identify, because there's an easy solution to those assholes...just don't play with them.  The problem I'm addressing is much more pervasive than that.  Its all of the people who've bought in to the fundamentally incorrect assumptions of play I outlined above and now go through the motions of such play even though they themselves aren't narcissistic jerks.  Because that's how they've been trained.

Nor do I believe that the origination of this training lies with a conspiracy of such narcissistic jerks to brainwash the gaming public, although I do think you are quite right that such people do find a haven in this sort of play and give us some of the most egregious examples of it.

Rather I'm certain that the language and habit of thinking in terms of Deep Immersion was assembled and constructed over time and worked its way into the core assumptions of gaming, in much the same mechanism as ethnic stereotyping.  By this I mean that you can't point a finger a couple of racists who first started the stereotype and then launched a publicity campaign to besmirch the ethnic group.  Rather such stereo types are assembled in bits and pieces over time and spread through habit, repetition, careless thinking, a lack of critical analysis of the major components of the stereotype and why they're being repeated, and prevailing social standards that accept them without question.

I mean, not to compare something as ultimately trivial as gaming techniques to something as serious as racism, but I definitely think the basic built in prejudice against metagame play has alot in common in terms of the mental process of how it came about, how its spread, and how it gets accepted.


Second, I'm not concerned AT ALL whether some people might find the term offensive.  If they do, GOOD.  Because maybe thats just the kick in the teeth they need to actually analyse what they do and why they do it.

Its not simply enough to say "yeah I like immersion".  Because deep immersive techniques are harmful to the hobby.  If you're a self identified immersionist you should be looking at how you play and why and what you really do and whether you are using the technique well or whether you are perpetuating the problem.

If you've ever said "I don't like that mechanic, its too metagamey people would have trouble staying in character using it" then you likely are perpetuating that double myth.  The first myth being that staying in character is the highest form of roleplaying that everyone should strive for, and the second myth being that metagame interferes with ones ability to do that.  So yes.  If you've said or thought things like this in the past, I'm calling you out specifically to take a good hard look at your gaming assumptions.

And I'm calling it Deep Immersion precisely because it hits so close to home, and if someone as a self identified immersionist feels uncomfortable about the association...GREAT...that's the point.  Shake them out of their comfort zone and make sure they're using immersive techniques because they want to, and not just out of habit or misguided notions that they're supposed to.

Ralph, what would you think (hypothetically) of somebody Technique-Obsessed with, say, No-Myth roleplay? To the point, say, that they argued against Aggressive Scene Framing as a spawn of beelzebubba, because it leads to "railroading".

I'm just trying to get a grip on whether you think that only Immersion could possibly foster this sort of rabid and troublesome mentality, or whether it's possible with many techniques.

I'm pretty certain that I've answered that several times in the past.  But I'll address it again.  Yes of course someone obsessed with No-Myth roleplay in the same fashion, is equally guilty of equally dysfunctional behavior.

The difference is there is no organized tradition of indoctrination promoting that style of dysfunctional play.  There is no history of having labeled that style of play as something to be strived for.  There are no Dragon Magazine articles written with the assumption of that's how everybody should play.

That's what makes Deep Immersion the target of being singled out.  Because there is a historical tradition of promoting deep immersion.  Its basic philosophy has been perpetuated throughout our hobby to the point where many gamers assume that the tenets of maximum immersion and minimal metagame are what roleplaying is all about.



Now I'm of the mind that pretty much every thing that needs to be said has been said on this topic at this point.  I know I'm starting to repeat the same things over and over in response to getting the same questions over and over.  I know that the conversation in places (spread throughout multiple threads) is beginning to devolve into niggling details of tangental issues and that's usually a good sign that the converation has run its course.

I think probably, everybody just needs to absorb what's been said, roll it over in their minds for a good long while, and if need be come back to the discussion in a few months.  But I'm not sure there's anything more productive to be done here.

