[Lendrhald] A system to reward players, not characters?

[Sydney Freedberg]

I think it is fun to be able to thoroughly lose myself in an utterly believable imaginary world.

I know the feeling. And what you're described is dead-on with the school of roleplaying that Ron Edwards describes (perhaps too poetically) as "the right to dream" or (using the godawful jargon first invented on an earlier forum) "simulationism." Another term often employed is "celebration," as in celebrating a particular source material. There are lots of varieties of this "creative agenda," and "immersion" as you describe it is not a defining characteristic of all of them, by any means. Bs far as I understand it, all the varieties boil down to a love of the fiction -- the imagined world, the imagined characters, the imaged events -- for itself. At its worst, this is childish repetition, "playing house" long after the time has passed; at its best, it's a pure creative endeavor of the kind J.R.R. Tolkein devoted his life to, with the added advantage of being, not solitary, but inherently social.

The contrary school sees the fiction as a tool, a means to an end, a way for the real people playing to explore their own thoughts and values ("through a glass, darkly") and make statements about themselves, each other, and the real world. I'd put both "Narrativism" and "Gamism" in this category, albeit at opposite ends: One is about exploring the real people's values through fictional moral dilemmas and making "I care about this!" statements; the other is about exploring the real people's abilities through fictional tactical dilemmas and making "I can do this!" statements. At its worst, this becomes childish bullying with the dominant personalities in the group using the fiction as a club, like adolescents playing "truth or dare"; at its best, it's a cross between being in group therapy, team sports, and a practice-in-the-basement rock and roll band.

Personally I'm strongly of the second school, because I exercise my "right to dream" (and my "immersion") in a more solitary manner, by reading and writing fiction. You're strongly of the first. We can still appreciate each others' aesthetics, even enjoy each others' games, and give each other useful advice.

Advice such as, go read Ron Edwards's essays under "Articles" -- specifically on "Story Now," on stepping on up to the challenge, and especially on the 'Right to Dream', because those are considered the definitive starting point for this theory, whereas my musings above are just that, mine and musings. After that, read Edwards on why D&D isn't what you thought it was and on how game designers sabotage themselves by clinging to preconceptions and mechanics from other games that don't suit what they're trying to do, with more refinements and examples of the theme in a sequel essay.

Maybe you've read these already, but they still merit re-reading -- as "veteran" roleplayers, our preconceptions make it hard to understand what we're reading, and Edwards is often inventing his own terminology and conceptual framework as he goes along. They'd be especially useful to you in light of all our discussions in this thread, both our suggestions and your genuinely thoughtful responses and questions. I'd recommend that it's time for you to step back from the specifics of Lendrhald now, immerse yourself (pun unintended) in the general theory, and come back to your game from a new angle when you're ready.

[David Berg]

A recent discussion with Charles leads me to believe it might help for me to clarify the following priorities:

Lendrhald is designed for players with the following disposition:

What kind of style and experience do I want?
Deeply immersed.

What kind of environment would be fun to be deeply immersed in?
A combination of medieval human culture and Lovecraftian horror.

What kind of things would be fun to do in this style and setting?
Getting involved with the dynamic human powers in the culture, crawling into the woods and down dark holes to seek out horror.  But if at a given time I feel like doing something else entirely, I want the freedom to choose.

As for system design, I think the priorities are sort of in that order:
1) System that facilitates immersion is good. 
2) System that facilitates horror (and involvement with human culture) is also good, as long as it doesn't break immersion.
3) System that makes it more fun to run dungeon-crawl missions (and to do politicking) is also good, as long as it doesn't break immersion, ruin horror, or make human society boring or lame.

In his last post, Ron suggested I focus on the strategic element.  I interpret his position as, more or less, "The strategy mission is what the players are doing, therefore that's what's important, and that's what you should design around and provide system for.  Your immersive horror game does not exist." 

That position, in my eyes, makes an inappropriate assumption of what Lendrhald players are at the table for.  The characters' sole objective may be to complete the mission, but the players' objectives might well be 1) to stay immersed, 2) to interact in interesting ways with the fictional environment, 3) to complete the mission -- in that order.  I know that, as a player, I take a lot less satisfaction in completing an in-game objective if I render that accomplishment "just a game" instead of really experiencing it intensely via deeply immersed play.  I'd rather achieve a vivid and striking failure than a numbers/metagaming-based success. 

(Re: the playtest Ron was responding to, those players' first priority is completing the mission.  I've torn them away from D&D, which they liked, and tried to get them to enjoy gaming the way I do (so our social contract is flimsier than any game's should be).  They are not my target audience for Lendrhald design.  Next playtest, I'll find some like-minded strangers instead of bullying my buddies.)

If immersion, horror, and dungeon-crawls all pull against each other and require incompatible system tools for optimization, and at the end of the day I wind up with a game that is very good for immersing yourself but not particularly enabling of strategy missions, then I'll certainly take that over the reverse.  I'm still hoping, though, that I can have my cake and eat it too.

[David Berg]

Applying my hierarchy to Sydney's discussion of the various creative agendas:

1) First and foremost, Lendrhald is not Simulationist, Narrativist, or Gamist.  It is Immersionist.
2) Within being Immersionist, it has some Simulationist leanings.
3) Within being Immersionist and Simulationist, it has opportunities for Narrativist activities or Gamist activities.

For what it's worth, my co-designer has succeeded in running a game in which:
1) most of the players very much enjoyed interacting with a certain city, its people, and how it worked, and being a part of that culture (Sim)
2) many of the players enjoyed using the environment to test out thoughts and values (Nar)
3) all of the players enjoyed crawling into holes and killing shit for money (Gam)

In our view, the one common factor that contributed to all of these was the presence of a consistent world and the facilitation of immersion within it (Imm).

So, if this sounds like an incoherent design, then maybe it is indeed poorly suited for publication, but it's not unplayable.

If anyone with more design experience than myself sees that I'm attempting to do something impossible, or thinking about it in a counter-productive way, please feel free to tell me so (and why) before I spend a hundred more hours pursuing a confounding design.

I'd recommend that it's time for you to step back from the specifics of Lendrhald now, immerse yourself (pun unintended) in the general theory, and come back to your game from a new angle when you're ready.

