Actor without Immersion

[GB Steve]

Hi Guys! I'm geeting into GNS nitty gritty today.

I looked at the FAQ. Here are the relevant sections:

In Actor Stance, the player is actually playing his character in a method-actor sense, making decisions based strictly on what the character knows, perceives, and feels. In this stance, the character can't change anything or have any impact except through the character's own world-view and actions.

Many people prefer the word "immersive" for this stance, which is perfectly acceptable from our point of view..."

and

Immersive Roleplaying
Immersive roleplaying, or immersive mode is a much more intense, restrictive version of IC mode. [...] As it says in John Kim's faq, "the player begins to channel the character." For all practical intents and purposes, in this mode, the player simply is the character. The player does not use any OOC information, whether using such information is allowed or not. The player does not acknowledge OOC concepts such as game mechanics. The player stays strictly in Actor stance, as well as remaining strictly IC (in-character). The player must trust the GM implicitly...


I certainly haven't read all the threads on this one as it's hard to sort them out so I may be going over old ground.

Anyway, I'll start with an anecdote. In Marathon Man Dustin Hoffman plays a character who gets involved with a Nazi war criminal played by Lawrence Olivier (do US actors not want to be tarred with the bad guy brush or something? It always seems to be us Limeys carrying the can, but I digress).

The title refers to Hoffman's character's running practice and the fact that to warn somebody, I forget who but it's irrelevant, of impending doom he must run a long way in a short time after having just suffered dental torture.

I'm getting there, stay with me!

To act in the very next scene, Hoffman goes off on a long run and comes back exhausted, but happy that he'll be able to be convincing. Larry, OK, Lord Larry, takes one look at this smelly, exhausted and sweat drenched guy standing next to him and says, in a withering tone, "But dear boy, why don't you just act?".

So you can see what I'm getting at: Actor stance does not require immersion. You can play the part of the PC without external reference whilst still not trying actually to be the character.

Given that this is my preferred way of playing and I know that I always maintain a certain amount of detachment between myself and the PC, I'd like it more recognised that the Actor stance does not imply immmersion which seems to be the inference from the FAQ.

Steve
Co-editor
http://www.ptgptb.org

[ This Message was edited by: GB Steve on 2001-09-07 08:08 ]

[Supplanter]

Steve, your distinction makes perfect sense. I think of Actor and Immersive/Possessor as two distinct things, with Actor being about presenting the character to others and Possessor about discovering/experiencing the character for yourself. One is outer-directed, the other inner-directed. By the immersive player's standard, you may have no idea when he is "role-playing well," because it's not about you. But for the actor player, it's all about you.

The FAQ may not ever reflect this distinction, but not to worry.

Best,


Jim

[Logan]

So you can see what I'm getting at: Actor stance does not require immersion. You can play the part of the PC without external reference whilst still not trying actually to be the character.

I'm in complete agreement with this viewpoint. It's probably something that just needs better articulation.

Logan

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Actor stance without Immersion is fine, and I think that IS stated as such in the document. If others aren't seeing it, it can be stated more clearly.

Immersion without Actor, though, is very hard for me to imagine. Is that due to my misunderstanding something?

If not, then Immersion (which is NOT a stance, but an action) does not occur without first getting into Actor stance. That's the way I see it at present.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Ron,

I think we have the crux of a problem in understanding here. Certainly you can have immersive without actor. The point of actor stance it seems to me (and I think was indicated by Jim) that the player portrays the character as an actor does to others.

Immersive doesn't require this. Just as I can't act my characters part in a CRPG, many players have no interest in doing so in a tabletop RPG (TRPG?). They instead immerse themselves in the mechanics of the simulation, in the detail of the game. So, while my friend Matt doesn't want to see his the result of his character's rolls for a perception check so that he can further immerse himself in the simulation provided without distraction, neither does he want to portray his character to the other players. He sees it quite well in his minds eye when he says, "Lognar discusses direstions with the barkeep." What is this referred to as? "Pawn" stance? Can still be very immersive.

From that POV it certainly is a selfish stance to take. You are not out to entertain the other players or GM (though this still happens inadvertently). Just out to experience it themselves. This is something that RPGs can provide that stage cannot, thinking about it.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

See, that's what I don't buy. What you're describing sounds like the BASELINE requirement for role-playing: the player simply puts any effort at all into imagining what's going on. "Immersion" as referenced in nearly any text I've seen it in - except when it's described as you have - is presented as an ADDITIONAL element of role-playing, not its fundamental requirement.