[contracycle]

Its not simply enough to say "yeah I like immersion".  Because deep immersive techniques are harmful to the hobby.  If you're a self identified immersionist you should be looking at how you play and why and what you really do and whether you are using the technique well or whether you are perpetuating the problem.

No, I really do not accept that at all.  You may have a fairly narrow point that it has slipped under the radar through textual legitimmisation, but it is IMO grossly unfair to tar all immersive players with this brush.  I fully agree with Sean's analysis; immersing is and can be a legitimate and constructive play style, there is no inherent relationship with the different and distinct phenomenon of the narcissistic player.

[montag]

It is dysfunctional behavior that has been popularised to the point of being accepted as the way you're supposed to play.
....
And the answer is:  Because we've been trained to accept it at the gaming table.  Because for years the hobby has been identifying this behavior not only as acceptable but preferred.  Acting in this dysfunctional fashion is what we're SUPPOSED to be doing.
....
First, you are painting far too extreme a case.  You are taking something which is a pervasive issue throughout the hobby, and identifying it with only the most extreme examples of the problem.  As I've said before its not the extreme practitioners who are the problem.  Its the "inadvertant" and "naive" types whose numbers are not just a handful of wackos but make up a significant base line of players in the hobby who play in this manner out of habit or misguided notions that its the "right" way to play.
....
Its all of the people who've bought in to the fundamentally incorrect assumptions of play I outlined above and now go through the motions of such play even though they themselves aren't narcissistic jerks.  Because that's how they've been trained.
....
Rather I'm certain that the language and habit of thinking in terms of Deep Immersion was assembled and constructed over time and worked its way into the core assumptions of gaming, in much the same mechanism as ethnic stereotyping.  By this I mean that you can't point a finger a couple of racists who first started the stereotype and then launched a publicity campaign to besmirch the ethnic group.  Rather such stereo types are assembled in bits and pieces over time and spread through habit, repetition, careless thinking, a lack of critical analysis of the major components of the stereotype and why they're being repeated, and prevailing social standards that accept them without question.

Fine, allright. Now you need to demonstrate two things to make your conspiracy theory more than an interesting speculation or a peculiar opinion:
(1) texts do indeed promote what you label "deep immersion" (as opposed to normal immersion) or at least work toward that goal
Claiming subversive, subconscious influence which can't be pointed out isn't an argument AFAIK, so please make that point by showing us how this subtle influence towards "deep immersion" is generated, where it can be found etc.
(2) Convince us that the problem is as widespread as you claim. Frankly, I've only seen "deep", semi autistic immersion twice so far, and that was one particular person, during one particular scene in two different sessions. The rest of the time the guy just played along, and when "his moment" came, it was boring as hell to me, but I realised it was an almost spiritual experience for him and so I played along. I wouldn't want to play regularly with this guy, but your argument presumes a widespread problem or at least "problematic issue" and I'm just not seening that, neither in game texts nor in gamers.
((3) if you want to claim that regular immersion is responsible for the dysfunction you pointed out, please demonstrate the causal chain from technique to dysfunction. Your "Wizard of Oz" story above does nothing for me in that regard, since it merely proclaims the existence of a road and presumes it will be travelled, while all you really have demonstrated is that texts put people in a particular spot. Where they travel from there is completely open AFAIK and your "travelling down the road" rests on the metaphor alone, it doesn't follow from you starting point.)

I can see the possibility that you've identified a real problem, but as it stands I think you have made a weak claim, based on little and vague evidence and an assertion concerning gamers which, while possibly correct, has little going for it except the fact that it just might be correct (hence my usage of the phrase "conspiracy theory").

It is, to me, the equivalent of a theory that bad texts on creating a story are responsible for creating Typhoid Marys or Prima Donnas. To which I'd also say: Sure, there's bad texts, but is the problem widespread and do the texts actually promote these particular dysfunctions? In the absence of evidence for both, it's but an interesting speculation.