I'll do some of that.  (Some of Ron's articles, I admit, didn't process very smoothly the first time.)  I'll check out some new RPGs too.  At the same time, I also intend to turn many of the thoughts from this thread (and the other Lendrhald ones) into tentative systems, work on them, and see what they contribute.  So I am still in the market for system ideas and feedback, if anything occurs to anyone.

[Valamir]

I'll offer one comment on the nature of Immersion and your desire for it.  I have no intention of turning this into a debate on immersion and offer this only in the vein of "food for thought"

There are certain elements that you enjoy when you play immersively -- emotional, psychological, whatever label we want to call them.  These elements, these responses, these feelings you get when you play are a big source (perhaps the main source) of your enjoyment in playing...at least on certain occassions when you're in an "immersive mood".

The thought I want to leave you with is that its possible to get the same elements, the same responses, the same feelings from sources OTHER than whats traditionally acknowledged as "immersive" play.  Immersive play may be the technique you use most often to reach that state of enjoyment but I'd like you to consider that you can reach the same state of enjoyment using non traditionally immersive techniques as well.

I'm specifically here NOT talking about a DIFFERENT kind of enjoyment...as in "yeah there are many ways to enjoy play and I might enjoy those other ways too form time to time, but here I'm specifically interested in enjoying immersive play".  Rather I'm talking about play that gives you essentially the same enjoyment...virtually indistinguishable...from the rush you get in immersive play...even though it might use other techniques instead of, or in addition to what you currently think of as immersion to get you there.

At first those other techniques might take you out of your familiarity zone and so disrupt your enjoyment, but I suggest that it is the lack of familiarity that causes the disruption...not the lack of immersion that did so.  Often times when we seek an immersive experience and some new mechanic (like "too much dice rolling") disrupts our play we build the chain of consequences thusly: "too much dice rolling broke my immersion and because I enjoy immersion it made play less enjoyable, therefor I don't like games with lots of dice rolls".  I believe the ACTUAL chain of consequences is: "I'm not used to that much dice rolling, and the lack of familiarity broke my immersion, and because I enjoy immersion made play less enjoyable, but over time I can get comfortable with games with lots of dice rolls and it won't bother me any more".  I firmly and vigorously believe that in most every conversation where Immersion comes up people spend lots of time making statements like the first one...when the truth is almost always closer to the second one.

The key there is that its possible to become familiar enough with these other techniques that they DON'T break your immersion and thus you can get the exact same fully immersed experience EVEN WHEN using techniques that typically are not associated with immersion (or actually are thought of as being anti-immersive).

As an example consider two groups of immersion dedicated players.  One group meets in a darkened and quiet basement room where the mood and ambiance make sliding into immersion easy for them.  The other group happens to meet in an apartment located above a commuter train line where the whole apartment shakes and rattles every 20 minutes with the passing of a train.  A member of group one goes to play with group two and concludes "all that train noise breaks immersion and keeps me from enjoying the game".  On the other hand, the members of group two, who have long become familiar with the train, experience no problem immersing whatesoever.  Clearly its not the noise that's breaking immersion, but just the relative lack of adaption to it.

My point is that ALL game mechanics are identical to this.  You can take the single most abstract, high player contact, meta gamey mechanic immaginable...and its just like that train.  With enough practice and familiarity, you can use that "immersion breaking" mechanic all day everyday without ever having the enjoyment you get from the immersion suffer.  INITIALLY when you aren't familiar with it...it will seem horrible.  But I feel very strongly that there is no such thing as a immersion breaking mechanic.  Only mechanics that have not traditionally been used by immersive players in conjunction with immersive play and are thus immersion breaking, not due to any intrinsic quality, but merely due to lack of familiarity.

The reason I bring this up at all in this thread is just to caution you to not automatically discard a mechanic possibility (and Sydney's offered several) solely because it sounds like an immersion breaking mechanic...because quite often you'd be very surprised at the type of mechanics you can become comfortable with and still enjoy being immersed.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Setting aside Ralph's train for a moment (and I get his point, I just think it's a bit of a tangent here):

1) First and foremost, Lendrhald is not Simulationist, Narrativist, or Gamist.  It is Immersionist.

David, that's why you've got to go read those essays [pick one: for the first time/one more time]. There is no "Immersionist" in the model laid out by Ron Edwards -- and I'm not citing it because it's Holy Writ, I'm citing it because the combined intellectual energy of the Forge community, despite much debate over alternatives, has repeatedly returned to the "Big Model" as the only design tool that actually works, and while Ron himself says in the essays there could be a fourth "ism," no one's ever proposed one that did not, after online discussion, fold up tidily into one of the existing three. You can have several different things you do and enjoy in the course of the game without changing your "creative agenda": A few intense bouts of tactical problem-solving a session doesn't make it Gamism, a few moral dilemmas doesn't make it Narrativist, a few passages of exploring setting doesn't make it Simulationist -- you have to look at the session of play overall, particularly what the whole group enjoys, applauds, and encourages consistently. (If people consistently enjoy, applaud, and encourage incompatible things, that's "incoherence," and rarely fun).

"Immersion" operates at a different level of the model altogether than the three "creative agendas": It's what Ron calls a "technique," a particular method of interacting around the table, just as rolling lots of dice and talking in game stats is a technique. "Wait, you should be saying that in character" is just the mirror image of "oh, shut up and roll already" -- and either can be in the service of any of the three Creative Agendas. (Or of the mysterious fourth agenda if anyone ever discovers one).

So the crucial issue is not, "I enjoy immersion," but "I enjoy immersion because...." And from what you've described, you personally do not enjoy immersion primarily because it makes the in-game moral dilemmas and tactical decisions more emotionally intense -- although it does, and you're allowed to like that, without having to label yourself Gamist or Narrativist -- but, above all else, because you like to "thoroughly lose [your]self in an utterly believable imaginary world." That's the ends; immersion is just the means to that end, albeit one you find very effective and enjoyable.

Great! Knowing what you really want is a big part of the battle. Don't think of the terms as a prison you have to escape, don't think of the model as an untested hypothesis you can improve on easily by yourself, just use the tools that literally hundreds of people working over the last five years of the Forge have built for you.

