Immersion, Childishness, and Understanding

[Clinton R. Nixon]

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?

Gods, no. I'm touching the tip of the iceberg. But if you can't answer the above, you can't even get started.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Elliott,

Hell, man, I don't know. Those are what you might call Kozmik Kwestions that any thinking adult has to consider about what he or she does. Kind of beyond the scope of the Forge.

I do know I enjoyed this thread very much and greatly appreciate the effort everyone's made to understand one another.

Best,
Ron

cross-posted with Clinton

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

A few quick thoughts on the whole thing:

1) When analyzing both pro- and contra-immersionist critique, it is best to realize that both sides are normally utterly unable to conceive the other side's viewpoints. Think atheist vs. people who claim to have had religious experiences. The immersive state is essentially nondescibable. You either have experienced what amounts to a (perceived) loss of "self" or the sense of self for a finite duration.

2) Add to this that both sides of the split (I personally also really think it's an either/or situation) have plenty of people who are not very mature, i.e. are playing for the retained-adolescent-attitude reasons mentioned before.

3) Furthermore, like John said, there exists a vocal group of gamers who oppose all deeper examination of their hobby, whether it's personal (immersive) exploration or academic research to it. Some of them are immature (the loudest persons usually are), others want to preserve the sense of wonder they see essential to the role-playing experience.

4) Add to this the creative-agenda -like desires of other players, and their potential tendency to hold on them as fanatically. (I've seen narrativists and gamists who are so intense they'll make any Turku-school fanatic seem easy by comparison.)

Therefore, the biggest problem is really in the fact that too many playing groups have attendees who represent more than one perspective /and/ are unable to make those views co-exist. And when moved to any public forum, the problem expands exponentially.

Despite what Frank suspected above, I think that immersionism has no correlation whatsoever to things such as willingness to accept role-playing analysis. All my experiences as a gamer and all the academic field research I've done seems to point towards the following: immersion is just an enjoyment method like all the others. It's simply more character-centric, more intense, and thus more unpredictable from a group-benefit viewpoint. The big problems come from players whose opposition to compromise /masquerades behind/ immersion, anti-immersion, gamism or anti-intellectualism, etc. Those are the people who are actually IMO doing the complaining.

-Jiituomas

[John Kim]

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.

Is there a way to proceed on this?  I, too, have observed unhappy people among gamers -- this includes both immersives and non-immersives.  Personally, I haven't seen a correlation.  That is, non-immersive players like boardgamers, collectible card gamers, and hack-and-slash D&D players do not seem any happier than the more immersive players like larpers or "atmospheric" tabletop players.  

The person whom Clinton cited as an example was John Morrow, which I disagree with.  I don't expect naming names will work very well, though it may be worth trying.  But without some indication of common experience, it seems hard to discuss.  Perhaps we could discuss examples of text which demonstrates the dysfunctional ideal which you're talking about?  

[Clinton R. Nixon]

The person whom Clinton cited as an example was John Morrow, which I disagree with.  I don't expect naming names will work very well, though it may be worth trying.  But without some indication of common experience, it seems hard to discuss.  Perhaps we could discuss examples of text which demonstrates the dysfunctional ideal which you're talking about? 

John,

If we're going to avoid naming names, please do not put words in my mouth. This sort of statement is almost Orwellian in its ability to affect the truth. I never mentioned anyone, and never called immersives immature. John assumed I did and posted nothing more than "you're wrong" wordily.

If you say I did this, someone else will believe it, and then we'll have a holy war on our hands. Please don't. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify, but I can't really demand that.

EDIT: Original post for reference purposes:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16088.msg171511#msg171511

[John Kim]

NOTE: Edited to correct reference to Clinton which was actually by greyorm

Sorry if I'm misrepresented.  Really, I'd be happier with naming names in this regard, because otherwise I can't tell if we're comparing apples and oranges.  Anyhow, what I was thinking of was:

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.)

I think this was fairly polite and useful to cite John Morrow here.  Without some cited examples (or at the very least clear identifying characteristics) of this supposed behavior, it is extremely hard to discuss.  As far as I have seen, immersive players are perfectly willing to discuss theory as much as any other group of players. 