Apologies for the challenging tone, I'm willing to believe, but since I haven't seen evidence for either point one or two above, the only meaningful recourse is to ask you for evidence, otherwise we're left with comparing our non-representative subjective experiences.

[Sean]

Hi, Ralph.

I agree with you that this problem is unduly pervasive in the hobby. I tend to be cynical about human nature, so I've assumed that that's because the hobby attracts an abnormally high percentage of jerks, perhaps just because it offers this sort of (false) justification for their jerk-like behavior. Your thought, that we're actually training non-jerks to behave like jerks, is a chilling one, and bears some consideration.

I can think of examples of pretty heavily immersive games that I've been in that were not especially marred by the particular sort of self-absorbed and narcissistic jerkiness we're discussing, but on the other hand I've seen lots of tables full of dysfunctional gamers both employing and hiding behind immersion as a justification for their behavior. Are all those people really the sort of one-in-a-hundred self-absorbed turds you occasionally encounter in other walks of life? And does role-playing attract or create such people?

Insofar as it does the latter, I agree that we should adopt a 'by any means necessary' (well, except by promoting falsehood, evil, or ugliness) attitude towards fighting this. Because if that's so, role-playing really is a corrupting hobby for some people, though not for the reasons that some Christians like to give.

Best,

Sean

[RaconteurX]

Certainly there are folks who take the need for characterization too far and hamstring the story, but likewise there are people who take the need for story too far and hamstring characterization. One is "deep immersion" and the other "railroading". Both are dysfunctional, at least to those who prefer a different creative agenda. This is the source of complaints about how others' play ruined someone's enjoyment. I know people who think any form of aggressive scene-framing is railroading, and others who think that any form of in-character decision that does not feed into the ongoing plot is deep immersion.

I consider myself a immersionist (the Method Actor of Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering) in that I try to maintain a consistent behavioral model for my characters. However, I do not necessarily ignore metagame considerations. I tend to see things coming and discuss with my gamemaster whether he or she needs me to choose a particular course of action. If it is necessary, we also talk about how best to rationalize the decision such that the character's authenticity (the degree to which other players' suspension of disbelief is reinforced by portrayal of the character) is maintained.

It is my belief that dysfunctional roleplaying arises out of dysfunctional personality. This is not the fault of the dysfunctional person but instead typically has its roots in the individuals' environment and socialization. People do not typically choose to be jerks, assholes, losers or whatever denigrating terms you choose to heap on them. Let's not forget that, by participating in this hobby of roleplaying, mainstream society considers each of us a geek, nerd, loser or worse. A little compassion goes a lot farther in changing someone's play habits than otracism and elitism. If you aren't having fun, perhaps the problem isn't with other players... it's with you.

But then, I honestly think this thread is just another tantrum about how people are annoyed at not getting their way at the gaming table. That's life, my friends... adapt or die. Different strokes for different folks.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

You folks have all read and carefully studied thoughts on why immersion is a tar baby and all related links, right?

Because any and all terminological issues, like the ones that keep concerning you, Tony, are handled there in detail. For purposes of this thread, Ralph (Valamir) is being very clear about exactly what he's criticizing, and to say "but the term immersion doesn't mean that to me" is irrelevant.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Now John, I know you'd very much like to see a mainstream example of a Deep Immersionist manifesto, and in the absence of such are inclined to dismiss Deep Immersion as being a non existant straw man.  But such a manifesto is not necessary.

All that is necessary is to show two things:
1) The sentiment that being immersed is better than not being immersed.
2) The sentiment that metagame interferes with immersion and thus should be avoided.

You don't need wild eyed fanatical manifestos in order to arrive at the Oz-like destination of Deep Immersion from there.  You merely have to follow the yellow brick road of the above two sentiments and you'll be on your way to Emerald City.  