And I am now way in over my head in explaining the Ron Edwards's Big Model and expecting a moderator rebuke any minute, so I am going to stop frickin' posting to let you read and think. This thread is way past the point of diminishing returns in terms of actually helping your game design.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Wait, I lied, one last post: look at Ron Edwards's painstaking discussion of these very same issues with Levi Kornelson over in this thread, happening right now. (But don't post in it! It's just them).

[David Berg]

1) First and foremost, Lendrhald is not Simulationist, Narrativist, or Gamist.  It is Immersionist.

David, that's why you've got to go read those essays . . . the combined intellectual energy of the Forge community, despite much debate over alternatives, has repeatedly returned to the "Big Model" as the only design tool that actually works

You're right, that was a dumb move, using CA terminology to describe different types of play within a game, and declaring a "technique" to be "my CA".

Or, well, it looks dumb now, after reading that thread you linked.  Great thread!  I hope Ron opens it up at some point so I can ask him some questions.

"Immersion" operates at a different level of the model altogether than the three "creative agendas": It's what Ron calls a "technique," a particular method of interacting around the table

Hey, sometimes a "means to an end" for some people is an "end in itself" for others.

Here's a possibility.  Take one GM, one group of players, one world (set of settings), one rulebook (set of systems).  Now, keeping all of those constant, proceed to play a few sessions with a Gamist CA, then a few sessions with a Simulationist CA, then a few sessions with a Narrativist CA.  What could keep these people, in their sequence of playing what could be called 3 different games, using the same world and rulebook?  Immersion.  Whether it's defined, in this case, as a "technique" or not, it's the reason to play Lendrhald as opposed to 3 other games.

Maybe that's a hopelessly wacky example, but I don't think so.  Ron looked at my strategy mission, in which the players were motivated largely by success in pursuit of their objective, and said, "That's a Gamist game."  Well, when they succeed in their mission, go back to town, get famous, start getting treated to meals and given gifts from the coolest spots in town, meet a lot of NPCs and see how the power structure operates -- at that point, they may decide they're interested in being involved in town affairs and geography and human culture.  They may cease to fixate on their objectives, and focus more on process.  Voila!  "That's a Simulationist game."  Later, they may become embroiled in moral quandaries and focus on pursuing dramatic arcs of gain and loss, love and betrayal ("Narrativism"), until finally the story culminates in them getting kicked out of town.  Time to go spy on Orcs for money and get Gamist again.

above all else, because you like to "thoroughly lose [your]self in an utterly believable imaginary world." That's the ends; immersion is just the means to that end, albeit one you find very effective and enjoyable.

In terms of relating this to a CA:
Simulationism, as I understand it, is usually about the fiction, and the response to the fiction.  If you're motivated to immerse yourself in playing Star Wars, it's not necessarily because you like immersion, it's because you like Star Wars.  My motivation, on the other hand, is to immerse myself in some fiction that provides the most enablers of, and fewest hindrances to, the type of immersion I enjoy.  Something where nothing seems contrived, where I don't get reminded that I'm playing a game.  Something similar in many ways to real life, but different enough to be worth the trip.  Something like Lendrhald.  But the motivating impulse is not first and foremost to be immersed in Lendrhald specifically.

Would anyone ever pick up an RPG book and say, "This design looks like a great way to facilitate my immersion in whatever the hell their world is!  Now let me see if I like the world too."?  (As opposed to, of course, "Cool world!  I wanna play it!  Now let me see if I like the system design too.")  Well, I would...

Maybe I should provide one system set aimed at immersion, and then three different supplemental ones aimed at the three CAs, and a very busy character sheet in case you wanted to play the same guy in all three modes...

Of course, designing the game around a "technique" may make it hard to satisfy any CA particularly well... in fact, this thread might prove that...

[David Berg]

Ralph, are you talking about the difference between:
1) techniques I'm used to using to facilitate immersion vs techniques I'm not used to, but could facilitate immersion (or at least not hurt it) if I gave them a chance
or
2) getting the elements/feelings/responses I desire from immersion vs getting the elements/feelings/responses I desire from something other than immersion
or both?

I think it's #1, but I want to be sure.

I feel very strongly that there is no such thing as a immersion breaking mechanic.

There may not be any such thing as a mechanic that breaks immersion in every conceivable context.  But within a specific context, I can think of tons of mechanics that break immersion (beyond any ability I ever expect to have to will it otherwise).  Say you're playing in a world where wizards are poor and gold is scarce and every wizard has identical abilities.  This is the world, this is how it works, this has defined your immersed experience of what it's like to be there.  Your character, a typical wizard, decides to try cloning a gold coin.  The rulebook says it takes two seconds and works perfectly, with the clone indistinguishable from the original.  Boom, immersion broken.  (Or maybe the break waits a little bit until you start telling other wizards the path to easy wealth and they give all sorts of hideously stupid reasons why they've never done it before.)

The "visible contrivance" I've been fretting about in Lendrhald, admittedly, is not such a case; it's more like your noisy train.

The key there is that its possible to become familiar enough with these other techniques that they DON'T break your immersion and thus you can get the exact same fully immersed experience EVEN WHEN using techniques that typically are not associated with immersion (or actually are thought of as being anti-immersive).

I assume the motivation to bother doing this is because these techniques give you something else that you want (I'm not inclined to play over train tracks rather than in a darkened and quiet basement room just because it's possible).  Let's say they help you provide cool monsters.  So, what's the difference between saying, "Learn to remain immersed, and enjoy the easily-made monster" and saying, "Learn to make up cool monsters, and enjoy the easily-maintained immersion"?  Do you think the former is a better design strategy than the latter, despite the high priority I've placed on immersion?

[David Berg]

The reason I bring this up at all in this thread is just to caution you to not automatically discard a mechanic possibility (and Sydney's offered several) solely because it sounds like an immersion breaking mechanic...because quite often you'd be very surprised at the type of mechanics you can become comfortable with and still enjoy being immersed.

I appreciate the word of caution.  Actually, I'm very much with you in spirit, in terms of wanting to be open to new possibilities.  Let me also say that I haven't been discarding certain system ideas just because they've sounded vaguely immersion-unfriendly, but because they've resembled actual mechanics I've found to be immersion-breakers for me in the past.

