Immersion, Childishness, and Understanding

[greyorm]

Over in the Creator or Fan? thread, an idea came up that was discussed (barely) regarding Immersion and whether or not it is healthy. I said something about the idea as a counterpoint to the one being espoused on RPGnet, when the above thread was brought up, but I've also been thinking about it in relation to some of the other ideas tossed around, and Clinton and John's hard-eyed stares over the same issue.

I'm quoting Clinton here, and the statement in contention was thus:

The people who flip their pancake of reason every time theory or "meta-gaming" (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the bubble of immersion broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative.

Sooner or later, adulthood comes along. And what was childish games has to fall aside or be examined. Examination and then creation produces art, plain and simple.

Some folks are claiming that what is being said here is that immersion is just childish and stoooopid, and only practiced by goobs and idiots, and thus that the whole statement is insulting and indicative of One True Wayism. Whatever...that basically immersion is being painted as "bad" or "wrong" by this statement.

Now see, I didn't get that out of Clinton's statement at all. I can see how it might be read that way, but I don't think that's the point that was being made. If I read him right, Clinton's talking about examination, and the avoidance thereof, as being childish. Not that Immersives were a bunch of scardey children, but that those who failed to examine their own Immersive style as a style and understand it, because they are denying their own forward progress (not towards "less immersion" or a different style, but towards "deeper/better immersion" or "cognizant immersion"). First off, I'm checking to see if I'm right about my reading or not (Clinton?).

If the terms I'm using above don't parse well, try this example instead: Knowing what the notes you are playing, or knowing music theory, are does not ruin your ability to play spontaneously and unstructuredly. Claiming otherwise, claiming that knowing what you are doing will pull you out of that "free-for-all" state and make you unable to enjoy that sort of play, is untrue.

Avoiding examining and understanding how you play, because you like playing unstructured free jazz, is childish because it is untrue that the examination will cause you to be unable to play free jazz any longer or as well or as enjoyably. Eventually, you "grow up" and start noticing things about your play that help you improve, through understanding how you play. This is similar to what I mean by "cognizant immersion".

So, in my interpretation, Clinton is talking about rejection of that understanding and natural growth process, and I agree with that. I do think it is childish and immature to reject greater understanding of one's hobby, or any activity one is engaged in, and thus one's self...but I also want examine that idea further. Am I wrong in thinking that? Because I have to consider "Bob" here, the guy who plays D&D beer-and-pretzels every week and really doesn't care to advance his knowledge of play, even just to the point that he understands his preferences?

You see, I notice that John Kim wore in the same thread how Scandinavian LARP theorists are very aware of what it is they are doing (the theory and practice of it) and what they want to see happening as players, and yet they are hardcore Immersive players. They are aware of their reasons for Immersing, techniques to do such, and so forth, and it does not interefere with their ability to do so (it heightens it, in fact).

So another question would be, given that it can and is done without causing the indicated problems, why do other Immersives cross themselves upon even the suggestion of doing this, being that it doesn't cause problems? (I'm thinking specifically of John Morrow's statement to this effect; though I recognize he may not have meant it that way. I'm hoping he is reading this and can take the time to respond.)

Where do these ideas come from, what are they supported by, do they serve any useful purpose, how does one communicate the idea with someone opposed to the idea? For me, what are the benefits and pitfalls to not understanding one's play? And conversely, for those on the other side of this fence, what are the benefits and pitfalls of understanding one's play?

[John Kim]

You see, I notice that John Kim wore in the same thread how Scandinavian LARP theorists are very aware of what it is they are doing (the theory and practice of it) and what they want to see happening as players, and yet they are hardcore Immersive players. They are aware of their reasons for Immersing, techniques to do such, and so forth, and it does not interefere with their ability to do so (it heightens it, in fact).

So another question would be, given that it can and is done without causing the indicated problems, why do other Immersives cross themselves upon even the suggestion of doing this, being that it doesn't cause problems? (I'm thinking specifically of John Morrow's statement to this effect; though I recognize he may not have meant it that way. I'm hoping he is reading this and can take the time to respond.)

Where do these ideas come from, what are they supported by, do they serve any useful purpose, how does one communicate the idea with someone opposed to the idea? For me, what are the benefits and pitfalls to not understanding one's play? And conversely, for those on the other side of this fence, what are the benefits and pitfalls of understanding one's play?

