Immersion, Childishness, and Understanding

[xenopulse]

Welcome Froglar,

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 just posted about something related to this by opening this thread.

In short, I think the loss comes about when the initial mystique is replaced with understanding of how things work--but something bigger and better can be gained if you follow through to the application of the newly discovered knowledge.

If I make this realization about funerals, I also come to know my grief; i.e., the fact that I am not sad for this other person, but for my own loss, enables me to deal with it more purposefully. I realize that the funeral also brings the family together for mutual support and I make the most of it.

To bring it back to roleplaying games, the mystique that gets lost when individual awareness of play comes about can be replaced by the power of the whole group playing with a purpose, aware of where they're going and how to get there.

[greyorm]

First off, excuse me for starting the thread and then not contributing to it, I spend most of yesterday fighting The Head Cold That Would Not Die^TM and was thus both preoccupied and incoherent. I do want to say that this discussion thus far is incredible, and want to thank everyone for participating.

Froglar asked the very question I was, perhaps better than I did as well. The question, I think that relates back to both Frank's comments about validating "the point that theory might break the bubble of immersion" and "being more amazed...without his theoretical knowledge" that I simply could not agree with on a logical or experiential level, and then Jiituomas' considerations about gamers who "...oppose all deeper examination of their hobby...[because they] want to preserve the sense of wonder they see essential to the role-playing experience." Jiituomas is correct in that there are people who feel this way about these things, but I could not agree with Frank's assertions about why that is.

Christian, I think, has just nailed the problem for me, the "Why doesn't it always pan out? Why isn't it always bigger and better?" question that has been dragging me along for this ride.

Follow-through. Or rather, what you are able to do with the understanding.

Having understanding is one thing, being able to utilize it to your advantage is another. I humbly submit that gaining the former does not automatically beget the latter. Even with understanding, one may be trapped by not knowing what to do with that understanding, by not knowing how to apply it purposefully.

So, when we say theory or understanding is helpful because it allows one to examine the issue more deeply, from a broader perspective, that is only half the picture. If you don't know how to make use of that broader material, then there arises a problem. You see all these new facts that do not fit into the pre-existing worldview, which deny or make problematic the former view, and you have nowhere to put them that will make the new view as usable as the old. There is a clash between what was working for you, and the knowledge that it cannot work for you in that form any longer because of the shifted perspective.

How do you move from "I want to grieve", to understanding why you are grieving and using that knowledge to make the grieving process work for you? To the invisible second step of understanding.

With Immersion: how do you Deep Immerse and yet retain the ability to utilize learned Immersion techniques or game theory? We know it can be done, so what are the tools that allow one to do that, rather than the understanding of the situation breaking the Immersive bubble?

What tools can we produce that will allow someone to make that step, from understanding to using that understanding?

[Ron Edwards]

Ummm ...

But Raven, is there any obligation to "make" anyone do that?

Whoops. I just realized you didn't say that, you said "permit" to "make that step."

All done then.

Best,
Ron

[ewilen]

Welcome Froglar,

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 just posted about something related to this by opening this thread.

In short, I think the loss comes about when the initial mystique is replaced with understanding of how things work--but something bigger and better can be gained if you follow through to the application of the newly discovered knowledge.

If I make this realization about funerals, I also come to know my grief; i.e., the fact that I am not sad for this other person, but for my own loss, enables me to deal with it more purposefully. I realize that the funeral also brings the family together for mutual support and I make the most of it.

To bring it back to roleplaying games, the mystique that gets lost when individual awareness of play comes about can be replaced by the power of the whole group playing with a purpose, aware of where they're going and how to get there.

I have to say, about this part of the discussion, that I disagree with the premise. But maybe that's one way to deal with the paradox. You see, I can't fully agree that funerals are purely for the mourners (and I'm not a religious person). I think there are many mysteries which, far from being dispelled through critical examination, are instead sharpened. Death is one of them. Maybe immersion is another.

[contracycle]

When I was a kid we used to go and play the coin-ops at the corner store.  One of my buddies was very very good at these and would 'clock' them routinely.  But it was impoossible to speak to him while he was playing.  I mean really, really impossible, to the point that if you really needed to interrupt he would have to be bodily removed before you would appear on his radar.