I know you said you didn't want to start an immersion discussion here.  However, if you don't mind responding to my last post (either here or via PM), I'd appreciate it, as I feel those issues are central to whether or not I can implement your general suggestion in Lendrhald (and maybe revisit some of Sydney's proposals).

Thanks,
-David

[Valamir]

I think it's #1, but I want to be sure.

#1, yes.

There may not be any such thing as a mechanic that breaks immersion in every conceivable context.  But within a specific context, I can think of tons of mechanics that break immersion (beyond any ability I ever expect to have to will it otherwise).  Say you're playing in a world where wizards are poor and gold is scarce and every wizard has identical abilities.  This is the world, this is how it works, this has defined your immersed experience of what it's like to be there.  Your character, a typical wizard, decides to try cloning a gold coin.  The rulebook says it takes two seconds and works perfectly, with the clone indistinguishable from the original.  Boom, immersion broken.  (Or maybe the break waits a little bit until you start telling other wizards the path to easy wealth and they give all sorts of hideously stupid reasons why they've never done it before.)

I think there's a bit of terminology difference here.  I wouldn't consider your example to be a mechanic per se.  Rather its just a setting inconsistancy...something that can be irritating to alot of people regardless of their interest in immersion.  D&D was chock full of these.  The sort of "mechanics don't inherently break immersion" thing I was referring to was the actual physical actions that the players do...in this example the looking up the rule in the rule book to run down the mechanics of how the spell works is the sort of thing that doesn't automatically break immersion just by asking players to do it.  Some groups have an obsessive desire for "rules light" or "rules transparency" or other phrases that essentially mean "keeping track of alot of rules breaks immersion".  Other groups have no such problem...agains its a question of familiarity.

I assume the motivation to bother doing this is because these techniques give you something else that you want (I'm not inclined to play over train tracks rather than in a darkened and quiet basement room just because it's possible).  Let's say they help you provide cool monsters.  So, what's the difference between saying, "Learn to remain immersed, and enjoy the easily-made monster" and saying, "Learn to make up cool monsters, and enjoy the easily-maintained immersion"?  Do you think the former is a better design strategy than the latter, despite the high priority I've placed on immersion?

I'm not sure I follow your example...but yes, there's a whole lot of things you can get as a result of broadening the techniques one is willing to try.  For example, there are whole families of techniques designed to encourage player engagement in a game.  Traditionally, player engagement has been something of a hit or miss proposition.  The GM gleans what he can from the character sheets and what he knows of the players and creates a bunch of plot hooks that he then dangles in front of the characters hoping the players will feel that their character would bite on one of them and pursue that plot thread.  There's a number of weaknesses to this technique, not the least of which is often the player may feel their character would bite even though they personally aren't all that excited by it.  But there are many other ways of reaching out and getting the player engaged directly...leaving the player then to figure out a believable reason for the character to bite.  In other words...hook the player, not the character.

A lot of these techniques require different degrees of being aware of or manipulating the "meta game"...which alot of dogmatic immersionists will dismiss out of hand as being automatically detrimental to immersion.  My belief is that meta game is not any more automatically detrimental to immersion than the train is.  Its all in what you become used to.

I appreciate the word of caution.  Actually, I'm very much with you in spirit, in terms of wanting to be open to new possibilities.  Let me also say that I haven't been discarding certain system ideas just because they've sounded vaguely immersion-unfriendly, but because they've resembled actual mechanics I've found to be immersion-breakers for me in the past.

  Good to hear.  The mechanics you've found immersion breakers in the past, was that as the result of a couple of play sessions...like the player from the basement who found the rumbling train to be an immersion breaker?  In other words, given sufficient motivation to do so, do you think you could become accustomed to being immersed in an environment that had such mechanics over time?  If so, the equation then becomes a matter of whether the advantages of being able to successfully use such mechanics in the future outweighs some number of less enjoyable games during the acclimation period.

[David Berg]

I think there's a bit of terminology difference here.  I wouldn't consider your example to be a mechanic per se.  Rather its just a setting inconsistancy...

Well, the setting wasn't inconsistent until you looked up the rule that says, "You can clone stuff," and found no restrictions on currency.  In the course of developing Lendrhald, I've discarded a lot of fun-for-players systems (such as magic) for this reason, so the example seemed pertinent.  I guess that's not what I've been doing in this thread, though, so perhaps I should find a different example.

The sort of "mechanics don't inherently break immersion" thing I was referring to was the actual physical actions that the players do...

Sure.  I agree that dice-rolling and looking stuff up aren't insurmountable immersion-breakers.  Have I said anything to imply otherwise?

Most of my issues have been with some form of transparent contrivance.

I'm not sure I follow your example
. . .
there are many other ways of reaching out and getting the player engaged directly...

Okay, let me see if I can provide a clearer example.  Suppose I have the option of whether or not to use Metagame Mechanic Alpha in my immersive game.  Alpha is supposed to facilitate player engagement -- let's say it quickly drops desirable elements into play upon player request.  Neither Alpha nor the lack of Alpha will force my players to be immersed/not immersed, nor force them to be engaged/not engaged.  Rather, it's a matter of ease, facilitation, and degree.

If I use Alpha, then my players say, "We like being engaged, but this transparent contrivance thwarts our effort to pretend the setting is real!"  And I say, "Get used to it, learn to remain immersed anyway."

If I don't use Alpha, then my players say, "We like being immersed, but the total lack of convenience and clarity makes it hard to engage with the game!"  And I say, "Get used to it, learn to engage anyway."

In both situations, with enough positivity and dedication, the group winds up both engaged and immersed.  But, using Alpha made it relatively easy for them to be engaged and relatively hard for them to be immersed, and ditching Alpha did the reverse.

So, do I use Alpha or not?

I can see two arguments in favor of Alpha:
1) you can learn how to immerse (to whatever degree you're aiming for) despite metagaming, but you can't learn how to engage (to whatever degree you're aiming for) without Alpha or something like it
2) player engagement is more important than immersion

I definitely don't buy the first.  As for the second, I'm not sure, but I would guess this determination is specific to the game in question.  If, for my game, I decide that facilitating player immersion is more of a priority than facilitating player engagement, doesn't it make sense to kick Alpha to the curb?