Well, first of all, I've spoken to John Morrow many times in the past, and I think you are misreading him.  He is opposed to such discussion as part of the game.  That is, he doesn't like saying (for example), "I'd like this to be a character development scene to illustrate my Issue of narcotic addiction." as part of the game.  But he is perfectly amenable to discussion over dinner about RPG structure and so forth. 

On the other hand, there are people who aren't particularly interested in theory or deep examination of role-playing.  I don't think there's anything immature about this.  For example, I enjoy singing without studying music theory.  I don't consider it a sign of immaturity for me to not study music theory.  I also consider it perfectly mature behavior to watch films without studying film theory and read books without studying literary theory.  So I guess I would say that I see no problem with these ideas. 

[Thor Olavsrud]

Huh. I could be misreading it entirely, but my take is that it is essentially impossible to maintain immersion throughout the course of a session. Something will always happen in the game that will either cause you to break immersion to deal with it or to just ignore such things as they didn't happen.

Here's an example that a participant posted to the Burning Wheel boards a few weeks ago:

Sample from an actual play. A character that our group of characters had met before (but not for long, he was still an outsider) took part in the bullying of a merchant. The goal was to intimidate him, but the character in question used lethal force, resulting in an unwanted situation for the group.

My character would naturally turn the other to the militia. As a player, I wouldn't want to break the game because my friend thought that stabbing repetedly someone was a good way to ensure his cooperation to follow us until he could be interrogated.

What should I have done?

This player was coming from the point of view that immersion is extremely important, and the goal of play. And yet, faced with these events in play, it became impossible for the player to maintain immersion. In fact, potentially, an attempt to stay immersed could lead to dysfunction, taking the game to a place NO ONE particularly wanted to go.

The only way to maintain immersion in that scene as he described it, was to turn the other guy's character in. Since that wasn't really an option, this player's immersion was gone anyway.

I responded to it this way:

My first question, and my answer to the rest depends on this, is how did you, not your character, feel about what happened? Did you feel that the other player had taken the game into a place you didn't like? Or did you find it interesting but were unsure how to deal with it based on the character you were playing?

This is a very important distinction. If it was the former, this is not something you could solve in the context of the game. Having your character turn his character in would not fix the situation.

If it were the latter, and I wasn't sure what to do, I think I would have asked to pause the game and raised the issue with everyone else. "In this situation, I feel like my character would do this, but I think that could ruin the game. What do you guys think?"

It seems really weird to someone who's never done it before, I know. But doing this is OK. Gaming is a shared imagined activity. It requires everyone at the table to work together to shape it. Sometimes, in order to keep it going, you have to step outside of it and help each other patch up the illusion so that you remain on the same page.

Kublai's suggestion may be the right approach. The GM might also be helpful and provide evidence right there and then that the merchant was a Bad GuyTM.

But my point is that doing something destructive to the game in order to preserve the fidelity of the character isn't going to make the game more fun for anyone. So work together and find some way around it.

In my opinion, stopping and examining the play, figuring out what people want, would be the only way to save this game. And after doing so, the players could re-immerse if they choose. Without doing that, this is likely to become a game-breaking event.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Now see, I didn't get that out of Clinton's statement at all. I can see how it might be read that way, but I don't think that's the point that was being made. If I read him right, Clinton's talking about examination, and the avoidance thereof, as being childish. Not that Immersives were a bunch of scardey children, but that those who failed to examine their own Immersive style as a style and understand it, because they are denying their own forward progress (not towards "less immersion" or a different style, but towards "deeper/better immersion" or "cognizant immersion"). First off, I'm checking to see if I'm right about my reading or not (Clinton?).

You got me right on the dot there, Raven. That's exactly what I meant.

John Kim, you've off target - I'm in no way endorsing knowing the theory of a subject in order to enjoy that subject. I'm endorsing examination of a subject. To use other media as examples, I'm a ukulele player. I know only a little music theory. But I don't just play the same songs over and over from memory: I think about why I play certain songs, what goes well together, and so on.

Much like that, examination of the RPG process is necessary to it being a fulfilling and wholesome activity for adults. I can't believe I'm saying this, but, yeah, I think unexamined play of RPGs is an unwholesome activity. If you're getting together and doing it just for the sake of doing it, then you've got a big problem on your hands.