To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment.  At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task.  Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.

And that, IME, is why immersion and analyticaly techniques cannot co-exist in actual play.  I don't think there will be any problem using them at some point in a session of play overall, but certainly IME, being asked to break immersion in order to do certain things, particularly analytical things, would be just like someone interrupting you as you read a book.  Or someone watching a film with you who keeps asking you to explain what is going on.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment.  At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task.  Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.

This may actually be a completely separate phenomenon. Within several game analysis circles, there is constant debate on whether the autotelic "flow" aspect of certain activities (as codified by Csikszentmihalyi) your buddy experienced and game immersion are the same phenomenon, somehow related to one another, tangential, or completely different phenomena.

The effect of both on analytic and/or meta-discourse breaks may nevertheless be similar, though.

-Jiituomas

[ADGBoss]

This is a great topic and I hope me commenting 3 days later is not going to open what might be considered a dead subject? First I wanted to address contracycle's comments here:

When I was a kid we used to go and play the coin-ops at the corner store.  One of my buddies was very very good at these and would 'clock' them routinely.  But it was impoossible to speak to him while he was playing.  I mean really, really impossible, to the point that if you really needed to interrupt he would have to be bodily removed before you would appear on his radar.

To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment.  At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task.  Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.

And that, IME, is why immersion and analyticaly techniques cannot co-exist in actual play.  I don't think there will be any problem using them at some point in a session of play overall, but certainly IME, being asked to break immersion in order to do certain things, particularly analytical things, would be just like someone interrupting you as you read a book.  Or someone watching a film with you who keeps asking you to explain what is going on.

I do not think you can quite compare a solo video game, reading a book, or watching a movie to Role Playing in this regard. The actions as you describe them are solitary (for the most part) activities. You red the book or watch the movie or play the game alone because you do not want someone intruding on your private space. Even in a huge theatre full of people, watching the movie is essentially a solitary activity. Reading a book, unless you are doing so out loud to someone, is as well. So someone outside of this breaking into your space is considered rude.

Now looking at Role Playing, if someone outside of the group who is playing, i.e. a Kibitzer, intrudes on the Play and makes comments then certainly that is incorrect behavior unless the person was invited to do so.

I want to make a small point about immersion as well. Take this as it were and remember I am not totally well read in all of the theories here (well heck any of them) and am simply making my own observation.

Whenever you pick up the dice, make a roll, do rock paper scissors, or take a drink of water even if you are thirsty and your character isn't, that is in a sense breaking the bubble of immersion. You accept that some activities are acceptable in the course of the game / session even though they are not technically inside of the bubble. I would assume, that if someone needed a rules clarification, that he or she could also take a moment to ask a question? If that is the case and these are acceptable behaviors for an immersionist, then I see no reason why stopping for a moment and asking "hmm what's going on here" would be any more lethal to immersion then a bathroom break.  If someone is not on board with what's going on then it only makes sense to stop and examine it for a moment and make sure everyone gets on board.

As for analyzing Play and engaging in theory discussion post game, I think this needs to be conscious but not necessarily deep. It could be as simple as "Did you enjoy yourself? No? Why not?" That is analyzing play. Where trouble and dysfunction arise is when people get up from the game, go home or go play on the Xbox, and then come back next week whether they had a good time or not. Now this can happen outside of immersion play just as easily.  (I realize there are degrees here and it is not simply an either or situation). So it is not a situation that exists solely with regard to immersion play.

I also would contend that people give knee jerk reactions to the words Theory & Analyze. They are big words in a sense and possibly intimidating to some people. We tend to use them here at the Forge because we are used to accepting them as part of our discussions. Theory & Analyze were not a part of my RPG vocabulary prior to my own self examination and then spending some time on RPG.net. I did not mean I was a stupid chode (some people may disagree but that's ok) it just means it was not part of my vocabulary. Yet words tend to upset people more then the ideas behind them. People will talk about the game, but they say that they are not analyzing the game. Uhm yes that is what they are doing. To a small extent and in a limited mode perhaps, but it is analysis. 