OK, rather than raving about Oz and such, can you actually describe what this Deep Immersionist play actually look like in real terms?  How can I observationally distinguish between a player on the Deep Immersion road versus one who prefers a functional immersive style?  How can I tell whether I am on the Deep Immersion road?  

It seems to me that in this case, you are holding the exact opposite position to Ron's thesis of immersion as a tar-baby.  i.e. He suggests that the problem with immersion is that everyone defines immersion as "whatever the speaker values during role-playing".  However, you are defining Deep Immersion as the majority practice in role-playing, and that it is evil.  

I'll throw in my bias.  In my opinion, the overwhelming problem the RPG hobby is facing is One-True-Way-ism -- the idea that role-playing has to follow a particular path and that other ways are evil.  My overwhelming motivation in promoting the Threefold Model was to suggest that there were multiple, very different, styles of role-playing.  The thing is, I feel that Ralph is adding to the problem here.  i.e. He is saying that the majority of RPG play is Deep Immersion, and that it is the spawn of the devil and should be purged.  (Incidentally, I would put myself as being more immersive than most other role-players, so I suspect I am part of the problem he is talking about.)  

In my opinion, squabbling like this is harmful as well as pointless.  D&D and other traditional RPGs aren't going away.  If you think the games that are out there aren't fun, then make ones that are better from your point of view.  If other people are like you, then more people will play them and stop playing the un-fun ones.  There is no brainwashing or secret conspiracy going on here -- they're just fucking games.  

If you disagree with me, then please answer my challenge:   describe in real, visible terms how to distinguish Deep Immersion from other play.

[TonyLB]

Ron, thank you for the link.  It was very interesting.

My concern isn't that I think I disagree with Ralphs overall point.  If he wants to define his own term ("Deep Immersion") and say "This refers to people who act mean in the following narrowly defined way", and then say "Deep Immersion is bad", there really isn't very much to disagree with.  I've met such people.  I didn't like them.  So far as I can tell nobody likes them.

In fact, I don't see what Ralph is saying, beyond "Mean people suck".

It's not that I think "Hurray!  Up with mean people!"  I just thought that he must be saying something... I don't know... more.  In fact, he probably is.  But I'm clearly not qualified to dig it out.  I've tried and failed.

I suspect this discussion includes an important nugget of wisdom that I can take back to my play group.  I would really appreciate if somebody could sum it up for me in a readers digest version.  I am a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me :-)

[Valamir]

However, you are defining Deep Immersion as the majority practice in role-playing, and that it is evil.

John, I am very careful in the words I choose to use.  Not once did I use the word majority.  Do not ascribe to me things that I have not said, thank you.

I have used the word pervasive...which means "spread throughout".  Last time I checked, pervasive and majority were not synonyms.

I'll throw in my bias. In my opinion, the overwhelming problem the RPG hobby is facing is One-True-Way-ism

No disagreement.  Deep Immersion is the poster child for one-true-wayism.

The thing is, I feel that Ralph is adding to the problem here. i.e. He is saying that the majority of RPG play is Deep Immersion, and that it is the spawn of the devil and should be purged.

If you say that one true wayism is bad, and Deep Immersion is clearly one true wayism at its finest, then how am I adding to the problem by pointing out Deep Immersion is bad.

If A is B, and C is A...then C is B.

Far as I know thats a perfectly logical rule.


You seem to be disagreeing with me for absolutely no reason other than some proprietary feeling towards the word "immersion" that causes you to leap to the defensive.

In my opinion, squabbling like this is harmful as well as pointless.

There is no squabbling going on John.  There is only me explaining my position, others who are asking clarifying questions for which I endeavor to answer and yet others who insist on repeatedly misrepresenting everything I say so I'm forced to keep correcting them.

D&D and other traditional RPGs aren't going away. If you think the games that are out there aren't fun, then make ones that are better from your point of view. If other people are like you, then more people will play them and stop playing the un-fun ones.