And that's the problem I see with some people who get all up in arms about their immersion. It seems they're playing that way just to play that way. There's no other point to it. (Or, better said, there is a point, and they refuse to examine it.) I would love rebuttal, but I know I'm going to get "I don't do that; I immerse because X," which is awesome for you, but not the 20 people who don't know why they do.

Any unexamined activity repeated can become an immature and possibly unhealthy activity. That was my point.

[ewilen]

Clinton,

Nope, I don't see it, certainly not in the general case. Maybe it depends on the type of activity or the amount. If friends get together to play basketball or ultimate on a regular basis, how could that be "unexamined and therefore unwholesome" or "examined and wholesome"? I'm trying to read your comments charitably but "unwholesome" and "you've got a big problem on your hands" are getting in the way.

[Mark Woodhouse]

I think I get what Clinton is getting at. It is a tricky thing to get across.

Unexamined play is icky because it's just habitual, ritualized repetition of a familiar pattern to get the same reward the same way every time. The monkey has learned that if it pushes the lever, it gets the cookie. So it sits there pushing the lever, over and over and over and over. Eventually, the monkey will push the lever even without the cookie.

Is that the point you're pushing at, Clinton?

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Elliott, I suggest that your basketball players are examining their play in the sense that Clinton is describing. They might be doing so in terms of how to play better, in terms of whether they (individually) are enjoying themselves, in some other terms, or any combination.

Or rather, more accurately, I'm presenting as my world-view that many real people who do play pickup basketball are really doing this.

Best,
Ron

[Frank T]

I suggest that there is a major difference between "examination", as proposed by Clinton, and "deep analysis". If you are really into the theory and analysis of a subject, it might well get in the way of "simply enjoying". Like the script author who can't watch a movie without unwillingly paying attention to the techniques the script uses, and how well or badly they are applied. He might still be amazed by a good movie, maybe even more amazed than he would have been without his theoretical knowledge and analytic skill, but he just sees it with different eyes.

Please don't tell me I'm the only one who sees his games with different eyes. Since I have started to dig into RPG theory, I can't help consciously analizing my play. That doesn't mean I don't have fun any more when gaming. I have had some great sessions thanks to getting into RPG theory. But yeah, I guess it means that the "deep character immersion" type of play gets harder, because I can't help looking beyond the SIS at the stuff going on there.

Why do I say that? Because I think it partly validates the point that theory might break the bubble of immersion.

- Frank

[Marco]

Much like that, examination of the RPG process is necessary to it being a fulfilling and wholesome activity for adults. I can't believe I'm saying this, but, yeah, I think unexamined play of RPGs is an unwholesome activity. If you're getting together and doing it just for the sake of doing it, then you've got a big problem on your hands.

I'm not sure I can believe you're saying it either. It's clear that strong immersionists know what they like, John Morrow has never said otherwise (he's real clear about what he likes in a game). Who are these people who you are responding to?

And that's the problem I see with some people who get all up in arms about their immersion. It seems they're playing that way just to play that way. There's no other point to it. (Or, better said, there is a point, and they refuse to examine it.)

I think the idea that (presumably) large numbers of people involved in a hobby are engaging in self-deception violates Occam's Razor. I think a far more likely situation is that people who enjoy immersion are, in fact, playing that way because they enjoy it and setting oneself up as a judge of them by saying "they refuse to examine it" seems illogical and the phrasing is arrogant.

-Marco

[ewilen]

Ron, that may be--the basketball players may be examining their play. But I find it easier to imagine that even if they don't examine their play, the whole thing is perfectly wholesome because playing basketball is purely recreational for them--it isn't the main point of their lives.

Now roleplaying is different from basketball, so that might not be all that's going on. But then I think that difference is worth examining.

[ewilen]

Hey, Marco,

I think one thing that needs to be separated here is "people who are opposed to critical examination during the activity because it upsets immersion" and "people who are opposed to critical examination at any time". I'm pretty sure Clinton has restricted his judgment to the latter, not that I entirely agree with what he's said.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

About a month or so ago, the idea struck me, what if people looked at immersiveness the same way they tend to look at rules- as a tool to be used or abandoned according to what is fun?  I think the big issue we look at when it comes to immersiveness is that it has been often touted as the end-goal of play, when in fact it is just one technique we can use or drop according to the game and taste.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I will start by saying that "wholesome" is not a term I tend to use much, or to think about except in terms of its extreme opposite. I'm skeptical that anything we discuss can ever be settled as wholesome or unwholesome close to the border between them.