Animals piss on a bush to mark their territory. They never really go beyond that instinct. Role Playing is in my opinion a very counter-instinctual exercise. Almost by definition it forces you to make conscious choices about what you are going to do, even in immersive play. Possibly especially in immersive play where you need to act like Joe instead of yourself. You need to take on Joe's instincts as it were, which is a conscious act.

Therefore how can it be healthy to then get up from the table and not talk at least address something about the game? That's what animals do. "How did you like pissing on the rose bush? Dude! Your messing with my head and ruining my pee experience!" Now as bad as I just made that sound I also want to point out that this is an EXTREME example. I for one think most people do examine / analyze their Play to some extent and this is a good thing. It does not have to be anything deep. It just has to exist as more then an instinctual activity.

I have witnessed I think almost every extreme RPG related behavior at this point. I have seen people adamantly refuse to talk about the game or their character for fear of ruining their experience. This is an extreme behavior though and I believe there are plenty more people who do analyze their play without calling it analyzing, then there are those who refuse to analyze in any manner.

I can provide RPGA and non-RPGA examples in Actual Play, as Ron hinted, if people are interested. There is one very good example that comes to mind in fact.

I did want address one more thing though before I end this. One is over-analysis. I think you can rightly make an argument that over-analysis is as detrimental as under analysis. I am a firm believer that too much talk does indeed spoil the experience. Obviously everyone will have a different level of "too much" but sometimes you should let the game / situation play out before going into analyze mode. So I can see where some people would worry that over-analysis could break the rhythm of the game.

Sean

[contracycle]

Whenever you pick up the dice, make a roll, do rock paper scissors, or take a drink of water even if you are thirsty and your character isn't, that is in a sense breaking the bubble of immersion. You accept that some activities are acceptable in the course of the game / session even though they are not technically inside of the bubble. I would assume, that if someone needed a rules clarification, that he or she could also take a moment to ask a question? If that is the case and these are acceptable behaviors for an immersionist, then I see no reason why stopping for a moment and asking "hmm what's going on here" would be any more lethal to immersion then a bathroom break.  If someone is not on board with what's going on then it only makes sense to stop and examine it for a moment and make sure everyone gets on board.

I agree with this argument except I ceom to the opposite conclusion.  Yes, all of those are similar; yes all of them occur.  But nevertheless, all of them are an interruption of the state of immersion.  And that is why there is a desire to miminise these intrusions, to streamline them so that they do not demand so much attention.

Perhaps an aexception is the rules clarification.  If I have to roll dice while immersed, it can be handled in a manner similar to grooping for renegade popcorn at the bottom of the box; you don't need to direct your full attention to the problem, you can do it on autopilot while your real attention is still fixed on the screen.  If the GM only wants you to physically move the dice and does most of the interpretation for you, so much the better.

Just becuase something happens doesn''t mean it is "acceptable" in the sense that approval is given; it may only be acceptabel on the basis of necessity.

[GB Steve]

I'm not sure that rolling the dice does necessarily "break the bubble of immersion".

For a start, I don't see immersion as such a selfish thing as a bubble. Roleplaying is still a group activity and I don't think that you can easily immerse on your own. You need something to play against and if everyone else staunchly talks out of character, in the third person, or just refuses to engage with your in character personalisation then you're pretty much stuffed as far immersion goes. Immersion seems to me to be a group activity not that of one person.

But once you are using immersive play techniques, in a group that accepts and uses them, I've not found it so hard to step in and out of character to do things such as roll dice or go to the toilet.

One of the reasons is that if everyone else is immersing then the immersive environment persists if some people drop out of character. This is pretty common in LARPs where asides to the ref are OOC. The fact that the majority, or at least a quorum, of players stay in character is enough to give you a reference point to rejoin the game in character. The important thing to remember here, for immersive gamers, is to keep your OOC comments directed at the ref rather than other players.

Another reason is that the "bubble" doesn't burst that quickly. You can maintain the emotional state of your character whilst doing something else. It's like when you get a phone call whilst with friends. You can talk quite seriously on the phone whist still maintaining the jokey friendly atmosphere with your friends.