This is the same reasoning that the term "Exploration" brought up to me, and why I don't see it as a synonym for Simulationism.

Break it down:
1, biggest) Role-playing of ANY kind requires some imaginative effort. This, Mike, is what you seem to be describing as "immersion," and interestingly, you seem to be applying it to ANY aspect of play, whether setting or event resolution or characterization, or anything.

I'm calling this very thing "Exploration," freely admitting that I'm co-opting the Jester's term in a way he doesn't like. I do that because any and every example given for Exploration corresponds to that imaginative effort, and ONLY to it, across examples.

2, a big category) Actor stance within role-playing, and I'd like to remind everyone that stance IS a player-character relationship, NOT a player-player relationship. I think the secondary implication of the term "actor" as  performance art has tended to muddy the issue.

The Actor stance is defined as deciding upon character actions based strictly on what the character (fictionally) feels, perceives, and knows.

3, a smaller category) Possessor stance is one name for feeling, thinking, and essentially "channelling" the fictional character (or it feels that way, anyway). I cannot in any way see this existing except as a subcategory of Actor stance.

And here, #3 nested in #2, is what I see referenced whenever any role-playing text urges "immersion." It's exactly what the D&D3E book calls immersion. It's exactly what people want players to do in the Turku dogma. It's the ideal for many LARPing groups. And in each case, people call it "immersion."

So I don't see how we can keep using this word if it's supposed to be BOTH #1, which is the necessary foundation fo role-playing at all, AND #3 nested in #2, which is an optional (and hard-to-maintain) approach to one's character's actions and depiction.

In continuing this discussion, I'd like to see concrete examples of real play, not generalizations, so we can be talking about the same, actual, behavioral phenomena exhibited by real human beings.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

My understanding of immersion with respect to roleplaying is that the player takes on the complete mindset of the character. Essentially, when you're talking to a player immersed in character, you're talking to the character. That's the Elaytijist ideal. The player isn't interested in entertaining others or rolling dice. He's interested in mentally being the character. Toward that end, it's not an act, but it's still part of Actor stance. Rather, I think it's an extreme condition of Actor stance, IC mode of play.

Now, here's the weird part. The player is not the character. Ergo, the player and the character may be very different people with different attitudes and abilities. A person who has a hard time talking to people may play a character who is smooth and gifted with a silver tongue. In that case, it would be perfectly appropriate for the player, (immersed in his character), to say "I walk up to the bar and ask the bartender for directions." In the player's mind, he sees his idealized character smoothly parleying with the bartender, just the way the player would want it to be in that scene. Immersion is maintained, but this aspect of the roleplaying might be seen as less than ideal because the player is not improvising every line of dialogue. Yet, it's perfectly correct for the player to present his character this way because it may save time in a trivial situation or it may help the player maintain SOD. It would be worse to roleplay through every syllable of a meaningless segueway or to force the player to stumble through his improvised lines in the name of roleplaying, especially if smooth conversation is an aspect of the character, not the player.

Pawn mode is completely different. Pawn mode is, if anything, an extreme case of Actor stance, OOC mode. I think Jim pointed that out pretty well. In that case, the player doesn't relate to the character at all, except to see the character as stats, abilities, and a means of enforcing the player's will in the game world.

Logan

[Ron Edwards]

Logan, unless I'm misreading you, in your last paragraph you mean AUTHOR stance for Pawn mode.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

What are the current definitions for stances? I thought that there were four, Actor, Author, Director, and Audience. But now I think that we seem to be defining more, and trying to relate them to each other.

A simpler way to look at this, it seems to me, is to consider the motivations of the player (which may well subsequently drive how the player plays). The motive of Immersion is to feel something of what the player does, by my personal definition.

I have personally experienced players (and given examples of them) who are interested in feeling what the character feels but not interested in portraying the character via role-playing (i.e. acting the role by speaking IC). When they play, this would put them firmly into the Actor stance as defined above. But that doesn't do me any good to lump them in there, because designing a good game for these guys will take more than looking at what makes for good Actor power. It'll take a consideration of how to immerse them, and how to free them from the need to act the role of their character.