The mechanics you've found immersion breakers in the past, was that as the result of a couple of play sessions...like the player from the basement who found the rumbling train to be an immersion breaker?

Most of them have been ongoing matters where I had to suspend disbelief and found that obligation onerous.  Beyond the issue of mechanics that lend themselves to breaking setting consistency (e.g. PCs doing things that others should be able to do, but don't), there's this "visible contrivance" thing.  If I use Alpha repeatedly and learn to expect that the world will meet my desires, I start losing the emotional intensity of uncertainty, and I stop feeling like this imaginary place I go to is real.  Sure, you can try to immerse yourself in something that you're aware is being made up on the spot, but my experiences in that direction have made me disinclined to bother.  I enjoy non-immersive games too, and a game using Alpha I would probably just go and play for its apparent strengths and not worry about immersion.

I guess it's possible that I would find a game that included both Alpha and some really cool immersion-facilitating systems on a shelf, read some hype from the designers, and work up the motivation to try to overcome my dislike of visible contrivance (which probably is like your train example).  Unless Alpha was really cool, though, I'd certainly opt not to use it.

If you find my logic infallible, then I guess we can stop here, and I'll see if I can create a game that is so good at facilitating immersion that I feel comfortable augmenting it with other cool systems that have the potential to be immersion-hindrances.  (I admit, that would be nice -- I'm all about having my cake and eating it too.)  If, on the other hand, I've missed a point, or drawn a conclusion that is contrary to your experience and observations, then please let me know.

[Valamir]

So, do I use Alpha or not?

I can see two arguments in favor of Alpha:
1) you can learn how to immerse (to whatever degree you're aiming for) despite metagaming, but you can't learn how to engage (to whatever degree you're aiming for) without Alpha or something like it
2) player engagement is more important than immersion

I definitely don't buy the first.  As for the second, I'm not sure, but I would guess this determination is specific to the game in question.  If, for my game, I decide that facilitating player immersion is more of a priority than facilitating player engagement, doesn't it make sense to kick Alpha to the curb?

A very sound analysis.  I'll offer a couple of observations, but we're rapidly spiralling into a conversation that could go on for 5 pages by itself.  This is rather a 600 lb gorilla of a topic.

By player engagement I mean that the interest of the players has been captured.  Their attention is riveted to what is going on in the game...not only when its their turn in the spottlight, but throughout the game.  They're into the events of the fiction and committed to helping ensure everyone at the table is having as much fun as they are (not MORE fun...player engagement doesn't mean being a martyr after all).  I submit that if you achieve this state you have successful play and if you don't achieve this state you do not.  If you don't achieve this state then you'd be better off having spent the last few hours engaged in some other activity.  By the by I would apply this same standard to EVERY social activity that a group of friends could engage in; be it movie night, clubbing, or hosting a dinner party...simply substitute any other activity for "game" and the same statement of success applies.  Hopefully this is a statement that we can both agree on, or else there's little point in continuing to discuss immersion because our differences would be far more fundamental than that.

So, if we are in agreement that "player engagement" as I've described above is the ultimate measure of successful vs. non successful play then it follows that any set of game techniques can be evaluated by how reliably they produce such a level of engagement.  Traditionally, a common equation for roleplaying is slogging through several sessions of "blah" or mediocre play in hopes of periodically getting to moments of highly engaged payoff.  The various techniques that have been developed over the years here, and which pervade many of the game designs that are commonly thought of as "Forge games" are designed to create a new equation where players can expect to achieve those moments of highly engaged payoff on a regular and reoccuring basis -- everytime you sit down to play -- because all of the players at the table are actively working towards driving the game towards those payoffs.  This is in contrast to traditional techniques which typically hope that such moments of payoff will arrive organically through a serendipitous combination of in-game events that played out "on their own" without being actively driven towards by the players.

Of course no set of techniques is 100% reliable 100% of the time for any group...let alone for 100% of players.  So therefor it stands to reason that the more techniques you've mastered as a player, the better able you are to find the right combination of techniques for any particular moment of play.  So like a woodworker who's able to tackle a wider range of projects if he has a wider range of tools at his disposal, a roleplayer who has a wider range of tools is better equiped to craft a wider range of stories under a wider range of circumstances.  This doesn't make the player a "better" roleplayer, any more than the tools make the woodworker a better craftsman.  But it does mean that all else being equal the craftsman with the right tools for the job will turn out the better finished product more reliably. 

So to me, the choice behind your "mechanic alpha" is not so much just a binary yes or no, but a much broader question.  If your players encountered mechanic alpha in a game would they know how to use it to craft their shared imaginary space into a better experience (for them) then if they didn't have it?  If the answer is yes, then they are one step closer to having a well equipped wood working shop...even though there will be doubtless times where that particular tool is NOT the right tool for the job.  After all, knowing when NOT to use a tool is as important as knowing when to use it.

But for all of this to make sense, I need to make clear that when I say "mechanics" and "techniques" and "system" and other such terms, I'm not referring to just things that are typically though of as "rules".  I'm talking about things that go way beyond how to make a skill check, or what the area of effect of a spell is.  I'm talking about the sum total of how the human beings around the table communicate with each other during play.  How do the imaginary events of the game fiction get invented, proposed, and accepted as part of the shared imaginary space.  That entire process involves everything from what the rules say, to how players choose when to consult the rules vs. ignoring them, to who has the right to say what and when, to how in character vs. out of character discussion is handled and prioritized, to "where the buck stops" when a decision has to be rendered, to non verbal cues indicating excited engagement vs. bored disinterest.  When I say "my character crosses the room and picks up the can of peaches" there's a TON of largely invisible, largely unnoticed, and rarely discussed in game texts STUFF that has to happen between the time it first occurs to me to utter those words and the time you alter your mental picture of the game world to include the can of peaches in my character's hand.  It may happen almost instantaneously or only after an hour of rules lawyering and argueing...regardless its that STUFF that constitutes the true "system" of the game, and what Ron's articles mean when he says "system matters".  The kind of techniques I'm talking about are methods for navigating that STUFF.