This is such a tired old strawman John.  When it gets dragged out it generally indicates the person has run out of good arguements.

First, we aren't talking game design here.  We're talking play technique.  Therefor this whole statement is completely irrelevant to begin with.

Second, its already been well established that popularity is a completely meaningless measurement of anything.  So any arguement that relies on "if you were right you're position would be more popular" is completely laughable and completely beneath you to make.

There is no brainwashing or secret conspiracy going on here

Did I not specifically say that this was not about a conspiracy?
Why yes I did. 8 posts up.  Once again, agreement.  What exactly are you argueing with?

If you disagree with me, then please answer my challenge: describe in real, visible terms how to distinguish Deep Immersion from other play.

Well, you've set up a pass / fail condition that can't possibly be met.  

Of course its not that simple.  We already know that its not going to be that simple because we've already spent many long threads on the idea that intent and motivation cannot be objectively measured at the game table.  This is well covered ground from many GNS threads about why GNS measures observable behaviors and not intent.

How can you tell when someone at the table is Immersing as a valid reasonable technique vs. when they're Immersing as part of a Deep Immersion agenda (vernacular agenda not CA)?  You can't, anymore than you can tell whether a player's decision to have his character buy a bigger gun is a Gamist, Sim, or Nar decision.

You tell by observing their entire history of play, their tells, the attitudes they express.  Have you observed over the course of an evening's session the immersionist player also playing in a clearly non immersionist stance?  Did he talk OOC during the game, did he use Director Stance during the game, did he engage in any visible observable use of metagame?  If so, clearly not using Deep Immersion.

But what if he didn't engage in any visible use of metagame?  Does that mean he's definitely using Deep Immersion?  Clearly not.  He could be using invisible metagame techniques like Author Stance.  What then?  Thats why its impossible to simply point and say "there it is".

But there are tells.

Frequent statements of "but that would break immersion" is a strong indicator.  Someone who merely uses Immersion as one technique in many is more than ready willing and able to break immersion from time to time as they switch between other valid techniques. They aren't going to dismiss a technique simply because it might break immersion.  

Someone who is obsessively fearful of anything that might break immersion is a good candidate for being a Deep Immersionist.

Certainly there are folks who take the need for characterization too far and hamstring the story, but likewise there are people who take the need for story too far and hamstring characterization. One is "deep immersion" and the other "railroading". Both are dysfunctional

I have no disagreement with that.  In fact, it might even prove to be a useful dichotomy to pursue.  What is particularly telling (as I've said before) is that railroading is very nearly universally riviled while immersion is very nearly universally held as sacred.

Why isn't Deep Immersion derided as much as Railroading is?

Precisely because of what I've been saying all along...the widespread acceptance of the Deep Immersionist agenda that pervades the hobby (at least in the U.S.  I don't know if its as pervasive...or perhaps even more so...else where).

My concern isn't that I think I disagree with Ralphs overall point. If he wants to define his own term ("Deep Immersion") and say "This refers to people who act mean in the following narrowly defined way", and then say "Deep Immersion is bad", there really isn't very much to disagree with. I've met such people. I didn't like them. So far as I can tell nobody likes them.

In fact, I don't see what Ralph is saying, beyond "Mean people suck".

I don't know what to tell you Tony.  I never said anything about "mean people".  I have no idea where you came up with the idea that anything I said is about "mean people".  This has nothing to do with being mean.

What this has to do with, is the promotion of a specific technique as being superior to all other techniques, and the systematic attack with intent to purge against any other technique for which there's even a perception that it might interfere with it.

Why is Deep Immersion  bad?

Many reasons.  
1) it greatly narrows the hobby.  Go to your FLGS make a stack of all the core books on the shelves.  Chances are they all look pretty darn similiar.  Most of them will be far more similiar than they are different in terms of what actual play feels like.  There are many reasons for this, but one of the biggest is because the mandates of Deep Immersion are taken for granted as being what roleplaying is about, therefor game design has ranged within a very low standard deviation from this expected mean for a long time.