So, we can do one of two things. Either we can create a new category of Stance to describe this phenomenon (perhaps "Explorer"?), or we can just start discussing things from the POV of motives in play. The problem with the first idea is that there are probably multitudinous functional combinations of techniques employed which would make for a long list of stances. Which is why I think we should discuss how to give players the power to do what it is that they desire. Whether it is being immersed, acting, or both. Or is there another solution?

BTW, I'm starting to feel like my player's motivations are being marginalized. You may not have the same motivations, or see this as lazy role-playing or something, but why aren't their motivations just as legimate as the next players? I've been trying to get them to change their stripes for a while, and I'm beginning to feel like a cadd for doing so. Perhaps I'm just not playing to my audience correctly.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

"BTW, I'm starting to feel like my player's motivations are being marginalized."

Mike, I can't help you with that. I can only say, over and over, that it is PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT to take any GNS mode or combination thereof, and any stance or what-have-you that helps to get you there. No one is saying, on this thread or any other, that Actor stance or immersion or whatever is second-class role-playing.

The ONLY things I have ever claimed that involve "better" or "worse" are (1) elements of game design that facilitate or frustrate a given outlook, and (2) combinations of players' goals, from person to person, that tend not to work well together. My concern is function, and consistent function, not "rating."

No judgment of good or bad or lazy or crappy or mean or what. I learned long ago that I cannot help - no, not with the most careful phraseology - people from reading "You think I suck! How dare you?" into the most basic material.

Even a post like this one will be read, by some, as either a massive case of denial on my part or an outrageous, bald-faced lie.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ron,

I think you are 'getting a little to close' to your own personal jargon here.  To make this clearer, much as I don't want to, I am going to have to go point for point to demonstrate this apparent 'tunnel vision.'  Don't take this as some kind of attack, I hope to tie it all back together near the end.

Ron Edwards wrote:
See, that's what I don't buy. What you're describing sounds like the BASELINE requirement for role-playing: the player simply puts any effort at all into imagining what's going on. "Immersion" as referenced in nearly any text I've seen it in - except when it's described as you have - is presented as an ADDITIONAL element of role-playing, not its fundamental requirement.

This is how you see it, but not how it can be commonly perceived.  Any way that you can 'get into play' can be taken as 'immersive,' as has been bore out other examples in this discussion.  'Immersion' is one of many terms used in the modeling of role-playing gaming that I think becomes misleading too quickly.

1, biggest) Role-playing of ANY kind requires some imaginative effort. This, Mike, is what you seem to be describing as "immersion," and interestingly, you seem to be applying it to ANY aspect of play, whether setting or event resolution or characterization, or anything.

I'd have to say it looks like you are reading more into Mike's words than are there.  I tried to make a distinction for this back in my original Get Emotional! article.  The point I was trying to make (although subtly) there was that using terms like 'role-playing' or 'immersion' as the name of the "imaginative effort" necessary for gaming to occur, brings in a great deal of misunderstanding.  I have really had a hard time finding an accurate, singular term for 'thinking within the context of the narrative,' which is about as accurate as I can go towards this "imaginative effort" that you refer to.

I'm calling this very thing "Exploration," freely admitting that I'm co-opting the Jester's term in a way he doesn't like. I do that because any and every example given for Exploration corresponds to that imaginative effort, and ONLY to it, across examples.

I'd have to say that using "exploration" to represent 'thinking within the context of the narrative' or "imaginative effort" is only going to compound the misunderstandings growing here.  Calling it what I do, allows me to cleanly separate it from some of this confusion.  Calling it 'exploration' will only add world-traveling connotations to an already confusing discussion.

2, a big category) Actor stance within role-playing, and I'd like to remind everyone that stance IS a player-character relationship, NOT a player-player relationship. I think the secondary implication of the term "actor" as performance art has tended to muddy the issue.

Then this term (as a component of the collection of four stances) is probably the most misleading.  You see, if you have one stance called 'actor' and then others called 'author,' 'director,' and 'audience,' it can only mean that it is a character-other players stance.  These are all terms from movies and theatre and as a collection clearly carry an seemingly intentional metaphor.