To bring this back to the discussion on Immersion then.  Immersion itself is not an undesireable state to be in.  BUT many of the techniques traditionally put forth as being "immersion enhancing" effectively build artificial barriers to communication between players.  Much like having tunnel vision narrows your ability to notice and recognize what's going on around you, so too can certain highly immersive focusing techniques limit your ability to notice what is or isn't interesting your fellow players, limit your ability to recognize opportunities to contribute to your fellow player's enjoyment, and basically make all of that "STUFF" more difficult to sort through.

So with respect to your prioritizing of immersion over engagement or engagement over immersion, I don't think this is a mutually exclusive situation.  Its not immersion itself that's interferring with engagement, nor is it engagement that's interferring with immersion.  Rather its a certain subset of techniques that historically have been associated with immersion (often to the point that many think they are synonomous) that interferes with engagement, and which engagement enhancing techniques subsequently interfere with.

So the question then becomes is it honestly the IMMERSIVE experience you desire?  Or is it that particular subset of techniques that you're wedded to?

If the former then hooray.  I think, with practice, you'll find you can get all of the enjoyment you currently get through immersion even without those traditional techniques and even with embraceing the use of techniques that you haven't had total luck with in the past.

If the latter, then I'm afraid I won't have much advice or ideas for how to help you.  While I enjoy the sensation of sharing my character's thoughts and being immersed in an exciting fiction taking place in a world that seems solid and consistant, I actually rather abhor that subset of traditional "immersive supporting" techniques I mention above...which I think are actually an anchor and active obstacle to generating reliable player engagement.  AND which further I think are entirely UNNECESSARY for acheiving the satisfaction of immersing in the character / the world / or the story...but which through dogmatic repetition tend to be incorrectly held up as being critical to such an experience.

[David Berg]

Wow, well said.  That really makes me think about the spectrum covering the extent to which a game can be involved in player enjoyment. 

On the one end, I see a sort of "emergent fun", in which the players supplement whatever the game gives them with various tools/techniques of their own, and these latter do most of the real work.  I've run a few games with no official systems whatsoever, and the guy I ran them for loved it. 

On the other end, I see a sort of "micromanaged fun", in which the game plays a persistent role in ensuring that players find their enjoyment actively enabled and assisted.  I've never played a successful version of this type of game (usually I've been better at coming up with tools and techniques to enhance my enjoyment than the game designer has), and perhaps once I've played more "Forge games" I will shift some of the priorities and emphases I've held to date.

Of course, this may or may not effect Lendrhald, which is explicitly an attempt to do a good job of enabling a style of play that I already know I like.

I will definitely re-read this post and think more on it.  For now, a few more questions:

So, if we are in agreement that "player engagement" as I've described above is the ultimate measure of successful vs. non successful play then it follows that any set of game techniques can be evaluated by how reliably they produce such a level of engagement.

We're in agreement that engaged players = successful play.  Alas, measuring that engagement, and in what situations it's been optimized, seems really tricky to me.  I agree with your statement about evaluating techniques, but only as long as "reliably" factors in both "amount of time spent at varying levels of engagement" and "degree of engagement".  I don't see enjoyment as an on/off, yes/no proposition, so I don't think it'd make sense to view engagement that way either.

Lendrhald is for players who (like me) find themselves most engaged when they can have a certain combination of:
- faith that the gameworld will always make sense and appear to exist in its own right
- control over the actions and choices of their characters
- various in-gameworld options of what to do, such that on any given day, or in any given mood, there's a very high chance that one will look appealing
- the absolute minimum distractions from immersed experience
- a vague sense that the gameworld and in-game experience have some non-random aesthetic

The tools and techniques I'm looking for are the ones that will best allow players to engage from this perspective.  (Suggestions still welcome!)

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm repeating myself, but in this context I just wanted to emphasize that, for me, immersion is close to equal to engagement.  If I can succeed in being thoroughly immersed in a world like Lendrhald, the chance that I'll be engaged in play is very high.

(That said, "interesting in-gameworld options of what to do" does suggest the desirability of some type of situation-creation engine...)

it stands to reason that the more techniques you've mastered as a player, the better able you are to find the right combination of techniques for any particular moment of play.
. . .
If your players encountered mechanic alpha in a game would they know how to use it . . . ?

This seems pretty straightforward as a player.  Or as a GM familiar with his players' aptitudes and experiences.  As a designer, though, what to do?  I guess you just offer techniques that you know how to use, and hope that if players don't know how to use them, they'll be motivated to work at it until they "get it" or "make it work for them"?

So the question then becomes is it honestly the IMMERSIVE experience you desire?  Or is it that particular subset of techniques that you're wedded to?

The techniques I currently like are the ones that have seemed to me to facilitate or augment my immersive experiences in past play.  But yeah, if I found techniques that facilitated or augmented better, I'd happily ditch the old ones.

I actually rather abhor that subset of traditional "immersive supporting" techniques I mention above...which I think are actually an anchor and active obstacle to generating reliable player engagement.

I don't have much sense of what's traditional or non-traditional in immersion-focused games, as most of the immersion-focused games I've played have been built by me or a friend.  Would you mind telling me exactly which techniques you abhor?  (And also maybe how they're obstacles to player engagement?)

[Valamir]

On the one end, I see a sort of "emergent fun", in which the players supplement whatever the game gives them with various tools/techniques of their own, and these latter do most of the real work.  I've run a few games with no official systems whatsoever, and the guy I ran them for loved it. 

Yeah, successful experiences in this vein are what led to the rise of "rules-lite" or "freeform" gaming.  What people didn't really realize, however, is that while they may have stripped away the text of a written rulebook, they were far from operating without a system.  They definitely had a system (there's no such thing as "system-less" play)...that system was all of the invisible "Stuff" I was talking about above.  The problem is that those unwritten, unarticulated systems are often the hardest to replicate because they evolved in a specific set of circumstances with a specific group of players.  The only thing that gets passed on, however, when the "rules" are released on a free website or as a short PDF, are a very limited set of mechanics that don't convey any of the REAL system that made the game successful.