2) it limits the growth of the hobby.  Deep Immersion is not an easy thing to pull off.  Nor is it something that people (non gamers) would expect to have to try to do when they get invited over for an evening's entertainment.  The rabid pursuit of the Deep Immersionist agenda drives away alot of potential gamers.  Sean above notes that mainstream society considers gamers to be geeks and nerds already.  A big part of the reason for that is the behavior of Deep Immersionists which is completely alien and "wierd" to non gamers.  The fact that it is not alien and wierd to gamers is yet more proof of its pervasiveness.

3) Its extremely hostile to players who want something else.  Pulling off a Deep Immersionist experience requires a very carefully controlled environment.  Deviation from this environment in any way is believed (correctly or not) to break immersion.  Deep Immersionists will therefor go to great lengths of social manipulation to prevent such deviations from happening.

4) It shuts people off from exploring the myriad of other techniques which are just as valid and fun as immersion, and which often function perfectly happily side by side with immersion (although not necessarily with deep immersion).  Players who would like to experiment with other techniques are forbidden to do so.  There are ALOT of good gaming techniques out there (and yes for the umpteenth time immersion is one of them).  What makes Deep Immersion bad is that it promotes Immersion as the most important one and sacrifices all other possibilities to it.

5) It drives people out of the hobby.  Because gaming isn't a tremendously common hobby, most gamers live in fear of the stigma and can't imagine looking for a group of non gamers to start playing with, and most groups are ostensibly "friends".  Gamers are forced to choose between compliance or not playing.  Most choose compliance...until they find other social avenues with other friends and quit the hobby altogether.


All of this has been said before, but maybe the summary in one place will help you out.

[Rob Carriere]

I think the key words are `social' and `responsibility'. RPG play is a social activity and you are responsible for keeping the Social Contract. If you are going to immerse to a degree that your ability to keep the SC is impaired, you had better design your character in such a way that it will keep the SC for you.

To address the recurring example, the catatonic immersionist runs afoul of most SCs. He can address that by immersing less, or by immersing in a character that doesn't go quiescent for extensive periods, or by seeking a group whose SC accepts this behavior.

I also agree with Valamir that pretending immersion (deep or otherwise) is The One True Way is bad and limiting. You could argue that that is the case for any One True Way position (true), but that ignores, as Valamir rightly points out, the particular prevalence of this OTW.

In an unrelated point...

I think part of the controversy is indeed semantic tar-babying (I've always wanted to write that :-) Valamir, am I rephrasing your position correctly when I say that you are opposed to play that emphasizes character consistency over all other concerns?

SR
--

[montag]

Valamir, am I rephrasing your position correctly when I say that you are opposed to play that emphasizes character consistency over all other concerns?

That's just what I wanted to ask, too.

[pete_darby]

Firstly, despite it's prevalence in conventional RP books, is DI really that prevalent "in the wild"?

Secondly, I can't speak for Ralph, but I'm certainly leary of any statement that says that any single aspect of play should be held as inherently an unssailably superior to any other in all cases for all players and groups.

The assumption that DI is "doing it right" is, to my mind, the source of a lot of hostility to various indie games, or rather their mechanics, which proceed from the presumption that DI is not necessary for good play.

A little while back on RPG.net, I got caught up in a tar-baby argument that started with "narrativism is the munchkins new clothes"; why? Because, apparently, mechanisms like Buffy's plot points and Adventure's dramatic editing put metagame power in the players hands, not the GM's. Which is like, wrong, because you should just shut up and play the character... GGGGGGGGAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

And it's why games like Universalis get called "Weird" or "pervy" or (horror of horrors!) "Not really role playing games." Because these games "do it wrong", but work, and are fun, and the DI cheerleaders can't work out why...

All in my opinion, hell, I'm probably projecting.