If you want a term for the relationship between a player and their own character you'd be better off using a terms like 'first person' or as I chose (in the Get Emotional! article) 'personal level' or even the 'contact point to the narrative.'  (I rather like the latter as it is free of the inward-outward, 'for me' or 'for them' implications we seem to be stuck with in the current jargon.)

The Actor stance is defined as deciding upon character actions based strictly on what the character (fictionally) feels, perceives, and knows.

Not in any version of acting that I am aware of.  (And don't start discussing it as 'method acting' until you take the time to read enough about it to separate finding appropriate experienced-based triggers for emotional performances and the more common misinterpretation of 'getting lost' in one's character.)  The fact that the stances rely so heavily (or is that romantically?) upon a theatrical metaphor loudly suggests that 'actor stance' should be about the presentation of the character's feelings, perceptions, and knowledges to others.

As a side note, I should point out that I have always felt uncomfortable with these stance names because, with the exception of the late addition of 'audience,' they all plainly speak more about using a character in a fashion contrary to anything that could be deemed 'immersive.'  I understand this is a result of the strong 'narrativist only' population on this forum (which in some ways is antithetical to 'immersion'), but I think more broadly.  To avoid this kind of confusion, in Get Emotional!, I offered the purpose of role-playing gaming as the compelling pay-off on emotional investment and separated things into personal or game levels and intrinsic or extrinsic values.

This means to be gratified by how the game world 'feels' whether through the eyes of the character or the imagination of the player, would be the intrinsic value of the game experienced from a character's perspective.  And to 'have fun' wallowing in the emotions of the character would be finding the intrinsic value in the personal level of the connection to the narrative.  On the other hand, to find pleasure in giving everyone involved in the narrative a good time working purely from character posture would be finding the extrinsic value of the personal level and that equates much better to the concept of acting (anywhere outside of the GNS 101 FAQ).

3, a smaller category) Possessor stance is one name for feeling, thinking, and essentially "channeling" the fictional character (or it feels that way, anyway). I cannot in any way see this existing except as a subcategory of Actor stance.

Unfortunately for the person who started this discussion, 'possessor stance' is not even referred to in the only document he had to start with, the GNS 101 FAQ (nor is it in Mike's discussion).  ('Channeling' is only referred to in the part about immersion, but this is meaningless to point out because the document, even though the only one of its kind available, has proven so far out of date that it serves only to start arguments.)

As I pointed out earlier, theatrical acting has very little to do with 'possessor stance' or anything attributed to it.  Since the terminology of the original four stances is only drawn from this realm, the metaphor should be assumed.  It might be better to call what you seem to be referring to as the 'intrinsic value' of 'personal level' play as I did in Get Emotional!.  This would free up the concept from the confusion over what acting is or is not in theatre, film, or gaming.

And here, #3 nested in #2, is what I see referenced whenever any role-playing text urges "immersion." It's exactly what the D&D3E book calls immersion. It's exactly what people want players to do in the Turku dogma. It's the ideal for many LARPing groups. And in each case, people call it "immersion."

But it also has nothing to do with directing, authoring, observing (I can't really find a good verb for 'audiencing') and by collusion, acting.  (Not even a 'method' actor 'immerses' themselves in a role this way.  In 'the method' it is stressed that an actor must always remain aware of how the audience will interpret their performance of the script.  Both the audience interpretation and adherence to the script divorce 'the method' actor from 'immersion.')

So I don't see how we can keep using this word if it's supposed to be BOTH #1, which is the necessary foundation for role-playing at all,

Here is where you read too much in I think.

AND #3 nested in #2, which is an optional (and hard-to-maintain) approach to one's character's actions and depiction.

If 'thinking within the context of the narrative' is the "baseline requirement" for gaming, and if 'acting' (per its inclusion in a set of stances named for theatrical roles) is about the presentation of a character (separated from the presentation of character through interaction with its surroundings which would be author or director stance), then can you see how immersion is about 'getting lost in' whatever and not fundamentally bound into 'actor stance?'

This underscores the problems I have always had with the terminology of the four stances and the jargonized use of the word 'immersion.'  (I only included the term 'immersion' in Get Emotional! as a form of translation to terminology familiar to the long-standing members of this forum.)

In continuing this discussion, I'd like to see concrete examples of real play, not generalizations, so we can be talking about the same, actual, behavioral phenomena exhibited by real human beings.