On the other end, I see a sort of "micromanaged fun", in which the game plays a persistent role in ensuring that players find their enjoyment actively enabled and assisted.  I've never played a successful version of this type of game (usually I've been better at coming up with tools and techniques to enhance my enjoyment than the game designer has), and perhaps once I've played more "Forge games" I will shift some of the priorities and emphases I've held to date.

"Forge Games" (and understand I use that term very loosely) are often "rules-lite" in the sense that there are far fewer rules in the PTA or DITV or MLWM or Sorcerer rule book than in D&D 3.5.  But the rules that are there are far more interested in articulating a standard process for dealing with the "stuff"...the true system of the game...and less interested in defining many of the things that traditional rules concern themselves with.  So its not so much "micromanaged fun" as it is a question of clearly laying out 1) who can say what and when, and 2) where the various spheres of responsibility lie. 

For the second of these, imagine a list of all of the many activities a GM typically has responsibility for and all of the many activities players typically have responsibility for.  For a game to take place, those activities must get done.  Many of these activities are things that don't even appear in a traditional game text...veteran gamers just do them, because they know how to do them and have been doing them since they were first shown how to roleplay. Then imagine that the activities can be mixed and matched at will, and for the most part it doesn't matter WHO performs the activity as long as the activity gets done.  When I say "where the various spheres of responsibility lie" I mean articulating the crucial activities that often go unarticulated and dividing responsibility up for those activities in any variety of ways designed to best meet the goals of a particular game

Lendrhald is for players who (like me) find themselves most engaged when they can have a certain combination of:
- faith that the gameworld will always make sense and appear to exist in its own right
- control over the actions and choices of their characters
- various in-gameworld options of what to do, such that on any given day, or in any given mood, there's a very high chance that one will look appealing
- a vague sense that the gameworld and in-game experience have some non-random aesthetic

These are fairly universal sentiments.  While there are certain games and certain goals that are exceptions, for the most part even the hardest core narrativists want worlds that make sense, are internally consistant, and have appealing choices to make.

- the absolute minimum distractions from immersed experience

This is the item that my comments to-date have been focused on.  Pointing out that things that are often seen as "distractions from immersed experience" really aren't at all...or rather, really don't have to be. 

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm repeating myself, but in this context I just wanted to emphasize that, for me, immersion is close to equal to engagement.  If I can succeed in being thoroughly immersed in a world like Lendrhald, the chance that I'll be engaged in play is very high.

Quite.  And at the risk of repeating myself as well, I'll back track through some stuff I've already said just in the spirit of connecting the dots and making sure we're on the same page in terms of understanding what each other is saying.

I fully accept that if you can succeed in being thoroughly immersed in the world there is a high chance that you'll be engaged in play.  Assuming you're playing with people of similar priorities it stands to reason that if THEY can be thoroughly immersed in the world there is a high chance that they'll be engaged in play also...that's the ideal.

The catch is...what is there to ensure that you're all engaged about the same thing at the same time?   

That's where the whole "band analogy" comes in that you'll see frequently bandied about here.  You can't have three musicians totally engrossed in their own play and totally not interested in the play of their band mates and have it be successful. 

So how does one ensure that everyone is grooving on each other's play during the game and is not just focused on their own piece of the immersion?  Especially when the characters are not in the same place doing the same activity.  How does a player become totally interested in and excited about what YOUR character is doing (without breaking immersion), when his character is off somewhere else doing something else.

Some immersionists would argue that he can't...that losing focus on where his character is and what his character is doing in order to pay attention to something that doesn't involve his character automatically breaks immersion.  I, however, argue that 1) NOT paying attention and being excited about what you (as a fellow player) are doing and are excited about means you don't have player engagement happening (remember, player engagement is not about "engaging with the game" its about engaging with the other human beings at the table...just like any other social activity, its the people that matter.  and 2) that BEING excited about what you are doing and are excited about does NOT have to break immersion.

I don't have much sense of what's traditional or non-traditional in immersion-focused games, as most of the immersion-focused games I've played have been built by me or a friend.  Would you mind telling me exactly which techniques you abhor?  (And also maybe how they're obstacles to player engagement?)

Well, its not quite as simple as having a laundry list of "bad" techniques, because alot depends on a) the combination of techniques being used, not just individual ones, b) how fanatically they're applied, and c) any other techniques that actually serve to modify how their applied for a particular gaming group at a particular time.

So instead, I'll lay out my logic for evaluation, and hopefully this will make sense and you'll be able to envision for yourself the sort of techniques that could be applied in a certain way that would lead me to conclude they are obstructive to good play.

here it goes:

1) successful play requires player engagement
2) player engagement requires players to be truly interested in, excited about, and focused on what the other human beings at the table are doing as well as what you yourself are doing.
3) this then, by definition, requires a certain level of meta game awareness, communication, and understanding.  I can't tell what you as a person are feeling/enjoying if I'm completely focused in seeing only your character and only through the eyes of my character.  I can't communicate to you what I'm feeling/enjoying if I'm totally focused within my own character.
4) I do not then have the luxury of sinking so deep into my character and focusing so intently on what my character sees and knows that I lose sight of you as a person at the table (or lose sight of me as a person at the table, for that matter).

Ok, given those, it can be seen that a balance must be struck between sufficient "in character" techniques that allow us to experience the thrill of "being there", and sufficient "out of character" techniques that allow us to keep one eye on the real humans at the table...techniques I've called periodically "coming up for air".

Therefor, any technique that absolutely requires all one way and forbids the other would be those techniques that are obstacles.  Techniques that insist on "all immersion all the time" can significantly impede or even completely block intra person communication, causing the missing of cues, and body language, and leading to the breakdown of player engagement.

Similarly, any technique that absolutely requires all meta all the time can significantly impede or even completely block the immersive experience.

So my "crusade" if you will, is to point out that there can exist a balance where we can have it both ways.  That the meta doesn't automatically negate the immersion.  In fact, its been my experience that a well structured degree of meta can actually ENHANCE the immersion...by providing simple and reliable ways of moving the story from interesting immersion situation to interesting immersion situation and avoiding the flow breaking floundering that often accompanies waiting for something to happen.