[Bankuei]

Hi,

I've observed before how many gamers share patterns with abuse victims.  At first I had thought this was simply a side-effect of "geek culture" or something of the sort, but here's some things worth thinking about:

You have an activity which (many games):
- discourage person to person discussion of the activity itself
- discourage communication amongst each the participants
- throws judgementalism on that ("Talking about it is bad")
- expects you to be able to perform coordinated activities without communication
- throws judgementalism on that as well ("You're not following my leads!")
- expects long-term, even life-time commitments
- puts all the power into one person's hands

If you've known anyone who's grown up in a shame based culture, has been raised by judgemental parents, been drawn into a cult, been in a codependent relationship or a domestic violence situation- a lot of the gamer tendencies make perfect sense (passive agressive, fear of doing the "wrong thing", turtling).

Honestly, we can play immersionist, non-immersionist, 1 GM, GM-ful, short term or long term, provided we are:
- honest about what we feel about the activity (Clinton's questions)
- communicate with each other about that ("Meta")
- Nix the judgementalism of "good/bad" roleplaying.

What we have seen, is traditionally the marriage of obsession with Immersion, injunctions against discussion or feedback amongst the group, control, fear, & power issues as a central concept ("Chicken Littling"), and a whole lot of judgemental bullying of other people.

Immersion itself isn't the problem- it's obssession with Immersion plus all the other unhealthy crapola that has been promoted as the standard of play under its guise.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'm seeing a great deal to learn from everyone's input although I don't have time right now to list all the connections I see among them. Only time for a response posted to me directly.

John, I don't see a 1:1 correlation between all these negative things and immersion either. However, I do see a connection that we might do well to pay attention to. When these negative things are exhibited, then immersion is a common candidate to be utilized as a cover (just as Jiituomas described).

I stated that as carefully as I could, in order to make sure that I'm not stating the converse - I'm not stating that when immersion is valued, that such negative things must be hiding under it. The commonality of the negative case, though, is at least my perception. Others' perceptions may certainly differ. Perhaps I am idealizing the hack-and-slashers when I think of (or perceive) them as often rather satisfied, by comparison.

To change the subject slightly, I'm distancing myself from the parent John Morrow thread at RPG.net entirely. I'm only interested in the topic as raised by Raven, here and now in this thread. And in general, I agree with you that naming names (which sort of translates in my mind to pointing fingers, really) isn't too useful.

So where do we go from here? Me, I'd like to see as much honest and reflective posting in Actual Play as possible. I'd like to see accounts from many years ago, from "my last game before I quit," and from last night, and everything in between. I'd like to see some local, thread-specific definitions for what's meant by "immersion" so we can stay on track for each thread.

I'm pretty confident we can get somewhere after a little while of such an effort. Perhaps people can read this thread and be confident that there are a number of minds, right here, who are very interested in this topic and who are also committed to understanding one another about it as we go. That confidence will prompt better reflection and description, and with any luck a positive cycle of communication and insight can develop.

Best,
Ron

[GB Steve]

Well, I'm happy to stand up and be counted as someone who enjoys the immersionist experience. I have been trying to post about my experiences in this regard at Origins but it's very difficult to articulate. The situation was that 6 of us were playing Call of Cthulhu with 4 GMs. Very early in the game we started acting our parts, by which I mean moving around, only talking in character and expressiing emotions (or at least the simulacra thereof) directly.

I think it would be interesting to talk to the players again about their experiences in that game as I'm pretty sure not everyone got into it as much as I did. In fact by playing this way, I'm sure that at least one player was disadvantaged. He had a WTF expression for at least some of the game. On the other hand, nine others seemed to have the times of their lives. So, I'll try to collect some evidence and I'll report back here when I have.

[Frank T]

This is all interesting and sensible stuff. However, I don't really see how it relates to the initial quote:

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.

There is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?

- Frank

[GB Steve]

In defence of immersion, you might say:

"The people who flip their pancake of reason every time immersion (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the pipe-dream of theory 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."