That makes little sense to me.  I think actual, specific examples would only further muddy the discussion because they will hardly give a clear picture.  In fact, I think even fictional examples would only stand a small chance of making anything clearer (and since I really suck at writing examples, I can't even make that attempt).

I think this discussion would become much clearer if we stopped trying to use one-word terms and jargon for everything.  Not everybody understands the parley quite the same way.  Had I not thought so, I never would have attempted the Get Emotional! article.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-07 19:44 ]

[Logan]

Ron,

It'd be easier for you to read correctly if I'd written correctly. But I didn't. I meant that Pawn mode is at the opposite end of Actor-IC from Immersive. The player treats the character as a gamepiece with the powers and abilities of that gamepiece. This is a very different attitude from immersion. Yet, I wonder... If one plays in pawn mode and another plays in immersive mode using the same rules and neither uses much acting, would people be able to tell the difference?

Logan

[Ron Edwards]

Three replies.

ONE: CONTINUING WITH MIKE
I was way too grumpy. Sorry about being terse. However, I think my point stands.

TWO: FANG
As I have an extensive background in theater, including both performance and theory, being lectured about what "method" means is irritating - even though you are right about its usual misinterpretation. However, you are not right simply to assume knowledge of Stance definitions based on that medium.

I submit to you that the terms for Stance do NOT originate with me and have an illustrious, well-documented history for role-playing that clearly states what th'hell they mean. Part of that statement is NOT to over-analogize with theater or film, as role-playing has qualities as an art/activity that render the analogy incomplete.

Therefore the reader's claim "just to know" what Actor stance is because he has a familiarity with acting, for film and stage, is not valid. The dialogue about Stance reaches back to the early 90s and has to be assimilated. If you have objections to this state of affairs, take them to John Kim et al., not to me.

Most importantly, I vehemently and quickly deny ALL similarity of my use of "Exploration" and "imaginative commitment" to ANYTHING to do with "the narrative." I am discussing something that - until one further mental step is made - has NO GOAL beyond the enjoyment of what is being imagined. Therefore committing to a narrative or anything like it is NOT included. By adding this content into the concept I describe, you have potentially harmed the debate seriously.

Again, for everyone: Narrativism, Gamism, and Simulationism are things one does (behaviors) in the form of role-playing decisions WITH the "imaginative commitment." They are next steps, what one does.

THREE: LOGAN
I believe you and I are pretty much in accord with the basics about Stance. I think there are three fundamental ones in role-playing: Actor, Author, and Director. I think that terms like Pawn, Possessor, and Audience are either subcategories or pulling in issues that are not themselves Stance.

For the record, I consider Pawn to be a subset of Author, Possessor to be related in some ways to Actor but NOT itself a stance (as detailed above), and Audience to be way too loosey-goosey to be discussed easily or even positively identified as a stance.

Best,
Ron

[kwill]

stupid question from the back, just to clarify

On 2001-09-07 23:16, Ron Edwards wrote:

Again, for everyone: Narrativism, Gamism, and Simulationism are things one does (behaviors) in the form of role-playing decisions WITH the "imaginative commitment." They are next steps, what one does.

my understanding of the boxes was (from largest to smallest): [to have fun] we [pretend to be other people] focussing on [challenge / story / verisimilitude]

[FUN [EXPLORATION [G][N]]]

ie, "what one does" is the "imaginative commitment"; G, N & S are goals not verbs

my apologies if this turns out to be silly semantics, I'm just getting my conceptual ducks in a row

EDIT: gah, ignore that, GOALS imply BEHAVIOUR which is VERB, as stated
_________________
ttfn,
  d@vid
  http://www.kwill.org/">http://www.kwill.org/

[ This Message was edited by: kwill on 2001-09-07 23:42 ]

[Ron Edwards]

David,

Your brackets have it just right.

My only quibble is that the Exploration level applies to ANYTHING being imagined that has to do with role-playing in the broad sense, not just playing a character. It applies to setting, situation, setting-history, things that might happen later, or anything that grabs our attention and prompts that mental activity at all.

And I think it's clear - I hope, anyway - that at no point have we separated GM from players in this construction. (Damn I wish we had a good word for "live person involved in role-playing.")

Best,
Ron