I can, however, speak to whether how one participates in an activity (a) contributes to peace of mind and (b) leads others to continue to invite the person.

And I think, in those terms, that the (for instance) basketball or ultimate player who fails to examine his or her play in the sense that Clinton is talking about, is very likely to fail at (a) or (b) or at both.

Elliott, probably without intending to, you're pulling an argument fast-one when you state,

even if they don't examine their play, the whole thing is perfectly wholesome because playing basketball is purely recreational for them--it isn't the main point of their lives

That's switching the issue. The "main point" of someone's life, and whether this activity is "it" or not, is irrelevant to anything being said here. In fact, I suggest that we stay focused on hobbies and social leisure stuff, period, which are typically not so central.  Similarly, the term "purely recreational" is also irrelevant - all that it means is that the person is enjoying it and probably not getting paid for it. That has nothing to do with self-examining or not self-examining.

To be absolutely clear, I think that one can enjoy an activity, not get paid for it, and it's not the main point of his or her life - that fulfills all your criteria - and that in such a case, my points about (a) and (b) above may be relied upon very often.

Perhaps your mental image of someone who is enjoying something "recreationally" and my image are very different. Perhaps our images of what "examination" is are different. In my case, I'm imagining someone who is not behaving in any way specially different from (a) doing the thing, (b) talking about or mulling over the thing in any terms they like (often critical, although not technical), and (c) enjoying the thing.

I anticipate an argument emerging, soon, that such an observation is trivial. Of course people do this, and most of the time if they don't, their participation becomes halting and inflexible, and they either stop because they don't like it or because others don't like participating with them.

... Except that it's not trivial, for us. In the hobby of role-playing, such a behavior is often held up as an ideal. And Clinton thinks it stinks, and I agree with him.

Does everyone "into immersion" fit this profile. Hell, I don't know. A lot of them do; probably a lot don't. Last year, at GenCon, Ben Lehman was unsettled by critical comments I made about the social maladjustments of many participants. He thought I was "picking on the geeks." Later, he contacted me to say that he'd realized what I meant - that folks who were enthusiastic but awkward were fantastic people, and playing with them is fun (and similarly, that someone who suffers from clinical obesity is perfectly reasonably inclined toward sedentary and imaginative hobbies). But that folks who stuck with the hobby out of a hamster-wheel like obsession with their own adolescence (including college in many cases) were plain fucked in terms of (a) and (b) - they were unhappy and unsuccessful with their participation despite their intensity, and it showed in every body movement, in tone of voice, and in every victimized signal they gave off with every sentence.

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Big effin' ups to Ron's last post.

Others are reading me wrong, so I'm going to re-state clearly.

First of all, let me define "wholesome." Unlike Ron, I do use this term a lot. I tend to judge things in moral terms.

An activity is wholesome if it has a purpose that positively contributes. (Contributes to what? Mainly, your own life. But it could positively contribute to anything.)

So, a group of people who sit down and play a RPG each week where they kill kobolds and get stress relief and relaxation out of that, and know that they do - that's awesome. Good. Wholesome.

People who sit down each week and play an RPG and never once know - as a group, mind you - why they get together - that's not wholesome.

We clear on the definition? I hope so, because it seems self-evident to me.

Most activities I can think of, the participants know why they do them. Role-playing seems to me to have this problem where many participants don't know why they do it. Argue all you like, but we've got a lot of social dysfunction in our hobby. Find me at a convention sometime and I can point it out. I believe we've all seen it. That dysfunction comes from somewhere. I'm perfectly willing to discuss where it comes from, and maybe I'm wrong on it, but right now, I'm the one trying to figure it out.

So, my thought is this. If you cannot answer the following questions, and your current role-playing group cannot, your activity is reaching a level of unwholesomeness.

• Why do I play role-playing games?
• Why am I playing the one I am currently?
• Why did I choose these people to play with?
• How do we, as a group, realize this reason we're playing? ("Realize," as in "how do we make it happen?)

[ewilen]

Ron, I appreciate the clarification, which knocks off a whole chunk of obvious unwholesomeness, leaving the interesting stuff for examination.

But now I am wondering if Clinton hasn't defined the problem out of existence. Is any answer to "why do I play RPGs" okay, as long as the question is asked? And what if criticial examination never gets beyond the basics of the four questions?