I'm still not sure what makes theory and immersion incompatible. How does one theorise whilst playing?

[ADGBoss]

I'm still not sure what makes theory and immersion incompatible. How does one theorise whilst playing?

Correct me if I am wrong (and I may be) but isn't that the very point of this thread? That Immersionist play or Immersion is compatible with Theory/Theorizing/Analyzing just like every other kind of Play? My perception of it at least is that there is a group, albeit small, of Immersionist players who disdain any such kind of thinking in regards to the playing of an RPG? Although I would submit that the sort of intranscience one sees in that group is not solely attributable to Immersionist players, they just happen to be the Players of the current topic. If we bring in GNS for a moment, I think you could say that for example, someone who is a strict (if such a thing exists) Narrativist Player is not necessrily someone who is open minded and self or group analystical. He or she could be just as intransient as an Immersionist if they refuse to look beyond their own soup bowl. The same with Gamist and Sim players or however you chose to catagorize people.

As far as theorizing while playing, it can be as simple as keeping one column of notes for IC and one column of notes for OOC. A Things that could be better list or a things that could be discussed list. I often keep a small notepad and jot down events in game and how they might be handled in a Forum like the Forge, though most of them never make into open discussion here or anywhere, for various reasons. Yet some have. So it does not have to be anything deep and Byronesque.

Sean

[GB Steve]

So the theorising doesn't actually take place whilst gaming but afterwards?

For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance, and possibly much less to do with game structure. Are we talking at cross purposes, after all none of the three GNS chimneys has much to say explicitly about performance.

Can one be a gamist, narrativist or simulationist immersionist?

[Simon Marks]

Huh?

For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance...

Thats totally not what I guess immersion was about - it's not about "did I represent the character right" but it is about "Did I feel and think *as* the character" (paraphrasing John Morrow on RPG.Net forums)

As such, there is no theorising "Did I get it right" because if you immerse, you have got it right.

And as immersion appears to be a perception thing, then only you will know.

[ADGBoss]

Huh?

For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance...

Thats totally not what I guess immersion was about - it's not about "did I represent the character right" but it is about "Did I feel and think *as* the character" (paraphrasing John Morrow on RPG.Net forums)

As such, there is no theorising "Did I get it right" because if you immerse, you have got it right.

And as immersion appears to be a perception thing, then only you will know.

I am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing.  Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way? This may be sidetracking the deiscussion a bit but I would think that any excersie worth doing is worth leveling a critical eye at, either during or after the activity is over.

Sean

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

I am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing.  Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way?

The "normative" (i.e. the one most people agree upon) idea of what role-playing (character) immersion is can be formulated roughly as "identifying so strongly with your character that a temporary loss of the self (or the sense of self) happens and the character becomes the player's primary self (not just identity, but self) for the duration of the game." Note that this is just the most popular interpretation. Others include multiple layers of immersion, say it's just empathy, say it's all a delusion, etc. Things like acting, improving or being "more in character" are basically just faking it, according to hard-line immersionists (who are again just a minority, but a very vocal one).

In such immersive circumstances, for some players it is impossible to maintain that state when bombarded by outside stimuli, such as analysis, theory, inconsistencies - or even the game's rules. The great majority of players who think of themselves as immersionists, however, are able to exist on a dual level and thus can process metainformation.

-Jiituomas

[M. J. Young]

I am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing.  Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way? This may be sidetracking the deiscussion a bit but I would think that any excersie worth doing is worth leveling a critical eye at, either during or after the activity is over.

Sean, I think it would be more accurate (although not absolutely correspondent) to relate immersionism to method acting. That sort of acting assumes that if I feel what the character feels, I'll portray the character accurately. From the perspective of traditional representational acting, that's silly--just figure out what a character who feels that would look like, and portray that. From an opposite perspective, it is not at all clear that anyone who feels a particular way will portray it correctly through a fictional character. We're all masters at masking our true feelings, I think, and do it so naturally that we are unaware we are doing it.

I agree, though, that a player could improve his ability to empathize with the character, quite apart from improving his ability to express the desired emotion.

--M. J. Young