Flippant perhaps, but I think that until immersion is given some value, or some effort is made into understanding what that value is, you're not going to get very far in weighing it up against theory.

To a certain extent, I think the battle might be some kind of debate over what is public and what is private. Narrative gaming and its theory seems to be a public exposition of what goes on privately in immersion, addressing premise and all that stuff.

If roleplaying is to be a social game then no, you can't just keep it to yourself but I don't think that's what immersionists are after. The hope is that, well for me at least, that meaning can be conveyed through showing (acting it might be called) rather than telling (the "what's at stake" in Dogs for example). It's a less direct method and fraught with all the usual problems of human communication but that's in some way what makes it interesting.

I do object to the use of "childish" in general reference to immersion but I think it's in the spirit of debate so I'm happy to talk around it. As for Actual Play examples, there might be one here.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

There is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?

It is and is not off-track. As far as being disrupted during play goes, they are equally problematic for egocentric players, and essentially amount to the same thing for him/her. (Immersion, being the most personal gaming method, is thus the most likely to suffer from breaks, but I know HC-gamist guys who hate breaks at least as strongly.) Theory-resistance is an extension of this: a player who hates analysis and examination during play tends to extend that attitude into all forms of it, fearing that it will rebound to intrude on his/her playing.

The trick, I presume, is really this: there are roughly equal numbers of egocentric players in all camps, but some approaches correlate better with that attitude than others. Immersive and gamist tendencies are the most obvious areas where a selfish attitude shines through, and thus that's where most of the complaints come from. A narrative-interested selfish player simply directs stories, and thus basically hides in a crowd. When they complain, it comes out as smug superiority about the quality of the games they play in, and is thus externally indistinguishable from "healthy" pride about good games.

So pro-immersion and anti-immersion complaints are just manifestation forms of the actual problems, not root causes. Tht's why the viewpoints tend to be so weakly defended, and the arguments seem weird.

-Jiituomas

[Clinton R. Nixon]

This is all interesting and sensible stuff. However, I don't really see how it relates to the initial quote:

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.

There is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?

Frank,

That's a quote by me, which would have been fine if people had a bit thicker skins. It's personal opinion, only, though.

Anyway, the topic drifted into much more fruitful territory. Let's keep it there.

[FroglarTBGE]

I am new here and a bit nervous about contributing to the discussion, but this thread touches on something that is a central concern of mine now that I have embarked on serious analysis of RPG theory.

I consider myself a strongly immersive player, so much so that in order to feel 'fulfilled' as a person, I must be in some way engaged in a game which caters to this need.  I am certainly not without a 'life' outside the game, but an immersive gaming experience is a component of my happiness.  I could make a few suggestions as to why this might be, but I don't know why conclusively.

There are things -- important things -- that certain rituals do for the psyche which lose their power when they are exhaustively scrutinized and explained.  When, for instance, we fully comprehend that funerals are actually for ourselves and not the dead (since the dead can clearly no longer appreciate it) there is something lost in the process which causes grief to stick. 

I am extremely ambivalent about this.  Clearly, it should not mean quashing analysis of this, or any, subject; yet I am afraid of coming away with *less* than I had to begin with.  Dorothy's position is strengthened when she reveals the man behind the curtain.  I am not certain that this is universally the case.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello, and welcome!!

That's another one of those Great Questions, isn't it, Froglar?

And which no one can answer for you. Your example about funerals, for instance, will carry no argumentative weight for someone who does understand funerals analytically, yet also grieves at funerals and benefits from them. To you, his grief/catharsis "must" be weakened or diminished in some way ... but that's your perception alone.

And yet, no one can turn around and deny you your particular need or wish to leave the curtain up, either. I'd be surprised if anyone in this thread, even Clinton, is telling anyone else how they must start playing, right now. We're sharing some rather spiky viewpoints, and I think some of us are benefiting only because we can understand what is being said, not because we expect to come to a consensus. Your view is certainly welcome in the mix.

I invite you to include your real name, either as a signature, or a "sig" in the internet sense, or by changing your username, if you'd like.

Best,
Ron