[David Berg]

the rules that are there are far more interested in articulating a standard process for dealing with the "stuff"...the true system of the game...and less interested in defining many of the things that traditional rules concern themselves with.  So its not so much "micromanaged fun" as it is a question of clearly laying out 1) who can say what and when, and 2) where the various spheres of responsibility lie. 

Yeah, I definitely see a lot of potential in laying out both of these.  The reason I haven't thus far is a lack of valuable playtesting to this end.  I've yet to run a Lendrhald game with the kind of players who really ought to be playing it, so the "true system of the game" has been used in a model that I don't wish to preserve (me taking responsibility for almost everything, and verbally regulating on the players when they fail to conform to the standards I'm trying to establish).  I hope this illuminates the rather open-ended nature of my requests for system suggestions.

When I say "where the various spheres of responsibility lie" I mean articulating the crucial activities that often go unarticulated and dividing responsibility up for those activities in any variety of ways designed to best meet the goals of a particular game

I think I'm pretty settled on handing the GM the responsibility of arbitrating how the fictional world operates (including responses to character actions (including those mediated by dice)), and I'm also pretty settled on handing the players the responsibility of choosing what the characters do 100% of the time.  But beyond that, there's probably a large amount of responsibility redistribution possible.  I'll throw out some ideas in a subsequent post.

The catch is...what is there to ensure that you're all engaged about the same thing at the same time?   

That's where the whole "band analogy" comes in that you'll see frequently bandied about here.  You can't have three musicians totally engrossed in their own play and totally not interested in the play of their band mates and have it be successful. 

Right.  I'm a bit unclear, though, on how much of that compatibility is enabled by system and how much simply emerges from being on the same page in terms of fundamental play motives (creative agenda?).

Is "clearly laying out 1) who can say what and when, and 2) where the various spheres of responsibility lie" supposed to:
a) help everyone to agree on a creative agenda?  Or merely,
b) help them engage in play once they've agreed on a creative agenda?

I ask because, although getting people on the same page in microcosm (engaged in each other's play at any given moment) is important, it seems to be largely derived from, and vastly less important than, getting people on the same page in macrocosm (creative agenda).

Your phrasing of "ensure that you're all engaged about the same thing at the same time" leaves me unsure of whether you're discussing (a) (macrocosm), (b) (microcosm), or both.

If I understand correctly, we are presently discussing (b) (microcosm).  Which is fine, but I just want to be sure I'm not missing something.

I, however, argue that 1) NOT paying attention and being excited about what you (as a fellow player) are doing and are excited about means you don't have player engagement happening

I'm not overly concerned about a few instances of this.  If one player is asking the GM questions about the building's structural supports while two other players are arguing with each other in-character about some ethical quandary, and the two groups are uninterested in each other while those activities persist, then whatever.

But yeah, repeated or long-lasting lack of interest in each other's play is a killer, and having tools for avoiding this sounds great to me (assuming that a shared creative agenda is not generally sufficient, in itself, to accomplish that).

and 2) that BEING excited about what you are doing and are excited about does NOT have to break immersion.

Sure, being excited is always good; from an immersion-focused perspective, the only question is how you act on that excitement.  Various "token awarding" ideas on this thread have been attempts to address that.

Well, its not quite as simple as having a laundry list of "bad" techniques

Dammit!  I think best in laundry lists.

1) successful play requires player engagement

As much as possible!

2) player engagement requires players to be truly interested in, excited about, and focused on what the other human beings at the table are doing

As much as possible, provided that efforts in that direction do not interfere with:

as well as what you yourself are doing.

I mention "interference" here only because the following remains a cause of concern:
(a) attempt to get player 1 interested in the play of player 2 -> (b) relatively hindering immersion for player 1 -> (c) player 1 losing some degree of interest in his own play

3) this then, by definition, requires a certain level of meta game awareness, communication, and understanding.  I can't tell what you as a person are feeling/enjoying if I'm completely focused in seeing only your character and only through the eyes of my character.  I can't communicate to you what I'm feeling/enjoying if I'm totally focused within my own character.

Agreed that "a certain level of meta game awareness, communication, and understanding" must factor in somehow...

4) I do not then have the luxury of sinking so deep into my character and focusing so intently on what my character sees and knows that I lose sight of you as a person at the table (or lose sight of me as a person at the table, for that matter).

...at least not for the entirety of the session.  If you are thinking "not ever", then I may disagree with that.

Ok, given those, it can be seen that a balance must be struck between sufficient "in character" techniques that allow us to experience the thrill of "being there", and sufficient "out of character" techniques that allow us to keep one eye on the real humans at the table...techniques I've called periodically "coming up for air".

I love that phrase.  To me, it evokes a burst of totally immersed play coming to a tidy stopping point, and then everyone at the table relaxing their expressions, sipping their drinks, and going, "Niiiiice."  Then a (generally pretty brief) bit of eating and chatting about the game, and then after a certain point ("everybody ready?"), everyone dives back in.  I've never thought of formally structuring this in my games, but I'll now proceed to give it some serious thought.

Techniques that insist on "all immersion all the time" can significantly impede or even completely block intra person communication, causing the missing of cues, and body language, and leading to the breakdown of player engagement.

Communicating in character while as immersed as possible is tricky.  "Is that facial expression on Darvtok's face, or just on the face of Darvtok's player?"  I've pondered playing in the dark to remove this uncertainty (forcing Darvtok's player to say things like "Darvtok leans forward and clenches his teeth in fury").

While I agree that "all immersion all the time" is bad, it's the "all the time" part that seems bad to me.  If you have some reasons in mind why "being as immersed as possible during designated immersion time" dictates (or strongly lends itself to) "lack of player engagement during designated immersion time", please share them with me.  Likewise if you see problems with having a "designated immersion time" in the first place.

So my "crusade" if you will, is to point out that there can exist a balance where we can have it both ways.  That the meta doesn't automatically negate the immersion.  In fact, its been my experience that a well structured degree of meta can actually ENHANCE the immersion...by providing simple and reliable ways of moving the story from interesting immersion situation to interesting immersion situation and avoiding the flow breaking floundering that often accompanies waiting for something to happen.

That sounds awesome.  Consider me a fan of the idea, and still looking for ways to make it happen in Lendrhald.  Perhaps this discussion will help me focus on coming up with some good ones.